2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[P. REZ]

I hear ya Prez,
 
By any chance did you guys ask for automatic recognition for the Association?

Tim,
 
Let me answer that with a scenario and a question. Considering that the Company was hoping that one of two scenarios played out in that the IAM couldn't get enough cards to force an election or that the IAM would lose that election with the TWU, what do you think the Company would say to recognizing the Association considering we are trying to use it as leverage to bust their tactical move?
 
P. Rez

 

[700UW]

When the CWA and IBT got recognized AH wouldnt negotiate improvements and said the west will work under the East CBA and just negotiated how they would be transitioned to the East CBA.
 
He said take it or go vote on a representational election.

 

[P. REZ]

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.

AANOTOK,
 
Welcome to Dougie World, where drop dead dates are the norm. Considering the TWU was in bankruptcy I think the protections of 7 mainline flights was good. However, the problem is that you now have a timeline where you will be desperate to get a JCBA before that date and will possibly accept a lesser agreement then if you didn't have the drop dead date. It is possible that it won't be an issue because all 17 stations may stay above 15 mainline flights but we will see. I hope for  the best for you all.
 
P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

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! 

Roabily,
puh leasseeeeeeeee!    You want folks to enter fairyland and believe that a joint contract that is most likely 5 years down the road is going to save a station from AH before then?   Otherwise, kindly show us where AH is guaranteeing that those stations below 15 flight minimums will necessarily stay open after the amendable date unless something else gets signed.  I'm not spinning squat.  Either trust AH or show us where those sAA stations are protected.  Otherwise let's not anticipate anything other than a station closing.

 

[Tim Nelson]

When the CWA and IBT got recognized AH wouldnt negotiate improvements and said the west will work under the East CBA and just negotiated how they would be transitioned to the East CBA.
 
He said take it or go vote on a representational election.

That isn't entirely true.  What AH did was voluntarily recognize the association and went straight to a joint contract less than 30 days later from what I remember. 

 

[700UW]

All they did was transition the west to the east CBA, go read the agreement.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
Let me answer that with a scenario and a question. Considering that the Company was hoping that one of two scenarios played out in that the IAM couldn't get enough cards to force an election or that the IAM would lose that election with the TWU, what do you think the Company would say to recognizing the Association considering we are trying to use it as leverage to bust their tactical move?
 
P. Rez

In a perfect world, it could be done to benefit all.
 
If we do the reverse of what happened at United, it would reduce AH risk and investor risk, speed up the time so that he catches up considerably to Delta and United, and potentially allow a bigger grab for our people. 
 
You guys have done great focusing on the present section 6 talks but consider being open to just grabbing everything in one bite upfront, if it presents itself.   There are things that AH wants that he simply can't get until he signs a joint contract.  There are things that we want that we simply can't get until we sign a joint contract.  Both parties, I assume want seamlessness and a joint contract eventually for closure and to get this merger behind us.
 
AH can voluntarily recognize the association, a membership vote would have to happen and the AH would make any TA conditioned on some post dated actions that have to happen like a ratification by all involved, and a filing of single carrier.  The attorneys can untwist this and get this done if it were practical. 
 
Of course if you mention it to management they may bite your head off and say "Drink Drano and Die".   Judging by one of your earlier post, you seem thoroughly insulted with management's ridiculousness.  I can't blame you but as ograc says, "lock and load"

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
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.

Hidden ball trick"  Gosh I really wish that were true!  All I did was quote your contract.  Nothing hidden about it.  Nothing stealthy about it either.  It's in your agreement and it's non negotiable.  Your contract is clear, that letter of agreement is time bombed to expire.  I fully understand the TWU did what it could do to buy time but time is not on the side of that letter. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

All they did was transition the west to the east CBA, go read the agreement.

You are correct.

 

[WeAAsles]

Roabily,
puh leasseeeeeeeee!    You want folks to enter fairyland and believe that a joint contract that is most likely 5 years down the road is going to save a station from AH before then?   Otherwise, kindly show us where AH is guaranteeing that those stations below 15 flight minimums will necessarily stay open after the amendable date unless something else gets signed.  I'm not spinning squat.  Either trust AH or show us where those sAA stations are protected.  Otherwise let's not anticipate anything other than a station closing.

Tim did you guys or did you not just sign a 1 year extention for station staffing with this guy AH? Is there a possible message in that? Do you think that management is coming to terms with the fact that the pieces need to start moving? There was a reason to extend obviously and it if benefited the Union more than the company why?

Of the 3 stations listed that "could" be on the block if they were able to implement today. SAT-43 heads, ATL-72 heads and SJU-92 heads. Grand total (unwanted losses of course) of 207 Heads in Fleet. Not the thousands you screamed about earlier. Of those 3, I was informed that the smallest staffed SAT currently has 15 flights going into it from DFW alone. 

What the formula also doesn't take into account is the largest jet order in History and the shrinkage of the commuters due to Pilot shortages, Major's raiding them for their pilots and their associated overall costs. That jet order alone even without the merger will generate jobs. They are NOT going to place them on routes just to avoid staffing us. We're not that expensive a measure compared to generating revenue.    

 

[mike33]

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.

Thats the problem with summary sheets. You should always look at the whole CBA language to vote on. Summary sheets can be minipulative....

 

[Tim Nelson]

Thats the problem with summary sheets. You should always look at the whole CBA language to vote on. Summary sheets can be minipulative....

that's part of the lies, distortions, and dishonesty I talked about. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim did you guys or did you not just sign a 1 year extention for station staffing with this guy AH? Is there a possible message in that? Do you think that management is coming to terms with the fact that the pieces need to start moving? There was a reason to extend obviously and it if benefited the Union more than the company why?

Of the 3 stations listed that "could" be on the block if they were able to implement today. SAT-43 heads, ATL-72 heads and SJU-92 heads. Grand total (unwanted losses of course) of 207 Heads in Fleet. Not the thousands you screamed about earlier. Of those 3, I was informed that the smallest staffed SAT currently has 15 flights going into it from DFW alone. 

What the formula also doesn't take into account is the largest jet order in History and the shrinkage of the commuters due to Pilot shortages, Major's raiding them for their pilots and their associated overall costs. That jet order alone even without the merger will generate jobs. They are NOT going to place them on routes just to avoid staffing us. We're not that expensive a measure compared to generating revenue.    

That jet order was huge.  And it appears that express operations, due to the new FAA rules, will at least keep express flying at bay. AE still pinched 3 more gates at ORD this last fall though. 
 
While we can be hopeful,  I don't think it is good to assume or anticipate that any of the stations under Cinderella dates will be around if we don't get the Cindy dates removed for permanency or grandfather language. Simply no reason at all for us to concede, in joint talks or otherwise, the notion that any current station can be lost if work is there. 

 

[WeAAsles]

That jet order was huge.  And it appears that express operations, due to the new FAA rules, will at least keep express flying at bay. AE still pinched 3 more gates at ORD this last fall though. 
 
While we can be hopeful,  I don't think it is good to assume or anticipate that any of the stations under Cinderella dates will be around if we don't get the Cindy dates removed for permanency or grandfather language. Simply no reason at all for us to concede, in joint talks or otherwise, the notion that any current station can be lost if work is there. 

 
Boeing:
 
Passeger traffic to slightly outpace GDP growth
 
"Long-term moderate capacity growth, renewed focus on financial returns, ongoing investment in the fleet, and further product and technological enhancements are expected as US airline industry restructuring continues. North American passenger traffic growth will slightly outpace GDP and grow at an annual rate of 2.7 percent over the next 20 years. Both GDP and traffic were revised downward slightly from the previous year's forecast due to the expectation of a long-term US economic recovery. Cargo revenue ton-mile projections were also revised downward to 3.8 percent per year compared to the previous forecast of 4.5 percent as the air freight industry undergoes its own fleet and capacity rationalization."

Tim your ideas again as I've stated on this issue are very simplistic in their approach. If the market (local Economy) can sustain the amount of traffic to any given destination then the company will continue to service that route. They will not cut short a route even temporarily just to get rid of a handfall of Union jobs. Airlines rely on their business travelers for a substantial amount of their revenue as you know. What you might propose is that they will risk the ire of those travelers and even perhaps give another Airline the chance to service those routes and customers?

Just not going to happen dude.

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
Boeing:
 
Passeger traffic to slightly outpace GDP growth
 
"Long-term moderate capacity growth, renewed focus on financial returns, ongoing investment in the fleet, and further product and technological enhancements are expected as US airline industry restructuring continues. North American passenger traffic growth will slightly outpace GDP and grow at an annual rate of 2.7 percent over the next 20 years. Both GDP and traffic were revised downward slightly from the previous year's forecast due to the expectation of a long-term US economic recovery. Cargo revenue ton-mile projections were also revised downward to 3.8 percent per year compared to the previous forecast of 4.5 percent as the air freight industry undergoes its own fleet and capacity rationalization."

Tim your ideas again as I've stated on this issue are very simplistic in their approach. If the market (local Economy) can sustain the amount of traffic to any given destination then the company will continue to service that route. They will not cut short a route even temporarily just to get rid of a handfall of Union jobs. Airlines rely on their business travelers for a substantial amount of their revenue as you know. What you might propose is that they will risk the ire of those travelers and even perhaps give another Airline the chance to service those routes and customers?

Just not going to happen dude.

I don't think that is necessarily true.  I'm more at the point where I think management teams can and will destroy a whole airline [as opposed to a route] to get rid of unions. Haven't we seen it before?
 
Management will definitely cut short a route to not hit that flight activity barrier if a mid size station is flirting with it.  United did it with its MIA station.  Trust me, it sucks flying RJ's into MIA from ORD.  Now since MIA has no scope, they run mainline jets.  sUS did this with RSW imo.   Management hates union jobs and would wish them and us all away if it could.
 
As far as screwing passengers, I really don't think any airline has a conscience regarding passengers.