Union Employees will never be satisfied with anything

[Buck]

Airline mechanics have been giving back to American Airlines since 1983. Why is it that the public wants to have a low price ticket at all costs? If want to have these lower prices keep pushing the workers for lower wages and you are going to get exactly what you want. But be ready to accept everything that comes with your gain. Low quality maintenance on the big aluminum tube with wings moving at 500 mph at 40,000 feet is a scary thing to consider. You are willing pay your electrician, plumber and auto mechanics, however when it comes to aircraft mechanics you believe that it is something to ignore. It is the public that is pushing the airlines into bankruptcy and into an unsafe condition. The fact is that this Tentative Agreement for the mechanics is going to push many mechanics into moving to another profession. Many union workers are going to be laid off. That is the industry that we work in. However those that fill the jobs behind those being laid off are subjected to a 38% wage cut. Radio 1170 AM KFAQ of TULSA believes that it is the responsibility of the union workers of American Airlines to accept a wage cut to protect the city itself. If the guest host of this afternoon radio segment could see beyond the city that he is the guest of, he might realize that American Airlines is not just made up of Tulsa employees. There are many employees throughout this country that are affected by this agreement. The next you the customer and passenger take the privilege of being transported by air, remember the more you complain about the ticket price the more you are placing yourself at risk. I for one hope that the quality of maintenance is never placed in jeopardy. Push these professional mechanics out of their profession and let us see where it gets us. Good Luck with your traveling future....

 

[AAONO]

Desertfox: ..."The future is ahead"...so why did Caarty lie and not disclose the truth about "shared sacrifice"

 

[AAObserver]

----------------

As Lou Dobbs, CNN''s Moneyline host, said on tonight''s show "...At a time of ''shared sacrifice'' it''s only right that (Carty) should apologize, Carty has a lot to be sorry for." I don''t think I''ve ever seen such disgust on ole Lou''s face before...except in his musings regarding Enron, WorldCom, et al.

----------------​

Give me a break. Enron and WorldCom execs hid billions of dollars to make their companies appear profitable. AA''s legal (and generally accepted) retention bonuses have absolutely nothing in common with what happened at these two companies. If you think there is a correlation, you must not be very smart -- at all.

And I saw the Lou Dobbs piece you are talking about; it was nowhere near as dramatic as you are making it out to be.

Carty ought to just declare ch. 11 Sunday night, and let the unions fend for themselves against a bankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge wouldn''t be nearly as kind as AA is currently being; the creditors would replace the current contracts with what makes business sense in today''s economy, and you can bet it would be less than the proposed concessions.

You can bet the general public would have no sympathy either since the majority of them work in companies where hard work and the economy, not whining and seniority, dictate how much they are paid.

 

[timetosaybuhbye]

I think AAObserver is Don Carty sitting at home in his boxer shorts.

 

[lstwhknight]

Regardless, the bottom line on the executive compensation is that it is none of your business. You are the employEEs, not the employERs. The employERs hired you to do a job, and if you don''t like the working conditions or pay then leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work for AA.

--------------------------------------------------Employees ARE the company,without them see how far your employers GET.As far as none of your business,God that is a DUMB statement.With thinking like that CEO''s at ERON hide away billions.But that would be fine in your eyes cause youre so above CHECKS and BALANCES.Ever notice how A large company WITHOUT a UNION tends to screw over it''s EMPLOYEES?Low pay no Benifits etc!Its a Trade off,The company Brings on itself by NOT being fair and above board with its Employees when they are non union.So For employees to even stand a chance to reap some of thier LIFETIME investment in a large company they need a UNION.As Compamies seem to like to cut good and bad employees before they reach retirement and can replace them with entry level pay new hires,and dump you in the street to start over after a 20 year investment with them.They use you and dump you,Good Business in your eyes.I have worked both sides non union and now union.Never will I work again as non union,after seeing 5 thousand get the boot and wages cut to 10hr and vacation cut to 1 week.Seeing lifetime hard working families go under losing thier homes,retirements and the management team walk away with millions.WAKE UP!!!You Think management really gives a crap about you?WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!You are easily replaced at half the cost.You Better stand together or fall one by one!

 

[Borescope]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 553 PM AAONO wrote:


You are probably one of these people that goes to Jiffy Lube and pays $30 for an oil change, and are satisfied. However, when you fly, you feel you should be able to go caost to coast for $50. If you are happy with $7 hour mechanics, then contact your government officials, ask them to change the railway labor act, then when we can all quit legally, I want you to get on the aircraft that just had maintenance done by a "jiffy lube" mechanic. Have a happy flight!

----------------​

So let me get this straight, The more money you make the better mechanic you are? Your the kind of person who gives us all a bad name.

 

[Boomer]

AAObserver,
You claim that you are not affiliated with AA and are only an observer; in that case I suggest you are a prime candidate for the CEO position.

You claim that LUV people work longer hours for less money.

Please tell me what a SWA AMT makes per hour compared to what an AA AMT would make under this concessionary agreement?

Before you continue to spout trash: the LUV AMTs make more.

Before you begin to spout the line about overhaul: let me tell you that the figures agreed to by the compAAny and the Union had LUV TOTAL Maintenance Costs at only 7% more that the compAAny''s per ASM.

The burden the compAAny AMTs were asked to shoulder was far in excess of that required to rectify the Total MX budget based on ASM. We proposed PRODUCTIVITY improvements that would have equalized the Maintenance Cost per ASM but the compAAny wanted more.

 

[Borescope]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 602 PM jetsandprops wrote:

If AA were to have the same work rules as WN yes all the current employess could make the same salary or more but there would be thousands of less workers.

----------------​

The main reason for a the rules to increase the number of employees on the property is called "DUES". The union is a "Business" first . Less employees means less money coming in.

 

[stewbear]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:23:33 PM AAObserver wrote:

I''ve watched this board for sometime and have gained alot of insite on how AA union employees think. Simply said, the posts on here are just more proof that unions are the single biggest reason the failure rate of major US airlines is so high.

The AA retention bonuses that the unions are so up in arms over are common at most large US corporations, especially failing companies which offer less upside than more stable companies. There was nothing criminal about these bonuses, yet union employees are so out of touch with the real business world that they can''t understand this. In fact, it sounds like all three unions are more worried about sticking it to management than they are about their own personal welfare.

The pension issue is also a non-issue; it''s made up of money that the executives have already earned, but deferred for tax reasons. It''s underfunded, and the execs will get a payout that is taxed to death and less than what they are actually owed.

Regardless, the bottom line on the executive compensation is that it is none of your business. You are the employEEs, not the employERs. The employERs hired you to do a job, and if you don''t like the working conditions or pay then leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work for AA.

As for the union concessions, the fact of the matter is that your airline is going down the tubes, and todays market does not allow the same payscales that you had back in the late 90''s economic heyday. If you are going to get mad at anyone, get mad at the government for allowing the economy to degrade, or get mad at the 9/11 terrorists, or get mad at President Bush for going to war with Iraq. Don''t get mad at the management.

Actually, if you are going to get mad maybe you should be mad at your unions. If it weren''t for them, those of you who really do a great job could be rewarded based on your merit instead of watching less deserving employees make more money simply because they have been with the company longer. If I were an FA who worked my butt off but had to work with lazy FAs with terrible attitudes who were making more money than me I''d be mad as hell. That''s what being in a union does -- it rewards long-term mediocrity instead of rewarding employees who do the best job.

I''m sure now that AA''s execs have rescinded their bonuses, the unions still won''t be happy. They will find something else to gripe about and will probably drag AA right down the tubes alongside Eastern, PanAm, and the other former giants who were brought to their knees by whiny, self-centered unions.



----------------​

The above comments most likely come from a machine that most likely has Never lifted anything heavier than a pencil, never talked to anyone except to command or demand and should go back to the hole from which it crawled.

 

[jxcaf]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 10:51:38 PM AAObse
---------

Carty ought to just declare ch. 11 Sunday night, and let the unions fend for themselves against a bankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge wouldn''t be nearly as kind as AA is currently being; the creditors would replace the current contracts with what makes business sense in today''s economy, and you can bet it would be less than the proposed concessions.

----------------​

uncle carl? that you?

Just what specifically does not make business sense in today''s economy to you in regard to these discusussions? And what specifically is your interest in browsing these boards? Do/did you work for a airline? (Perhaps your ex left you to be with someone from the airlines?? LOL) Your posts irritate me..yet I recognize that your p0int of view is equally valid. It is just curious that you come here......

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 10:51:38 PM AAObserver wrote:

----------------

As Lou Dobbs, CNN''s Moneyline host, said on tonight''s show "...At a time of ''shared sacrifice'' it''s only right that (Carty) should apologize, Carty has a lot to be sorry for." I don''t think I''ve ever seen such disgust on ole Lou''s face before...except in his musings regarding Enron, WorldCom, et al.

----------------​

Give me a break. Enron and WorldCom execs hid billions of dollars to make their companies appear profitable. AA''s legal (and generally accepted) retention bonuses have absolutely nothing in common with what happened at these two companies. If you think there is a correlation, you must not be very smart -- at all.

And I saw the Lou Dobbs piece you are talking about; it was nowhere near as dramatic as you are making it out to be.

Carty ought to just declare ch. 11 Sunday night, and let the unions fend for themselves against a bankruptcy judge. The bankruptcy judge wouldn''t be nearly as kind as AA is currently being; the creditors would replace the current contracts with what makes business sense in today''s economy, and you can bet it would be less than the proposed concessions.

You can bet the general public would have no sympathy either since the majority of them work in companies where hard work and the economy, not whining and seniority, dictate how much they are paid.


----------------​

The general public? The people who are to stupid to make a stand for basic health care. Whether it universal or just an on the job program. The same fools who work their lives for a place with No pension of retiree benefits, for a lifetime of service. Forced to live of the government or in certain poverty.

You hate, or are simply jealous of unions because of one really important thing. The collective voice we have. In making the jobs safer, with a strong quality of life. In how unions have raised the bar and the standard of living for so many Americans.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:55:33 PM AAObserver wrote:
You prove my point. AA management''s comp is none of your business, and is irrelavent to employee pay. You work for them, not vice versa. If you don''t think you are paid enough or don''t like your management, you are free to leave the company.
----------------​

There compensation is as much my business as mine is to them. I do not work for SR management, We ALL work for AA. I know you want anyone who wants a fair deal to leave. But just as free as I am to leave. I am free to stay.

 

[Bob Owens]

On 4/18/2003 5:39:42 PM AAObserver wrote:

Why do you all want to quit at the same time? Because you care more about screwing over the company than actually going out on your own and finding a job with pay and conditions you find more suitable?

That, my friend, is a huge part of the problem. When companies are forced to allow employees with lousy attitudes to stick around, you have today''s American Airlines.

----------------

Well obviously the world to you is black and white. The fact is your simplistic views are not real world. Markets are not an unencumbered predicible phenomona. They are subject to tampering. Becoming an aircraft mechanic or pilot requires a substantial investment in time and money. Employers have the advantage in that they are few in number thus they can influence the market. Unions are an attempt to balance the power between employers and employees. To just leave will not help things because one employer will usually follow the other, as you can obviosly see in this industry. SWA being the exception, for now. Bargaining between the two parties has resulted in a pattern that discourages movement from one company to the next. Part of the reason why this has happened is due the extremely intrusive part that the government plays in the bargaining process, almost always to the advantage of the employer. The governments approach to collective bargaining is to make sure that the employer has a contant supply of workers. This goal is in direct conflict to the strategy of the employee, to deny labor if satisfactory terms are not achieved. Its no different than any other employee going for terms except that the group is acting as one. If Carty walked in and Quit, leaving the company without a CEO that would be legal, if the mechanics union turned around and walked off the job however, that would be illegal.
Contrary to your claim that Union workers want to screw the the company the truth is that right now, prior to the cuts, we are not making any more now than we were in 1978 or 1983 in real terms. We are in fact making less when you add in work rules and benifits and the real cost of living. We have only just been restored to this rate after nearly two decades of concessionary bargaining and deep sacrifices. We want the company to survive but we do not want to be the fools sacrificing so the few at the top are the only ones that benifit from our sacrifice. The fact is the company is being too greedy. We offered to break our contract and give the company a flat 25% paycut for one year. The company declined the offer. They wanted six years and vindictive concessions.
While our real pay has declined to the point that in the 1978-1991 period our pay lagged inflation by a margin that left us $150,000 short the executives have seen their wages soar ahead of inflation the whole time. Is there a shortage of executives or people that want to be the boss or have they simply gained uncontested control of "the market" for executives? Executives like to compare themselves to other industries instead of their workers. They justify increasing their wages while their employess wages are cut. This reeks of injustice and immorality.

 

[AAObserver]

----------------

There compensation is as much my business as mine is to them. I do not work for SR management, We ALL work for AA. I know you want anyone who wants a fair deal to leave. But just as free as I am to leave. I am free to stay.

----------------​

No, it isn''t your business. They don''t work for you.

Who decides what a "fair deal" is? You? No, the economy and business markets decide what is "fair market" value.

You are not free, nor do you have a birthright to work for AA. Since they are the ones paying your salary, you should be free to work for them a) if you are doing the job you are paid to do, B) if economic conditions support your position, and c) if your attitude and overall performance enhance AA''s business.

The problem with unions is that they allow the "I''m free to work for AA no matter how lousy I may be at my job or how bad my attitude may be" ideal to sink workforce morale and performance. Without unions, you would probably be making a helluva lot more money if you were good at your job, but you would be out on your rearend if you had a bad attitude.

Either way, without unions AA would be in MUCH better financial shape and would provide MUCH better service to it''s customers.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:03:10 AM AAObserver wrote:

Who decides what a "fair deal" is? You? No, the economy and business markets decide what is "fair market" value.

----------------​

Maybe you would wish to weigh in with your opinion of "shared sacrifice"?