2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[charlie Brown]

the reality of the situation is that the contract language you quoted will not be in existence if on strike. In any post cooling off period, under any situation, an imposed contract would be in place unless an agreement or extention is agreed to.

That is a good point. This needs to be and is being ran by the IAM legal team. I don't see any reason to have this language if it's not able to be Enforced during a strike. It makes no sense at all to have it, if it's not going to apply. So hopefully it will.

 

[necigrad]

I'm curious, thoughts? Do you think there is any possibility that this AH guy has not come to terms with you guys yet because this item still hangs out there? Even if it is extremely remote.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-mergers-no-one-waits-060521764.html

No, we don't have a contract because AH is a douche.

 

[Kev3188]

"Cannot!" Under a legal strike when it is over You would by law come back to work with no vengeance. I on the other hand would NOT come back to work as I would be in violation of my CBA if the company chooses to can my arse.

 
No, "choose not to," as in continuing to play by rules we (labor) never agreed to.
 
Just for a second, try to imagine what positive change is possible if we stop doing that and start doing what's best for us.

 

[WeAAsles]

No, "choose not to," as in continuing to play by rules we (labor) never agreed to. Just for a second, try to imagine what positive change is possible if we stop doing that and start doing what's best for us.

No, "choose not to," as in continuing to play by rules we (labor) never agreed to. Just for a second, try to imagine what positive change is possible if we stop doing that and start doing what's best for us.

No, "choose not to," as in continuing to play by rules we (labor) never agreed to. Just for a second, try to imagine what positive change is possible if we stop doing that and start doing what's best for us.

I think you're assuming that we live in France or Germany where the labor movement is extremely feared. Did the industry walk out during PATCO? We could go into a huge multitude of reasons why the labor movement is where it is in the US today but that would take a few volumes.

I was asked a question and stated the answer for you. But if you can marshal thousands and thousands to stand behind us and damn the consequences, let's go!!!! Otherwise I gave you an honest answer whether you can accept that or not. At least I'm not blowing smoke up your.

 

[WeAAsles]

And sorry my phone did the multi quote.

 

[737823]

No, "choose not to," as in continuing to play by rules we (labor) never agreed to.
 
Just for a second, try to imagine what positive change is possible if we stop doing that and start doing what's best for us.

Buffy, Delaney, Roach and Sito would all be gone

Josh

 

[mike33]

the reality of the situation is that the contract language you quoted will not be in existence if on strike. In any post cooling off period, under any situation, an imposed contract would be in place unless an agreement or extention is agreed to.

On the flip side Tim.  If SCS were to be forced by the TWU having to sign, then maybe the language would apply as SCS would designate " Struck subsidiary "  work.  SCS becomes adverse importance to the company in that situation because then AA fleet becomes " The company " .  They as AA TWU are under contract to not strike or slow down, but our CBA doesn't allow " The Company " to perform struck work !!!!
I'm thinking AH is in a pickle.
 
Guys ...chime in !

 

[WeAAsles]

On the flip side Tim.  If SCS were to be forced by the TWU having to sign, then maybe the language would apply as SCS would designate " Struck subsidiary "  work.  SCS becomes adverse importance to the company in that situation because then AA fleet becomes " The company " .  They as AA TWU are under contract to not strike or slow down, but our CBA doesn't allow " The Company " to perform struck work !!!!I'm thinking AH is in a pickle. Guys ...chime in !

You may be in a situation where there is no past legal precedence to go by? In that case the company would probably file an injunction against us and we would legally be forced back to work while the courts decided the issue?

The TWU does have a legal team at there disposal that would advise them of what options we have? Although I very much doubt it would ever get that far along to be tested.

 

[mike33]

You may be in a situation where there is no past legal precedence to go by? In that case the company would probably file an injunction against us and we would legally be forced back to work while the courts decided the issue?

The TWU does have a legal team at there disposal that would advise them of what options we have? Although I very much doubt it would ever get that far along to be tested.

WeAAsle
 
  With SCS would you not become " The Company"?....our CBA doesn't allow " The Company" to perform " Struck work of wholly owned Carriers " That would be you at that point. They wouldn't be able to use you to work our flts. (IMO)

 

[Tim Nelson]

On the flip side Tim.  If SCS were to be forced by the TWU having to sign, then maybe the language would apply as SCS would designate " Struck subsidiary "  work.  SCS becomes adverse importance to the company in that situation because then AA fleet becomes " The company " .  They as AA TWU are under contract to not strike or slow down, but our CBA doesn't allow " The Company " to perform struck work !!!!
I'm thinking AH is in a pickle.
 
Guys ...chime in !

AH sees the hour glass. Nobody forced the iam to put a durational cap on stand alone talks but my hunchis that the twu wouldnt gave agreed to the association without it.

AH is only concerned with the outstanding release determination. The current position is utilizing the greatest amount of leverage, and a release would enhance it even if a strike wasnt authorized. The problem is the clock that AH is counting on. Something is going to give.

 

[WeAAsles]

WeAAsle   With SCS would you not become " The Company"?....our CBA doesn't allow " The Company" to perform " Struck work of wholly owned Carriers " That would be you at that point. They wouldn't be able to use you to work our flts. (IMO)

I get what you're talking about Mike but without the SOC we're still two separate airlines and that's where the company would probably argue it in court? IMO?

 

[roabilly]

I get what you're talking about Mike but without the SOC we're still two separate airlines and that's where the company would probably argue it in court? IMO?

That's the million dollar question, SOC is projected to take 18 to 24 months! However, is the new AA Group already considered a "legally combined entity" in terms of future labor cases? Wouldn't the actual day of legal consummation (The forming of the new corporation) be December 9, 2013 the same day the new stock shares hit the NASDAQ?
 
SOC has nothing to do with the overall corporate interest in this scenario...

 

[ograc]

I don't think we will be getting any fair agreement any time soon.  So the question that needs to be asked is why did the IAM leaders turn over the witches hourglass and put a duration on these talks?  That's the elephant in the room. THAT"S what AH likes.  It's a legit question and saying that the TWU will yield to the association doesn't change the outcome or the timetable since AH has this under the TWU contract already. The TWU either file single carrier by July 3, or allow the association to be its agent and do so for it by July 3 [most likely], or intentionally break their contract and have AH file an injunction asking for severe synergy damages for breach of contract.  Everything else is BS.
 
We can be very certain that unless there is a release or some political favor, AH will get his single carrier status around September. The IAM's official position is that it will negotiate stand alone until the NMB's single carrier ruling. 

Certain? Your speculation could end up being correct. But until then it is speculation. No one knows for sure. There are others who speculate a different outcome.

 

[700UW]

the reality of the situation is that the contract language you quoted will not be in existence if on strike. In any post cooling off period, under any situation, an imposed contract would be in place unless an agreement or extention is agreed to.

When we went on strike in 92 they didnt impose a new CBA and terms.

 

[700UW]

You all are confusing SCS and SOC.
 
SCS is single carrier status, that is both companies working as one and combing workforces, and ruled on by the NMB, that can be done without an SOC.
 
SOC is determined by the FAA which is Single Operating Certificate.
 
When both companies are merged under the FAA and one of the airlines operating certificate goes away.