VOTE YES !

[TWU informer]

AA might get their over reaching concessions in the end.

But will never be consensual as far as my vote goes.

consensual [kənˈsɛnsjʊəl]
adj
1. (Law) Law (of a contract, agreement, etc.) existing by consent
2. (Law) Law (of a sexual activity) performed with the consent of all parties involved
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Physiology) (of certain reflex actions of a part of the body) responding to stimulation of another part
consensually adv

I DO NOT MEET THAT DEFINITION AND NEVER WILL WHEN IT COMES TO OVER REACHING CONCESSIONS OF MY WORK GROUP

Voting Yes Equals Consenting to over reaching concessions, after living under concessions and watching management reward themselves with millions in bonus awards.

VOTE NO

 

[Blueweng48]

There still has not been one person answer my origanal question, how is a NO VOTE going to benifit me over a YES VOTE?

 

[Blueweng48]

It would be interesting to know how many years the staunch NO VOTERS (i.e. TWUinformer) has and if a NO VOTE will cost him his job. As i said i have 27 years and am not worried about my job, even if they close the base in three years i'll be retired. My concerns are unselfish, they are for the 1600 UNION BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAT STAND TO LOOSE THIER JOBS.
If they wanrt to vote thier 20 years at American away Im okay with that, but I won't be the one to do it to them.

 

[Plane Sense]

The answer is "It Won't"!

 

[TWU informer]

There still has not been one person answer my origanal question, how is a NO VOTE going to benifit me over a YES VOTE?

Maybe the reason is because a YES vote gives you a known, and given several issues such as the requirement for the Judge to Abbrogate or Not, and if Judge does then negotiations resume, then voting NO leaves the unknown in place.

Every YES voter simple speculates that the Judge will abborgate, that the company will impose 3/22 and that further negotiations would be worthless. But they cannot prove any of that.

I can tell exactly what will happen if this is ratified. Nobody can tell you for sure what will happen if it fails.

All I know is that I refuse to consensually agree to such far reaching concessions.

 

[TWU informer]

The answer is "It Won't"!

CAN you PROVE THAT claim?

 

[Blueweng48]

RIGHT ON! Thanks for your support Plane Sense



VOTE YES!

 

[BigMac]

There still has not been one person answer my origanal question, how is a NO VOTE going to benifit me over a YES VOTE?

1. Read the topics you copied and pasted in for answers.
2. If after reading the topics you copied and pasted in and you are unable to find the posts you are refering too. Please refer back to #1.

 

[TWU informer]

It would be interesting to know how many years the staunch NO VOTERS (i.e. TWUinformer) has and if a NO VOTE will cost him his job. As i said i have 27 years and am not worried about my job, even if they close the base in three years i'll be retired. My concerns are unselfish, they are for the 1600 UNION BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAT STAND TO LOOSE THIER JOBS.
If they wanrt to vote thier 20 years at American away Im okay with that, but I won't be the one to do it to them.

There is a difference between saving an individual a job and watching headcount be decimated over the next 2-6 years.

Bob Owens, Gary Petersen, Larry Pike, J.R. Ruiz, Steve Luis, Gary Yingst, and even Jim Ream of AA have all stated that Tulsa will be unrecognizable in just 2 years. You might save a person a job on the initial RIF, but be assured the Tulsa Base will lose headcount in massive numbers as the Md-80 work load leaves and new aircraft arrive.

Either Attrition or more RIF's will be coming, but headcount will be reduced and "jobs" are not being saved by voting yes.

For the record, I will not be leaving.

 

[Plane Sense]

CAN you PROVE THAT claim?

 

[Blueweng48]

SO again i ask how is a NO VOTE going to chage that? Lets say you are right (which i don't think youm are) you just want to lay these people off two years earlier? What a good UNION BROTHER.
Rheem said in his meeting that the lay offs would be 400 with a YES VOTE and 2000 with a NO VOTE.
Those 1600 people would probably like to have the chance to find out what the next two years will bring, don't you think?

 

[TWU informer]

SO again i ask how is a NO VOTE going to chage that? Lets say you are right (which i don't think youm are) you just want to lay these people off two years earlier? What a good UNION BROTHER.
Rheem said in his meeting that the lay offs would be 400 with a YES VOTE and 2000 with a NO VOTE.
Those 1600 people would probably like to have the chance to find out what the next two years will bring, don't you think?

I dont layoff anybody and it is not my job to determine headcount.

I am only saying that the claim that voting yes will save jobs is a lie!

If you want to try to save your own job by voting yes then do so. But look at the cost and the fact that jobs will be lost anyway. What a good Union Brother.

So you shaft me or I shaft you. But neither is a good union brother choice. Go talk about that to whoever voted to bring this turd back.

You can try to vote your own self a job, that is not my responsibility. My bet is that you will bet dissappointed when the axe really begins to fall later,. You will be gone, and I will be working under 6 years of concessions and no jobs were saved.

 

[Plane Sense]

It's an opinion, like everything else on this board. I've reached that opinion after looking at past bankruptcys, see no reason to believe AA's case is to be treated special...

 

[TWU informer]

It's an opinion, like everything else on this board. I've reached that opinion after looking at past bankruptcys, see no reason to believe AA's case is to be treated special...

That we agree

But voting yes will NOT SAVE jobs

 

[amt66]

That we agree

But voting yes will NOT SAVE jobs

At this point it's NOt about saving jobs but getting something in return than not getting anything and still losing tge jobs.