[BR]Looks]http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/14/Business...ml[BR][BR]Looks like TPA is clearly no territory.[BR][BR]Jon C.[BR]
Tampa article
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
As an outsider, I have to agree with the mechanics on this one. It really seems the IAM isn't listening to its members. Clearly if the last proposal was only defeated by 57 percent, there is a large segment of members out there willing to vote for concessions. Just it seems the right mix hasn't been found... oh well, I guess Tuesday will be an interesting day for all.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/14/2002 7:58:06 AM JonC wrote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/14/Business...ed_at_air.shtml
Looks like TPA is clearly no territory.
Jon C.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Jon in the article in states and I quote And some say they won't give back pay and benefits to bankroll another recovery plan for an airline that has repeatedly changed strategies to fix chronic financial problems for more than a decade.
What choice do they have? Do the people in Tampa have more power and influence on the bankruptcy judge than U has? These people have to realize there's going to be concessions. Its up to them to determine how severe those concessions are going to be.
For them to say they won't give back pay and benefits is ludicrous.
----------------
On 9/14/2002 7:58:06 AM JonC wrote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/14/Business...ed_at_air.shtml
Looks like TPA is clearly no territory.
Jon C.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Jon in the article in states and I quote And some say they won't give back pay and benefits to bankroll another recovery plan for an airline that has repeatedly changed strategies to fix chronic financial problems for more than a decade.
What choice do they have? Do the people in Tampa have more power and influence on the bankruptcy judge than U has? These people have to realize there's going to be concessions. Its up to them to determine how severe those concessions are going to be.
For them to say they won't give back pay and benefits is ludicrous.
N513AU
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 219
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/14/2002 1:58:24 PM tug_slug wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/14/2002 7:58:06 AM JonC wrote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/14/Business...ed_at_air.shtml
Looks like TPA is clearly no territory.
Jon C.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Jon in the article in states and I quote "And some say they won't give back pay and benefits to bankroll another recovery plan for an airline that has repeatedly changed strategies to fix chronic financial problems for more than a decade."
What choice do they have? Do the people in Tampa have more power and influence on the bankruptcy judge than U has? These people have to realize there's going to be concessions. Its up to them to determine how severe those concessions are going to be.
For them to say "they won't give back pay and benefits" is ludicrous.
----------------
[/blockquote]
There are a few of the full pay to the last day people out there, Gangwal and Wolf had their contract and got paid, and so should I is what I'm hearing. I wouldn't subscribe to that entirely. But, no means no.
They need to go back to the table and come out with a reasonable and agreeable package. I will vote yes for a package that is acceptable, but this one is not. I'm taking a pay cut, while the VP of my department gets a bonus that is more than I make in a year?! I don't think so. The company AND the IAM hasn't explored all the options for cost saving yet, such as a compressed work week. I talked with one of the company negotiating team members last week and they said the IAM didn't even want to go there. Just one more reason the IAM needs to go.
I will not, repeat, WILL NOT give up vacation time. If it gets taken from me, I will happily abuse my sick time. I deserve it and have worked for it, SO I WILL GET IT!
I was especially ticked with Dave's letter from the other day. We were told we had a new regime in management and they were labor friendly. Hah! Trying to pit the utes against the mechs again; sounds like the usual corporate m.o. if I can say so. If they haven't learned, they seem to be doing everything possible to encourage a bigger no vote than last time.
----------------
On 9/14/2002 1:58:24 PM tug_slug wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/14/2002 7:58:06 AM JonC wrote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/14/Business...ed_at_air.shtml
Looks like TPA is clearly no territory.
Jon C.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Jon in the article in states and I quote "And some say they won't give back pay and benefits to bankroll another recovery plan for an airline that has repeatedly changed strategies to fix chronic financial problems for more than a decade."
What choice do they have? Do the people in Tampa have more power and influence on the bankruptcy judge than U has? These people have to realize there's going to be concessions. Its up to them to determine how severe those concessions are going to be.
For them to say "they won't give back pay and benefits" is ludicrous.
----------------
[/blockquote]
There are a few of the full pay to the last day people out there, Gangwal and Wolf had their contract and got paid, and so should I is what I'm hearing. I wouldn't subscribe to that entirely. But, no means no.
They need to go back to the table and come out with a reasonable and agreeable package. I will vote yes for a package that is acceptable, but this one is not. I'm taking a pay cut, while the VP of my department gets a bonus that is more than I make in a year?! I don't think so. The company AND the IAM hasn't explored all the options for cost saving yet, such as a compressed work week. I talked with one of the company negotiating team members last week and they said the IAM didn't even want to go there. Just one more reason the IAM needs to go.
I will not, repeat, WILL NOT give up vacation time. If it gets taken from me, I will happily abuse my sick time. I deserve it and have worked for it, SO I WILL GET IT!
I was especially ticked with Dave's letter from the other day. We were told we had a new regime in management and they were labor friendly. Hah! Trying to pit the utes against the mechs again; sounds like the usual corporate m.o. if I can say so. If they haven't learned, they seem to be doing everything possible to encourage a bigger no vote than last time.
[P]Please remember...[/P]
[P]A no vote means you will have NO VOTE in the future. There will be no US Airways. Think about it. If you vote YES, you will be giving our company its best chance for survival.[/P]
[P]We are in bankruptcy. We have no leverage. There will be no further negotiations. The company must have all labor groups on board for them to have a snowball's chance. Without our voluntary concessions, the TPG will probably back away. We will run out of cash quickly and be left with no other option but liquidation.[/P]
[P]It's a no-brainer guys. I'm disappointed, mad, and sorry its not a better contract too, but it's the best we're going to get for now. There is just no doubt about it. [/P]
[P]A no vote means you will have NO VOTE in the future. There will be no US Airways. Think about it. If you vote YES, you will be giving our company its best chance for survival.[/P]
[P]We are in bankruptcy. We have no leverage. There will be no further negotiations. The company must have all labor groups on board for them to have a snowball's chance. Without our voluntary concessions, the TPG will probably back away. We will run out of cash quickly and be left with no other option but liquidation.[/P]
[P]It's a no-brainer guys. I'm disappointed, mad, and sorry its not a better contract too, but it's the best we're going to get for now. There is just no doubt about it. [/P]
C
chipmunn
Guest
The cuts have to come for US to obtain the credit facility and loan guarantee.
If the restructuring agreement is voted down, the judge will cancel any union contract that has not been restructured. The Judge has no choice or the company will have no chance to restructure.
Once the contract is torn up, there will be deeper cuts imposed on union members and the company will ask the judge to order the union pay the company multi-million dollars in damages, which could have the membership accessed.
If a member wants deeper cuts and the risk of paying damages, vote no.
Chip
If the restructuring agreement is voted down, the judge will cancel any union contract that has not been restructured. The Judge has no choice or the company will have no chance to restructure.
Once the contract is torn up, there will be deeper cuts imposed on union members and the company will ask the judge to order the union pay the company multi-million dollars in damages, which could have the membership accessed.
If a member wants deeper cuts and the risk of paying damages, vote no.
Chip
N513AU
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 219
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/14/2002 11:54:22 PM chipmunn wrote:
Chip Said:
Once the contract is "torn up", there will be deeper cuts imposed on union members and the company will ask the judge to order the union pay the company multi-million dollars in damages, which could have the membership accessed.
----------------
[/blockquote]
When this occurs, maintenance will creep to a crawl. The airline will die, perhaps a slow death, but it will be walking the Green Mile none-the-less. It's interesting to note that most airline failures have come from mechanic job actions. I'm not gleefully hoping for the loss of my job, but if we vote no, Chip, chances are you will be out of a job too (or at least with US Airways.)
This company CANNOT survive a strike, period. So they will ask for an injunction against a strike. However, they can't protect themselves against a safety slowdown or the like. Even in the meetings Nardello conceded that fact and said the company is trying to prevent that by having a concession package voluntarily agreed to (duh, then go back to the table and start talking).
If Dave wants a yes he needs to go back into the negotiating room. If you want this company to survive, you will want a contract signed by mechanics who won't be hell bent on bringing the house down. Ask around, man, there are many mechanics that would rather take the millionaire bosses and investors down, along with the spoiled pilots than see their wages fall below that of Southwest, UPS and other operators.
Threatening us with our jobs doesn't work. Honestly, an A&P can find work at an auto dealership working for more money than the company is suggesting, especially down the line. We like our jobs, but the buck has stopped here. We gave in the early '90s and made Wolf very, very rich. We aren't financing the making of another millionaire while we accept signifigantly less than industry standard wages and benefits. US Airways latest millions for managers campaign showed that not much has changed.
We are tired of the IAM sleeping with the company (sent in my AMFA card yesterday!) and keeping us in the dark most of the time. When the IAM should be rattling the sabres (no pun intended, CSAs 🙂 )and making a pretty vocal threat, they are towing the company line. Hopefully this will be the last time.
The union should have heeded our no vote, come to its membership and asked what was acceptable and not. Then, go back to the company and request to negotiate it. If the company was uncooperative, start readying the battle lines. Since the IAM is a bunch of pushovers, they aren't relaying the anger that the average member has to the company and the mortal consequences of an imposed contract.
Chip, I mean nothing personal in all this. However, if the company isn't willing to talk, then neither are we.
----------------
On 9/14/2002 11:54:22 PM chipmunn wrote:
Chip Said:
Once the contract is "torn up", there will be deeper cuts imposed on union members and the company will ask the judge to order the union pay the company multi-million dollars in damages, which could have the membership accessed.
----------------
[/blockquote]
When this occurs, maintenance will creep to a crawl. The airline will die, perhaps a slow death, but it will be walking the Green Mile none-the-less. It's interesting to note that most airline failures have come from mechanic job actions. I'm not gleefully hoping for the loss of my job, but if we vote no, Chip, chances are you will be out of a job too (or at least with US Airways.)
This company CANNOT survive a strike, period. So they will ask for an injunction against a strike. However, they can't protect themselves against a safety slowdown or the like. Even in the meetings Nardello conceded that fact and said the company is trying to prevent that by having a concession package voluntarily agreed to (duh, then go back to the table and start talking).
If Dave wants a yes he needs to go back into the negotiating room. If you want this company to survive, you will want a contract signed by mechanics who won't be hell bent on bringing the house down. Ask around, man, there are many mechanics that would rather take the millionaire bosses and investors down, along with the spoiled pilots than see their wages fall below that of Southwest, UPS and other operators.
Threatening us with our jobs doesn't work. Honestly, an A&P can find work at an auto dealership working for more money than the company is suggesting, especially down the line. We like our jobs, but the buck has stopped here. We gave in the early '90s and made Wolf very, very rich. We aren't financing the making of another millionaire while we accept signifigantly less than industry standard wages and benefits. US Airways latest millions for managers campaign showed that not much has changed.
We are tired of the IAM sleeping with the company (sent in my AMFA card yesterday!) and keeping us in the dark most of the time. When the IAM should be rattling the sabres (no pun intended, CSAs 🙂 )and making a pretty vocal threat, they are towing the company line. Hopefully this will be the last time.
The union should have heeded our no vote, come to its membership and asked what was acceptable and not. Then, go back to the company and request to negotiate it. If the company was uncooperative, start readying the battle lines. Since the IAM is a bunch of pushovers, they aren't relaying the anger that the average member has to the company and the mortal consequences of an imposed contract.
Chip, I mean nothing personal in all this. However, if the company isn't willing to talk, then neither are we.
Well said.
Just look at the history. How many Pan Am A&P's were able to find equivalent paying jobs VS how many 747 captains found vacant 747 jobs.
Pilots can preach all they want to the techs (PS I am a pilot for a major, who happend to work 5 years as a line A&P). It's hard to ask for concessions from a group that can make better money on the outside. Auto mechanics, refrigeration techs, yada yada do not have to work midnights with floating weekends and holidays. The money is going to have to come from some place else.
I get tired of hearing, the IAM is the problem, it's their fault. No, you have just reached a point where people are not willing to work for what you are offering. It takes years to get an A&P, it took me 3 to get mine. The Faa does not give them away, I can honestly say it was the hardest Faa test I ever took( I have an ATP with 3 type ratings). These people are have just reached a point where they can get better money and better jobs on the outside. What is that telling you?
Dave is not thinking, alot of the group that is willing to accept the concessions is only doing it so that they can continue to have a pay check while they look for work. What he should be asking is, can I get quality replacement techs when I am paying below the industry average? What happens if they vote yes, and a bunch of guys leave for better paying jobs? Then the group that stayed only will be working harder for less. While U will be replacing them with the less qualified techs willing to work for below scale. It's not pretty, he should head back to the table or back to the rental car business.
Just look at the history. How many Pan Am A&P's were able to find equivalent paying jobs VS how many 747 captains found vacant 747 jobs.
Pilots can preach all they want to the techs (PS I am a pilot for a major, who happend to work 5 years as a line A&P). It's hard to ask for concessions from a group that can make better money on the outside. Auto mechanics, refrigeration techs, yada yada do not have to work midnights with floating weekends and holidays. The money is going to have to come from some place else.
I get tired of hearing, the IAM is the problem, it's their fault. No, you have just reached a point where people are not willing to work for what you are offering. It takes years to get an A&P, it took me 3 to get mine. The Faa does not give them away, I can honestly say it was the hardest Faa test I ever took( I have an ATP with 3 type ratings). These people are have just reached a point where they can get better money and better jobs on the outside. What is that telling you?
Dave is not thinking, alot of the group that is willing to accept the concessions is only doing it so that they can continue to have a pay check while they look for work. What he should be asking is, can I get quality replacement techs when I am paying below the industry average? What happens if they vote yes, and a bunch of guys leave for better paying jobs? Then the group that stayed only will be working harder for less. While U will be replacing them with the less qualified techs willing to work for below scale. It's not pretty, he should head back to the table or back to the rental car business.
Sure you could say that but honestly I don't want to see U go down because I have a few friends who will be adversly effected by U's demise. Besides, how would one line pilot benefit from the effect, am I going to get a raise, work less? My future will be determined by the caliber of the mgt in charge of my airline(AA) not your misfortune.
What I do have is a great appreciation for the techs of the major airlines. As I said I have spent plenty of years in their shoes, have you?
Again this is not a, mechanics dragging down the airline issue, as many of you seem to think. What it is, is the market place determining the salery of the A&P's(see UPS, LUV and other majors contract$). It's a skilled profession that requires years of training just to get a license, not to mention the daily responsibility of the job.
What bothers me is that Dave is willing to pay his Jaguar or Mercedes mechanic more money then the tech's at his airline. When you can make more money, higher Q of L and better benies as an elevator repairman, something is wrong(with the profession). Dave is bucking the bottom of the market, again these folks are probably the only group at the airline that can make the same if not better money and improve quality of life. The pilots, the CWA and most of the other groups can't say that. If he expects them to cave, forget it.
I am not try to benefit, all I am saying is he should sit back down with them and see if their is another way(ramp workers, non tech jobs, attrition, yada yada). Because if he doesn't start to see what I am telling you(that they can do better someplace else and he does not have the leverage, he thinks he has), he will kill the airline not the A&P's.
What I do have is a great appreciation for the techs of the major airlines. As I said I have spent plenty of years in their shoes, have you?
Again this is not a, mechanics dragging down the airline issue, as many of you seem to think. What it is, is the market place determining the salery of the A&P's(see UPS, LUV and other majors contract$). It's a skilled profession that requires years of training just to get a license, not to mention the daily responsibility of the job.
What bothers me is that Dave is willing to pay his Jaguar or Mercedes mechanic more money then the tech's at his airline. When you can make more money, higher Q of L and better benies as an elevator repairman, something is wrong(with the profession). Dave is bucking the bottom of the market, again these folks are probably the only group at the airline that can make the same if not better money and improve quality of life. The pilots, the CWA and most of the other groups can't say that. If he expects them to cave, forget it.
I am not try to benefit, all I am saying is he should sit back down with them and see if their is another way(ramp workers, non tech jobs, attrition, yada yada). Because if he doesn't start to see what I am telling you(that they can do better someplace else and he does not have the leverage, he thinks he has), he will kill the airline not the A&P's.
C
chipmunn
Guest
Pacemaker:
Pacemaker said: If it's so easy for the mechanics to go out and get a better job then I have a suggestion that would benefit everyone: Abstain! Don't vote. Turn in the i.d. and go out and get the Jaguar job. Let the folks who want to work here cast their votes and the other 30,000 of us who also want a job will have a company to work for.
Chip answers: Pacemaker, you bring up a valid point.
Chip
Pacemaker said: If it's so easy for the mechanics to go out and get a better job then I have a suggestion that would benefit everyone: Abstain! Don't vote. Turn in the i.d. and go out and get the Jaguar job. Let the folks who want to work here cast their votes and the other 30,000 of us who also want a job will have a company to work for.
Chip answers: Pacemaker, you bring up a valid point.
Chip
Turn in their ID's? Why? just like any other union they have been paying years of dues to have their best interest looked after. How does turning in their ID's help them? They have paid years into the union for represantation and a vote, this is it. All they are saying is, NO. You have reached the bottom dollar figure we are willing to accept, try something else.
This is determined by the market palce, not the U techs. Dave needs to come at it from a different angle(stock options, whatever). He needs to provide them with tangiable profit sharing goals or make them stake holders(stock options), just coming to the table and asking for more money is not going to cut it. If he is relying on just a yes vote to save the airline, he had better hope that Dave Bonderman has a job for him.
Forgive me if I am wrong but from an outsiders point of view, Dave does not seem to be working hard enough. . Wasn't it, then CEO Rakesh Gangwal’s who initiated the “Plan B†restructuring plan. Which included the retirement of Fokker 100s, MD-80s and 737-200s in favor of lower-capacity regional airplanes flown by US Airways Express affiliates. Sound familiar? Just coming to the table and saying, we need this much from you or else is not going to work with a group that can actually do better on the outside.
This guy needs to sit down and keep trying because the A&Ps are not going to give back more money, their has to be another way and it's his job to find it, not the A&P's to solve mgt's years of ineptitude.
Please come down off the get real high horse, if you think I am off base with my way of thinking please feel free to correct me. All I am offering is a view from the A&P side, while I may be a pilot I spent years as a line tech and some of my best buddies still work the line. The U/UAL concessions will have an impact on me someday. Just not today, if you have not noticed we are on year 2 of no contract, with no sign of light.
PS Delta seems to be doing OK with their pilot contract
This is determined by the market palce, not the U techs. Dave needs to come at it from a different angle(stock options, whatever). He needs to provide them with tangiable profit sharing goals or make them stake holders(stock options), just coming to the table and asking for more money is not going to cut it. If he is relying on just a yes vote to save the airline, he had better hope that Dave Bonderman has a job for him.
Forgive me if I am wrong but from an outsiders point of view, Dave does not seem to be working hard enough. . Wasn't it, then CEO Rakesh Gangwal’s who initiated the “Plan B†restructuring plan. Which included the retirement of Fokker 100s, MD-80s and 737-200s in favor of lower-capacity regional airplanes flown by US Airways Express affiliates. Sound familiar? Just coming to the table and saying, we need this much from you or else is not going to work with a group that can actually do better on the outside.
This guy needs to sit down and keep trying because the A&Ps are not going to give back more money, their has to be another way and it's his job to find it, not the A&P's to solve mgt's years of ineptitude.
Please come down off the get real high horse, if you think I am off base with my way of thinking please feel free to correct me. All I am offering is a view from the A&P side, while I may be a pilot I spent years as a line tech and some of my best buddies still work the line. The U/UAL concessions will have an impact on me someday. Just not today, if you have not noticed we are on year 2 of no contract, with no sign of light.
PS Delta seems to be doing OK with their pilot contract
Pacemaker
Senior
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 475
- Reaction score
- 0
If it's so easy for the mechanics to go out and get a better job then I have a suggestion that would benefit everyone: Abstain! Don't vote. Turn in the i.d. and go out and get the Jaguar job. Let the folks who want to work here cast their votes and the other 30,000 of us who also want a job will have a company to work for.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/15/2002 11:24:15 PM G4G5 wrote:
if not better money and improve quality of life. The pilots, the CWA and most of the other groups can't say that. If he expects them to cave, forget it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ok, let's take this logic one step further. The non-union, CCY employees have been investing their career potential in US. Without a doubt, almost all of them could head to other companies (airline or not) and make more money, yet some are staying. Why? Because the job market sucks, there is little in the way of mobility in any profession (except possibly those in healthcare) and downward pressure in salaries is prevalent in many professions.
Bottom line is this: Your salary should be determined by demand, and right now there is no shortage of mechanics (just as there is no shortage of software developers, telecom engineers, management consultants, flight attendants, pilots, etc.). The economy has slowed to a crawl. I have a feeling if a few thousand mechanic-types in Pittsburgh all get laid off at once (for example), you'll see even more downward pressure in salaries among the available jobs (whatever they may be).
For everyone that thinks finding a job is so easy, then I say this. It's well understood it's always easier to find a job when you have one. Do what it takes to keep your US job, yet go out and find that job that will increase your standard of living. Then leave. I wish you good luck -- jobs are out there but there is SO much competition for them it's nuts. Don't go by what you read in the Sunday job listings -- it may look like a lot of jobs, but what you're not seeing is the demand for those positions. Two years ago each job posting may have gotten x resumes; today, each job posting gets 10x resumes.
----------------
On 9/15/2002 11:24:15 PM G4G5 wrote:
if not better money and improve quality of life. The pilots, the CWA and most of the other groups can't say that. If he expects them to cave, forget it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ok, let's take this logic one step further. The non-union, CCY employees have been investing their career potential in US. Without a doubt, almost all of them could head to other companies (airline or not) and make more money, yet some are staying. Why? Because the job market sucks, there is little in the way of mobility in any profession (except possibly those in healthcare) and downward pressure in salaries is prevalent in many professions.
Bottom line is this: Your salary should be determined by demand, and right now there is no shortage of mechanics (just as there is no shortage of software developers, telecom engineers, management consultants, flight attendants, pilots, etc.). The economy has slowed to a crawl. I have a feeling if a few thousand mechanic-types in Pittsburgh all get laid off at once (for example), you'll see even more downward pressure in salaries among the available jobs (whatever they may be).
For everyone that thinks finding a job is so easy, then I say this. It's well understood it's always easier to find a job when you have one. Do what it takes to keep your US job, yet go out and find that job that will increase your standard of living. Then leave. I wish you good luck -- jobs are out there but there is SO much competition for them it's nuts. Don't go by what you read in the Sunday job listings -- it may look like a lot of jobs, but what you're not seeing is the demand for those positions. Two years ago each job posting may have gotten x resumes; today, each job posting gets 10x resumes.
