OCT/NOV 2012 IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[necigrad]

Left to right...

LAX, DFW, ORD, CLT. Maybe JFK or MIA as a focus city. Just my opinion. Under no circumstances do I see anyone in PHX with a hire date after 2005 if this merger goes through. And that's being optimistic.

 

[robbedagain]

i agree the above post and bagchucker i also agree with you its only a matter of time but how would you look at it this way if your in a city lets say for example baltimore whereas you have mainline flights to the hubs and often military movements how do you see cities such as that staying either mainline or outsourced? i thought that may be us employees would be protected unless i misread that somewhere

 

[john john]

Doesn’t AA contracts offer more jobs for non-mechanic fleet service employees. If so this could help expand the fleet service group at US If a merger took place

 

[Jester]

Left to right...

LAX, DFW, ORD, CLT. Maybe JFK or MIA as a focus city. Just my opinion. Under no circumstances do I see anyone in PHX with a hire date after 2005 if this merger goes through. And that's being optimistic.

Assuming PHX becomes like LAS, I think you will need to cut deeper into the stack than just 2005... something like 1997 and that holds only a part-time line? I could only imagine the cost of living in L.A. for a part-time job... maybe Dallas?

 

[ograc]

Why do you think this?

I yield to Jester's response. That about covers my line of thinking.
ograc

 

[ograc]

i agree the above post and bagchucker i also agree with you its only a matter of time but how would you look at it this way if your in a city lets say for example baltimore whereas you have mainline flights to the hubs and often military movements how do you see cities such as that staying either mainline or outsourced? i thought that may be us employees would be protected unless i misread that somewhere

robbedagain,
I believe the issue of US employee protection will be influenced heavily based on which union (IAM / TWU) becomes the bargaining representative of the combined post merger Fleet Service group. Many variables and uncertainties in our future to be sure. Would you agree?
ograc

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

Al you need to do people, is read the bottom saying on my profile here...been there as long as me, lived it as long as I've been here....

 

[necigrad]

Assuming PHX becomes like LAS, I think you will need to cut deeper into the stack than just 2005... something like 1997 and that holds only a part-time line? I could only imagine the cost of living in L.A. for a part-time job... maybe Dallas?

You might be right. You're in PHX, I'm not, and thus have a better idea of how the senority falls. I potentially see PHX dropping to 50 or fewer flights within three years of the merger. Also remember that the smaller the station the more likely a station is to lose contracts with other airlines for ground handling and cargo.

Take however many flights PHX has and divide that by the number of FTEs to get employees by flight. Multiply that by 50, draw a line that far down on the senority list, and there's my date guess. Say (for easy math, and not sensical numbers) you have 300 flights and 1500 FTEs. 1500 FTEs divided by 300 flights is 5 FTEs/flight. Times 50 flights gives you 250 FTEs. Figure out the FT/PT ratio, then make that ratio work for 250 FTEs. There's your dates. All hypothetical of course.

If I'm not making sense, tell me your average flights per day, total FTEs, and the FT/PT ratio and I'll calculate (make up?) FT and PT dates based on a specified average flights per day. An Excell whiz could probably have done this six times in the time it took me to type all this...

 

[roabilly]

700, necigrad, or Cargo,

Correct me if I’m wrong... but if this (US/AA) merger scenario comes to fruition, would it not be the first merger of two legacies, both represented my numerous Unions, post FAA Reauthorization Act?

If this is the case, it may very well prove to be legally arduous for the competing representation groups, and set precedents for any future combinations within the industry.

 

[robbedagain]

orgac i do agree with you on there i didnt stop to think that way

 

[necigrad]

roabilly, that question is WAY over my paygrade. That said, yeah, I think you're right.

 

[700UW]

700, necigrad, or Cargo,

Correct me if I’m wrong... but if this (US/AA) merger scenario comes to fruition, would it not be the first merger of two legacies, both represented my numerous Unions, post FAA Reauthorization Act?

If this is the case, it may very well prove to be legally arduous for the competing representation groups, and set precedents for any future combinations within the industry.

From what I read, yes the 50% rule would be the threshold, no longer 35%.

 

[ograc]

700, necigrad, or Cargo,

Correct me if I’m wrong... but if this (US/AA) merger scenario comes to fruition, would it not be the first merger of two legacies, both represented my numerous Unions, post FAA Reauthorization Act?

If this is the case, it may very well prove to be legally arduous for the competing representation groups, and set precedents for any future combinations within the industry.

roabilly,
I believe you are correct. It would be the first merger of two legacy carriers with multiple unions post the FAA Reauthorization Act. The Act sets the bar at 50% + 1 (cards signed for an election) when organizing a new shop. I'm not certain if this requirement applies in this case. In this case both unions are already the duly elected bargaining representatives' of their respective work groups going in. If this requirement applies... would the 50% + 1 threshold be inclusive of the cards signed by both unions? Or would this requirement be by each individual union? As I stated earlier... our future in this merger senario is very cloudy. Many uncertainties, variables and decisions will need to be rendered. IMO... one thing is certain... the combined group needs to promote a pro union platform. If the unions are required to get 50% cards signed then every member should be signing cards. For if both unions fall short of the 50% requirement the end result is decertification. I've been through that result once before and I, along with many of the members on the property, are still paying for it. The need to educate, direct and engage the membership has never been so crucial. This task must be coordinated and lead by the IAM Grand Lodge and District 141 leadership. It will be a defining moment for both and more importantly the existing IAM Fleet Service membership.
ograc

 

[roabilly]

roabilly,
I believe you are correct. It would be the first merger of two legacy carriers with multiple unions post the FAA Reauthorization Act. The Act sets the bar at 50% + 1 (cards signed for an election) when organizing a new shop. I'm not certain if this requirement applies in this case. In this case both unions are already the duly elected bargaining representatives' of their respective work groups going in. If this requirement applies... would the 50% + 1 threshold be inclusive of the cards signed by both unions? Or would this requirement be by each individual union? As I stated earlier... our future in this merger senario is very cloudy. Many uncertainties, variables and decisions will need to be rendered. IMO... one thing is certain... the combined group needs to promote a pro union platform. If the unions are required to get 50% cards signed then every member should be signing cards. For if both unions fall short of the 50% requirement the end result is decertification. I've been through that result once before and I, along with many of the members on the property, are still paying for it. The need to educate, direct and engage the membership has never been so crucial. This task must be coordinated and lead by the IAM Grand Lodge and District 141 leadership. It will be a defining moment for both and more importantly the existing IAM Fleet Service membership.


Cargo,

You and I share the same insight... this merger... “if” it happens, could very well prove to be a defining point in Fleet Service history!

I foresee a situation that may require an NMB ruling regarding interpretation of the “revised” RLA under the re-authorization act. As far as I am concerned, this is far more important than anything else at this point. Considering the time lines regarding negotiation schedules, this could easily be factor BEFORE we reach any Tentative Agreement. Such a ruling could determine which, if ANY bargaining unit represents us!

ALL labor groups should be aware of this... but little is being said, because no one knows exactly how it may play out! This is why I get frustrated with the idiots on here griping and whining about petty issues, when the REAL issues are getting ignored, or most likely not even realized!

If you are an employee in this work group, you better get head out of your a**... and start getting educated. Complaining about the Leadership, is not preparing this bargaining unit for the future... it only serves to weaken it!


ograc

 

[ChockJockey]

I potentially see PHX dropping to 50 or fewer flights within three years of the merger.

Maybe, maybe not. If part of the master plan is to evacuate the West Coast market then we'll likely see it. There's a lot more that goes into the viability of a hub than fares charged and proximity to other hubs, as important factors as those are they are but two variables in a complicated dynamic.

All hubs will see significant changes in routes, procedures, AC types and services offered as the two networks are merged into one. Redundancies will of course be eliminated, but frequencies to other routes may increase and new markets can be served from hubs that didn't make sense pre-merger.

It is true that only 390 miles separate LAX from PHX. What ends up happening in PHX depends to a large degree on to what kind of hub LAX were to become for the new AA and whether or not it can effectively absorb and execute the role and capacity PHX holds as a hub. For example if LAX were to be repurposed as a true Pacific gateway hub, with additional widebody routes and available capacity there going towards that end, would it also be able to function as a conduit for West Coast and Canadian travelers flying to Mexican destinations? Certainly, if it were a true hub a la DFW or ORD it would have that versatility, but with a market share of only 18.44% I think LAX would be hard-pressed to fulfill both roles. PHX has a robust international operation to/from Mexico while LAX flies only to SJD on their own metal; it seems a lot of their capacity as a "hub" in LAX depends on codeshare agreements.

For the period between July 2011 and June 2012 AA moved 8.4 million pax through LAX, while US moved 14.4 million pax through PHX. As far as Southwest is concerned, they moved 84.9% percent of the pax AA did through LAX and 83.8% of the pax US did through PHX in the same period, so the WN monkey on your back is in LAX as well. Between LAX and PHX, the operation in PHX can expand more easily and at a lower cost. It enjoys lower operating costs overall, less congestion and good weather.

Then there's DFW, some 900 miles to the East of PHX. With AA and Eagle it served some 42 million pax, about 3x what US did from PHX. Again, can DFW absorb the capacity and the role of PHX and is it cost-effective/profitable to do so? DFW's got it all as far as hubs are concerned, but is it an optimal use of its capacity (and aircraft) to connect folks from say SFO to PVR through there if LAX can't?

The new AA could pull out of PHX where it was the dominant carrier but then which competitors will fill the void and how will that affect the game in the West? There will be costs associated with staying in Phoenix, and costs associated with leaving. All of this depends however on the master network configuration Parker and friends are cooking up and the huge mess of calculations that go into determining hub profitability; plans and figures that none of us have access to, and even if I did I wouldn't presume to be able to make much sense of them. Anything's possible really. Maybe I'm due for a change of scenery anyways...

(Source on the numbers I used)