2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[roabilly]

 
You are incorrect sir! Charlie Brown attests that he did not personally hand out materials. That can not be said for MF and NH. I witnessed that. Materials were in fact handed out in the break rooms during the AGC briefing.

Well... I'll give this one to Nelson's "deep throat"...
 
He still owes MM an apology for claiming HE was there, and was involved!

 

[roabilly]

I agree and i think its a moot point but it still needs to be hashed out. I see the point though. Its just another thing that has to be addressed with the membership on why we need to keep this sec 6 leverage because going right to  TA talks leave us vulnerable and no NMB involvement for years to come

I agree 33...
 
You have at least two members of the US team in this forum saying there is NO WAY they will relinquish leverage over 6 for a JCBA!

 

[mike33]

Well... I'll give this one to Nelson's "deep throat"...
 
He still owes MM an apology for claiming HE was there and was involved!

MM was here yesterday and he was not in CLT that day. 
 
Anyway on a good solidarity note , i can honestly say that my station will most probably have a 75% yes for the strike vote. These guys and gals here are learning and thats a good thing. More work to do but it will never be 100%. Goal should be at least 85%. That is not unrealistic here.
 
Are you listening AH?

 

[AANOTOK]

In our TWU contract there are part time caps to protect good full time jobs. Even in the bankruptcy that cap was only raised by 100 people in DFW. I WILL NOT vote yes for ANY contract that raises the caps or worse for more PT heads. And that "ready reserve" thing is an absolute travesty.

Not true. On the "Final Best offer" we accepted an increase of 200 not 100 more part timers in DFW.
 
AA “Final Best Offer” (April 2012)(Effective with a “YES” Vote)
Increase the PT floor for DFW from 200 to 400.
All other applications of the current agreement will remain unchanged.
 
And while AA wanted to remove the cap totally, it would have been better if we could have kept some of the jobs that were outsourced, in house part time. Every job that was outsourced (or they wanted to outsource), were "good full time jobs", extremely high seniority jobs.

 

[pjirish317]

if there still isnt a ta prior to me being an agc elect, should i even win, i will recommend a rejection of any proposal or ta that addresses time off without addressing scope. And i will do what i can to persuade a nc to follow suit if it isnt. We need an eboard member from a historical class two station.

A freudian slip maybe? We have tried to explain this to you before, nominations and the actual election results are miles apart.

 

[WeAAsles]

Not true. On the "Final Best offer" we accepted an increase of 200 not 100 more part timers in DFW.
 
AA “Final Best Offer” (April 2012)(Effective with a “YES” Vote)
Increase the PT floor for DFW from 200 to 400.
All other applications of the current agreement will remain unchanged.
 
And while AA wanted to remove the cap totally, it would have been better if we could have kept some of the jobs that were outsourced, in house part time. Every job that was outsourced (or they wanted to outsource), were "good full time jobs", extremely high seniority jobs.

My apologies AANOTOK. I just went with the raising in DFW off the top of my head. Luckily you guys still have the best part time cap in the system.

And like I said higher up in the thread. The negotiators did talk about every way possible to keep those jobs. The Company would not budge from what I was told period. They've wanted those cabin service jobs for years and this was their Golden Ticket to finally get them. They offered no compromise.

 

[P. REZ]

at some point the unions gotta get scope instead of extra holidays and drop dead clauses that hostage the whole.

Tim,
 
i don't disagree with you, I am pointing out that the 17 AA stations have at least some extra protections from their bankruptcy cuts with the 7 mainline until end of 17.
 
P. Rez

 

[roabilly]

My apologies AANOTOK. I just went with the raising in DFW off the top of my head. Luckily you guys still have the best part time cap in the syste
And like I said higher up in the thread. The negotiators did talk about every way possible to keep those jobs. The Company would not budge from what I was told period. They've wanted those cabin service jobs for years and this was their Golden Ticket to finally get them. They offered no compromise.

Utilizing BK proceedings as leverage, with the threat of abrogation...

 

[roabilly]

MM was here yesterday and he was not in CLT that day. 
 
Anyway on a good solidarity note , i can honestly say that my station will most probably have a 75% yes for the strike vote. These guys and gals here are learning and thats a good thing. More work to do but it will never be 100%. Goal should be at least 85%. That is not unrealistic here.
 
Are you listening AH?

MOVE IT OUT OF THE ROAD...
FLEET IS SET ON LOCK -N- LOAD!

 

[UnitedWeStand]

Well... I'll give this one to Nelson's "deep throat"...
 
He still owes MM an apology for claiming HE was there, and was involved!

 
I agree. MM was not here to the extent of what I personally saw.
 
As a side note, can someone tell me why I can not use MM, MF, PR, NH, or any other elected officers name in full? They are public figures, are they not?
Can we use their proper names as long as we are not addressing them directly on this forum so as to reveal their forum identity?
Not sure of the proper etiquette.

 

[roabilly]

 
I agree. MM was not here to the extent of what I personally saw.
 
As a side note, can someone tell me why I can not use MM, MF, PR, NH, or any other elected officers name in full? They are public figures, are they not?
Can we use their proper names as long as we are not addressing them directly on this forum so as to reveal their forum identity?
Not sure of the proper etiquette.

It could be standard practice for this board to use only initials... that's the way I've done it since I joined...
 
If nothing else... it should be a common courtesy to protect the anonymity of those that do not participate on this board, or wish not to post under their actual names on this board...

 

[mike33]

 
I agree. MM was not here to the extent of what I personally saw.
 
As a side note, can someone tell me why I can not use MM, MF, PR, NH, or any other elected officers name in full? They are public figures, are they not?
Can we use their proper names as long as we are not addressing them directly on this forum so as to reveal their forum identity?
Not sure of the proper etiquette.

Is there a reason you would have to?...
 
Its better this way. Especially when we are in a negotiating atmosphere.
 You and i both use alias's..... why is your business. Someone like Tim doesn't mind. Maybe he gets more exposure.

 

[AANOTOK]

Tim,
 
i don't disagree with you, I am pointing out that the 17 AA stations have at least some extra protections from their bankruptcy cuts with the 7 mainline until end of 17.
 
P. Rez

Outsource cities due to Departure Limit
–
All stations w/less than
15 daily departures (5475 annually) would be
outsourced. Seventeen (17) TWU staffed cities would remain
(AUS, BOS, DCA, DFW, JFK, LAS, LAX, LGA, MCO, MIA,
ORD, SFO STL, ATL, SAT, SJU & TPA). These cities are
protected from outsourcing as long as annual departures
exceed 2555 for the duration of this agreement
===================================================
Re-staff former TWU stations that have been de-staffed and new stations once they reach
7300 or more annual departures.

 

[UnitedWeStand]

Is there a reason you would have to?...
 
Its better this way. Especially when we are in a negotiating atmosphere.
 You and i both use alias's..... why is your business. Someone like Tim doesn't mind. Maybe he gets more exposure.

 
You make a good point. I'll stick to using full names with officials employed by other airlines then.

 

[mike33]

 
I agree. MM was not here to the extent of what I personally saw.
 
As a side note, can someone tell me why I can not use MM, MF, PR, NH, or any other elected officers name in full? They are public figures, are they not?
Can we use their proper names as long as we are not addressing them directly on this forum so as to reveal their forum identity?
Not sure of the proper etiquette.

In fact i should really change mine to mike39 by now....lol