Re: the angry mechanic from LAS

[Overspeed]

Explain to me how blaming or alienation of your fellow AMT's is helping your cause?

You remind me of the renegade AMFA organzier in Tulsa that got angry with the machinist because they would not kiss his ass, and so he walked into their work area and threatened all of them with the outsource of their work once AMFA was certified. I never did undertand that guy, what he did hurt not helped what we were trying to accomplish.

You are of the same mind.

You have not enough intelligence to communicate to them like a human, so instead you attack and shame them right into helping you out. Genius

Divide and conquer.

If AA gets its wish to outsource overhaul does anyway seriously believe that they will open to coffers and shower the line AMTs with cash? Really? If they could outsource the line work they would and probably will once they demolish overhaul.

 

[Rogallo]

Explain to me how blaming or alienation of your fellow AMT's is helping your cause?

You remind me of the renegade AMFA organzier in Tulsa that got angry with the machinist because they would not kiss his ass, and so he walked into their work area and threatened all of them with the outsource of their work once AMFA was certified. I never did undertand that guy, what he did hurt not helped what we were trying to accomplish.

You are of the same mind.

You have not enough intelligence to communicate to them like a human, so instead you attack and shame them right into helping you out. Genius

Thank You

 

[BigMac]

When Tulsa is Gone...!!!

Dude, you have issues.
Did you have a bad experience as wee toddler in the midwest or bias by choice?

 

[MCI transplant]

Divide and conquer.

If AA gets its wish to outsource overhaul does anyway seriously believe that they will open to coffers and shower the line AMTs with cash? Really? If they could outsource the line work they would and probably will once they demolish overhaul.

So what's the TWU going to do about it ? ------ Just getting up there and screaming about it dosen't seem to have worked! ----- I know!! I know! ----"We'll get them next time!"----- But next time may be ten years from now!!!! It's time for the TWU to do what it has to do, but dosen't seem to have the balls to handel it! ------ It's time to lead, or get the @#$% out of the way!!! Past time!

 

[Frank Szabo]

So what's the TWU going to do about it ? ------ Just getting up there and screaming about it dosen't seem to have worked! ----- I know!! I know! ----"We'll get them next time!"----- But next time may be ten years from now!!!! It's time for the TWU to do what it has to do, but dosen't seem to have the balls to handel it! ------ It's time to lead, or get the @#$% out of the way!!! Past time!

The twu lead?

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:9458]

 

[Hopeful]

Individually, yes. Collectively, I'm not so sure about that.

TWU chose jobs over pay. The guys at UAL et al didn't get that choice.

Yes, Individually.

 

[MCI transplant]

The twu lead?

I know! I know! But who's fault is that?

 

[Hopeful]

I see many "union men" (or what passes for same today) running scared and, claiming to not understand legalese, prefer to trust what they are told to do rather than think for themselves - that's my definition of being to lazy to think for one's self.

Good point. But the problem is when some think for "themselves" they get ripped apart here.
There are some of us NO votes who refuse to see the side of those would be YES votes.
If a person is a staunch NO vote...then he has decided for himself that is the best course for him. He gets applauded by fellow no voters.

Why can't that same courtesy be extended to the YES voters?
Is it possible that a potential YES vote has made up his/her mind NOT based on fear?

I've been mis-cast here as a YES vote when I never indicated such a leaning. The moment I say I spoke to and understand a YES voter, I get lectured about what's at stake. I know full and well what I lost over the past near four decades here. I know full and well what voting YES means. I know the same as voting No.
All I am doing is respecting the right of those who disagree.

 

[Bob Owens]

Good point, all the airlines that went through BK, didn't give the workers a choice that we had in 03.

I'm not sure it made much difference as we will all, in the end, fall into the same framework of compensation and shear numbers of AMT's per airline, give or take a few percentages.

Look, none of the "yes" voters are saying this is great and we must vote for it, all the yes voters I know are very disgusted with the whole process and are just trying to survive at this point.

I cannot believe what I am about to vote for, but if it means my family survives, I will.

I still may not vote for this, I will gather as much info as I can before I vote.

I will say , some of the points made by the "no" crowd have resonated and have given me some pause, but I'm not there yet.

Here's the thing, could AA outsource all its maintenance within two months? Could they outsource 4500 jobs in two months? Based on things I've read, where MROs are having problems getting and retaining workers and that capacity is tight, my guess is no, and by voting No we get to use that to our advantage, by Voting Yes you are giving AA the langauge and time, six years, to outsource whatever they want. MCI voted yes in 2003 because they thought it would save the base but in reality they voted in the ability to get rid of the base, and them(by rolling back system protection).

If we were really saving jobs, then why not roll system protection up to the last guy they claim is being saved? A Yes vote does not save any job, it puts everyone at risk. I cant understand the logic, just because they are saying that one offer saves heads people are willing to believe it? Why? All the changes in language do the opposite, they let them get rid of more than what was proposed.

The Vote Yes crowd consists of the same people who in 1995 told us to vote Yes because we had a "Me Too' clause, then in 2003 they told us "If we give concessions now the Judge will be good to us in BK" , now those same people say that what we gave in BK, along with the gains from "Working Together" mean nothing. The same ones who told us we had an "early Opener" in 2006 and that they "would not rest until we get it all back". Before you vote look at what other carriers are paying and ask yourself "why should we settle for so much less?"

 

[Overspeed]

Here's the thing, could AA outsource all its maintenance within two months? Could they outsource 4500 jobs in two months? Based on things I've read, where MROs are having problems getting and retaining workers and that capacity is tight, my guess is no, and by voting No we get to use that to our advantage, by Voting Yes you are giving AA the langauge and time, six years, to outsource whatever they want. MCI voted yes in 2003 because they thought it would save the base but in reality they voted in the ability to get rid of the base, and them(by rolling back system protection).

If we were really saving jobs, then why not roll system protection up to the last guy they claim is being saved? A Yes vote does not save any job, it puts everyone at risk. I cant understand the logic, just because they are saying that one offer saves heads people are willing to believe it? Why? All the changes in language do the opposite, they let them get rid of more than what was proposed.

The Vote Yes crowd consists of the same people who in 1995 told us to vote Yes because we had a "Me Too' clause, then in 2003 they told us "If we give concessions now the Judge will be good to us in BK" , now those same people say that what we gave in BK, along with the gains from "Working Together" mean nothing. The same ones who told us we had an "early Opener" in 2006 and that they "would not rest until we get it all back". Before you vote look at what other carriers are paying and ask yourself "why should we settle for so much less?"

The plan as I was told was to outsource work in phases up to 18 months in some cases. You know that Bob because you were shown the plan. You are hanging your hat on the concept that there won't be enough mechanics to do the work...in the US. What about Central America? There is no shortage their and DL is pumping cash in to Aeromexico in GDL and Aveos is building new hangars in El Salvador.

Why would AA give in to anything when they can ask to abrogate in court and not pay it all? Remember, BK was a threat and all the other unions got better deals in court from the benevolent BK judge. System protection is gone, didn't you think that this was possibility once we got to BK? Did you get outplayed again Bob? We went all-in once we voted no and AA called our bluff. Now you want to vote no and bet with 4,300 jobs.

It's not the judge who would have been easier on us in BK, it was AA. The MCTs are also getting in their LBO a 1.5% raise offer on top of the raise they got with their TA. We might get a 1.5% raise on top of nothing. You complained about giving up retiree medical pre-funding (which you lied about that we lost retiree medical altogether) in the TA, adding a new classification called SMA, and doing away with the pension for new hires. Now we are losing retiree medical pre-funding and paying more for it, expanding OSM percentage, closing AFW, quadrupling outsourcing, and losing the defined benefit pension plan for incumbent employees.

Yeah, I'm going to take your expert and knowledgeable advice and vote no. You convinced me now...not!

 

[MCI transplant]

Here's the thing, could AA outsource all its maintenance within two months? Could they outsource 4500 jobs in two months? Based on things I've read, where MROs are having problems getting and retaining workers and that capacity is tight, my guess is no, and by voting No we get to use that to our advantage, by Voting Yes you are giving AA the langauge and time, six years, to outsource whatever they want. MCI voted yes in 2003 because they thought it would save the base but in reality they voted in the ability to get rid of the base, and them(by rolling back system protection).

If we were really saving jobs, then why not roll system protection up to the last guy they claim is being saved? A Yes vote does not save any job, it puts everyone at risk. I cant understand the logic, just because they are saying that one offer saves heads people are willing to believe it? Why? All the changes in language do the opposite, they let them get rid of more than what was proposed.

The Vote Yes crowd consists of the same people who in 1995 told us to vote Yes because we had a "Me Too' clause, then in 2003 they told us "If we give concessions now the Judge will be good to us in BK" , now those same people say that what we gave in BK, along with the gains from "Working Together" mean nothing. The same ones who told us we had an "early Opener" in 2006 and that they "would not rest until we get it all back". Before you vote look at what other carriers are paying and ask yourself "why should we settle for so much less?"

Bob, I understand where your comming from, but if your going to use MCI as an example, to be fair about it, they didn't close MCI right away either. You are pretty much in the same position we were in 2003! Although I'm not advising anyone on how to vote.

 

[FWAAA]

Maybe the others went Bankrupt because we first gave away everything without a fight, as happens often in this industry and the TWU, and the other workers didn't want to volunteer to match our deep concessions like the TWU so quickly did.

I realize that it's chic around here to continually flog and blame AA employees for the bankruptcies and concessions at the other airlines, but let's not re-write history. US and UA had already filed for Ch 11 and had obtained temporary wage cuts by the time AA imposed the 2003 concessions. Both filed in 2002. By 2003, CO's employees had been underpaid for many years as a result of the two prior bankruptcies. US and UA were going to trim their costs or go out of business. Both managed to slash wages far below AA's labor costs.

Once US and UA filed for Ch 11 protection, slashed their costs and didn't go out of business, it was only a matter of time until DL and NW did the same thing - their costs before they filed in 2005 were far higher than the bankruptcy-era reductions at US and UA and DL's costs were higher than AA's as a result of AA's 2003 concessions.

I realize that your workgroup makes less money than most other airline mechanics, but the reality is that the overall wages and labor costs at UA, DL and US are less than at AA. The worthless union has been particularly ineffective at raising wages, and, of course, voted down the payraises in the 2010 TA. The epic denial that was evident in the "restore and more" mentality did not serve you well for the past nine years. The mistaken insistence by the TWU negotiators that payraises could be obtained without further compromise guaranteed that your pay would now lag the other airline mechanics.

AA didn't cut as far in 2003 as it should have and as we learned many years ago, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[TWU informer]

The give away the farm without a fight happened in 1983, 1989, 1995, and 2003. Most long before the BK filings you mentioned.

So get your facts straight and then you will grasp the posting.

 

[MCI transplant]

The plan as I was told was to outsource work in phases up to 18 months in some cases. You know that Bob because you were shown the plan. You are hanging your hat on the concept that there won't be enough mechanics to do the work...in the US. What about Central America? There is no shortage their and DL is pumping cash in to Aeromexico in GDL and Aveos is building new hangars in El Salvador.

Why would AA give in to anything when they can ask to abrogate in court and not pay it all? Remember, BK was a threat and all the other unions got better deals in court from the benevolent BK judge. System protection is gone, didn't you think that this was possibility once we got to BK? Did you get outplayed again Bob? We went all-in once we voted no and AA called our bluff. Now you want to vote no and bet with 4,300 jobs.

It's not the judge who would have been easier on us in BK, it was AA. The MCTs are also getting in their LBO a 1.5% raise offer on top of the raise they got with their TA. We might get a 1.5% raise on top of nothing. You complained about giving up retiree medical pre-funding (which you lied about that we lost retiree medical altogether) in the TA, adding a new classification called SMA, and doing away with the pension for new hires. Now we are losing retiree medical pre-funding and paying more for it, expanding OSM percentage, closing AFW, quadrupling outsourcing, and losing the defined benefit pension plan for incumbent employees.

Yeah, I'm going to take your expert and knowledgeable advice and vote no. You convinced me now...not!

You still haven't answeered my question Overspeed! What is your almighty TWU going to do to protect it's membership? I'll tel you!----The same thing they did for us at MCI,----Not a damn thing!!!

 

[FWAAA]

The give away the farm without a fight happened in 1983, 1989, 1995, and 2003. Most long before the BK filings you mentioned.

So the bankruptcies at all those other airlines was because the TWU was ineffective as a union? If only the TWU had held strong and defended the profession in 1983 and 1989 and 1995 then the other airlines might not have filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002, 2004 and 2005? I'm not sure I buy in the fantasy that mechanics' continual concessions had anything to do with other airlines' bankruptcies.

So get your facts straight and then you will grasp the posting.

I grasp the posting just fine.