JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Albert]

Hypothetical what ifs?

What if you didn't already have the raise you got and were still at $24.09?

What if a no vote put us back to $24.09 since we didn't vote on our raises originally?

Do the raises that we received outside our CBA have any influence in your choice?

Doesn't matter as long as they keep a few hubs happy a contract will pass. I still say Sito and your boy are more likely to give up something than the negotiators we have now

 

[pjirish317]

My point is we shouldn't have to "settle". Why should we? Just because everyone else has it? That's just BS to me. This company is making BILLIONS, and they would like us to just "settle"? With that way of thinking, LAA only has Fleet in I think 17 cities? Should we just "settle" for that also? LAA has only 5 holidays, should we just "settle" for that aslo? We should be enhancing both of our CBA's into the best in the industry. Not "settling" for less. But I do agree that Sito and Lombardo will give up stuff just to get a CBA for the sake of getting one. If that happens we are screwed.

 

[WeAAsles]

Are you saying that "if" the raise was included in the JCBA along with the current LAA healthcare plan would I vote yes then? That answer is NO, I would still be a NO vote.

Yes I would vote NO even if it put us back to $24.09.

And no the raises we have gotten outside the JCBA talks have no influence on my vote.

Ok so let me get this straight then. You're willing to go backwards by roughly $7.00 per hour or almost $1200.00 per month because your medical went up by maybe 1 or 2 Hundred dollars?

Being also that it's only a select say roughly 4000 of you who are FT at AA IAM benefiting from the lower cost against 13,000 of us at AA Fleet who are not? Also I might add included in that disparity every other workgroups in AA and the entire Major Airline industry?

So it's your opinion that everyone else should maybe and potentially be held hostage again so you can continue to pay a few hundred less and not compromise your principles?

 

[WeAAsles]

My point is we shouldn't have to "settle". Why should we? Just because everyone else has it? That's just BS to me. This company is making BILLIONS, and they would like us to just "settle"? With that way of thinking, LAA only has Fleet in I think 17 cities? Should we just "settle" for that also? LAA has only 5 holidays, should we just "settle" for that aslo? We should be enhancing both of our CBA's into the best in the industry. Not "settling" for less. But I do agree that Sito and Lombardo will give up stuff just to get a CBA for the sake of getting one. If that happens we are screwed.

So you think that out of the total 17,000 of us in Fleet alone in the Association we're not going to be gaining enhancements?

Again nothing personal but I don't think I'm enjoying some of your benefits right now?

How long do you want me to wait?

 

[WeAAsles]

Doesn't matter as long as they keep a few hubs happy a contract will pass. I still say Sito and your boy are more likely to give up something than the negotiators we have now

I agree. Especially if the Negotiators on your side would NEVER back off that Medical.

 

[Albert]

I agree. Especially if the Negotiators on your side would NEVER back off that Medical.

The healthcare issue is inevitable. I do think both negotiators (you split them) should not give up any jobs

 

[WeAAsles]

LUS will go with LAA health care? That is a definate NO vote from me. Why should we "settle" for that? This company is making billions of $$$$$ and the best they can offer is LAA's current health care? What raise we enjoyed is gone with our increase in premiums. How is that cost positive for LUS? I actually lose money if this is true. But coming from the all knowing negotiations prophet Tim Nelson. I have to think he got eroneous information again. I still say it's another 12 months away, SCOPE and healtcare will be the sticking points. JMO though.

Coming back to this again I want to ask you a question PJ and hope I get an honest answer.

Right now you know for a fact that you will keep that lower Medical for the rest of the year. Would you like it to drag out another 12 months if it assures you 1 more year of that cheap medical?

Meaning would you prefer to continue on with what you know right now over any possibility of what might be in a JCBA for us to vote on?

 

[WeAAsles]

The healthcare issue is inevitable. I do think both negotiators (you split them) should not give up any jobs

I'm still going to go with "possible" over "inevitable" Al.

Remember we are discussing something put out by Tim Nelson here.

I'll still take it with lots of grains of salt myself.

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW Al here's another one to think about on that possible vote.

Any single guys (like yourself) on your side will probably also vote yes even if their medical went up.

If the retirement is that much of a dramatic improvement and say we get about another buck an hour or $160.00 per month, I don't think those guys are going to really care too much about paying an extra $40.00 per month for that medical.

Now guys with families probably aren't going to exactly think the same way?

So the question becomes now. How many Full Time with Families do you think or know you have on your side? (Those are your possible majority NO voters out of the entire collective)

 

[NYer]

Are you saying that "if" the raise was included in the JCBA along with the current LAA healthcare plan would I vote yes then? That answer is NO, I would still be a NO vote.

Yes I would vote NO even if it put us back to $24.09.

And no the raises we have gotten outside the JCBA talks have no influence on my vote.

Many would follow.

The LAA side needs to understand there is little incentive for the LUS side to accept anything with a cut to their medical. If the roles were reversed, we would make a similar choice.

When that medical goes away, it will probably need to be bought. It will be a delicate balance of LUS getting value while not feeling others are receiving a higher value but not giving up such an advantageous contractual benefit.

 

[WeAAsles]

How I view it again and certainly not to be disrespectful to those that are enjoying a particular benefit that I don't have. Just considering numbers.

10,000 LAA Fsc's
7000 LUS Agents.

All LAA clerks already paying higher medical.

Guessing here.

4000 LUS enjoying those low cost plans.
3000 LUS PT paying double and close to what LAA pays already.

Out of the 4000 possibly 70% at least married and or with children?

Leaving perhaps 2800 out of the total number of 17000 with a particular advantage?

17000 - 2800 = 14,200 total Association members not enjoying that same advantage?

Did someone mention a "Delicate balance" here?

 

[Talos]

My point is we shouldn't have to "settle". Why should we? Just because everyone else has it? That's just BS to me. This company is making BILLIONS, and they would like us to just "settle"? With that way of thinking, LAA only has Fleet in I think 17 cities? Should we just "settle" for that also? LAA has only 5 holidays, should we just "settle" for that aslo? We should be enhancing both of our CBA's into the best in the industry. Not "settling" for less. But I do agree that Sito and Lombardo will give up stuff just to get a CBA for the sake of getting one. If that happens we are screwed.

I agree with you that the best of both should be the goal. I still think it will take quite some time to get a deal. The different ways the 2 companies screwed their employees is now biting them in the ass with the merger.

 

[WeAAsles]

Or maybe the LUS numbers are 5000 FT and 2000 PT?

I have no way of looking that up but either way the point of what I'm making here doesn't change.

 

[WeAAsles]

I agree with you that the best of both should be the goal. I still think it will take quite some time to get a deal. The different ways the 2 companies screwed their employees is now biting them in the ass with the merger.

The goal was actually better than both when you read the original proposal to the Company.

 

[Albert]

How I view it again and certainly not to be disrespectful to those that are enjoying a particular benefit that I don't have. Just considering numbers.

10,000 LAA Fsc's
7000 LUS Agents.

All LAA clerks already paying higher medical.

Guessing here.

4000 LUS enjoying those low cost plans.
3000 LUS PT paying double and close to what LAA pays already.

Out of the 4000 possibly 70% at least married and or with children?

Leaving perhaps 2800 out of the total number of 17000 with a particular advantage?

17000 - 2800 = 14,200 total Association members not enjoying that same advantage?

Did someone mention a "Delicate balance" here?

Weez I agree we will probably end up with AA plan. By your calculations that means 4000 LUS will be "giving back" a benefit getting worse terms, what will the LAA be giving back? Not to mention the literal 100s of millions that will be put into your frozen pension. Does AA use that money when they are figuring employee compensation cause I'm not going to see a penny, maybe they should set up an account for LUS and put in the same money they are giving your group, that sounds fair