synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
Fly said:
Noted.
BTW- whassup with the constantly changing avatar?
-synchronicity
Who Will Cave First?
- Thread starter JungleClone
- Start date
Noted.
BTW- whassup with the constantly changing avatar?
-synchronicity
Fly
Veteran
Thanks!
(Avatar's changed per request!)
(Avatar's changed per request!)
synchronicity,May 30 2005, 12:45 AM]
And how many of those do you have? According to the other post it appears to be that as many as 260 of them are from leases that were negotiated betwen 1996 and 1998.
No, Bob, you are misreading the SEC footnote info. When they say that existing leases expire between 2006 and 2024, and have terms of from 10 to 26 years, there may be some leases that expire in 2008 that had 20 year terms (and thus were entered into in 1988). There may be leases (like the one at my old job on a 777) that was entered into in August of 2001 (yup, just before 9-11) that had a term of about 20 years.
Thats why I said "that means the leases were initiated (in the narrowest spectrum) between 1996 and 1998. One thing is clear though, none of those leases noted were initated after 9-11-01
Sorry, I don't recall the specifics on that one, and even if I did there would be limits on what I'd want to post on a public board, even though I don't work there anymore.
Exactly. In other words while you are claiming that the leasing companies are losing their shirts we do not know all the specifics of those agreements. Perhaps there is a short period where the leases are at a lower rate that later ballon up. Its kind of like how I said that perhaps UAL needs SWA pilot pay structure, in other words the max pilot rate at SWA and UAL should be the same to which UALdriver replied that UALs 737 pilots get paid less than SWAs. While its true, its misleading. The APA at AA says the same thing. A top paid 737 Captain there has a base of 124.10/hr compared to a base pay of $162.80/hr for a 777 Captain. These rates do not include International or night override pay. They also get mileage pay (3 cents per mile), Gross weight (3 cents per thousand pounds-this would further the gap between a 737 and 777 Captain), And$5/hr night differential.
So a factual statement, without the whole picture, can be quite misleading. Since we cant see the leasing agreements and you wont reveal what you know, its very possible that UAL managed to reduce the payments due over the next couple of years only to have that amount, plus interest, built back into future rates.
However, on other planes (like the 737's and other such jets sitting in the desrt), UAL could play hardball and act like sassmoles in their negotiations, because the value of the jets to the creditors was minimal, so repossession was a crappy alternative. And FWIW, UAL was acting like arrogant jerks in their negotiations with creditors. So you may be pleased to know that at least they're consistent.
That's the amazing thing about this thing called "the market" that generally sets prices. Now, I'm not one of those U of C free market libertarian types, I know that markets can be messed with to various degrees. But the point is that UAL could only screw over their creditors to the extent that the creditors did not have viable alternatives.
And not all creditors are in the same position either. Not all of them have the same relationship with the company. Some creditors may have more ties than others to the company. So what you witnessed at your former employer, a creditor, could be very different than what took place between UAL and a creditor that had more ties with the company right? Or are you saying that UAL had a "one size fits all" policy with all its creditors?
Kinda like what we keep hearing from the mechanics: "We have other options out there, our skills are portable, if you mess with us than we'll walk and get jobs elsewhere". Which is fine. My suggestion, if you really want to put the screws to the airlines, is to GO AND DO EXACTLY THAT! I know you keep saying that it has "less impact" or whatever, but the honest truth is that it has MORE impact.
Rediculous.In order for our threat of exodus to have any leverage it has to be done all at once through a strike. If we act as one we can command prices, if we trickle out the lowest end of the market sets them.
They will only want to pay what they absolutely have to.
Thats been the case for a long time.
If the market for skilled mechanics is such that they can not attract any at the wages they are willing to pay, they will have to pay more.
Like you admitted before, markets can be tinkered with, especially by very powerful coprorations. We formed unions as a means to couteract their tinkering. I dont know if you realize it but the airlines cooperate when it comes to scheming to reduce wages. In 1970 they formed the Air Conferance, AIRCON.org. On its old page it said flat out they they were formed by the major airlines to control spiraling wages. I have no doubt that the airlines and the government feel that wages are still too high and are working together to "lower our expectations".
If you've got alternatives, then don't keep working at the airline (for sub-par wages in a sub-par work environment), but vote with your feet and take that better job.
Well if I ever have the opportunity to vote for a strike I will.
Seriously, I wish you no ill-will, if someone is willing to pay you more than you're making now, than more power to you.
No its just a smart a$$ reply right out of the Rush Limbaugh reply book. Goes right along with "Love it or leave it" and suggests that we do not have the right to fight for fair treatment. You may have a wife in the IAM but you are not a unionist. Such a reply reveals your core beliefs. I've invested over 25 years into this and to just quit and walk away after investing so much is not the first move I will make. I made the sacrifice of working for B-scale, nights, weekends and holidays because both the company and the union claimed that we would have a future if we made sacrifices then. My story is not unique, its the same as thousands of others in this industry. Over that period that the company needed help they tripled in size. I may leave, but only after I have exhausted any chance of getting what I worked for.
But beating your chest about how "we're earning less than we'd like, it's not fair" is BS. I'd like to make a million bucks a year.
Once again you spin. Sure I'd like to make a million also, but would I strike for it? NO, its not reasonable. What I expect to earn is what I would be earning after twenty-five years as an electrician or other similar tradesman who also works shifts weekends and Holidays. Thats reasonable.
Should I strike my employer and refuse to work until he pays me that. Of course, he couldn't pay me that because he doesn't have a spare million bucks sitting around, but hey, what difference does that make? I'll go on strike, darn it! And when he replaces me with someone else who earns less than what I'm making, then I'd better have another job lined up.
And by going on strike I'm gambling that they wont be able to get enough people in such a short time span. Its something that airline workers must do because if we dont they will just come back for more. There is no real incentive for these airlines to make real changes other than going after the workers. Airlines that claim to be losing money are still building new terminals, replacing terminals that are more than "adequate", aquiring new aircraft, starting new routes and pissing money away like they had before 9-11. Like I said before the goal is not to shut down any airline but to permanently restructure wages.
There's a real world out there. Sorry if it doesn't comport with your conspiracy theories. And saying "I have a 25 year investment in my job..." you've got to be kidding me, right? So if someone comes along offering you double your pay, better hours, better work environment, etc., you wouldn't take it out because of your sense of "duty" to the Working Man In The Airline Industry? Boy, you are such the martyr.
More spin. Sure you're not a fan of Rush and Fox? That one was just plain stupid and suprising since you claim to be a lawyer. Hate to have you representing me in front of a Jury.
And how many of those do you have? According to the other post it appears to be that as many as 260 of them are from leases that were negotiated betwen 1996 and 1998.
No, Bob, you are misreading the SEC footnote info. When they say that existing leases expire between 2006 and 2024, and have terms of from 10 to 26 years, there may be some leases that expire in 2008 that had 20 year terms (and thus were entered into in 1988). There may be leases (like the one at my old job on a 777) that was entered into in August of 2001 (yup, just before 9-11) that had a term of about 20 years.
Thats why I said "that means the leases were initiated (in the narrowest spectrum) between 1996 and 1998. One thing is clear though, none of those leases noted were initated after 9-11-01
Sorry, I don't recall the specifics on that one, and even if I did there would be limits on what I'd want to post on a public board, even though I don't work there anymore.
Exactly. In other words while you are claiming that the leasing companies are losing their shirts we do not know all the specifics of those agreements. Perhaps there is a short period where the leases are at a lower rate that later ballon up. Its kind of like how I said that perhaps UAL needs SWA pilot pay structure, in other words the max pilot rate at SWA and UAL should be the same to which UALdriver replied that UALs 737 pilots get paid less than SWAs. While its true, its misleading. The APA at AA says the same thing. A top paid 737 Captain there has a base of 124.10/hr compared to a base pay of $162.80/hr for a 777 Captain. These rates do not include International or night override pay. They also get mileage pay (3 cents per mile), Gross weight (3 cents per thousand pounds-this would further the gap between a 737 and 777 Captain), And$5/hr night differential.
So a factual statement, without the whole picture, can be quite misleading. Since we cant see the leasing agreements and you wont reveal what you know, its very possible that UAL managed to reduce the payments due over the next couple of years only to have that amount, plus interest, built back into future rates.
However, on other planes (like the 737's and other such jets sitting in the desrt), UAL could play hardball and act like sassmoles in their negotiations, because the value of the jets to the creditors was minimal, so repossession was a crappy alternative. And FWIW, UAL was acting like arrogant jerks in their negotiations with creditors. So you may be pleased to know that at least they're consistent.
That's the amazing thing about this thing called "the market" that generally sets prices. Now, I'm not one of those U of C free market libertarian types, I know that markets can be messed with to various degrees. But the point is that UAL could only screw over their creditors to the extent that the creditors did not have viable alternatives.
And not all creditors are in the same position either. Not all of them have the same relationship with the company. Some creditors may have more ties than others to the company. So what you witnessed at your former employer, a creditor, could be very different than what took place between UAL and a creditor that had more ties with the company right? Or are you saying that UAL had a "one size fits all" policy with all its creditors?
Kinda like what we keep hearing from the mechanics: "We have other options out there, our skills are portable, if you mess with us than we'll walk and get jobs elsewhere". Which is fine. My suggestion, if you really want to put the screws to the airlines, is to GO AND DO EXACTLY THAT! I know you keep saying that it has "less impact" or whatever, but the honest truth is that it has MORE impact.
Rediculous.In order for our threat of exodus to have any leverage it has to be done all at once through a strike. If we act as one we can command prices, if we trickle out the lowest end of the market sets them.
They will only want to pay what they absolutely have to.
Thats been the case for a long time.
If the market for skilled mechanics is such that they can not attract any at the wages they are willing to pay, they will have to pay more.
Like you admitted before, markets can be tinkered with, especially by very powerful coprorations. We formed unions as a means to couteract their tinkering. I dont know if you realize it but the airlines cooperate when it comes to scheming to reduce wages. In 1970 they formed the Air Conferance, AIRCON.org. On its old page it said flat out they they were formed by the major airlines to control spiraling wages. I have no doubt that the airlines and the government feel that wages are still too high and are working together to "lower our expectations".
If you've got alternatives, then don't keep working at the airline (for sub-par wages in a sub-par work environment), but vote with your feet and take that better job.
Well if I ever have the opportunity to vote for a strike I will.
Seriously, I wish you no ill-will, if someone is willing to pay you more than you're making now, than more power to you.
No its just a smart a$$ reply right out of the Rush Limbaugh reply book. Goes right along with "Love it or leave it" and suggests that we do not have the right to fight for fair treatment. You may have a wife in the IAM but you are not a unionist. Such a reply reveals your core beliefs. I've invested over 25 years into this and to just quit and walk away after investing so much is not the first move I will make. I made the sacrifice of working for B-scale, nights, weekends and holidays because both the company and the union claimed that we would have a future if we made sacrifices then. My story is not unique, its the same as thousands of others in this industry. Over that period that the company needed help they tripled in size. I may leave, but only after I have exhausted any chance of getting what I worked for.
But beating your chest about how "we're earning less than we'd like, it's not fair" is BS. I'd like to make a million bucks a year.
Once again you spin. Sure I'd like to make a million also, but would I strike for it? NO, its not reasonable. What I expect to earn is what I would be earning after twenty-five years as an electrician or other similar tradesman who also works shifts weekends and Holidays. Thats reasonable.
Should I strike my employer and refuse to work until he pays me that. Of course, he couldn't pay me that because he doesn't have a spare million bucks sitting around, but hey, what difference does that make? I'll go on strike, darn it! And when he replaces me with someone else who earns less than what I'm making, then I'd better have another job lined up.
And by going on strike I'm gambling that they wont be able to get enough people in such a short time span. Its something that airline workers must do because if we dont they will just come back for more. There is no real incentive for these airlines to make real changes other than going after the workers. Airlines that claim to be losing money are still building new terminals, replacing terminals that are more than "adequate", aquiring new aircraft, starting new routes and pissing money away like they had before 9-11. Like I said before the goal is not to shut down any airline but to permanently restructure wages.
There's a real world out there. Sorry if it doesn't comport with your conspiracy theories. And saying "I have a 25 year investment in my job..." you've got to be kidding me, right? So if someone comes along offering you double your pay, better hours, better work environment, etc., you wouldn't take it out because of your sense of "duty" to the Working Man In The Airline Industry? Boy, you are such the martyr.
More spin. Sure you're not a fan of Rush and Fox? That one was just plain stupid and suprising since you claim to be a lawyer. Hate to have you representing me in front of a Jury.
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
ALPA caved first, AFA caved second, AMFA caved third, and IAM will cave fourth. Funny how people will let corperate America rule their lives and fool them into beliveing that there is STILL LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL LOL 
Wake up people, you took it in the shorts for ESOP! Why would you pledge your loyalty to a company that continually bends you over at the waist and shoves it in a deep as possible????? You guys are pathetic, to let a company like UAL HELL rule your lives. :down: I don't care what the moderators say to this UniTED does, still, and will ALWAYS SUC as an employer. You all know it your just to scared to face the consequences PERIOD!
Wake up people, you took it in the shorts for ESOP! Why would you pledge your loyalty to a company that continually bends you over at the waist and shoves it in a deep as possible????? You guys are pathetic, to let a company like UAL HELL rule your lives. :down: I don't care what the moderators say to this UniTED does, still, and will ALWAYS SUC as an employer. You all know it your just to scared to face the consequences PERIOD!
I agree with Bob. Labor should NEVER have to make concessions to help save a company, especially at AMR. Everyone knows that the appropriate cuts can be made outside of labor, and then that would always be enough to save the company by itself. I think all of UAL's competitors should take this stance. Full pay to the last day, and if you have to burn the company down, just do it, especially if you compete against UAL. I wonder if those RJ gates on AMR's side will work as well with our Bombardier's as they do with AMR's Embraer's?
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
It would be ironic and bitter sweet if the IAM put everyone out of work at UniTED!!!!!
would be ironic and bitter sweet if the IAM put everyone out of work at UniTED!!!!! synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
Well Bob, you're as windy as ever:
Well, Bob, I'm a tax attorney, not a litigator, so I'd never represent you in front of a jury. But heck, what have you repeatedly been saying? "We're underpaid!" By whose measure, other than the "Bob Owens" measure? If the market outside the industry values you guys more, and is willing to pay you more, than why won't you go? By your own words "I've invested 25 years in this industry", you want to "exhaust every chance of getting what [you] worked for". Uh, if someone else is offering that type of benefit to you now, why won't you just take it? Because darnit, you need to teach the airlines a lesson. You need to teach this country a lesson! Labor just won't take it anymore. Go on strike! Take to the streets! They'll be empty along with the skies because no mechanic will settle for less than Full Pay! Vive la revolution!
It's comical, Bob. You refuse to accept points about economics except through your particular "labor" colored glasses. You seem convinced that there's a grand conspiracy to keep Labor down (I still recall your comments about the Fed from ages ago). Heck, I'm guessing that now you probably think I'm not an attorney, but rather a tool of the capitalists or somesuch. It's like "holders of capital" are from another planet or something.
Well, I do have a few thou saved up in Vanguard's Money Market Fund, and a bunch of my retirement savings in Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, so I guess I'm of the "wrong" class. Geez, someone tell my wife. It's labor and capital, a mixed marriage, oh my word!
Get out of the 1800's, Bob. And realize that striking a company that is losing money hand over fist is a Bad Idea. Unless you want to have a bunch more free time to write diatribes on message boards.
I think I'll join ualdriver and quit going in circles with you. It's a waste of my time and of bandwidth. But do try and learn some basic econ sometime, OK?
-synchronicity
======================================================
Well, Bob, I'm a tax attorney, not a litigator, so I'd never represent you in front of a jury. But heck, what have you repeatedly been saying? "We're underpaid!" By whose measure, other than the "Bob Owens" measure? If the market outside the industry values you guys more, and is willing to pay you more, than why won't you go? By your own words "I've invested 25 years in this industry", you want to "exhaust every chance of getting what [you] worked for". Uh, if someone else is offering that type of benefit to you now, why won't you just take it? Because darnit, you need to teach the airlines a lesson. You need to teach this country a lesson! Labor just won't take it anymore. Go on strike! Take to the streets! They'll be empty along with the skies because no mechanic will settle for less than Full Pay! Vive la revolution!
It's comical, Bob. You refuse to accept points about economics except through your particular "labor" colored glasses. You seem convinced that there's a grand conspiracy to keep Labor down (I still recall your comments about the Fed from ages ago). Heck, I'm guessing that now you probably think I'm not an attorney, but rather a tool of the capitalists or somesuch. It's like "holders of capital" are from another planet or something.
Well, I do have a few thou saved up in Vanguard's Money Market Fund, and a bunch of my retirement savings in Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, so I guess I'm of the "wrong" class. Geez, someone tell my wife. It's labor and capital, a mixed marriage, oh my word!
Get out of the 1800's, Bob. And realize that striking a company that is losing money hand over fist is a Bad Idea. Unless you want to have a bunch more free time to write diatribes on message boards.
I think I'll join ualdriver and quit going in circles with you. It's a waste of my time and of bandwidth. But do try and learn some basic econ sometime, OK?
-synchronicity
Synchronicity,Jun 1 2005, 03:29 AM]
Well Bob, you're as windy as ever:
========================================================
Huh? You initially said, as quoted above: "as many as 260 of them are from leases that were negotiated between 1996 and 1998".
Nice try. Should I cut and paste the whole post?
Yes, "perhaps" anything. All I can say is that I have more contacts with creditors or their representatives than the average person (from at least two if not three separate creditors, one creditor being my former employer, and my relationship to a BK attorney directly involved in this stuff covering another one or two directly). None of them have made any indication of their being a "balloon" structure that you keep fantasizing about because it would be more evidence that creditors get what they want and workers get screwed.
And would it be common for a lawyer to discuss specific details about contracts that they are involved in with people not directly involved with the case?
IOW, there may be a lease or two out there structured that way, but from everyone I've talked to, it would be few and far between.
And you admit that everyone that you talked to is not everyone. Nor would those that you did talk to neccisarily reveal such information to you. Lets face it, if they know you so well, and that your wife is an IAM worker at UAL accepting massive concessions, if they were making sweetheart deals, why would they tell you?
For a whole bunch of reasons, one being that "the creditors" are NOT a monolithic group set on world domination,
Exactly, so that validates what I said before, that what you witnessed at your former employer might not be the same experience that other creditors had.
but rather have competing claims AMONG THEMSELVES, being in competition for UAL's limited resources.
And the employees are competitors also. In the business world its not uncommon for competing business intrests to for temporary alliances either. Business interests do work together to screw labor.
For all your far left socialist bluster, you remind me a lot of the hard core conservatives who used to decry "monolithic communism" trying to take over the world.
I dont know about the monolithic part, but they were. They simply lacked the resources.
Any mindset where you label a huge block of somewhat disparate interests one solid "enemy" inevitably leads to poor decisions.
Well I never said that they were "one solid'enemy'". But sometimes for simplicity sake it may come out that way. Sorry I made the mistake of thinking that you were intelligent enough to realize that. Do you want longer posts?
Yes, I could just be lying to you to pull a fast one over on you. Whatever, Bob. I'm trying to point out what is blatantly obvious to anyone without blinders on, namely that creditors of UAL (be they holders of publicly traded UAL debt or holders of security interests in property used by UAL) are getting screwed as viciously as everyone else.
Well;"Any mindset where you label a huge block of somewhat disparate interests one solid "enemy" inevitably leads to poor decisions."
Some credotors may be getting screwed, others may not be.
Bob:
And not all creditors are in the same position either. Not all of them have the same relationship with the company. Some creditors may have more ties than others to the company. So what you witnessed at your former employer, a creditor, could be very different than what took place between UAL and a creditor that had more ties with the company right? Or are you saying that UAL had a "one size fits all" policy with all its creditors?
======================================================
Beg pardon what? Your conspiracy issues are showing again.
Any mindset where you label a huge block of somewhat disparate interests one solid "enemy" inevitably leads to poor decisions."
The "position" of creditors has nothing to do with "ties to the company". You keep acting like there's this good ol' boys club where they make wink and handshake deals to keep the Working Man at bay.
Are you saying that there is no good ole boys club?
Its common for the heads of competing major industries to get together at "Roundtable meetings" to discuss certain common objectives. This I know for a fact. Are you really trying to tell us that business' do not conspire to work together on things that are against workers interests? You are making a pathetic attempt to make it sound like I'm claiming that there is a "class" motive, "working class against the bourgois", but I say that they do do it as a means to an end-more money for them. Their objective is simple, give us less so they can have more. Nothing personal.
Look, my former employer (the one that leased two planes to UAL) had a CEO who was and is on UAL's Board of Directors! In your world, I'd think this would guarantee some "nod and wink" agreement, right? Well, guess what, UAL acted like jerks towards us (OK, not "me", I was in a different department, but anyway...) and played hardball in renegotiating the leases. There was no "balloon" payment structure.
Two whole planes? Out of what 600?
Maybe they re-re-negotiated it after I left with the note "we need to do this to destroy the wages of machinists". I don't know, I didn't get that memo.
There you go again, spin away. If you were in a different dept how would you know the details of the agreement?
I mean if you are the type to be spending hours on the internet blabbing why would theytell you anything at your "former" employer?
Bob, the industry is hemorrhaging cash like crazy now.
You can't "command prices" except in your dreams. I realize that you can't and won't accept this fact.
I admit that our leverage would be compromised under current conditions, but what we are seeing is not compromised leverage but what appears to be the complete dissapearance of it.
Our leverage is not solely tied to the companies treasury, especially with a large carrier like UAL. The same reason why Bush would not let them strike is the same reason why they still have some leverage.
Now spin away about how the executives manage to command bonuses from broke companies. Arent they employees too?
That why you're not a "labor activist", you're an outright loon.
Then what does that make you if you spend all this time debating me?
The only way you can "command prices" is by going to industries that support those higher wages.
This industry can support the wages we expect. In fact over at SWA, the airline that now carries the most passengers, they pay such wages. So does NWA, UPS and Fed Ex.
But Bob, the airlines aren't a world all to themselves. That's the point YOU guys keep making. You have alternatives outside the airline industry, you can get better pay elsewhere, blahblahblah. Your skills are portable.
While our skills are portable seniority and all that goes with it are not. The RLA and the NMB have erected barriers to forming a union that would allow us to construct unions where we could make seniority portable. Unless you have worked a job that invloves working shifts, weekends and holidays as a normal practice you have no idea of what seniority means.
If that's the case, then the airlines can't do much to "keep your wages down", because if they suddenly decide to pay only $10/hr, say, every last one of you (save for maybe the very least qualified) can quit and go elsewhere. It a fairly open, competitive market.
I'll note that the PILOTS are the ones with perhaps the least portability of skills. They take larger cuts in these times because their alternatives are more limited. They also tend to pay more attention to maintaining skills that will be of value outside the industry (at least the ones who post here tend to reflect that outlook). Yet somehow you always find reasons to rag on the pilots. Maybe because they make more than you and therefore don't reflect the Common Working Man. Maybe because they don't agree with your unique world view. Who knows? Only you do.
No, I only rag on those like UALdriver. I actually have a lot of respect for most pilots and feel they are worth every penny they make. One of the things you left out is the fact that the pilots have unions that are specifically for pilots. You never see pilots lumped together with other workers at the bargaining table. If you look at a pilots contract you will find that it covers Captains and first officers, thats it. Mechanics do not have that ability because the NMB decides craft and class, and while they declared pilots to be of a craft and class to themselves they ruled that mechanics were not.
Still missing the difference between "quitting" and "striking", I see.
Not at all. I dont believe in quitting until all other means towards positive change are exhausted.
Well Bob, you're as windy as ever:
========================================================
Huh? You initially said, as quoted above: "as many as 260 of them are from leases that were negotiated between 1996 and 1998".
Nice try. Should I cut and paste the whole post?
Yes, "perhaps" anything. All I can say is that I have more contacts with creditors or their representatives than the average person (from at least two if not three separate creditors, one creditor being my former employer, and my relationship to a BK attorney directly involved in this stuff covering another one or two directly). None of them have made any indication of their being a "balloon" structure that you keep fantasizing about because it would be more evidence that creditors get what they want and workers get screwed.
And would it be common for a lawyer to discuss specific details about contracts that they are involved in with people not directly involved with the case?
IOW, there may be a lease or two out there structured that way, but from everyone I've talked to, it would be few and far between.
And you admit that everyone that you talked to is not everyone. Nor would those that you did talk to neccisarily reveal such information to you. Lets face it, if they know you so well, and that your wife is an IAM worker at UAL accepting massive concessions, if they were making sweetheart deals, why would they tell you?
For a whole bunch of reasons, one being that "the creditors" are NOT a monolithic group set on world domination,
Exactly, so that validates what I said before, that what you witnessed at your former employer might not be the same experience that other creditors had.
but rather have competing claims AMONG THEMSELVES, being in competition for UAL's limited resources.
And the employees are competitors also. In the business world its not uncommon for competing business intrests to for temporary alliances either. Business interests do work together to screw labor.
For all your far left socialist bluster, you remind me a lot of the hard core conservatives who used to decry "monolithic communism" trying to take over the world.
I dont know about the monolithic part, but they were. They simply lacked the resources.
Any mindset where you label a huge block of somewhat disparate interests one solid "enemy" inevitably leads to poor decisions.
Well I never said that they were "one solid'enemy'". But sometimes for simplicity sake it may come out that way. Sorry I made the mistake of thinking that you were intelligent enough to realize that. Do you want longer posts?
Yes, I could just be lying to you to pull a fast one over on you. Whatever, Bob. I'm trying to point out what is blatantly obvious to anyone without blinders on, namely that creditors of UAL (be they holders of publicly traded UAL debt or holders of security interests in property used by UAL) are getting screwed as viciously as everyone else.
Well;"Any mindset where you label a huge block of somewhat disparate interests one solid "enemy" inevitably leads to poor decisions."
Some credotors may be getting screwed, others may not be.
Bob:
And not all creditors are in the same position either. Not all of them have the same relationship with the company. Some creditors may have more ties than others to the company. So what you witnessed at your former employer, a creditor, could be very different than what took place between UAL and a creditor that had more ties with the company right? Or are you saying that UAL had a "one size fits all" policy with all its creditors?
======================================================
Beg pardon what? Your conspiracy issues are showing again.
Any mindset where you label a huge block of somewhat disparate interests one solid "enemy" inevitably leads to poor decisions."
The "position" of creditors has nothing to do with "ties to the company". You keep acting like there's this good ol' boys club where they make wink and handshake deals to keep the Working Man at bay.
Are you saying that there is no good ole boys club?
Its common for the heads of competing major industries to get together at "Roundtable meetings" to discuss certain common objectives. This I know for a fact. Are you really trying to tell us that business' do not conspire to work together on things that are against workers interests? You are making a pathetic attempt to make it sound like I'm claiming that there is a "class" motive, "working class against the bourgois", but I say that they do do it as a means to an end-more money for them. Their objective is simple, give us less so they can have more. Nothing personal.
Look, my former employer (the one that leased two planes to UAL) had a CEO who was and is on UAL's Board of Directors! In your world, I'd think this would guarantee some "nod and wink" agreement, right? Well, guess what, UAL acted like jerks towards us (OK, not "me", I was in a different department, but anyway...) and played hardball in renegotiating the leases. There was no "balloon" payment structure.
Two whole planes? Out of what 600?
Maybe they re-re-negotiated it after I left with the note "we need to do this to destroy the wages of machinists". I don't know, I didn't get that memo.
There you go again, spin away. If you were in a different dept how would you know the details of the agreement?
I mean if you are the type to be spending hours on the internet blabbing why would theytell you anything at your "former" employer?
Bob, the industry is hemorrhaging cash like crazy now.
You can't "command prices" except in your dreams. I realize that you can't and won't accept this fact.
I admit that our leverage would be compromised under current conditions, but what we are seeing is not compromised leverage but what appears to be the complete dissapearance of it.
Our leverage is not solely tied to the companies treasury, especially with a large carrier like UAL. The same reason why Bush would not let them strike is the same reason why they still have some leverage.
Now spin away about how the executives manage to command bonuses from broke companies. Arent they employees too?
That why you're not a "labor activist", you're an outright loon.
Then what does that make you if you spend all this time debating me?
The only way you can "command prices" is by going to industries that support those higher wages.
This industry can support the wages we expect. In fact over at SWA, the airline that now carries the most passengers, they pay such wages. So does NWA, UPS and Fed Ex.
But Bob, the airlines aren't a world all to themselves. That's the point YOU guys keep making. You have alternatives outside the airline industry, you can get better pay elsewhere, blahblahblah. Your skills are portable.
While our skills are portable seniority and all that goes with it are not. The RLA and the NMB have erected barriers to forming a union that would allow us to construct unions where we could make seniority portable. Unless you have worked a job that invloves working shifts, weekends and holidays as a normal practice you have no idea of what seniority means.
If that's the case, then the airlines can't do much to "keep your wages down", because if they suddenly decide to pay only $10/hr, say, every last one of you (save for maybe the very least qualified) can quit and go elsewhere. It a fairly open, competitive market.
I'll note that the PILOTS are the ones with perhaps the least portability of skills. They take larger cuts in these times because their alternatives are more limited. They also tend to pay more attention to maintaining skills that will be of value outside the industry (at least the ones who post here tend to reflect that outlook). Yet somehow you always find reasons to rag on the pilots. Maybe because they make more than you and therefore don't reflect the Common Working Man. Maybe because they don't agree with your unique world view. Who knows? Only you do.
No, I only rag on those like UALdriver. I actually have a lot of respect for most pilots and feel they are worth every penny they make. One of the things you left out is the fact that the pilots have unions that are specifically for pilots. You never see pilots lumped together with other workers at the bargaining table. If you look at a pilots contract you will find that it covers Captains and first officers, thats it. Mechanics do not have that ability because the NMB decides craft and class, and while they declared pilots to be of a craft and class to themselves they ruled that mechanics were not.
Still missing the difference between "quitting" and "striking", I see.
Not at all. I dont believe in quitting until all other means towards positive change are exhausted.
synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
Bob Owens said:
An idiot who's wasting time.
-synchronicity
Similar threads
- UAL_TECH
- United Airlines
