Aircraft maint issues

[swamt]

Hey AA mechanics, we are hearing of an AIP here at SWA between the company and the union. More details will be released in the next couple of days and I will update as I get them. Don't know what it means or what the details are until we get all the details. NOT a T/A but an AIP (agreement in principle) and I am hearing AMFA NC is not endorsing, but we will see soon.

 

[conehead777]

Amfa swa aip

http://www.amfanational.org/index.c...le.cfm&HomeID=694012&page=Southwest20Airlines

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Hey AA mechanics, we are hearing of an AIP here at SWA between the company and the union. More details will be released in the next couple of days and I will update as I get them. Don't know what it means or what the details are until we get all the details. NOT a T/A but an AIP (agreement in principle) and I am hearing AMFA NC is not endorsing, but we will see soon.

Good luck. Keep us in the loop.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

I agree. Got assigned to help with a drop in engine change. The mech that took charge was assigning guys to get this and that. We needed a overhead crane controller to remove the fan cowls. Toolroom said it was checked out so instead of waiting this guy proceeded to get it done manually. Most wanted to wait for the controller but gave in and helped him remove the fan cowls. If anyone had gotten hurt the we wouldn't have anyone to blame but ourselves. Someone asked me if I was going to vote for the contract the company is trying to push on us. I said we don't even have a TA. He said "don't you want to make $55 an hour"? (not sure where he got that from) I told him to read the rest of what they are offering. He just gave me a blank look. I'm afraid if the union decides to let this go to a vote, between those that want the early out and those that are looking at a raise that might put us at the top for a short time it could possibly pass. Hope I'm wrong.

Greed and fear have always worked in the company's favor. We are in the situation we are in right now because there were enough people willing to sell us out for a mere $40K. They took the money then left us with a horrible deal. AA would like that to happen again and Peterson is not open to including a buy out as part of the TA. I pray he holds firm on that. It would actually benefit the company if they would pay those that want to leave and get them off the payroll. They could use the reduced numbers to their advantage. We paid for the last greedy individuals buy out and then they came back and tried to steal our equity. I'm not willing to pay another group of greedy "Me" people and hope Peterson isn't either. Peterson also said he wouldn't bring back a deal like that. It's disgusting listening to 70 year old men talk about wanting their "Early out". I pointed out to a 69 year old guy recently that by no means is this an early out for him. It's an incentive for him to screw the rest of us.

 

[WeAAsles]

AA would like that to happen again and Peterson is not open to including a buy out as part of the TA.

That’s not what he said OldGuy. What he said was he was not interested in having a buyout in any agreement if he wasn’t positive that agreement was a good one and could stand on its own feet without it. (Basically)

 

[767 mechanic]

An agreement cannot stand on its own if the early out is attached to a contract because there is no way to tell how many will take it.

 

[BeechDriver]

That’s not what he said OldGuy. What he said was he was not interested in having a buyout in any agreement if he wasn’t positive that agreement was a good one and could stand on its own feet without it. (Basically)

Peterson did say that and I am disappointed that he did. An early out package must have NO part of ANY contract vote. Dale Danker is right. If the company wants to offer early out they should do it before and separate from a contract vote. As close as the last several of our contract passages have been we cannot afford to allow any back stabbing IGMs to sell us out.

 

[WeAAsles]

Peterson did say that and I am disappointed that he did. An early out package must have NO part of ANY contract vote. Dale danker is right. If the company wants to offer early out they should do it before and separate from a contract vote. As close as the last several of our contract passages have been we cannot afford to allow any back stabbing IGMs to sell us out.

Rewatch that video.

 

[WeAAsles]

An agreement cannot stand on its own if the early out is attached to a contract because there is no way to tell how many will take it.

I agree both Buyouts and bonuses too BTW skew the vote.

The buyout can be offered now outside of any agreement.

 

[BeechDriver]

Rewatch that video.

I did watch the video and I agree with 767. Peterson hinted that it might be okay to include a retirement package if the contract is good enough. I say never again. I am sorry so many of us have been screwed over by the company making it more difficult for all of us to save for retirement, but this endless cycle of shity contacts bought and paid for with pockets full of silver must end. The next contact must be for all of us with enough compensation that retirement packages are unwarranted. Early outs are nothing more than wholesale yes vote buyouts and we as a union cannot allow even one yes vote to be sold to the company PERIOD.

 

[WeAAsles]

I did watch the video and I agree with 767. Peterson hinted that it might be okay to include a retirement package if the contract is good enough. I say never again. I am sorry so many of us have been screwed over by the company making it more difficult for all of us to save for retirement, but this endless cycle of shity contacts bought and paid for with pockets full of silver must end. The next contact must be for all of us with enough compensation that retirement packages are unwarranted. Early outs are nothing more than wholesale yes vote buyouts and we as a union cannot allow even one yes vote to be sold to the company PERIOD.

So that goes for any Bonus offers too then right?

 

[BeechDriver]

So that goes for any Bonus offers too then right?

Interestingly worded point. I can only assume what type of bonus you are thinking of. Do you think a signing bonus is appropriate? Would it be equally divided to all? Or would it be better to have a great agreement for all that could stand on its own with enough compensation to negate any need for a signing bonus?

 

[WeAAsles]

Interestingly worded point. I can only assume what type of bonus you are thinking of. Do you think a signing bonus is appropriate? Would it be equally divided to all? Or would it be better to have a great agreement for all that could stand on its own with enough compensation to negate any need for a signing bonus?

The problem is that you really can’t just talk about taking out one to have a pure agreement without taking out the other too.

I don’t know honestly what the solution is. Even if it’s a great agreement and many think it can stand strong on its own legs but the Company throws in a Bonus to stack the deck if the Union turns it down and we hear about it we’ll freak out at them.

And no agreement will ever pass by 100% no matter what’s in it or how great it is anyway.

So maybe?

 

[BeechDriver]

The problem is that you really can’t just talk about taking out one to have a pure agreement without taking out the other too.

I don’t know honestly what the solution is. Even if it’s a great agreement and many think it can stand strong on its own legs but the Company throws in a Bonus to stack the deck if the Union turns it down and we hear about it we’ll freak out at them.

And no agreement will ever pass by 100% no matter what’s in it or how great it is anyway.

So maybe?

We have an agreement in place. September 12th is the amenable date. We are in early negotiations for improvements that are obscenely overdue. The company will use every trick in the book to get the best deal they can get. The company leaders and negotiators are amoral by design. Having a moral compass is not a trait the company looks for when hiring negotiators. They offer bonuses and packages to get an agreement to pass by as close to one vote as possible and only when it saves them money. Our union negotiators have a tough job. As for those who would piss and moan about not getting a quick pocket full of money, I have no sympathy for them. I will support my union team that is fighting for the long term benifit of all.

 

[B737 driver]

The problem is that you really can’t just talk about taking out one to have a pure agreement without taking out the other too.

I don’t know honestly what the solution is. Even if it’s a great agreement and many think it can stand strong on its own legs but the Company throws in a Bonus to stack the deck if the Union turns it down and we hear about it we’ll freak out at them.

And no agreement will ever pass by 100% no matter what’s in it or how great it is anyway.

So maybe?

Bonus, retro or whatever you want to call it, and even buyouts, is the norm in Airline contracts now. Employees expect it, so in the end people look for what is best for them and decide accordingly. Your union is a business just like AMFA is too.