2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, I think Frontier already outsourced a number of stations and are/were considering doing the same at their DEN base.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22526550/frontier-airlines-outsource-some-jobs-at-stations-outside

As for Spirit, similarly they use vendors at most airports. Incidentally, I have seen US fleet workers handle them at BOS, not sure about passenger agents. But again given the UA agreement and lack of movement on negotiations for US what value will they gain from joining the IAM?

Josh

At this point, I would think that the TWU would use their Southwest airline contract as a good vision of how it protects small stations by grandfathering all stations it worked prior to 2009. In much the same way, I would think that the NC at US AIRWAYS would use the same grandfather approach to make sure the IAM doesn't lose work in the merger.  Our members have worked these stations for 50 years, no reason why any of them should be left out when the industry is a rock star in the best industry climate ever.  As far as Frontier or spirit, really none of those employees have nothing to lose by joining any organization since they make bare minimum, unsafe conditions, and have next to no benefits.  It isn't like they are working for Delta who maintains a decent quality of work life, presumably to keep unions away.

 

[700UW]

Tim, I think Frontier already outsourced a number of stations and are/were considering doing the same at their DEN base.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22526550/frontier-airlines-outsource-some-jobs-at-stations-outside

As for Spirit, similarly they use vendors at most airports. Incidentally, I have seen US fleet workers handle them at BOS, not sure about passenger agents. But again given the UA agreement and lack of movement on negotiations for US what value will they gain from joining the IAM?

Josh

 
 
This is US Fleet Service, not Frontier.

 

[roabilly]

 
 
This is US Fleet Service, not Frontier.

Talk about a quick change of subject!

 

[Tim Nelson]

From an article involving the pilots dispute of a seniority section of their MOU.....
 
"If the two pilots unions cannot sort out seniority integration in a timely fashion, the company could take legal action to enforce the timetable spelled out in the memorandum of understanding. According to that document, the union needs to give American a final seniority list by Dec. 9, 2015."
 
The TWU has a memorandum of understanding as well that dictates a timetable for them filing and supporting such application of a single carrier.  That timetable expires in June, two months from now.  Although I don't expect the TWU to violate the timetable, I use the above article to show that the company can and will have legal action recourse if any union violated terms of a contract.

 

[700UW]

The TWU MOU with US clearly states any disputes arising from the MOU go to arbitration.
 
Stop with the misinformation.
 
And US isnt suing APA or USAPA, they responded to a lawsuit filed by USAPA against the APA, once again USAPA is trying to circumvent agreements made in regard to seniority.
 
Apples to Oranges, not Apples to Apples.
 
 
 

In a court filing made late Friday, Fort Worth-based American said a memorandum of understanding reached last year with the two pilots unions — the Allied Pilots and the US Airline Pilots Association — lays out a specific process for determining an integrated seniority list.
“The Company seeks to put a stop, once and for all, to USAPA’s bad-faith behavior in trying to escape the provisions of the MOU regarding seniority integration for the pre-merger US Airways and pre-merger American pilot groups,” American said in its filing.
American asserted that the agreement specifies that any arbitration needed to resolve a seniority integration dispute be held after American and its pilots have reached a new contract.

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...1#storylink=cpy
 

 

[Tim Nelson]

OK Tim...
 
I read your detailed response, and I agree with about 50% of it...
 
The parts I am at odds with are your observations as an armchair critic, with nothing to lose if you’re wrong, but a lot to gain if you’re are right! We have been over, and over, and over, the TWU MOU, and the language therein. Even YOU agreed that it was an amendment to the existing TWU CBA. You also agreed that it would not be a breach if SCS was delayed. You also agreed that it would be a “Minor Dispute” subject to arbitration. Having said that... here you are again, making the SCS and the association a huge argument as a tool to cast doubt on the integrity of the Union(s)!
 
One thing for certain is this, if the IAM had decided to settle for less, or even nothing in 6 in lieu of promised gains in the JCBA (Transition Talks), you would have been on here publicly assailing the Leadership for “cutting backroom deals” as you have done so often in the past. Now that the IAM is actually sticking to their demands, and letting due process play-out regarding the RLA, you accuse them of letting the Government do their dirty work!
 
Either way... YOU win politically... am I not right? 
 
​Let's face it... if you are successful in your armchair political arguments, you will be elected to a position that pays six figures annually... correct?

Not sure where you get your information about me agreeing that it would not be a violation of a contract.  And whether it is called a MOU, LOA, or whatever, it becomes a part of the existing contract and not some tangent.
 
I'm not on here attacking the union as you say, but rather bringing forth information that the union leadership has failed to.  Fact is, that MOU is the big elephant in the room and has nothing to do with politics.  Why do you think AH gave the TWU members a 4.3% pay increase IN RETURN for the single carrier application?  You think AH is running for IAM office or playing politics also?  Facts are facts and have nothing to do with politics.  The MOU won't pay no mind if I get elected or if I don't get elected but for some reason you take the MOU information and twist it into some political soup.  It's no more political for me wanting to bring that information forward as it is for the IAM leadership refusing to bring it forward. It's objective and stands on its own.  If you want to blame me for bringing it out so our membership can get a vision of the timeframe then color me wrong.  It's not a matter of me being right or wrong, it's a matter of a document.
 
WHat is important here isn't who gains and loses in politics but how can the members gain?  I offered my opinion and that the union leadership should consider a progressive forward moving stance that takes into account that we are actually in a merger now.  If you think the union should continue being blind to that then that's your prerogative.  But separate from opinion, that stance has isolated our membership and polarized talks.  When comparing the different approaches from all unions, only the IAM is stuck out of draft.  I mean, Parker found solutions to get 8 signed labor contracts including all sAA unionized employees, and the sUS pilots and sUS flight attendants.  Something has to give with the IAM.  It can either isolate itself as it did at United and blindlessly follow Delaney's insistence, and in doing so could risk everything and have to leave money on the table, or it could find a proper resolution.  At some point, Delaney's team has to come to the realization that it was the only group at United that botched stand alone talks, and now seems to be repeating itself at US AIRWAYS since all other unions have signed deals already and the IAM is reduced to calling Parker a hypocrite.  C'mon man, let's get this done.  Polarization negotiation methods aren't going to resolve anything.  And let's not deny the IAM's stated position, i.e., stand alone talks until the NMB rules on a single carrier.  You do know that in translation that means about September, right?   If that happens then US AIRWAYS fleet will get screwed as bad as United fleet and get $0 as it walks into joint talks and the United saga will repeat itself here.  Of course, you wouldn't have a problem with that since it won't affect you. I imagine you will even support the BS letter that Delaney will no doubt express when he says they had no choice but to go into joint talks as the NMB balked at the release.  You will sound the trumpet that it is the NMB's fault.  But you sounding the trumpet won't do anything for the wallets of fleet service members who will have to endure another several years of getting no pay raises should that happen.

 

[700UW]

They gave up profit sharing in exchange for the raise, cost neutral.

 

[WeAAsles]

700 if you read the MOU it states any issues arising over the "Interpretation or Application" will be arbitrated on an expedited basis. The dispute will be heard subject to the availability of the arbitrator no later than 30 days after submission and decided no later than 30 days following the first day of the hearing.

So yes it can go to arbitration to buy a little time but there will be an inevitable end to the process where either the TWU or the association will have to file for SCS. The interpretation is succinct and very clear cut.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The TWU MOU with US clearly states any disputes arising from the MOU go to arbitration.
 
Stop with the misinformation.
 
And US isnt suing APA or USAPA, they responded to a lawsuit filed by USAPA against the APA, once again USAPA is trying to circumvent agreements made in regard to seniority.
 
Apples to Oranges, not Apples to Apples.
 
 
 

You consistently have held that the company can not have any legal recourse if the TWU violates the agreement.  I thought the legal recourse was built in with a pre determined signed arbitrator and a 30 day timeline?  I simply disagree with you that AH won't have any right to ask for damages as well.  I would fully expect AH to ask for damages to lost synergies as a result of delaying single carrier. I'm not the attorney that will be putting his case together and the onus will be upon him to show it, but I believe they will have a strong case to do it.  Time will tell, but the TWU definitely will expose its entity with a willful violation of the terms.  But maybe AH plays nice and just lets it slide as you indicate.

 

[Tim Nelson]

They gave up profit sharing in exchange for the raise, cost neutral.

No.  They gave up profit sharing for the raise and also agreed to single carrier. It's impossible to leave that out since it is the exact same mou. 

 

[roabilly]

700 if you read the MOU it states any issues arising over the "Interpretation or Application" will be arbitrated on an expedited basis. The dispute will be heard subject to the availability of the arbitrator no later than 30 days after submission and decided no later than 30 days following the first day of the hearing.

So yes it can go to arbitration to buy a little time but there will be an inevitable end to the process where either the TWU or the association will have to file for SCS. The interpretation is succinct and very clear cut.

And here is paragraph 9... for reference...
 
[sharedmedia=core:attachments:10088]

 

[WeAAsles]

And here is paragraph 9... for reference...
 

Thank you Roa. Here is a link to the entire MOU for those who wish to either read or reread it.

http://twu514.org/blog/2013/02/15/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-twu-and-us-airways-dated-jan-25-2013/

 

[WeAAsles]

No.  They gave up profit sharing for the raise and also agreed to single carrier. It's impossible to leave that out since it is the exact same mou. 

In the original first MOU it was agreed to in an attempt to keep all of our stations from closing within the BK. Had Parker needed to initialize a hostile takeover that was agreed to by the creditors before the stations closed they would have remained open. It was a long shot but I think that was the original intention of going along with Parker's attempt to get AA.

 

[Tim Nelson]

To the audience.  On one hand, 700 and those pushing for a release want you to think that the TWU contract regarding single carrier isn't really any big deal.  That's the position they have to take since they are otherwise backed into a corner by their own doing since they have failed to recognize other solutions in the midst of these negotiations. There is a reason why Parker has already signed 8 labor contracts that represent about 70,000 employees but has failed to engage intelligently with the IAM.  It's not because he loves all the other unions and hates the IAM, but rather Delaney has insisted on putting politics over the members by engaging in Treasure Island negotiations. Logically, perhaps the Delaney team has done this due to politics, whatever, but those same politics caused the United members to get $0 as Delaney was forced to enter joint talks.  Even the IAM has made it 100% clear, they will only participate in stand alone talks UNTIL [IAM's word, not mine] the NMB makes a single carrier ruling.  That reasonably takes us to September.  The question will become, is there enough time to find solutions as opposed to polar opposite negotiations?  Remember, Delaney's team plays the blame game quite well and will most likely blame the NMB for not issuing a release as the reason to go into joint talks with a goose-egg.  They fooled members at United and got $0, let's not let it happen twice.  There is no evidence over 6 years of them doing anything but BSing and F everything up.  When you compare where your negotiations are at US AIRWAYS with the 70,000 plus that already secured agreements, doesn't that beg the question of why negotiations have deteriorated into polar opposites when Parker has already worked out deals rather quickly with other groups?  Please don't come to the conclusion that AH has a vendetta against the IAM.  AH isn't my favorite but the treasure island negotiation strategy isn't something that is going to interest any management team.  And the IAM reducing itself to screaming to the media, "Help Police Murder" isn't accomplishing anything.  Name calling by the IAM also shows its weak position when management isn't listening.  We have to find a solution, otherwise we risk getting goose-egged.  Timelines are fast approaching.

 

[Tim Nelson]

In the original first MOU it was agreed to in an attempt to keep all of our stations from closing within the BK. Had Parker needed to initialize a hostile takeover that was agreed to by the creditors before the stations closed they would have remained open. It was a long shot but I think that was the original intention of going along with Parker's attempt to get AA.

I hear ya