141 Update

[Taipan]

November 19, 2002
To District 141 Members at United Airlines,
District 141 representatives and United Airlines met last week and through the weekend regarding the carrier’s program to avoid bankruptcy. Discussions are continuing this evening and are expected to once again extend into the early morning hours.
It appears that some issues are proving to be more difficult to resolve than we originally envisioned. We are working diligently to close out these few remaining issues. While we recognize the importance of avoiding a United Airlines bankruptcy, we are not prepared to abandon the ideals of fairness and equity on which our organization is based and our members have rightfully come to expect.
This is truly a critical time in our discussions with United Airlines, and your patience and support is greatly appreciated.
We will keep you updated as these talks progress. The membership will have an opportunity to vote on any terms that come out of our discussions with United Airlines.
Sincerely and fraternally,
S.R. (Randy) Canale
President and General Chairman
IAM District 141

 

[wts54]

I hope these guys on both sides dont screw this up,
but if UAL insists on some earlier ideas then I am ready
for that outcome to.

 

[Flydrive1]

To Randy Canale: Less Blow, MORE GO!

 

[Taipan]

I have been off for about 9 days with a new child , so I dont really have a feel, but before I left they told me no benefit changes just like the other groups , and that was before AFAs and Non Union & Managements deal which from what I can see had no benefit changes.I know they had a set amount that they said would be fair and equitable and would NOT take on any other workgroups part of there contribution.I could see them digging in there heels if they try to delay/take away retro again or close/outsource more maintenance,or try and have IAM members pay for 20% of there medical,they said it should be straight W2 cut for what is necessary.Also the 9000 less employess means alot of those will be IAM as in the past it will be the majority , 109 RJs can do alot of flying.This is going down to the wire, and I personally would not be suprised if the ATSB turns us down with W in charge, at the very least we will not get a decision buy Dec 2/3.

 

[wts54]

My friend went to the convention in SAN.
The drift he got was 10% paycut,keep r+d,
we get retro check.Cant predict layoffs.Some
of the 9000 are 2700 f/a's,600-700 pilots,some white
collar folks,and some IAM.Think it depends on seniority
whether you will have a job.I think we will get the loan
but if you ask me if its the govts job to cosign loans
for private business thats another matter.Hopefully
both our necks will still be above water when the rains come.
Good Luck

 

[Rhino]

Any A&Ps that insist on R&D are as far-sighted as the pilots who insisted on 3-man 737 ****pits. Unbelievable.

 

[wts54]

Are you a mechanic for UAL ?
Okay we can let go of R+D for
a strict 20% farmout limit based
on maintenance man hours instead
of the scheme they use now based
the total budget including cleaners,
paper clips etc,or pay the retro all
of it up front.Not just give it away
for nothing.This is a negotiation isnt
it?UAL said on a newsreal that all the
retro money was in a bank account for
the IAM members then reneged on it when
the contract time came.Like so many
other things.Seamless contract etc. etc.
Tell us where at UAL you work if you do
so we can see what parts of your job
we can farm out.

 

[ualflynhi]

I think that the loan program is welfare.Maybe if the company
cant stand on its own two feet it should sell its equipment
and routes,or raise money by borrowing against their aircraft
is that possible ?

 

[DB Cooper]

IAM District 141 represents ramp/stores and CS/Res. IAM District 141M represents mechanics exclusively. IAM at UA has three seperate bargaining agreements. Mechanics, ramp/stores, and CS/Res. Both IAM Districts have their own independent web sites. District 141 is completely independent of District 141M. Several years ago the mechanics sought and received their own seperate district to represent them. Mechanics have some unique contractual issues that warranted the creation of their own district. Information contained in the 141 web site does not pertain to mechanics. Mechanics information can be found at:http://www.iam141m.org/

 

[atabuy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/19/2002 9:02:29 PM wts54 wrote:

Are you a mechanic for UAL ?
Okay we can let go of R+D for
a strict 20% farmout limit based
on maintenance man hours instead
of the scheme they use now based
the total budget including cleaners,
paper clips etc,or pay the retro all
of it up front.Not just give it away
for nothing.This is a negotiation isnt
it?UAL said on a newsreal that all the
retro money was in a bank account for
the IAM members then reneged on it when
the contract time came.Like so many
other things.Seamless contract etc. etc.
Tell us where at UAL you work if you do
so we can see what parts of your job
we can farm out.
----------------
wts54,
Do you or anyone else know how many mechanics have been let go since 9/11? Since I don't have a contract in front of me, can sub-contracting take place when mechanics are on layoff?
Last question is who is watching what 20% is?

I notice that mechanics are quick to point out comparable wages with other carriers, but don't seem to talk about other issues like work rules and compare them too.
Case in point is R&D.
Most cariers have either given up r&d or limited it to 1 mechanic. This is a function that mechanics have carried out but it is not necessary to have a license to do it.
I think there are 280 mechanics around the system who do this function and the cost of using these mechanics are costs that Ual would not have to pay if cleaners, ramp, or a combination of these did this as a part of their job.
I don't want to see people lose their jobs, but this is one cost Ual has always seen as wasting money. If it were not for the union, this job would have gone long ago.
I work in a line station and see mechanics walk out to trips late because they stayed in the break room too long.
Sometimes we are are own worst enemy when it comes to messing up a good thing or taking things for granted.
I work along side other workers who do not put in an honest days work, because of attitude, work ethic, or just plain lazy.
Also some are really not very good at the their job.

If we are not assets to the company, we become liabilities.
This pertains to everyone in the company and I am not just picking on mechanics. I see supervisors who give employees attitudes because they are really bad at motivating people. Anyone can manage people, but we need leaders in all these jobs, to get the most out of everyone.
I see rampmen who spend more energy trying to get out of work, than they would if they did the job. I see cs personel who should not be public contact people. I see managers who don't have a clue on how to be a leader.

The biggest problem I see is some of these workers seek management jobs for the better pay, and easier work. Not for the reason of making a difference.

A lot of people missed the opportunity to change our whole culture in 1994.
Most employees saw the ESOP as a negative instead of a chance to change how the whole company worked as a group.
Were you someone who complained about the money taken from you? Or were you trying to help guide our future. Everyone has a chance to make a difference. Few take advantage of opportunities they have.

So many people blame the company for so many problems they have. Let me ask you, how did you feel when you were hired at Ual? When did that all change?
Why did you stay with Ual? Last question, ever sorry you did not go to school, apply yourself more and become a pilot, engineer, accountant, anything but a mechanic?

 

[wts54]

Jim,R+D is something UAL has tried to get back at negotiation time
since time began.We used to do fueling also but I wasnt here when we
did or gave it back.
According to the spirit and letter of the contract the company is limited
to 20% farmout,but as usual it is being violated because they are including
in the total amount things that arent related to fixing airplanes(cleaners etc)in that amount.UAL knows what the spirit of the agreement is and everyone
also knows that there calculations are designed to send more than the 20% limit.This is an intentional skirting of the agreement that they were doing
before 9-11.I also believe it says if people are on layoff then the work
has to be brought back to give our people that work.We cant force them to
live up to the agreement they are doing as they please.
As to giving back R+D I have said before that job could be done but other
airlines use way more than 2 people to R+D their aircraft at LAX that is a fact and I see it daily.LAX is a unique airport because the terminals are
so close together we normally use 1 man for the push while Continental uses
3-5 people.Even at DEN,ORD and other stations where it is pretty much a straight back push they use 2.Pushbacks are something that can be negotiated
like anything else.Now they using 9-11 to achieve goals they couldnt during
contract time.UAL has had plenty of time including now to make proposal's
that gives them back R+D but in such a way a station could be changed over
on attrition because so many of the Vietnam generation are leaving now would
be a good time to do it.Do you think because the ramp did pushes they to wouldnt be late to the gate??My problem is also that other people that arent
in MM are always badmouthing the mechanics and seem to have a fetish about
R+D but they think its okay to farm us all out as long as its not their ox
thats getting gored.
The rampers and mechanics have their hands full on swing shift and I dont
see sleeping,or just screwing off in general I think they are pretty hard workers considering they are as well as us are frequently short handed and
as soon as one plane leaves we are hurrying to the next gate.
Ah the esop.I was onboard with the esop and voted for it and thought well
now we will have a say in our future.Jim if you think the esop was anything else than just a scheme to cheat employees out of their a-scale then I dont
want to fight with you because my mind wont change.When all the 1989-90
people were getting ready to get their a-scale out pops the esop.Now the worthless stock is being managed by people who have just discovered their
fiduciary duty after the shares were 1.50.Come on man something is at work
here.I always wanted to be a surgeon I always wanted to do open heart surgery.My hands though arent steady enough.Are you implying because we
dont like things that are going on that we should A.roll over and play dead or B.just leave because we think things arent right here?I not not going anywhere I will try to make this a decent place until I leave if thats possible.See ya

 

[wts54]

UAL777flyer,they did get the so called 1113 and 1114 letters that UAL wouldnt seek further cuts in BK for a certain period of time.I think for a
year.There are not many jobs at UAL that cant be farmed out.For example
maintenance work to non union osv's(outside vendors) a lot of whq work
to some third world country much like a lot of computer programming and
related work already is at other computer companies.Certainly accounting,
planning and many other support services could to places like that.Where
there is a will there is a way.
Back to the infamous R+D.Yes I agree a mech is not needed to push
airplanes but again you wont do it with 1 ramper at least not at LAX.Earlier
I said that with all the retirements we have lost many people and many more
are going to leave in the next year so it wouldnt result in any layoffs.
Also the company can contractually layoff people to 1994 now seniority so why
dont they do that now and get the head count down.I suspect they arent as
in a big of a hurry to take it back as some think they are.As more retirements occur give more R+D back to the ramp or cs that would be the
way I'd do it.I hope there is something available to vote on soon this
process is working my nerves a bit to much.

 

[UAL777flyer]

The only reason they support retaining R & D is so they can avoid the inevitable job losses that would result by transferring it over to lower-paid fleet service/ramp workers.

My opinion is that efficiency/productivity changes should have been targeted first for all work groups before pay/benefit cuts. Yes it would mean job losses, but job losses are going to happen no matter how we restructure. As an airline, we simply cannot keep these inefficiencies in our workforce and be successful long term.

What I'm curious about is what level (if any) of bankruptcy protection did each union get in their negotiations with the company? By that I mean this: we're probably only within a couple of weeks of having to file for bankruptcy if we don't get the ATSB loan or can't extend the Dec 2nd debt payment (which is nearly impossible considering it's publicly held EETC debt). So, with time being short, if the ATSB turns us down or merely stalls for time, and we're forced to file for bankruptcy, have any of the unions gotten 1113 letters from the company promising that they would not seek deeper cuts or full abrogation of contracts in bankruptcy? That, to me, is the interesting question here because if we're forced to file for bankruptcy, the only way we can hope to restructure successfully so that we can become profitable again is by getting rid of the inefficiency wherever it lies, no matter what. So what protections have the unions gotten, if any? I've seen the ALPA Term Sheet, but I can't remember seeing any language that protects them from deeper cuts in Ch.11.

I fully expect a T/A with the IAM by no later than Friday. Just my gut feeling. Than the true test comes: full membership vote. That could go either way. But just remember that bankruptcy will have a much uglier outcome for all of us in terms of pay/benefit/workrule changes and job losses. Some of the changes will be quite shocking.

ualflynhi,

To answer your question, yes it's possible to borrow against our aircraft. But you have to remember that while the normal book value of those unencumbered aircraft is about $3.5 billion, you'd be lucky to get a third of that amount in this environment. Not very advantageous at all. I see what you're saying about the ATSB being corporate welfare. But it's an option that is available to us. But is it a better alternative to bankruptcy? That depends on your perspective. Bankruptcy will surely bring more pain for employees because it will lead to deeper cuts than an out of court restructuring. And it also brings the negative stigma in the mind of customers, many of whom will book away from you. As a company, you also lose total control of decisions. The good news is that it's an effective way for UA to shed much of its long-term debt, significantly lower our cost structure and shed the inefficiency that is crippling. It also allows for a restructuring of the governance of the company by wiping out all ESOP equity and removing the 3 employee-represented BOD seats. But another important thing to remember is that UA is still a viable franchise with viable assets. So bankruptcy is probably going to attract numerous investor groups looking to gain control of the company. That will be chaotic and distracting and could be bad for the labor groups. I'm still in favor of solving our problems outside of bankruptcy, even though I honestly feel bankruptcy is where we're headed.

 

[jetwrencher]

Hello All,

This is my first posting to this site so please bear with me if I don't get it right.

I am a mechanic working a line station for United. R&D is my main job but we also do all the B&M work, some auto work, and whatever else the boss wants done. We also do contract work for other airlines when we have a spare minute. If we were to lose R&D than not only will United have to fill those shoes with rampers, they would have to address the problem with the upkeep of the facilities and the like, plus deal with the lost revenue generated from contract work. We aren't talking a huge amout of money, but if we were to lose all R&D stations then I think the savings won't be that great (strickly my opinion). If all groups only had to give up money then why would we have to give up more?? I am willing to give my fair share as long as it's fair and just because I have too many years invested and HATE to see this company go belly up.

 

[wts54]

Mechs dont or cannot work for a ramp sup
or any other sup who doesnt have a license.
Read the FAR's.Although I do help those
ramp guys from time to time and in my
mind I consider that we are on the same crew
or team.