2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Is this the CEO's new house?
http://www.candysdirt.com/2014/02/28/aa-merger-magic-for-our-real-estate-market-us-air-prez-buys-sharif-munir-mansion-on-strait-lane/

 

[700UW]

Its not Doug's its Kirby's, I started a thread about it.
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56866-kirbys-new-digs/

 

[ograc]

 
 
I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
-Douglas MacArthur
 

Declared war and military intervention should indeed be the last option. The same could be said about a withdrawal of services (strike). If this option is exercised there are no winners. Why would the company choose to bring the parties to the brink of self destruction when trying to resolve internal disputes? Regardless; if this is the chosen path of the company in contract negotiations, they have chosen the future and fate of this merger going forward. A useless strategy indeed. 
Lock and Load!

 

[mike33]

Is this the CEO's new house?
http://www.candysdirt.com/2014/02/28/aa-merger-magic-for-our-real-estate-market-us-air-prez-buys-sharif-munir-mansion-on-strait-lane/

The rapeing of USairways continues.
 
​ Post in all break rooms!

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

With all this talk about the NW MX strike, I have to ask this.  Exactly how much COMPANY SPECIFIC training is necessary to perform A&P work on US aircraft?  I'm asking because (in my uneducated mind) an A&P is an A&P is an A&P and any A&P can work on our aircraft.  Every other workgroup, however, requires specific company training in order to touch US aircraft.  I think, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 
There is a whole lot more than company training involved.
 
Here is few articles about one portion of the NWA strike that not many remember or know about.
 
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-01-29/airline-safety-a-whistleblowers-tale
 
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2010/07/23/faa-northwest-report
 
This was an attack on the integrity of our profession and the FAA was complicit in its execution. Where is the outrage? Where is call for justice from the other so called mechanic unions or for that matter the pilots union, or the Flight attendants? 
 
This alone should've served as a lightning rod for ALL unions representing airline personnel.

 

[NYer]

Mike....im right.

This is the same nonsense i had to deal with at united. When are you guys going to ever learn how your union leaders jerk you guys off? I go through hell telling you guys the truth. At united i had shop stewards who threatened to kick my arse but now tell me thank you. You guys gotta get out of this mindset that the union leaders know what the hell they are talking about all the time. They dont.
i may have to open up a can at usairways as well but i hope not.

These guys have their F brains rented out.

 
Doesn't bode well for a supposed leader to talk to other actual leaders in the manner in which you choose to engage. First of all, not sure what made you an expert in the TWU CBA and what were you gained the knowledge that there were lies being spread. Please enlighten us.
 
Or is it that all union leaders, except yourself of course, at automatically liars. If that's your assertion then it really sends a clear message of the type of leader you propose to be.

 

[roabilly]

Know thy enemy. Know thy self. The only ones who respect Marines; are fellow Marines and their enemy.

 
 
Cargo,
 
Sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes you are the bug... I think   these ol' boys were the bug!!
 
P.S. I wonder if SK's mega-mansion was cost neutral?

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
Doesn't bode well for a supposed leader to talk to other actual leaders in the manner in which you choose to engage. First of all, not sure what made you an expert in the TWU CBA and what were you gained the knowledge that there were lies being spread. Please enlighten us.
 
Or is it that all union leaders, except yourself of course, at automatically liars. If that's your assertion then it really sends a clear message of the type of leader you propose to be.

Oh, I don't have to be an expert on your contract, that's for sure.   Otherwise, I'll serve the membership as a leader the best I can.  If the eboard wants a unanimous vote on a joint contract that blows then they won't get it from me. If there is a joint contract that has some serious consequences involved then I'll make sure the membership if properly informed and not lied to like what happened at United.  As far as TWU, I've talked to TWU members that say 17 stations is locked in stone. I couldn't tell them otherwise even though the Cinderella date exist.  At any rate, it's up to the membership to decide, if they were happy with how the eboard handled United airlines then they should vote for the current officers.  I have passion to advance this craft but I also have a life outside of here that I thoroughly enjoy so if the membership chooses to stick with the present eboard then cool.  They already know me.  Some like me, some don't.  But they already know me and they know that there can not possibly be a continuing of a big kumbuya jerkoff on the eboard. Diversity is good.

 

[AANOTOK]

Tim,
 
I'm a bit confused on your "Cinderella date". The contract language clearly states that those (17) stations are protected from outsourcing (as long as departures stay at a certain level for the duration of the agreement (contract). At the end of the agreement, I thought the language was still enforced until a new contract was agreed upon. So again, I'm a bit confused on what you are getting at with the Cinderella argument.
 
 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.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
I'm a bit confused on your "Cinderella date". The contract language clearly states that those (17) stations are protected from outsourcing (as long as departures stay at a certain level for the duration of the agreement (contract). At the end of the agreement, I thought the language was still enforced until a new contract was agreed upon. So again, I'm a bit confused on what you are getting at with the Cinderella argument.
 
 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.

It doesn't say that.  Below is what it says.  The letter expires a day before ammendability in which case article 1C will apply which has a much higher bar of flight activity. Each of those stations would have to have at least 15 flights a day at that point since the letter expires. In other words, that lower bar of flight activity vanishes and those stations are subject to the calculations and higher bar of 1C.
 
"During these negotiations, we agreed that the following seventeen (17) stations will continue to be staffed with TWU represented employees following the implementation of Article 1(c). Those stations will remain staffed, with TWU represented Fleet Service employees, so long as the annual departures are at or above 2555 from the effective date of this agreement up to the day prior to the amendable date.  
 ATL  JFK  MIA  STL  AUS  LAS  ORD  TPA  BOS  LAX  SAT  DCA  LGA  SFO  DFW  MCO  SJU    Beyond the amendable date, Article 1(c) will apply."

 

[NYer]

Tim,
 
I'm a bit confused on your "Cinderella date". The contract language clearly states that those (17) stations are protected from outsourcing (as long as departures stay at a certain level for the duration of the agreement (contract). At the end of the agreement, I thought the language was still enforced until a new contract was agreed upon. So again, I'm a bit confused on what you are getting at with the Cinderella argument.
 
 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.

 
What Tim doesn't understand is that the 2555 (or 7 departures) was the original threshold in the TWU CBA. In the BK, it was raised to 5475 (or 15 departures). In trying to keep a couple of the remaining stations away from that threshold and not allow the airline to manipulate the schedule just enough to 14 flights, on average, it was agreed that for the term of the BK CBA the remaining cities would revert to the 7 departure number. After the BK CBA the originally agreed to 15 flight threshold would be used.
 
Without the 7 flights, we could lose ATL, SAT and SJU, since they're currently near the original 15 number. With the merger, we can anticipate those cities receiving flights from CLT, PHL or other hubs which would help them stay over that number.
 
Aside from that, there is an MOU which is supposed to be honored as far as cities originally agreed to by US and AA to be staffed and that includes current cities already closed. Hopefully the current IAM talks strengthens their own scope, but either way, even if it stays the same the TWU Members will gain cities to work in from the current stable of 17.
 
Tim is trying to portray this as a hidden ball trick or some kind of stealthy inserted language.

 

[roabilly]

 
What Tim doesn't understand is that the 2555 (or 7 departures) was the original threshold in the TWU CBA. In the BK, it was raised to 5475 (or 15 departures). In trying to keep a couple of the remaining stations away from that threshold and not allow the airline to manipulate the schedule just enough to 14 flights, on average, it was agreed that for the term of the BK CBA the remaining cities would revert to the 7 departure number. After the BK CBA the originally agreed to 15 flight threshold would be used.
 
Without the 7 flights, we could lose ATL, SAT and SJU, since they're currently near the original 15 number. With the merger, we can anticipate those cities receiving flights from CLT, PHL or other hubs which would help them stay over that number.
 
Aside from that, there is an MOU which is supposed to be honored as far as cities originally agreed to by US and AA to be staffed and that includes current cities already closed. Hopefully the current IAM talks strengthens their own scope, but either way, even if it stays the same the TWU Members will gain cities to work in from the current stable of 17.
 
Tim is trying to portray this as a hidden ball trick or some kind of stealthy inserted language.

That's what Tim does best...
 
Make the Union(s) look stupid and corrupt, while claiming that he can correct ALL of these fabricated issues.
It's sort of like the fireman that goes around starting fires, while playing the hero as he is called in to extinguish them! 

 

[AANOTOK]

It doesn't say that.  Below is what it says.  The letter expires a day before ammendability in which case article 1C will apply which has a much higher bar of flight activity. Each of those stations would have to have at least 15 flights a day at that point since the letter expires. In other words, that lower bar of flight activity vanishes and those stations are subject to the calculations and higher bar of 1C.
 
"During these negotiations, we agreed that the following seventeen (17) stations will continue to be staffed with TWU represented employees following the implementation of Article 1(c). Those stations will remain staffed, with TWU represented Fleet Service employees, so long as the annual departures are at or above 2555 from the effective date of this agreement up to the day prior to the amendable date.  
 ATL  JFK  MIA  STL  AUS  LAS  ORD  TPA  BOS  LAX  SAT  DCA  LGA  SFO  DFW  MCO  SJU    Beyond the amendable date, Article 1(c) will apply."

http://www.twulocal513.org/docs/FSC%20FBO%20Side%20by%20Side%20Mailer%20Final%20Version.pdf
 
According to this, the language is what I posted/quoted and what I voted on. If indeed it states differently in the 1(c) and gives them an out one day before the amendable date, then someone has some explaining to do.

 

[ograc]

 
 
Cargo,
 
Sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes you are the bug... I think   these ol' boys were the bug!!
 
P.S. I wonder if SK's mega-mansion was cost neutral?

And then there were none! oooohraaa! I think "cost neutral" only applies to represented employees seeking improvements in their working conditions. Hell... someone has to sacrifice in order for SK to be paid so much. I'll bet my house could fit in his garage.

 

[AANOTOK]

The more I read it Tim, I do believe what I posted is correct. The stations can cut flights at anytime below the 2555 and be outsourced. Once the amendable date is reached, the company can still outsource those stations if they fall below the threshold but they cannot arbitrarily come in and outsource any of those stations without that threshold being met. So, to me, there is no Cinderella date where we lose those 17 stations.