The Real Reason.

Hopeful,
Airtran, ATA, Spirit, Frontier, can deliver, profitably, for 79$. We can''t. Cost is the problem. Blame management. They failed to say no when the weak unions demanded raises.
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 9:37:21 AM AAviator wrote:


Hopeful,
Airtran, ATA, Spirit, Frontier, can deliver, profitably, for 79$. We can't. Cost is the problem. Blame management. They failed to say no when the weak unions demanded raises.
----------------
Why then did AA just match the $44 one way ticket sale? Is that our fault too?
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 7:51:43 AM RV4 wrote:


Where are all of those NAY-SAYERS today?

KCFlyer, AAviator, eoleson, what do you think now?

----------------​
Just reading in the local paper about how the MCI maintenance base most likely will close. But I''m sure you don''t really care about that, since those aren''t "real" AA jobs - just TWA losers.
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 8:45:55 AM KCFlyer wrote:




Just reading in the local paper about how the MCI maintenance base most likely will close. But I'm sure you don't really care about that, since those aren't "real" AA jobs - just TWA losers.
----------------
I have never had any animosity towards the former TWA employees, if fact, I was the biggest advocate for full dovetail of seniority.

As to the MCI Base closure, both the AFW and MCI will likely be shut down as the fleet size is reduced. And this is a result of the supply vs. demand of the industry, not becuase of personal emotions regarding the acquisition. But you still cannot see through the FEAR tactics used by AA to get a vote. After 20 years of employment with AA, I can see the smoke-n-mirrors in MCI from where I live.

You are the one who wouldn't care! Just as long as you can fly your family cheap and tickets remain good. At least that is your past proven positioning.
 
How much would you be willing to bet that when AA gets its costs lowered to JetBlue's and Southwest's by cutting our wages and benefits. Executive Compensation will remain at the High Cost airline levels.

Do you realize the pain and suffering AA has to inflict on its employees to get its costs to the levels of those airlines you mentioned?
 
RV4 - you really should read more of my posts on the U or UAL boards. I''ve been very critical of managment focusing solely on labor cuts to achieve profitablity. I''ve maintained all along that equal focus needs to be given to increasing revenue while decreasing costs. I''ve maintained on those boards that many labor concessions may not be needed if an equal focus is given to increasing revenues. But just as labor cuts alone cannot save an airline, neither can revenue generation efforts. It''s a two way street...a combination of the two could put AA back in place as one of the dominant carriers. But your attitude of "let the judge decide" is just as bad as managments limiting revenue generation to 21 day advance purchase fare sales. Nobody wins then.
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 7:51:43 AM RV4 wrote:


Where are all of those NAY-SAYERS today?

KCFlyer, AAviator, eoleson, what do you think now?

----------------​

My opinion: you''re a bunch of fools if you think that bankruptcy will be a better option for the long term health of your contracts.

(notice I said your contracts, and not the company)

Personally, whether we go bankrupt or not doesn''t affect me nearly as much, since I''m already employed at will. The same goes for most management employees and the non-union employees.

I''m also still a shareholder, so I''ll lose a couple bucks if the stock becomes worthless, but that was money I''d written off months ago. Again, the same goes for anyone who currently has options or holds stock, whether they be management or non-management.

My guess is that the company will survive regardless, but we''ll lose a lot more people as well as opportunities, than if we stay out of bankruptcy.

  • Everything we do, from meeting payroll to paying an invoice for toothpicks, will need to be approved by a court. Some of that will be done by blanket order, some of that won''t.

  • Millions of AMR''s cash will go towards paying lawyers. That benefits nobody at AMR -- management or labor. I don''t like giving lawyers money ever...

  • Should UAL liquidate, we''d no longer be in a position to try and pick up assets like their ORD terminal or their Pacific routes. We could try, but that too would require court and creditor approval.

  • Our business plan and operational statistics will no longer be a confidential document, but will be public record for our competitors to view openly.

But, we''ll go on as a company in spite of all that. I believe that many jobs will be lost permanently if we go down that path, but that seems to be a risk that many of you are willing to take.

And that''s your choice.
 
eoleson,

And why can't we adjust our business accordingly "OUT of BK"?

Carty leaves us only two choices:

BIG thru concessions - Smaller thru Bankruptcy

It is my opinion the SMALLER without Bankruptcy was the answer, but that choice is not available. It is my belief that there is a serious supply vs. demand issue in the industry and simply lowering wages and benefits while staying BIG is not the answer. We are already down to $44 one way, that will only get worse as BIG airlines fight for unavailable customers.

The reason I feel better served by BK is not related to my personal position or union contracts. I honestly feel that SMALLER airlines is the long term answer to this situation and Carty only leaves me one choice to get there.

Sorry, but FEAR and THREATS will not change my mind about that either.

CARTY can stick his mismanaged BIG thru concessions airline where he wants it. But I will never vote to give it to him. AA will be destroyed under that plan in my opinion.
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 11:06:21 AM RV4 wrote:


It is my opinion the SMALLER without Bankruptcy was the answer, but that choice is not available. It is my belief that there is a serious supply vs. demand issue in the industry and simply lowering wages and benefits while staying BIG is not the answer. We are already down to $44 one way, that will only get worse as BIG airlines fight for unavailable customers.

The reason I feel better served by BK is not related to my personal position or union contracts. I honestly feel that SMALLER airlines is the long term answer to this situation and Carty only leaves me one choice to get there.

----------------
Okay, but let''s say Carty approached labor and said "There''s only one way out...effective immediately, we are parking half our ourcraft and laying off half our people." Would the unions not throw a fit? Would those formerly employed not picket outside the airports (as Briggs was able to do via their court order)? Would customers not be asked by those picketing to go elsewhere by the lower half on the seniority list who lost their jobs?

If I am reading your posts correctly, you are saying you would prefer to work for a smaller airline but not take any cuts. That by downsizing, concessions would not be necessary from the remaining employees. But the thing I think you are missing about going before a bankruptcy judge is that you most likely WILL come away smaller....and you will STILL have to give up a lot in concessions. Look at U.
 
You dont hear me preaching NO CUTS.

You type your thoughts and I will type mine.

If you were really "reading my post" you would have read SMALLER WITHOUT BANKRUPTCY. Do you only read what suits your own thoughts or what?
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 12:07:51 PM RV4 wrote:


You dont hear me preaching NO CUTS.

You type your thoughts and I will type mine.

If you were really "reading my post" you would have read SMALLER WITHOUT BANKRUPTCY. Do you only read what suits your own thoughts or what?

----------------​
No, I read a post from Hopeful that said "I'll take my chances in banruptcy court, followed immediately by your post

"FINALLY, Proof that BK is NOT worse than we are being asked to volunteer"

or

"Tell the company to file the DAMN BK paperwork and QUIT WHINING."

And when anyone attempts to debate you on the risks of bankruptcy, your only response (aside from personal attacks about my spending habits) is

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!

Your beef seems to be with the TWU...Suppose AMFA was voted in this afternoon. What would they do differently?
 
KC Flyer,
The Maintenance Negotiating Team went into talks with a package: we take the cuts that were necessary to meet our goal but leave pay benefits and pensions intact.

It was the Company that came back and said NO.
 
KCFlyer,

Do not mistake my dislike for the current situation as being against ANY situation.

Try SMALLER without Bankruptcy with less cuts in pay/benefits with a shorter length until we neogotiate.

If it is going to be Carty's way or the highway, your fears will be realized right along with mine.
 
----------------
On 4/10/2003 5:52:41 PM AAmech wrote:


How do you get out of all your leases for planes, gates,and equipment without BK? Plus the contracts for services at stations which will now be eliminated or reduced services. You just can''t walk away from them. If it was that easy they would have done it already.

Unfortunatly for us, it is Carty''s way or the Highway. He pretty much holds all the cards in this situation. If this language dispute prevents us getting a TA to vote on in BK we will undoubtably be presented with a much worse one. And if we vote down this TA, Carty will have met the requirements of BK law and will file the motion to DISMISS our contract! Goodbye pension, seniority, bumprights, payscales ect,ect, ect. There''s no Judge Judy to plead our case to. No one cares. Thats just the way it is.

----------------​
SO does that mean you are advocating a YES vote?
 
Bob you have no idea how much I hope you are right! Unfortunatly I highly doubt it. What I''ve read is what we are going thru now IS the negotiation required by BK law. Say what you want about the TWU, but the pilots union sure worked furiously to come up with their TA! Is it because they''re a bunch of weak sell-outs who just want the union dues?
Do you really think we''re going to get a fair hearing in BK court? Nobody there is going to give a rats ass about our contract or how big our cuts are! And they''re certainly not going to care about what sort of cut UA or US''s mechanics got. IF we get another shot at negotiating, the odds are fantastic that we''ll be stuck with an even bigger cut than what we have now. And then its another take it or leave it. A bad 6 year contract Or no contract at all for the next 4yrs(we all know the speed at which AA neg contracts). With no contract in place I imagine AA will waste no time laying off all the "troublemakers" and attendance and production problem children without regard to silly little things like Seniority! I hate even thinking about it!