JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

Yes you stack up better but I don't believe it was only the union, your airline was much bigger and never really facing liquidation. We were on deaths door more times than I like to remember. Your union also came up with the infamous B scale. You of all people couldn't have voted for that. You are correct I don't have a strong union mentality. When I see a union job getting outsourced and the very same union organizing the replacements it makes me cynical. I always say I work for AA not the IAM

I work for AA too. Just love and support my Union (Or even more having a contract)

And no I'm not exactly a fan of the controversial idea of my same Union representing people who do the jobs that my group used to do. Certainly a dues catching conflict of interest.

But I'll never blame the people who work in those jobs. It's not there fault.

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW I keep hearing that Fleet and Maintenance are in lock step with each other in support but if I'm not mistaken they are now up to 30 TA's while I think we're sitting on 22?

Weren't a lot of people on this page asking about a year ago now "Are we going to have to wait for Maintenance if we're done before them"

Are they going to wait for us might be the question to ask?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

If the way we currently do it on the TWU side is modified many members are going to be put at risk when they start to tell the 1 year 23 YO CSM's to F off. And it IS going to happen.

But they like having the Watchers around for the intimidation factor they bring to keeping the flow of the operation humming.

Sounds like there is intimidation on both sides of the fence.

I agree with you however that having someone not experienced with airline operations telling experienced people what and how to do is not only foolish, it is dangerous.

"Part-Time – The company wants to base the part-time ratio on the total number of fleet service employees versus the total number of full-time employees."

If you insist and are successful at keeping your medical plans with it's ridiculous injustice of having PT members pay double to subsidize FT (Me) members you are creating your own issues as to why the Company will want as many PT members as they can fill into the bucket. You've created the motivation for management to always want to be at the max cap even if the operation would be better served with FT members.

I understand what you are saying about the company trying to "weaponize" part time. However I don't necessarily agree part time should get insurance at a full time employee's cost. In fact, the company pays most of the cost of your insurance. They should not be on the hook for a higher cost (meaning subsidizing it at a full time employees rate) for a part time employee. I remind you most companies don't even offer insurance to part time employees. Most people without insurance would jump at the prospect of working for American Airlines even at double your insurance cost, not to mention the other benefits offered.

From your perspective what would be preferable? Would you prefer no part time employees at all? Part time has created a lot of opportunities for a lot of people. Several people have another full time job or run their own business and work part time simply for the insurance.

 

[AANOTOK]

My opinion (and it's free) if you are Part time with your name on a list wanting to go Full time, you should be afforded Full time health benefits. If you are Part time with no desire to upgrade, you should pay a different rate. Most I would say (not all) are Part time for the simple fact the have another (usually Full time) job. If my rates would go down because a career Part time employee had to pay more, I would have no problem with it. Let their Full time employer provide their insurance if they don't like the rates they are offered, and yes, give them the option of no coverage via AA.

 

[Albert]

Sounds like there is intimidation on both sides of the fence.

I agree with you however that having someone not experienced with airline operations telling experienced people what and how to do is not only foolish, it is dangerous.



I understand what you are saying about the company trying to "weaponize" part time. However I don't necessarily agree part time should get insurance at a full time employee's cost. In fact, the company pays most of the cost of your insurance. They should not be on the hook for a higher cost (meaning subsidizing it at a full time employees rate) for a part time employee. I remind you most companies don't even offer insurance to part time employees. Most people without insurance would jump at the prospect of working for American Airlines even at double your insurance cost, not to mention the other benefits offered.

From your perspective what would be preferable? Would you prefer no part time employees at all? Part time has created a lot of opportunities for a lot of people. Several people have another full time job or run their own business and work part time simply for the insurance.

Somebody always knows someone who works part time from home and makes a million dollars, their employers are great they give them 4 months paid maternity leave and stock options and blah blah. Well I don't know anyone who personally claims that and I still say $30.17an hour, medical and dental benefits, a retirement plan, flight privileges and as flexible as a mother is a darn good part time job. But the Weez wants me to pay more for my insurance so his union brother part timers pay less. Screw that

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

You know I think all unions are the same I'm cynical because I have seen what they have done but what you guys gave up ( in not sure 2008?) when you were not in bankruptcy is mind boggling to me, You guys have a contract company hand out wands a gloves for god sake

What the membership voluntarily gave up pre bankruptcy is mind boggling to me as well. They set themselves up for a double whammy of concessions. The really interesting part to me is the UNION was pushing those concessions.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

My opinion (and it's free) if you are Part time with your name on a list wanting to go Full time, you should be afforded Full time health benefits. If you are Part time with no desire to upgrade, you should pay a different rate. Most I would say (not all) are Part time for the simple fact the have another (usually Full time) job. If my rates would go down because a career Part time employee had to pay more, I would have no problem with it. Let their Full time employer provide their insurance if they don't like the rates they are offered, and yes, give them the option of no coverage via AA.

Thank you for posting your opinion on the subject.

I want to ask you what would stop people from putting their name on the upgrade list then turning it down just to get lower insurance cost?

 

[Albert]

Thank you for posting your opinion on the subject.

I want to ask you what would stop people from putting their name on the upgrade list then turning it down just to get lower insurance cost?

Maybe it should go the other way, the people being forced to downgrade keep their insurance. And here at LUS over the years we had many downgraded. If they kept their insurance maybe the company wouldn't be so quick to down grade, anyway those are the people I feel for

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Did you ever consider that since you were only exposed to Union in 1995 that maybe when you hired on it wasn't instilled in you?

I work for AA too. Just love and support my Union

Translation, being hired in 1995 you were not properly "conditioned".

Your union also came up with the infamous B scale. You are correct I don't have a strong union mentality. When I see a union job getting outsourced and the very same union organizing the replacements it makes me cynical. I always say I work for AA not the IAM

UNIONS have EARNED your cynicism.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Maybe it should go the other way, the people being forced to downgrade keep their insurance. And here at LUS over the years we had many downgraded. If they kept their insurance maybe the company wouldn't be so quick to down grade, anyway those are the people I feel for

You may have something there.

 

[WeAAsles]

My opinion (and it's free) if you are Part time with your name on a list wanting to go Full time, you should be afforded Full time health benefits. If you are Part time with no desire to upgrade, you should pay a different rate. Most I would say (not all) are Part time for the simple fact the have another (usually Full time) job. If my rates would go down because a career Part time employee had to pay more, I would have no problem with it. Let their Full time employer provide their insurance if they don't like the rates they are offered, and yes, give them the option of no coverage via AA.

I like this idea although there would have to be some type of criteria attached to it to prevent scamming to gain the lower cost.

It's kind of along the lines of what the FA's have with the 40 hour per month qualifier. If they don't work 40 per month they lose their medical if not on an approved leave of absence.

 

[WeAAsles]

Somebody always knows someone who works part time from home and makes a million dollars, their employers are great they give them 4 months paid maternity leave and stock options and blah blah. Well I don't know anyone who personally claims that and I still say $30.17an hour, medical and dental benefits, a retirement plan, flight privileges and as flexible as a mother is a darn good part time job. But the Weez wants me to pay more for my insurance so his union brother part timers pay less. Screw that

I never said that. Pay attention. I just stated WHY you pay less for medical and WHY the company would always want to reach the PT cap percentage if they have an economic reason to do so.

I'd like to see some economic relief come to my TWU members (Hi IAM guys) like you are currently enjoying (Hi again IAM guys)

BUT without penalizing someone who was laid off, downgraded or maybe even putting in an effort to gain FT.

 

[robbedagain]

I do not know of any other airline here that would have PT paying double for health insurance rates. We just lost 4 PT agents who are going to different cities just to get FT because the idiots in Dallas tell our station mgr that we are "overstaffed" I still cannot figure out how the H we are overstaffed But the PT I work with are either young and on their parents benefits or are transferring to other cities to get FT there are few who have the insurance and work a ton of hours just to have extra bec of the insurance rates.

 

[WeAAsles]

Maybe it should go the other way, the people being forced to downgrade keep their insurance. And here at LUS over the years we had many downgraded. If they kept their insurance maybe the company wouldn't be so quick to down grade, anyway those are the people I feel for

If they kept their insurance NO absolutely not the company wouldn't be so quick to downgrade.

But they also may not be so quick to want to upgrade either if they are not contractually obligated to.

See what I mean how that PT medical issue can be a double edged sword.

 

[WeAAsles]

I do not know of any other airline here that would have PT paying double for health insurance rates. We just lost 4 PT agents who are going to different cities just to get FT because the idiots in Dallas tell our station mgr that we are "overstaffed" I still cannot figure out how the H we are overstaffed But the PT I work with are either young and on their parents benefits or are transferring to other cities to get FT there are few who have the insurance and work a ton of hours just to have extra bec of the insurance rates.

I think the US IAM group is the only one that does that.

US IAM 141 Part Timer
Double the rate for insurance
Half the contributor for IAMPF
Same dues expense for everyone
Can't bump a FT out on layoff

And I've heard there are IAM guys that have the balls to say the TWU treats their PT like crap.

Yea right. LMFAO. Please let me hear this explanation?