no such thing of 14 hour day with a minimum overnight. A 14 hour day requires at least 12 hours behind the door. And when someone staes his/her opinion why do some people attack them personally and call them such nasty names.
You Want to save your professions?
- Thread starter AirwAr
- Start date
KCFlyer
Veteran
----------------
On 4/17/2003 7:55:18 AM Bob Owens wrote:
The reason why we have Unions is so that we can try to balance the power that the companies have to set prices for labor. Without this balance the industry can set prices at the bare minimum. If we came to work and did the bare minimum you would claim that we have a poor work attitude and were being unfair to the company and its passengers. Why is it OK for a company to tell its workers that they are going to pay them the bare minimum that they can get away with but wrong for workers to have the same attitude towards the company? We chose this profession and there is nothing wrong morally or ethically with our attempt to get a fair value for what our labor is worth. In this profession mobility is limited by the effects of the loss of seniority because this is a 24 X 7 X 365 operation. If we are to stay, we must fight for what we deserve and not run away from or back down to every challenge the company presents.
----------------
Bob, just curious, but would you and others be applauding the company if they announced today "Effective immediately we are parking half our aircraft and laying off 50% of our staffing at all levels."? What about the dues paying members who thought that their union representation offered to fight for some sort of job security? I fully understand the seniority concept, but wouldn't many union members be howling if an announcement of that sort would have been made? Forget about the name of the union representing the people...it would appear that any union that trys to minimize the loss of jobs is only concerned with the number of remaining members to pay union dues. It would also appear to all but he most senior employees that any union that would allow massive downsizing is allowing the company to walk all over them. Watch any Michael Moore documentary to see what I mean.On 4/17/2003 7:55:18 AM Bob Owens wrote:
The reason why we have Unions is so that we can try to balance the power that the companies have to set prices for labor. Without this balance the industry can set prices at the bare minimum. If we came to work and did the bare minimum you would claim that we have a poor work attitude and were being unfair to the company and its passengers. Why is it OK for a company to tell its workers that they are going to pay them the bare minimum that they can get away with but wrong for workers to have the same attitude towards the company? We chose this profession and there is nothing wrong morally or ethically with our attempt to get a fair value for what our labor is worth. In this profession mobility is limited by the effects of the loss of seniority because this is a 24 X 7 X 365 operation. If we are to stay, we must fight for what we deserve and not run away from or back down to every challenge the company presents.
----------------
Nobody is working for free. And your 40% number is Enron math. Just like your "driving for gas" example is.
You think that your salary and benefits would have stayed the same if the company had gone into BK this time around? Wrong. There would have been both job losses and pay cuts, even worse than what will happen now. For everyone. And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed.
Is it possible the company still goes into BK? Sure it is...but at least this way employees have some potential protection in the form of 1113 letters. Thin though that protection may be, it is still protection and could be upheld. Better than walking into the line of fire naked as a jaybird....
TANSTAAFL
You think that your salary and benefits would have stayed the same if the company had gone into BK this time around? Wrong. There would have been both job losses and pay cuts, even worse than what will happen now. For everyone. And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed.
Is it possible the company still goes into BK? Sure it is...but at least this way employees have some potential protection in the form of 1113 letters. Thin though that protection may be, it is still protection and could be upheld. Better than walking into the line of fire naked as a jaybird....
TANSTAAFL
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
The unhappy AA unionized workforce should be blaming the internet for their downfall. Not management (admit it, you folks know you have the most aggressive leadership amongst the network carriers) and at least your management is LEADING you away from the edge of the abyss. Your only choice is to follow --- or not.
The internet has made price/value shopping easy. To all those who voted "no" I ask -- when was the last time you paid thousands over the sticker price for a new car?
Or maybe you can''t afford a new car. So you buy the discounted version (i.e. used car).
You can argue all day about what you think you deserve to earn. The market is telling you what you can earn.
The internet has made price/value shopping easy. To all those who voted "no" I ask -- when was the last time you paid thousands over the sticker price for a new car?
Or maybe you can''t afford a new car. So you buy the discounted version (i.e. used car).
You can argue all day about what you think you deserve to earn. The market is telling you what you can earn.
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:52:53 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Well its the equivelent of working for free. Suppositions are used all the time by the company so why shouldnt we use them? A more accurate statement would be our reasonably expected lifetime earnings are going to be reduced the equivelent of two years of working for nothing over the term of this contract. Better? As for the Enron math, the only numbers that were not actual, were the numbers for inflation and health benifits, in that case I used the 30 year average for the CPI. The CPI generally under-reports the true rate of inflation that working people feel because it does not include taxes or real estate. Inflation could admittedly be lower, but not likely, or much higher which is more likely. Once again the CPI does not take into account taxes which are likely to go up as we use our military to enforce our will across the globe and fight terrorism.
How do you know what would have happened? What are you basing it on? What the company said?"
"And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed."
Oh really, who told you that? Didnt UAL negotiate in BK? Read the law. And then look at the entire picture.The Law has very few absolutes, it all depends upon the arguements that are put forth. If the Lawyer sucks your chances are less, despite the balance of facts. Look at OJ! We have lots of good reasons why we could have rejected the company''s demands such as the fact that the company already enjoyed Concessions that UAL and USAIR still dont have. The demands of the company were excessive. Their major competitor or so they say, SWA pays more than us.
Those 1113 letters are worthless because the DIP is not bound to them, only the current management team. So they get rid of Carty and freinds, they took care of themselves already, and throw out those 1113 letters. So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions? Not a damn thing STUPID! You are even more naked than you were before.
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:52:53 AM Bob Owens wrote:
Well its the equivelent of working for free. Suppositions are used all the time by the company so why shouldnt we use them? A more accurate statement would be our reasonably expected lifetime earnings are going to be reduced the equivelent of two years of working for nothing over the term of this contract. Better? As for the Enron math, the only numbers that were not actual, were the numbers for inflation and health benifits, in that case I used the 30 year average for the CPI. The CPI generally under-reports the true rate of inflation that working people feel because it does not include taxes or real estate. Inflation could admittedly be lower, but not likely, or much higher which is more likely. Once again the CPI does not take into account taxes which are likely to go up as we use our military to enforce our will across the globe and fight terrorism.
How do you know what would have happened? What are you basing it on? What the company said?"
"And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed."
Oh really, who told you that? Didnt UAL negotiate in BK? Read the law. And then look at the entire picture.The Law has very few absolutes, it all depends upon the arguements that are put forth. If the Lawyer sucks your chances are less, despite the balance of facts. Look at OJ! We have lots of good reasons why we could have rejected the company''s demands such as the fact that the company already enjoyed Concessions that UAL and USAIR still dont have. The demands of the company were excessive. Their major competitor or so they say, SWA pays more than us.
Those 1113 letters are worthless because the DIP is not bound to them, only the current management team. So they get rid of Carty and freinds, they took care of themselves already, and throw out those 1113 letters. So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions? Not a damn thing STUPID! You are even more naked than you were before.
----------------
"Reasonably expected lifetime earnings"... Reasonable to whom?
Now if you were to state "our earnings under the previous contract would have been 40% greater" then I might be able to agree with you. But then I would point out that that contract was contributing to unsustainable losses by your employer, and if those losses had continued, your employer would have had no money left in 6 months-1 year, how would that FACT have altered your expected lifetime earnings? With no job or starting over at the bottom somewhere else? Would those life time earnings have been less? Or more?
Since your numbers are entirely theoretical and are based on false assumptions, they have no basis in fact and are therefore irrelevant.
How do I know? Simple.
1) AA needs DIP financing if they file Ch. 11.
2) To get DIP financing, the lenders say "We need $2.3B in concessions."
3) No DIP financing = Chapter 7 = No jobs for any of us.
AA would rather not file Ch. 11 if it doesn''t have to. If I believe nothing else they say, I believe that the management wants the airline to survive. If that were not the case, they simply would have filed. So therefore, they tried to analyze the situation and say "What do we need to get our costs back to a reasonable, manageable level in this revenue environment." So that''s what they go ask for instead.
In bankruptcy, you would have been dealing not with the company but with those DIP financiers, secured creditors. They don''t care about what cost advantages you have over anybody else, or about your seniority or station protection or anything else. They are concerned only with the bottom line that they will not lose their money they are putting up as DIP financing. And anything that stands in the way of that will be removed (like your contract). The judge is not your friend; he is there to guarantee the secured creditors get their money. So you are screwed...
The 1113 letters are not tied to the current management team; they are tied to the Company itself. Re-read the language. Granted it is thin protection, but in the process above, the company does have a voice, albeat a small one. Employees and unions are unsecured creditors. We have no voice.
And don''t call me stupid...
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:52:53 AM Bob Owens wrote:
So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions?
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:52:53 AM Bob Owens wrote:
So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions?
----------------
An opportunity to keep your job, your seniority, you health benefits, and your retirement benefits.
Sorry if that''s not good enough, but it seems to be good enough for everyone else in America...
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:18:55 AM WXGuesser wrote:
Nobody is working for free. And your 40% number is Enron math. Just like your "driving for gas" example is.
You think that your salary and benefits would have stayed the same if the company had gone into BK this time around? Wrong. There would have been both job losses and pay cuts, even worse than what will happen now. For everyone. And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed.
Is it possible the company still goes into BK? Sure it is...but at least this way employees have some potential protection in the form of 1113 letters. Thin though that protection may be, it is still protection and could be upheld. Better than walking into the line of fire naked as a jaybird....
TANSTAAFL
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:18:55 AM WXGuesser wrote:
Nobody is working for free. And your 40% number is Enron math. Just like your "driving for gas" example is.
You think that your salary and benefits would have stayed the same if the company had gone into BK this time around? Wrong. There would have been both job losses and pay cuts, even worse than what will happen now. For everyone. And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed.
Is it possible the company still goes into BK? Sure it is...but at least this way employees have some potential protection in the form of 1113 letters. Thin though that protection may be, it is still protection and could be upheld. Better than walking into the line of fire naked as a jaybird....
TANSTAAFL
----------------
Well its the equivelent of working for free. Suppositions are used all the time by the company so why shouldnt we use them? A more accurate statement would be our reasonably expected lifetime earnings are going to be reduced the equivelent of two years of working for nothing over the term of this contract. Better? As for the Enron math, the only numbers that were not actual, were the numbers for inflation and health benifits, in that case I used the 30 year average for the CPI. The CPI generally under-reports the true rate of inflation that working people feel because it does not include taxes or real estate. Inflation could admittedly be lower, but not likely, or much higher which is more likely. Once again the CPI does not take into account taxes which are likely to go up as we use our military to enforce our will across the globe and fight terrorism.
How do you know what would have happened? What are you basing it on? What the company said?"
"And there would have been no negotiation process; you would just have been screwed."
Oh really, who told you that? Didnt UAL negotiate in BK? Read the law. And then look at the entire picture.The Law has very few absolutes, it all depends upon the arguements that are put forth. If the Lawyer sucks your chances are less, despite the balance of facts. Look at OJ! We have lots of good reasons why we could have rejected the company''s demands such as the fact that the company already enjoyed Concessions that UAL and USAIR still dont have. The demands of the company were excessive. Their major competitor or so they say, SWA pays more than us.
Those 1113 letters are worthless because the DIP is not bound to them, only the current management team. So they get rid of Carty and freinds, they took care of themselves already, and throw out those 1113 letters. So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions? Not a damn thing STUPID! You are even more naked than you were before.
----------------
On 4/16/2003 4:46:36 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
NONE of the alternatives are pleasant,
BUT,
Even the SMARTEST and most HATED, (by the unions), CEO in the history of the industry,(BOB CRANDALL) knew ONLY to well that to fix a problem like this, you did''nt start threatining BK-11, you SHRUNK the airline, rebuilt it back up, and then went from there.
Ultimately ALL the names of the people, who you choose to bad mouth, are advocation what Crandall advocated, when he was faced with a similiar situation.
----------------
On 4/16/2003 4:46:36 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
NONE of the alternatives are pleasant,
BUT,
Even the SMARTEST and most HATED, (by the unions), CEO in the history of the industry,(BOB CRANDALL) knew ONLY to well that to fix a problem like this, you did''nt start threatining BK-11, you SHRUNK the airline, rebuilt it back up, and then went from there.
Ultimately ALL the names of the people, who you choose to bad mouth, are advocation what Crandall advocated, when he was faced with a similiar situation.
----------------
Crandall was just on CNBC. Some of the points he made were:
Network carriers work rules were inefficient and uncompetitive and must be changed.
Liquidation of a single carrier is not necessary to restore the airlines to health.
Hub and spoke model is still valid but might require some tweaking as far as schedules and aircraft are concerned.
Nobody knows if AMR is gauranteed to stay out of bankruptcy, but it must reduce labor and lessor costs.
When asked about present management, he said they were doing a pretty good job, but if they want him to come back he would.
----------------
On 4/16/2003 5
19 PM FA Mikey wrote:
Translation-Dont fight to make things better. Bend always to the will of management so that they may keep theirs. Let those of us to weak or feeble to change, wallow in self pity as we support on our backs a broken company.
----------------
Amen...these guys love it up the asse, even though they aren''t willing!!On 4/16/2003 5
19 PM FA Mikey wrote: Translation-Dont fight to make things better. Bend always to the will of management so that they may keep theirs. Let those of us to weak or feeble to change, wallow in self pity as we support on our backs a broken company.
----------------
Disgraceful!
(Oh, and please don''t write saying how offended you are people...the truth in this case is offensive)
Gee Bob awfull touchy are you not? The government let Pan Am and Eastern go out, don''t bet on them helping keep unhealthy business around. My point is if someone is unhappy with there profession they are the ones that need to change it, leave, or be involved to make things better. Your anger seems to color your posts lately.
Bob Owens, there are more than one definition for drones, this is an aviation post use the aviation definition, "pilotless aircraft" as in the airlines seem to be without good guidance, sometimes it looks as if no one is driving at the top.
----------------
On 4/17/2003 11:25:27 AM eolesen wrote:
An opportunity to keep your job, your seniority, you health benefits, and your retirement benefits.
Sorry if that''s not good enough, but it seems to be good enough for everyone else in America...
----------------
On 4/17/2003 11:25:27 AM eolesen wrote:
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:52:53 AM Bob Owens wrote:
So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions?
----------------
On 4/17/2003 10:52:53 AM Bob Owens wrote:
So what exactly did you get for $20,000/year in concessions?
----------------
An opportunity to keep your job, your seniority, you health benefits, and your retirement benefits.
Sorry if that''s not good enough, but it seems to be good enough for everyone else in America...
----------------
I was unaware that everyone else in America was taking a pay cut and giving massive concessions.
KCFlyer
Veteran
----------------
On 4/18/2003 5:41:42 PM Bob Owens wrote:
----------------
Check out the telecom industry. A lot of folks gave up 100% of their pay and were given little more than a cardboard box to put their personal items in. It''s a tougher world than you might believe outside the airline industry.On 4/18/2003 5:41:42 PM Bob Owens wrote:
I was unaware that everyone else in America was taking a pay cut and giving massive concessions.
----------------
Similar threads
