Twu $620 Million In Concessions

[Decision 2004]

If you are the guru involved in the restructure model as you previously admitted.

I helped with the restructuring model and your comments are not only innacurate but I find them to some degree offending.

Then I don't really need to know anymore about you.

That says it all to me.

You are nothing more than an anti-worker company patsy.

You should remember this though, "what goes around comes around".

By the way, if that doesn't spell it out for you, then here it is in B&W, I find your restructuring model offensive and a recipe for FAILURE!

What is your real name? Holly Hegeman from Plane Business who does not have a relationship with AMR Management?

Are you one of the 46 with the hidden perks?

 

[air_guy]

If you are the guru involved in the restructure model as you previously admitted.
Then I don't really need to anymore about you.

That says it all to me.

You are nothing more than a anti-worker company patsy.

You should remember this though, "what goes around comes around".

By the way, if that doesn't spell it out for you, then here it is in B&W, I find your restructuring model offensive and a recipe for FAILURE!

What is your real name? Holly Hegeman from Plane Business who does not have a relationship with AMR Management?

[post="183646"][/post]​

Please don't give me credits I don't deserve. I was not the guru, I just was another working bee that participated in the process as many others. I wish it had been some other way but we did not have many choices. You seem to think we did, do so why don't you illustrate us. What we did, whether we like or not, avoided bankruptcy and I have no doubts about it. If we had filed we would be like US or UA with liquidation around the corner. I see now that you don't have any more facts to argue you are moving into the personal attack. Don't try to discredit me based on the work I've done because I am a worker as well and nothing I've done, I've done maliciously or with the intention of harming anyone. Just trying to help the company. You can not say the same about yourself. You are so obsesed with your goal that you will do whatever it takes to support your cause, and that is what goes around comes around. And please you can cut the name calling, we may be arguing but I've treatted you with respect and I am expecting the same form you.

Peace,

air_guy

 

[Bob Owens]

Different FWAAA. FWAAA.com is not me.

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whoi...equestid=359970

But looks like I have a fan. B)

By the way, I punched Princess Kidagakash into my browser, and the results looked a lot like kitty porn. :down:

[post="183179"][/post]​

Ok, so what does your "FWAAA" mean?

 

[Decision 2004]

Please don't give me credits I don't deserve. I was not the guru, I just was another working bee that participated in the process as many others. I wish it had been some other way but we did not have many choices. You seem to think we did, do so why don't you illustrate us. What we did, whether we like or not, avoided bankruptcy and I have no doubts about it. If we had filed we would be like US or UA with liquidation around the corner. I see now that you don't have any more facts to argue you are moving into the personal attack. Don't try to discredit me based on the work I've done because I am a worker as well and nothing I've done, I've done maliciously or with the intention of harming anyone. Just trying to help the company. You can not say the same about yourself. You are so obsesed with your goal that you will do whatever it takes to support your cause, and that is what goes around comes around. And please you can cut the name calling, we may be arguing but I've treatted you with respect and I am expecting the same form you.

Peace,

air_guy

[post="183659"][/post]​

I am not one that favors Bankruptcy instead of Restructure. I am just very skeptical about the so-called facts and management actions leading up to the restucture and the actions since.

Why did management sit, wait, and do nothing until the bleeding was unimaginable? To force the concessions, that why!

Evidenced by that fact that AA Management allowed the Union to decide how to obtain the savings dollars was either ultimate in scape goat management, or was really just exactly what the whole plan was meant to gain.

Union's have a different agenda than the Stock Holder, or Educated Management. Claiming BK is serious business, but actions by management really appeared more of bluff than fact.

Next time you are modeling a restructure plan while claiming Bankruptcy, if you plan to allow the union leadership to decide how to save the company, then be sure and factor in a large amount of stupidity along with a value on differing agendas. What responsible management team would allow the union leaders to make such decisions, if the company was really facing a Bankruptcy filing? That is irresponsible if you ask me. If it really was that serious then by God, MANAGE, don't scape goat and float. Thus, I conlcude either something very suspicious, or very poor management.

The problem with the Industry is OVER CAPACITY period. And AA Management allowed the union's to make decisions that kept all capacity in the air, and destroyed worker morale. This is no different than those Government Bailouts that kept full capacity of every carrier flying and created and price war that still prevents anyone from making a profit.

Face it. In A Capatalist society, supply vs. demand is how profit is determined. Therefore, saving every job, which maintains the over capacity, is NOT the answer to the current industry problem.

I realize tough decisions had to be made. I am just dissappointed that we did not have Management Leadership with the will to make the required call. We do not have the Political Leadership, nor the Manamement Leadership, to survive.

AA's plan is simple. Ride along on the backs of the workers concessions, without changing the business model, waiting for another airline to go out of business so the supply vs demand equation is balanced. Problem is, this is not really a plan, and the end game could be AA that is out of business along with the victim the vultures are awaiting. While at the same time, grow Eagle at a 17%+ rate using the balance of the concession funds. Great plan if you work for Eagle, terrible future if you work for AA.

 

[air_guy]

I am not one that favors Bankruptcy instead of Restructure.

But to have AA Management allow the Union to decide how to obtain the savings dollars was the ultimate in scape goat management.

Union's have a different agenda than the Stock Holder, or Educated Management.

Next time you model a restructure plan, if you plan to allow the union leadership to decide how to save the company, then be sure and factor in a large amount of stupidity along with a value on differing agendas.

The problem with the Industry is OVER CAPACITY period. And AA Management allowed the union's to make decisions that kept all capacity in the air, and destroyed worker morale. This is no different than those Government Bailouts that kept full capacity of every carrier flying and created and price war that still prevents anyone from making a profit.

Face it. In A Capatalist society, supply vs. demand is how profit is determined. Therefore, saving every job, which maintains the over capacity, is NOT the answer to the current industry problem.

I realize tough decisions had to be made. I am just dissappointed that we did not have Management Leadership with the will to make the required call. We do not have the Political Leadership, not the Manamement Leadership, to survive.

AA's plan is simple. Ride along without changing the business model, waiting for another airline to go out of business so the supply vs demand equation is balanced. Problem is, this is not really a plan, and the end game could be AA that is out of business along with the victim the vultures are awaiting.

[post="183664"][/post]​

Ok we are starting agreeing on some things. Ideally we rebalance supply with demand and go back to profitability, but the way this industry is designed by legacy or government regulation does not permit to do those things easily.

1) You cannot agree to shrinking with just one Union, you have to agree with all of them. The resulting size of AA post restructuring was a delicate balance of all labor groups ' expectations.

2) Even if you can reach a smaller size internally that does not help you if your competitors don't follow or worse yet if the LCCs desperate for growth try to take advantage of your shrinking. Historically legacy carries will use their network and financial muscle to drive this threat out, but 9/11 gave these upstarts a unique window of opportunity to operate for 2-3 years without the legacy carriers going after them.

3) So our final size not only incorporated our internal labor front but also a very delicate balance with our competitors. We can be more than willing ot make tough decisions, but one thing I learned in this business is that you are only smarter than your stupidest competor. Many of the 'irrational' things we do today is just as a reaction to our "irrational" competitors are doing. Be glad that we were able to stay away from Songs and Teds that just exacerbate the problems we have today.

4) Regarding how the savings were achieved. You know, I give you that. There could have been many other ways, but no alternative would have pleased everyone. But you have the right to make your case, that the amount of savings could have been achieved in a more efficient way without sacrificing so much pay and you may get the support you need.

5) Finally about our 'current' plan. I am 50% with you. There is definetely expectation that fuel will go down or other carriers will shut down, so to some degree the objective is to stay as far from the cliff as possible. We have a big simplification project underway that has been advertised, and we continue to look for ways to reduce costs and enhance revenues in this crappy environment. The model will change eventually too, but that takes longer, and can't be supported with the number of players that we have today. I tell you if we had the magic wand to fix this mess we would have used long ago. You are not the only ones getting screwed .... we all are, we need to join forces to get rid of the common enemy (our competitors, mainly the LCCs)... and then we can argue amongst oursleves.

 

[Bob Owens]

I wish it had been some other way but we did not have many choices. You seem to think we did, do so why don't you illustrate us. What we did, whether we like or not, avoided bankruptcy and I have no doubts about it. If we had filed we would be like US or UA with liquidation around the corner. I
Peace,

air_guy

[post="183659"][/post]​

Out of the three who would you say was in the best shape?

I would say AA. While USAIR is likely history I doubt that both USAIR and UAL will both dissapear within a short time of each other. Certainly not all three.

Lets just look back at what Bush claimed when the UAL Mechanics were threatening to strike. He said that he could not allow UAL to strike because it would have too much of an impact on the economy.

While I disagreed with the move the arguement has validity. The UAL of today probably moves more people a day than the six airlines that went on strike all at once in the sixties. And AA moves even more than UAL. The impact of shutting down an airline like UAL or especially AA would have a major economic impact because for every dollar spent on an airline ticket many more dollars are spent on all the things that travel entails.

Lets remember that the threatened strike was after 9-11, of course you remember 9-11, but do you recall that on Sept 11 the planes used in the attacks were only 25% full? So you cant say that the capacity problem is new. The fact is the capacity problem predated 9-11 and yet Bush claimed that allowing just UAL to shutdown due to a strike, in other words temporarily, was unacceptable. Now think about what you are saying. USAIR, UAL and AA all permanently shutting down within a short time of each other? Come on, do you really think that eliminating around 30% of the nations air travel capacity is going to happen?

The fact is if it had come to that the government would have been forced to step in and do something. Everyone cant jump onto SWA or jet blue you know.


The fact is the unions failed to make a stand. As I said to Little when UAL was getting threatened we should have let it be known that should a judge abrogate any labor contract that all the unions at every airline were going to walk off the job. We should have made it clear that our ceasation of work was not an act against our employer but a political protest over broken promises made to airline workers after Lorenzo exploited bankruptcy to void contracts. We should have fought. If they failed to get together when it really counted what makes you think they will ever get together? Its sickening how todays AFL-CIO will stick together to fight a union that believes in no concessions and higher pay for their members but does nothing when corporate interests rape their members but shrug their shoulders and claim they had no choice. If we truly had no choice then we truly have no union.



By the way tell us what sacrifices you made? Do you now work a second job too in order to support your family?


You claim that we need to go after the LCCs, ie-SWA. Well from where mechanics are sitting, seeing SWA grow, even to the point of swallowing up AA, would be a good thing, we would get more money, more benifits, vacations, holidays and sick pay. Even at Jet Blue, their mechanics got $10,000 bonuses compared to our $25 AIP. I know if I think they are so great then go over there. Well as we already know there is already overcapacity in this industry they really cant grow as long as the biggest LPC is around. (Low Paying Carrier)

The fact is the company and the TWU went too far and they disproportionately targeted the people who the company counts on the most, who can afford it the least. Case in point is the Holidays. The airlines make more money due to increased travel during the Holidays, we accepted being away from family on holidays but we were compensated for it. Now not only do they only recognize five holidays but they only pay us half pay for working them. The elimination of five holidays and the reduction to half pay for working cost those who had to work them around $5000 per year. That was money that we counted on in high cost areas because our regular wage is basically set by people who live in low cost areas. Those people only lost the five holidays and still get the other five off with pay as they have in the past, so they did not lose as much.

 

[Decision 2004]

Simple solution.

Government (temporary or permanent) semi-regulation that prohibits any airline from charging less than 10 cents per available seat mile. This well above most cost per available seat mile, last time I checked.

Since the Government has used tax payer dollars to "bail out" or "destroy" the industry (depends on perpesctive), then a regulation even if temporary restricting bottom dollar pricing at a loss, will stop the continued losses, it would also make adjustment of capacity a no brainer!

If there are not enough to people to fly at that price with a profit, then reduce seats until there is enough.

In other words, make it against the law to charge less than it cost to fly.

Damn, that sounds too easy. Therefore will never happen!

 

[air_guy]

Out of the three who would you say was in the best shape?

I would say AA. While USAIR is likely history I doubt that both USAIR and UAL will both dissapear within a short time of each other. Certainly not all three.

Lets just look back at what Bush claimed when the UAL Mechanics were threatening to strike. He said that he could not allow UAL to strike because it would have too much of an impact on the economy.

While I disagreed with the move the arguement has validity. The UAL of today probably moves more people a day than the six airlines that went on strike all at once in the sixties. And AA moves even more than UAL. The impact of shutting down an airline like UAL or especially AA would have a major economic impact because for every dollar spent on an airline ticket many more dollars are spent on all the things that travel entails.

Lets remember that the threatened strike was after 9-11, of course you remember 9-11, but do you recall that on Sept 11 the planes used in the attacks were only 25% full? So you cant say that the capacity problem is new. The fact is the capacity problem predated 9-11 and yet Bush claimed that allowing just UAL to shutdown due to a strike, in other words temporarily, was unacceptable. Now think about what you are saying. USAIR, UAL and AA all permanently shutting down within a short time of each other? Come on, do you really think that eliminating around 30% of the nations air travel capacity is going to happen?

The fact is if it had come to that the government would have been forced to step in and do something. Everyone cant jump onto SWA or jet blue you know.
The fact is the unions failed to make a stand. As I said to Little when UAL was getting threatened we should have let it be known that should a judge abrogate any labor contract that all the unions at every airline were going to walk off the job. We should have made it clear that our ceasation of work was not an act against our employer but a political protest over broken promises made to airline workers after Lorenzo exploited bankruptcy to void contracts. We should have fought. If they failed to get together when it really counted what makes you think they will ever get together? Its sickening how todays AFL-CIO will stick together to fight a union that believes in no concessions and higher pay for their members but does nothing when corporate interests rape their members but shrug their shoulders and claim they had no choice. If we truly had no choice then we truly have no union.
By the way tell us what sacrifices you made? Do you now work a second job too in order to support your family?
You claim that we need to go after the LCCs, ie-SWA. Well from where mechanics are sitting, seeing SWA grow, even to the point of swallowing up AA, would be a good thing, we would get more money, more benifits, vacations, holidays and sick pay. Even at Jet Blue, their mechanics got $10,000 bonuses compared to our $25 AIP. I know if I think they are so great then go over there. Well as we already know there is already overcapacity in this industry they really cant grow as long as the biggest LPC is around. (Low Paying Carrier)

The fact is the company and the TWU went too far and they disproportionately targeted the people who the company counts on the most, who can afford it the least. Case in point is the Holidays. The airlines make more money due to increased travel during the Holidays, we accepted being away from family on holidays but we were compensated for it. Now not only do they only recognize five holidays but they only pay us half pay for working them. The elimination of five holidays and the reduction to half pay for working cost those who had to work them around $5000 per year. That was money that we counted on in high cost areas because our regular wage is basically set by people who live in low cost areas. Those people only lost the five holidays and still get the other five off with pay as they have in the past, so they did not lose as much.

[post="183701"][/post]​

All valid points but look at this:

-I never implied that all three would go away, usually vulture investors come in, create new companies from the pieces and pay crap. So the a/c will still be flying or most will, but with very different economics. The government has shown very little sympathy for us, so to the extent that they can see replacement capacity coming in they will let us go one by one.

- What happened before 9/11 was a regular industry downturn like many others. We could have gotten out of that with some pain but nothing in the proportion of what we had to do. We had to cut capacity 20% right away adn we had to bear more than half of the cost. There is no way you can support that.

The fact that those airplanes were empty was a Day of week, time of day issue. Tuesday morning flights always have low load factors. That is why the terrorists chose them.

Letting SWA and Jetblue swallow the industry can't happen. They may be paying better right now but to how many people? If they had to employ every mechanic from other airlines, even with increased flying they would go out of business. On one hand SW uses a very efficent model of low revenue and low costs (and outsources heavy maintenace but you don't find that a problem because you are line), so they probably can operate AA's network with 30% less people. Jet Blue on the other hand has low costs as a result of relatively junior people and high revenues, a result of them cherry picking the routes where they fly. Si if we all become Southewests we have to reduce the industry workforce by 30% something that you know won't happen. If we all become Jetblues, eventually we will implode. Those high revenues can not be sustained as you enter more and more low yielding markets and your workforce starts gaining seniority so your costs are not a low anymore. I personally think that the WN model is the one that will prevail not but only availbe to a limited amount of people. Jet blue will eventually implode, or find its way to replace some legacy carrier that goes out of business but their economics won't be as favorable as they are today.

The discussion on how the savings were accomplished I find very valid. I wish they could have found a mix that made everyone happy but that is utopic. However, this discussion started because D2004 was attacking the restructuring plan and accusing us of being dishonest because we most likely had asked for too much. then he shifted to questioning how the savings were accomplished and the overcapcity where I don't necessarily diagree with you at all.

Finally speaking of my sacrifices, we took a paycut too, increased insurance contributions, decreased sick bank, frozen pay for two years while all unionized workers were getting theirs, and we took three rounds of layoffs. A lot of the work is not gone so a lot of people are having to put more hours. People are leaving AA in hordes I have not heard the same about other workgroups... so everything is relative.

 

[air_guy]

Simple solution.

Government (temporary or permanent) semi-regulation that prohibits any airline from charging less than 10 cents per available seat mile. This well above most cost per available seat mile, last time I checked.

Since the Government has used tax payer dollars to "bail out" or "destroy" the industry (depends on perpesctive), then a regulation even if temporary restricting bottom dollar pricing at a loss, will stop the continued losses, it would also make adjustment of capacity a no brainer!

If there are not enough to people to fly at that price with a profit, then reduce seats until there is enough.

In other words, make it against the law to charge less than it cost to fly.

Damn, that sounds too easy. Therefore will never happen!

[post="183715"][/post]​

I don't advocate government regulation but this were some thoughts I had.

After 9/11 the government sould have paid the airlines to keep some of their airplanes on the ground covering all their other costs for a period of time, instead of giving money away from free. In that way airlines would have adjusted their flights to demand without worrying about the costs and if they wanted to keep flying they would have got less money.

Also the government could have helped all airlines reject their a/c deliveries by providing funding to pay for the penalties. Also freeze any fleet aquisitions for a period of time specially to new carrier trying to take advantage of the chaos.

That could have reduced the overall cost to the government, and make the adjustments due to the downturn a lot less painfull ... but you can't blame AA's management for that. Besides I don't think any government would have been able to think about that or implement it.

What you say about predatory pricing is very true. However imposing specifics floors may be seen as anticompetitve. However, airlines should not be allowed to charge less than their cost, assuming their fleet is fully mature and their work force is at a stady state seniority (as opposed to year 1 and 2 for B6). In that way you eliminate the incentive of new comers to take advantage of that loophole, driving a legacy out of business just to find themselves with the same problems years later but having destroyed the economies of many families on the way.

 

[will fix for food]

While at the same time, grow Eagle at a 17%+ rate using the balance of the concession funds.

[post="183664"][/post]​

Here we go again. Your concessions are paying for Eagle.

The last 2 (3?) times you made this accusation I asked you to provide some substantiation. I'm still waiting. I'll be away until the 27th. Can you come up with some proof by then?

 

[will fix for food]

Here's a good little read for you Dave and Bob.


http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2004/bts.../bts025_04.html



With an excerpt:


Table 4: Quarterly Domestic Operating profit/loss margin (in percent)
Regional Carriers
Ranked by 2nd Quarter 2004 Margin
(Operating Profit/Loss as Percent of Total Operating Revenue)

Excel | CSV

2Q 2004 Rank Regional Carriers 2nd Quarter 2003 (%) 3rd Quarter 2003 (%) 4th Quarter 2003 (%) 1st Quarter 2004 (%) 2nd Quarter 2004 (%) 2nd Quarter Operating Profit/Loss $(Millions)
1 American Eagle 16.2 15.7 20.6 16.3 15.5 53.7
2 Sky West 11.4 15.3 12.1 13.7 13.1 35.2
3 Express Jet 12.4 12.8 12.9 12.5 12.6 43.3
4 Air Wisconsin 11.6 21.4 12.6 13.3 9.2 14.8
5 Comair 13.6 15.8 16.5 6.8 7.9 23.1
6 Atlantic Southeast 15.2 12.7 9.7 7.7 6.7 14.3
7 Atlantic Coast 18.3 16.6 11.5 6.7 -10.5 -20.0
Seven-Carrier Total 14.2 15.3 14.1 11.3 9.0 164.4

Source: Form 41; Schedule P1.2



Look at the profit margins for Eagle. American pays Eagle an 8% margin. Who gets the rest?

 

[Bob Owens]

Here we go again. Your concessions are paying for Eagle.

The last 2 (3?) times you made this accusation I asked you to provide some substantiation. I'm still waiting. I'll be away until the 27th. Can you come up with some proof by then?

[post="183827"][/post]​

Where would rather see the industry grow, at the ones that pay mechanics $20/hr or at the ones that pay $30/hr? Do you think that our decining wages and benifits help you guys or hurt you?

 

[Bob Owens]

All valid points but look at this:

-I never implied that all three would go away, usually vulture investors come in, create new companies from the pieces and pay crap. So the a/c will still be flying or most will, but with very different economics. The government has shown very little sympathy for us, so to the extent that they can see replacement capacity coming in they will let us go one by one.

Exactly, and here is where the unions failed their members. The unions collectively took no action to pressure the government to protect workers. I urged Jim Little to get together with the other unions of the AFL-cio and declare that should any labor agreement be abrogated that all the unions would walk off the job. As far as the government showing very little sympathy thats bull. Just look at the ATSA and you can see how it gives airlines assistance in crushing their workers.

- What happened before 9/11 was a regular industry downturn like many others. We could have gotten out of that with some pain but nothing in the proportion of what we had to do. We had to cut capacity 20% right away adn we had to bear more than half of the cost. There is no way you can support that.

Yes but as a result of 9-11 you cut capacity and got government grants.

The fact that those airplanes were empty was a Day of week, time of day issue. Tuesday morning flights always have low load factors. That is why the terrorists chose them.

Are you claiming that overall load factors were not already low prior to 9-11?

Letting SWA and Jetblue swallow the industry can't happen. They may be paying better right now but to how many people?

I believe the point was that they could not "swallow the industry" any more than "Peoples Express, Laker, Air Florida" or the rest that came and went.

If they had to employ every mechanic from other airlines, even with increased flying they would go out of business.

What!?

On one hand SW uses a very efficent model of low revenue and low costs (and outsources heavy maintenace but you don't find that a problem because you are line), so they probably can operate AA's network with 30% less people.


Well SWA is bringing more and more in house as it grows. If you have the volume of work to keep a line running it should be cheaper to do it in house, even if you are paying higher wages, unless of course your structure is so inefficient and you have 7 layers of management instead of 3 or 4.

Jet Blue on the other hand has low costs as a result of relatively junior people and high revenues, a result of them cherry picking the routes where they fly.


And isnt that whats hurting them now? Florida is getting whacked. We know people over there, their costs are going up, they conveiently painted their Hangar at JFK IKEA blue for when they fold. You keep acting as is being small offers more advantages than being big. What about the fact that AA can go head to head on every Jet Blue flight and lose money while making it up oin places where Jet Blue does not fly? While AA could afford to lose money indefineately on every Jet Blue paired flight Jet Blue could not.

Si if we all become Southewests we have to reduce the industry workforce by 30% something that you know won't happen.

Reduce by 30%? Thats untrue, because as SWA grows their structure will change too. Again the economies of scale kick in. Besides our workforce has and continues to shrink at an annual rate of what, 10%?


If we all become Jetblues, eventually we will implode.

You said it.


Those high revenues can not be sustained as you enter more and more low yielding markets and your workforce starts gaining seniority so your costs are not a low anymore.

Dont you mean high margins? Your revenues usually continue to increase with more markets. By the way you are only reinforcing my arguement as to why we should not have agreed to such massive concessions. Their costs will go up in time as ours are going down, Who wins? Not us!

I personally think that the WN model is the one that will prevail not but only availbe to a limited amount of people.

And limited markets. SWA does not go head to head with the majors. Not too many people from NYC are going to drive out to ISP, then drive from ISP to Boston to save a few dollars on airfare. The ground costs would exceed the cost of the airfare. SWA's growth is by creating new markets not stealing from the majors. Thats why they have been successful, and why Jet Blue will ultimately fail.


Jet blue will eventually implode, or find its way to replace some legacy carrier that goes out of business but their economics won't be as favorable as they are today.

Agreed.

The discussion on how the savings were accomplished I find very valid. I wish they could have found a mix that made everyone happy but that is utopic. However, this discussion started because D2004 was attacking the restructuring plan and accusing us of being dishonest because we most likely had asked for too much. then he shifted to questioning how the savings were accomplished and the overcapcity where I don't necessarily diagree with you at all.

I agree with Dave on the companys honesty or lack of. The revelations of executive perks were a clue, the $988 million in lost goodwill prepaid leases etc did not help to build trust either. All the guys from Pan Am and EAL say its deja vu. And we all know what happened over there. If you business plan is to screw your workers in a service industry that is very reliant upon the goodwill of your employees its bound to fail. With the amount of hardship that the company put on us, and even the sellout Little admitted that the concessions were "more than adequate", I see no future.

Finally speaking of my sacrifices, we took a paycut too, increased insurance contributions, decreased sick bank, frozen pay for two years while all unionized workers were getting theirs, and we took three rounds of layoffs. A lot of the work is not gone so a lot of people are having to put more hours. People are leaving AA in hordes I have not heard the same about other workgroups... so everything is relative.

What workgoup is that? Are you eligible for bonuses that can more than make up for your paycut?

[post="183734"][/post]​