Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I think he did the right thing doing it.
One of the things that makes this process complex, even more so than in 2003 is where each group has landed over the last 9 years. Some are still nearer the top, some are near the middle, Maintenance is at the bottom of the industry.
The company took the approach that 20% was needed from all groups regardless of where they were in the industry, in 2003 they did not take the same approach for all groups, and still they have not shown us what management is giving up, they did the same thing last time. When it was finally revealed that Management didnt take the same hits as everyone else the excuse was because they were already below average so it was fair that they took less of a hit. ( Lets not forget the infamous "Rise" program which was really a hidden raise, when they did the "De-rise" the people who were "de-risen" did not take pay cuts.) If I recall it was Brundage who said "Shared Sacrifice does not mean equal sacrifice".
So they rush into court without revealing this critical info.
In 2003 most of us were near the top, we are currently around $5/hr, not counting the Holidays, Vacation, sick etc below the average but still they are demanding 20%. To make matters worse the $20% figure is based on an inflated number that will decline naturally as special projects are completed, they catch up on Maintenance they should have done all along and they get new aircraft. In other words its 20% of $1 billion when the costs under normal circumstance may be a third less, they maxed out spending so they could max out the concessions in BK. In 2003 M&Rs number was around the same as Fleet, now its over $50,000,000 more, if management had factored in the naturally occuring savings due to one time projects being completed , and new aircraft the ASK likely would have been much lower. Headcount reductions will occur due to this but they refused to factor them in. We lose 500 a year just through attrition, so without changing one word in the contract or laying anyone off they will see an additional $50 million/year savings in maint labor costs each year, so thats $50 million the first year, $100 million the Second, $150 million the third and so on. They will continue to save even when they reach the headcount level they want to land at because senior , maxed out workers would be replaced by new hires. Unlike maintenance, other workers will not see their ranks reduced as new aircarft replace older aircraft, it takes just as many pilots to fly a new plane as it does an old one.
So I agree with Little saying its hard to reach the number, as he said the people they hired recommended getting a deal before going to the Judge, IMO if you are at the top of the industry or even in the middle that may be true, but if you are at the bottom and the company is making unreasonable demands how much lower can you go before you realize that it just isnt worth saving this job anymore? If they say they "must have" stuff that nobody else has in order to survive , and a Judge agrees, then perhaps from where we are standing we are better off to see them liquidate so we can pick up at someplace that can pay what everyone else pays and survive. If their business plan is that we must subsidize their existance by agreeing to the worst pay rates, the least amount of Vacation, the least amount of Sick time the least amount of IOD time and work rules that are worse than Non-union shops where they can do as they please and agree to that for another 6 years (in addition the 4 years they have dragged things out already) do we really want them to succeed? Is it really in our best interests over the long term, even over the next six years? In five you could be back at top pay somewhere else. If they do succeed all it will do is put pressure on the other carriers to demand the same from their workers, then we wouldnt even have anywhere else to go in this industry, it would all suck. If we want to stay in this industry and live well and get paid fairly then we do not want to see their plan succeed and we need to start looking at a future that does not include American Airlines. We wouldnt be the first, Peoples Express, Eastern, Pan Am, these carriers also once banked on having their workers subsidize their existance by agreeing to work for less. They all did their share of Damage but although it may be hard to imagine things in this industry could have been even worse for workers had they succeeded.
