OCT/NOV 2012 IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[ChockJockey]

Maybe JFK or MIA as a focus city. Just my opinion.

I wouldn't foresee that for MIA, it's one of their most profitable hubs.

 

[bagchucker]

The question of West Coast operations is one we will all wait and see about. There are pro's and con's involving PHX and LAX. PHX can handle the traffic and is relatively low in cost to maintain the level of operation it has. LAX is unique as there is not a lot of room for expansion from an operational standpoint (gate space). Merging the 2 operations would cause logistcal challenges. However, the competition (United and Delta) have large operations there and to meet the competition in size there would be one that the post-merger US would need to consider to remain competitive in the West. Not to mention, the yield for revenue is greater at LAX due to increased business travel, international flights, and cargo moved. It would seem that PHX might downsize some, but not on the scale LAS or PIT did. It would also seem that LAX might increase as much as logistically possible. The West operations are indeed valuable and it will be interesting to see the models introduced post-merger.

 

[ograc]

The question of West Coast operations is one we will all wait and see about. There are pro's and con's involving PHX and LAX. PHX can handle the traffic and is relatively low in cost to maintain the level of operation it has. LAX is unique as there is not a lot of room for expansion from an operational standpoint (gate space). Merging the 2 operations would cause logistcal challenges. However, the competition (United and Delta) have large operations there and to meet the competition in size there would be one that the post-merger US would need to consider to remain competitive in the West. Not to mention, the yield for revenue is greater at LAX due to increased business travel, international flights, and cargo moved. It would seem that PHX might downsize some, but not on the scale LAS or PIT did. It would also seem that LAX might increase as much as logistically possible. The West operations are indeed valuable and it will be interesting to see the models introduced post-merger.

Unless things have changed one of the major factors the company considers is the "originating" traffic each city represents when determining which hub city may be advantagious over another. Number of passengers boarded does not reflect this. What stations (DFW, LAX or PHX) produce the highest originating traffic numbers? IMO... this will be a strong consideration, by the company going forward, if in fact the merger goes through.

 

[ograc]

roabilly,
I agree with your assesment. Many are putting the cart before the horse. The immediate issue and potential challenge to everyone's future at US Fleet Service are the ramifications of a potential merger with AA. If the merger goes through the first issue to be decided will be what union, if any, represents the post merger Fleet Service. Until that is decided, expectations for a future contract are premature. As ridiculous as it sounds, the first challenge is convincing the membership to vote union, if a representation election is ordered by the NMB as a result of the merger. I have been in this industry long enough to realize this is not a given. IMO... the IAM needs to get ahead of the wave on this issue.They need to aggresively reach out and educate the members on both the US and AA side. Effective leadership from the IAM is absolutely critical at this pivitol point. Would you agree?
ograc

 

[freedom]

i think what needs to happen is what happened before , the TWU and the IAM need to come to an understanding and hand one work group over to the other, therby skipping an election ..

If elections are called for ... i'm going to make sure i let my fellow workers know that i think they should only be making 9.50 an hour with no health care and no flight benfits .. and that if they don't like this , they should go STFU ....

As much as i'd like to think people would come out and vote for their own self interests ..... well that's not aways the case now is it ? sometimes you gotta make them mad ...

 

[roabilly]

roabilly,
I agree with your assesment. Many are putting the cart before the horse. The immediate issue and potential challenge to everyone's future at US Fleet Service are the ramifications of a potential merger with AA. If the merger goes through the first issue to be decided will be what union, if any, represents the post merger Fleet Service. Until that is decided, expectations for a future contract are premature. As ridiculous as it sounds, the first challenge is convincing the membership to vote union, if a representation election is ordered by the NMB as a result of the merger. I have been in this industry long enough to realize this is not a given. IMO... the IAM needs to get ahead of the wave on this issue.They need to aggresively reach out and educate the members on both the US and AA side. Effective leadership from the IAM is absolutely critical at this pivitol point. Would you agree?
ograc

Agreed Cargo!

The first challenge will also require that the membership actually get involved! All I hear from a lot of them is petty criticism... yet they have never been to a meeting, never sought office, or never even given the contract more than a passing glance!

A small percentage of these people actually believe unions are detrimental, and would not even vote to retain one. The remaining majority fall into your thread title from some months ago... APATHETIC!

In addition... this Presidential election could have a tremendous impact on labor, especially in the Airline Industry. One party has made no secret that they would like to abolish the RLA, and place the industry at the mercy of the States! This would mean bye, bye, to job, benefit, and wage protection in all right to work (for less) States, including CLT.

I’m not going to get into the political arguments in this forum, but... I advise ALL members to research which candidate actually supports Organized Labor. You may be pulling the lever to eliminate your own JOB if you don’t!

 

[Kev3188]

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

I agree with where you're going here, but have to disagree with the GL taking the lead. For labor to be succesful today, the movement must be (re)built from the bottom up, not from the top down. Just my .02...

 

[roabilly]

I agree with where you're going here, but have to disagree with the GL taking the lead. For labor to be succesful today, the movement must be (re)built from the bottom up, not from the top down. Just my .02...

I agree Kev...

You cannot motivate those that will not allow themselves to be motivated!

For the most part, people are a lot like flowing water... meaning, they will seek the path of least resistance. The problem with this mindset is that it leaves you unable to react quickly enough to preempt adversity.

This is one thing the Military identifies and teaches that is applicable to this situation.

 

[necigrad]

Chock Jockey, Bagchucker, you've got some good points, but Ograc beat me to another important one: originations. How many PHX passengers enter the airport curbside? It's not a vast percentage, althoguh I don't have an idea of what it truly is or compares to other cities. The reason why this is so important with hub and spoke is that all passengers are flown to hubs and then to their destination. While your arguments are valid, it overlooks this fact. LAX is tight on space? Sure, but combine AA nad US space and it's not as bad. Eliminate the pax that fly LAX-PHX-somewhere else on LAX-somewhere else flights and it's not as much of a problem.

No one has addressed a valid third point: management. While for the most part management will look at profitibility from a route standpoint, they look at the big picture. How much will the facilities cost per flight? Where will we be more sucessful in driving passengers to? Where are my operating costs cheaper? Lots of little cost factors that we're not privy to . And yes, to an extent they're going to look at weather which is a great selling point for PHX. The bottom line is what is best economically, not necessarily what makes the most sense.

 

[roabilly]

Chock Jockey, Bagchucker, you've got some good points, but Ograc beat me to another important one: originations. How many PHX passengers enter the airport curbside? It's not a vast percentage, althoguh I don't have an idea of what it truly is or compares to other cities. The reason why this is so important with hub and spoke is that all passengers are flown to hubs and then to their destination. While your arguments are valid, it overlooks this fact. LAX is tight on space? Sure, but combine AA nad US space and it's not as bad. Eliminate the pax that fly LAX-PHX-somewhere else on LAX-somewhere else flights and it's not as much of a problem.

No one has addressed a valid third point: management. While for the most part management will look at profitibility from a route standpoint, they look at the big picture. How much will the facilities cost per flight? Where will we be more sucessful in driving passengers to? Where are my operating costs cheaper? Lots of little cost factors that we're not privy to . And yes, to an extent they're going to look at weather which is a great selling point for PHX. The bottom line is what is best economically, not necessarily what makes the most sense.

Neci,

One other issue that is getting completely overlooked is this... what cities will the DOJ allow to retain hub status? You can pretty much toss conventional wisdom in the ditch regarding business sense in a case like this. Further, If I were a betting man... I would say that a lot of routes, and possibly one hub will have to be dismantled to get the merger approved by the Government.

It will boil down to who has the most clout with the current administration, or possibly another administration after the election... US/AA or UA! Well see... there are many variables!

 

[necigrad]

Touche.

 

[ograc]

Agreed Cargo!

The first challenge will also require that the membership actually get involved! All I hear from a lot of them is petty criticism... yet they have never been to a meeting, never sought office, or never even given the contract more than a passing glance!

A small percentage of these people actually believe unions are detrimental, and would not even vote to retain one. The remaining majority fall into your thread title from some months ago... APATHETIC!

In addition... this Presidential election could have a tremendous impact on labor, especially in the Airline Industry. One party has made no secret that they would like to abolish the RLA, and place the industry at the mercy of the States! This would mean bye, bye, to job, benefit, and wage protection in all right to work (for less) States, including CLT.

I’m not going to get into the political arguments in this forum, but... I advise ALL members to research which candidate actually supports Organized Labor. You may be pulling the lever to eliminate your own JOB if you don’t!

One party has shown an interest in introducing Federal Right to Work legislation if elected. Make no mistake about it one party, as always, wants to destroy organized labor. IMO... any member of organized labor should give prudent consideration to this issue when they enter the polling booth. Unfortunately, voter apathy will once again play a big role in the future. If union members don't vote they should be prepared to suffer the consequences of their lack of engagement.
cargo

 

[ograc]

I agree with where you're going here, but have to disagree with the GL taking the lead. For labor to be succesful today, the movement must be (re)built from the bottom up, not from the top down. Just my .02...

Kev3188,
Duly noted and agree. But who will lead this from the bottom up movement? IMO... The GL & the District must lead and educate? If not them who?
ograc

 

[roabilly]

Cargo,

Are we making a case for "trickle down" solidarity... or would it be better served as a grass roots movement?
Personally... I think it would take a combination of both... a miracle if you will!

 

[roabilly]

One party has shown an interest in introducing Federal Right to Work legislation if elected. Make no mistake about it one party, as always, wants to destroy organized labor. IMO... any member of organized labor should give prudent consideration to this issue when they enter the polling booth. Unfortunately, voter apathy will once again play a big role in the future. If union members don't vote they should be prepared to suffer the consequences of their lack of engagement.
cargo

Cargo,

You are correct... the GOP would love to eliminate Unions completely, and what better way to do that, than to require a Federal Mandate declaring every State a right to work (for less) State!

Do you see the irony here? They preach downsizing Government Influence on Business, while simultaneously covertly supporting Government intervention into workers rights! The hypocritical nature of this agenda is clear... stomp on the middle-class to allow billionaires to outsource and invest the proceeds in foreign countries!