Something to THINK about.....PTO !

robbedagain

Veteran
Oct 13, 2003
11,127
2,689
Visit site
Unions have no defense against scabs other than a meaningless list of names that I find amusing. My signature isn't meant to stir the pot, it’s a premonition of what’s to come.
if unions have no defense, then why did Eastern Airlines go out of business? it was due to the prolong strike by maintaince and or ramp agents that refused to take huge cuts then. AMFA used their defense very well, the sad part was is and always will be is that NWA MGMT REFUSED to NEGOGIATE in GOOD FAITH. I doubt they even know what that means anyhow
 

dc3fanatic

Senior
Mar 17, 2005
361
0
if unions have no defense, then why did Eastern Airlines go out of business? it was due to the prolong strike by maintaince and or ramp agents that refused to take huge cuts then. AMFA used their defense very well, the sad part was is and always will be is that NWA MGMT REFUSED to NEGOGIATE in GOOD FAITH. I doubt they even know what that means anyhow
OR, AMFA failed to recognize competitive cost structures. It's a matter of perspective.
 

ThirdSeatHero

Veteran
Dec 8, 2004
1,967
1,444
Left Coast
OR, AMFA failed to recognize competitive cost structures. It's a matter of perspective.

AMFA at UAL had negotiated $30 per hour while UAL was IN BANKRUPTCY. Why should AMFA at NWA(which wasn't in bankruptcy at the time) have accepted less than what a bankrupt carrier was offering its mechanics???


Market wages is one thing, bankruptcy force is not the same.
 

dc3fanatic

Senior
Mar 17, 2005
361
0
Why should AMFA at NWA(which wasn't in bankruptcy at the time) have accepted less than what a bankrupt carrier was offering its mechanics???
There are several reasons, including the fact that NWA did better contigency planning (contigency planning is actually good management . . . even if it does affect your job) AND despite the bankruptcy discrepency, NWA was in a superior bargaining position compared to United.

One could argue that NWA should have been in B a long time ago and some MGMT will declare quicker than others.
 

ThirdSeatHero

Veteran
Dec 8, 2004
1,967
1,444
Left Coast
There are several reasons, including the fact that NWA did better contigency planning (contigency planning is actually good management . . . even if it does affect your job) AND despite the bankruptcy discrepency, NWA was in a superior bargaining position compared to United.

One could argue that NWA should have been in B a long time ago and some MGMT will declare quicker than others.

Oh do tell, How was NWA(not in bankruptcy) in a better bargaining position than UAL(which was in Bankruptcy).
 

robbedagain

Veteran
Oct 13, 2003
11,127
2,689
Visit site
It was very simple that NWA had absolutely no intention on negogiations in good faith and it became very clear early on especially after they hire the old cronie named Neil Cohen. Now that he is running the show, look out for more paycuts on the way
 

dc3fanatic

Senior
Mar 17, 2005
361
0
Oh do tell, How was NWA(not in bankruptcy) in a better bargaining position than UAL(which was in Bankruptcy).
The criteria for declaring B varies from executive to executive. Just because NWA is 'close' and UAL is 'in' doesn't make NWA necessarily better or more stable. Different executives making different judgement calls.

You want one good reason why? The did real contigency planning, which everyone continues to bellyache over.

Contigency planning is good management, even if the contigency is for someone's job.

NWA has had an untennable business plan for a long time. One must wonder, what were they waiting for? Other carriers to liquidate? Or for NC to jump in and show them the light?

Would you have argued that FLYI was in a better bargaining position than UAL because they weren't in B at one point?
 

ThirdSeatHero

Veteran
Dec 8, 2004
1,967
1,444
Left Coast
The criteria for declaring B varies from executive to executive. Just because NWA is 'close' and UAL is 'in' doesn't make NWA necessarily better or more stable. Different executives making different judgement calls.

You want one good reason why? The did real contigency planning, which everyone continues to bellyache over.

Contigency planning is good management, even if the contigency is for someone's job.

NWA has had an untennable business plan for a long time. One must wonder, what were they waiting for? Other carriers to liquidate? Or for NC to jump in and show them the light?

Would you have argued that FLYI was in a better bargaining position than UAL because they weren't in B at one point?

I was refering to the fact that outside of bankruptcy(IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW CLOSE) NWA is required to negotiate per the RLA. UAL was in Bankruptcy therefore could use the 1113c process as alot more leverage than NWA simple bargaining position.

I thought even you understood that, I guess I was wrong.
 

finman

Veteran
Nov 9, 2005
533
0
Oh do tell, How was NWA(not in bankruptcy) in a better bargaining position than UAL(which was in Bankruptcy).
I would think the fact that AMFA was replaced speaks to the bargaining position that NWA was in. There is more to bargaining position than BK vs Non-BK negotiations. Maybe UAL could not have continued operations in the event of a strike or slow-down. If so, then they would be in weaker bargaining position in BK then NWA was outside of BK with the trained replacements.

Also, I'm not sure why other airline wages are used as benchmark so absolutely. Do these comparisons take into account the weighted average cost of living variances between the employee stations? Maybe they do, but it would seem that on a weighted average basis, United might have a considerably higher cost of living factor with their hubs in SFO and ORD, compared to the relatively lower costs in MSP, DTW and MEM. Just a thought.
 

ThirdSeatHero

Veteran
Dec 8, 2004
1,967
1,444
Left Coast
I would think the fact that AMFA was replaced speaks to the bargaining position that NWA was in. There is more to bargaining position than BK vs Non-BK negotiations. Maybe UAL could not have continued operations in the event of a strike or slow-down. If so, then they would be in weaker bargaining position in BK then NWA was outside of BK with the trained replacements.

Also, I'm not sure why other airline wages are used as benchmark so absolutely. Do these comparisons take into account the weighted average cost of living variances between the employee stations? Maybe they do, but it would seem that on a weighted average basis, United might have a considerably higher cost of living factor with their hubs in SFO and ORD, compared to the relatively lower costs in MSP, DTW and MEM. Just a thought.

To the first part of your post, you're commenting with the benefit of hindsight. While AMFA knew the replacements were being trained, their overall effectivity was(and still is) in question. That fact coupled with the problem of over half the membership faced with decision to vote themselves out of a job made any sort of settlement untenable.

As to the second part of your post, wages in the airline industry have always been based on "the other guy" its been a reoccuring theme. USAir and highest +1%, Delta always being "just" below the industry leader(whoever it might be at the time) UALs PEB settlement while based on more than the industry at the time, the wages at NWA and AA figured in part in to the PEBs decision.

IMHO I don't think this will ever change. This one industry hiccup aside.

With the changes in Bankruptcy rules, and outside agencies now aware of the NWA type games airlines might employ, I'm doubtful you'll see this type of radical shift again.
 

dc3fanatic

Senior
Mar 17, 2005
361
0
I would think the fact that AMFA was replaced speaks to the bargaining position that NWA was in. There is more to bargaining position than BK vs Non-BK negotiations. Maybe UAL could not have continued operations in the event of a strike or slow-down. If so, then they would be in weaker bargaining position in BK then NWA was outside of BK with the trained replacements.
He shoots, he scores!

Thank you.
 

High Iron

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
495
0
To the first part of your post, you're commenting with the benefit of hindsight. While AMFA knew the replacements were being trained, their overall effectivity was(and still is) in question. That fact coupled with the problem of over half the membership faced with decision to vote themselves out of a job made any sort of settlement untenable.

As to the second part of your post, wages in the airline industry have always been based on "the other guy" its been a reoccuring theme. USAir and highest +1%, Delta always being "just" below the industry leader(whoever it might be at the time) UALs PEB settlement while based on more than the industry at the time, the wages at NWA and AA figured in part in to the PEBs decision.

IMHO I don't think this will ever change. This one industry hiccup aside.

With the changes in Bankruptcy rules, and outside agencies now aware of the NWA type games airlines might employ, I'm doubtful you'll see this type of radical shift again.


He shoots. He scores....higher yet. Argument refuted.
 

finman

Veteran
Nov 9, 2005
533
0
To the first part of your post, you're commenting with the benefit of hindsight. While AMFA knew the replacements were being trained, their overall effectivity was(and still is) in question. That fact coupled with the problem of over half the membership faced with decision to vote themselves out of a job made any sort of settlement untenable.
I think you're missing the piont. The fact that AMFA didn't know how effective the replacements would be while NWA did know how effective they would be is the very reason NWA had a strong bargaining position. NWA could tell AMFA what they wanted and if they didn't get it through negotiations, NWA knew they could effectively attain the cost savings by replacing the workforce. This represents the ultimate "upper hand" in labor negotiations.
 

ThirdSeatHero

Veteran
Dec 8, 2004
1,967
1,444
Left Coast
I think you're missing the piont. The fact that AMFA didn't know how effective the replacements would be while NWA did know how effective they would be is the very reason NWA had a strong bargaining position. NWA could tell AMFA what they wanted and if they didn't get it through negotiations, NWA knew they could effectively attain the cost savings by replacing the workforce. This represents the ultimate "upper hand" in labor negotiations.


Now thats a reach.

NWA didn't know anything. Sure they made the preparations they thought they would need, but until the replacements went into action, again NWA "didn't know" anything. They simply bet their position. And you'll forgive me, it doesn't sound like the operation is as cracked up as NWA PR says it is. A far cry from buisness as usual.

JMHO-NWA will approach AMFA again, to end the strike BEFORE they exit bankruptcy.
 

dc3fanatic

Senior
Mar 17, 2005
361
0
Now thats a reach.

NWA didn't know anything. Sure they made the preparations they thought they would need, but until the replacements went into action, again NWA "didn't know" anything. They simply bet their position. And you'll forgive me, it doesn't sound like the operation is as cracked up as NWA PR says it is. A far cry from buisness as usual.

JMHO-NWA will approach AMFA again, to end the strike BEFORE they exit bankruptcy.
NWA knew alot, evidence by the fact they are still flying and they have actually had little interruption in their schedule due to the AMFA strike.

I said it once and I will say it again. AMFA played a BAD game of chess.