What's new

2014 Fleet Service Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
roabilly said:
And this statement STILL has relevance regarding your observations...
 
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?
We voted for change six years ago. The Canale concession stand was closed. The New Direction Team was the answer. 6 years later... here we are again. Delaney, his leadership team and the NC are now the villans and AH is probably right. We are asking too much. Wow! I'm getting dizzy following this forum anymore. If elected; what could one newly elected AGC do to turn things around other than oppose the direction and strategy of District negotiations? In the end; would one dissenting vote on principals, from a newly elected AGC on the district E Board, have any impact on the direction this district takes in negotiations? 
 
700UW said:
Anyone ever think that the Alliance will file the SCS instead of just the TWU? See I can think out of the box. Robbed if you go to 141's web page and go to US, pull up the Alliance Agreement and it will have th list of who will represent each station.
  After todays union meeting i do think that the " Alliance " will file. The Iam i believe is in charge of the Alliance for the first 2 yrs. I don't think the company would win a legal battle against the TWU for not filing. The IAM is in charge for now. JMO though after much conversation.
 
Tim Nelson said:
As an aside, That raise was a gain, if the pay parity isn't triggered.  But if the pay parity is triggered in September, 2015, then wouldn't the resulting pay happen regardless if you got a 4.3%?
Tim I think you have to think in the moment and not look at any rates that are out there now. At that moment UAL did not have an agreement, Delta had not been given raises and you guys would have been $1.00 below us. The average factors in 4 airlines. At that time and not having a crystal ball it was a good decision.

If the JCBA talks are successful and we come to an agreement with the company in a fairly timely manner (As Doug says he wants) the averaging will become irrelevant. There would be no need for any averaging formula. Everything is going to depend on both sides being reasonable in those talks I'm afraid.
 
WeAAsles said:
Tim I think you have to think in the moment and not look at any rates that are out there now. At that moment UAL did not have an agreement, Delta had not been given raises and you guys would have been $1.00 below us. The average factors in 4 airlines. At that time and not having a crystal ball it was a good decision.

If the JCBA talks are successful and we come to an agreement with the company in a fairly timely manner (As Doug says he wants) the averaging will become irrelevant. There would be no need for any averaging formula. Everything is going to depend on both sides being reasonable in those talks I'm afraid.
i hear ya
 
ograc said:
We voted for change six years ago. The Canale concession stand was closed. The New Direction Team was the answer. 6 years later... here we are again. Delaney, his leadership team and the NC are now the villans and AH is probably right. We are asking too much. Wow! I'm getting dizzy following this forum anymore. If elected; what could one newly elected AGC do to turn things around other than oppose the direction and strategy of District negotiations? In the end; would one dissenting vote on principals, from a newly elected AGC on the district E Board, have any impact on the direction this district takes in negotiations? 
I don't think it is a matter of villans but rather solutions and accountability.  The IAM doesn't always have to be the odd ball out of 8 groups, and things don't always have to end up with deep concessions. Each voter will have to measure that for themselves.  6 Years, and what to show?  We gave them a chance and thus far they showed the Hawaiian contract and the United contract. If that's the direction folks want to continue on, then they should vote for the current bunch.  If folks think they are getting their dues worth then they should consider the incumbents, if not then they should consider change.  As far as a dissenting vote, I don't think that my vote will be the only one dissenting, should I get elected.  I would be going in on the collective strength of the members seeking change along with the entire ticket I'm running on that will make up the majority of the eboard.  Delaney won't have one big kumbuya singing to his praises.   Again, if the HAL and UAL contract and the present polarized talks at US AIRWAYS is the direction folks are comfortable in then they should vote for the  incumbents.  You all have enough history with this group to adequately measure what happened and where the current talks at US AIRWAYS are headed.  There is a reason why 70,000 employees on this company have signed a contract regarding this merger but the IAM is left screaming in the press with nothing to show,  just like at United, holding the bag.  I have prepared you to realize the inevitable of a single carrier application and how it will all wind down by July at the latest, even though those from the current eboard lead you to believe that the TWU will balk at their obligations and drag things out indefinitely.  And the IAM has already informed all of you that it will be in stand alone talks until the NMB rules on a single carrier.  That's September at the latest btw. 
 
One thing is clear though, there are clear contrasts between me and the current bunch stuck in polarized talks demanding improvements in all contract articles in the midst of the reality of a first bite situation.  Every other union adapted once a merger was announced, just like at United.  Remember, the current eboard that supports the polarized position is the same eboard that supported Delaney's decision to do the same thing at United and then walk in to joint talks with $0, leaving a 12% pay hike and job security on the table. The United members understand what happened, many US AIRWAYS members are led to believe a '6 item' throwdown in negotiations is a reality. I will admit that it does itch the hell out of ears and buys votes for my opponents but I'm not going to buy votes by blowing smoke up your asses.  If you guys like the current situation then keep the current bunch.  That's the deal. If not then Delaney will get the message in June. That's the deal as well. 
 
You want someone to stroke you by telling you that you will be getting full sick pay, more holidays, more vacation, more retirement, 13% pay raise, more scope in a pre-joint contract situation then vote for the current bunch who claim that there is an impasse and those 6 items are part of their final offer. Folks like believing a lie.  It's easier, as the truth offends folks. But I'd rather slap folks in the face with the truth than kiss them with lies.  You want fairy tales and treasure Island....vote for the incumbents and wish upon a star.  They are the ones telling you about their '6 item throwdown' and how they will fix AH with a strike. Lock and Load but let's consider some solutions first. Polar opposite negotiations isn't going to resolve anything at US AIRWAYS and burnt the hell out of the members at United who got 'goose-egged' in pre-joint talks.
 
ograc said:
We voted for change six years ago. The Canale concession stand was closed. The New Direction Team was the answer. 6 years later... here we are again. Delaney, his leadership team and the NC are now the villans and AH is probably right. We are asking too much. Wow! I'm getting dizzy following this forum anymore. If elected; what could one newly elected AGC do to turn things around other than oppose the direction and strategy of District negotiations? In the end; would one dissenting vote on principals, from a newly elected AGC on the district E Board, have any impact on the direction this district takes in negotiations? 
Cargo,
 
I find it interesting that Nelson’s “September Latest” argument for SCS is an observation that may, or may NOT transpire until AFTER the elections in June!
Essentially, what does he have to lose if he’s wrong or posting inaccurate information? He would already be in the cushy $100,000.00 (plus) a year AGC position by then!
I guess at that point... he would simply say... “ooops my bad” as he did when he slandered MM on completely false information a few weeks ago...
 
Campaigning on conjecture and crystal ball visions is easy to do from the comfort of home. Especially, when you have nothing to lose, and a whole lot to gain... even if you are completely WRONG!
 
mike33 said:
  After todays union meeting i do think that the " Alliance " will file. The Iam i believe is in charge of the Alliance for the first 2 yrs. I don't think the company would win a legal battle against the TWU for not filing. The IAM is in charge for now. JMO though after much conversation.
"33"
 
I agree... if you read the alliance agreement... and the MOU (Paragraph 9) ... there are mechanisms in the language that would indicate the strong possibility for legal appeal of the original TWU MOU by the "Alliance"... Gil Vernon (the arbitrator) for the MOU would have to render his decision based on the premise that the MOU was filed PRIOR to the alliance, thus giving the alliance recognition in SCS. 
 
One thing for certain... it won't happen until AFTER the elections!
 
I've been told that the former Eagle gates here at CLT will be on the next bid here(starting June 2nd) type of A/C unknown or more likely not saying.
 
roabilly said:
Cargo,
 
I find it interesting that Nelson’s “September Latest” argument for SCS is an observation that may, or may NOT transpire until AFTER the elections in June!
Essentially, what does he have to lose if he’s wrong or posting inaccurate information? He would already be in the cushy $100,000.00 (plus) a year AGC position by then!
I guess at that point... he would simply say... “ooops my bad” as he did when he slandered MM on completely false information a few weeks ago...
 
Campaigning on conjecture and crystal ball visions is easy to do from the comfort of home. Especially, when you have nothing to lose, and a whole lot to gain... even if you are completely WRONG!
Crystal ball?  No, roabilly, It's actually ridiculous that you keep bringing politics in this.   The single carrier, by contract, has to happen by June, but I built in a 30 day delay if the TWU chooses to violate its contract, so I say July at the latest. It's all in the contract roabilly,  The MOU says 6 months which is in June, and AH has protected any drawn out grievance disputes by already securing an arbitrator and a 30 day window if there is any dispute.  So, July it is.  The TWU also has to support the application, because according to the document, "File and support the application".   Nothing political Roabilly.  Knowing that the NMB historically takes a short time to issue a single carrier, I say September, at the latest.  Could be August.  What if it is October?  What's your fuss?  Nothing political, the point is that it is inevitable and real sometime this year, and most likely no later than September. 
 
The problem is compounded by the agreement by the association.  Don't get me wrong, the agreement is a great thing, but the IAM agreed to negotiate stand alone 'until' [IAM's words, not mine] a single carrier ruling by the NMB. 
 
Roabilly, instead of saying everything I said is political, how about engaging in this issue?  Do you have something to counter what the IAM signed and the TWU signed other than discount all of it to politics?
 
roabilly said:
"33"
 
I agree... if you read the alliance agreement... and the MOU (Paragraph 9) ... there are mechanisms in the language that would indicate the strong possibility for legal appeal of the original TWU MOU by the "Alliance"... Gil Vernon (the arbitrator) for the MOU would have to render his decision based on the premise that the MOU was filed PRIOR to the alliance, thus giving the alliance recognition in SCS. 
 
One thing for certain... it won't happen until AFTER the elections!
Can I ask you a dumb question,  exactly what would the purpose of not filing single carrier be, and for the TWU to delay it?  Also, you my brother are incorrect, if it was delayed, the TWU would be up to the plate in the legal battle, not the alliance.  The Alliance isn't a recognized legal representative and won't be until it is certified and recognized by the National Mediation Board.  And that CAN"T happen until a single carrier application is approved. 
 
But for argument sake, let's say the TWU tosses its organization at risk,  what would be gained, a couple months?  A couple months for what?  You do realize that AH knows what he has in that contract and that is precisely why he agreed to include a 4.3% pay raise in return for the single carrier, and the built in resolution process including naming the arbitrator by name to cover ALL of his bases.  What do you think AH is going to do, speed up negotiations and give the IAM what it wants, or shelve things and delay stuff further until an arbitrator's decision?
 
cltrat said:
I've been told that the former Eagle gates here at CLT will be on the next bid here(starting June 2nd) type of A/C unknown or more likely not saying.
What I understand is that 4 AE ORD/CLT runs will be turned over to US AIRWAYS metal.  I believe a few A321 and a few RJ.  The company agreement with the DOJ means that it can't increase the number of flights I believe, so management wants to increase capacity by bringing in more A321 on the previous AE routes. sUS  ORD will go from 19 flights a day to 25 in June, then supposedly around 30 in September. In doing such, maybe ORD finally gets class 1 station status next year.
 
Watch the association file the SCS, that would throw a monkey wrench at AH.
 
There is nothing preventing US/AA adding flights, the only restrictions is they would need DOJ approval to buy slots at DCA and LGA.
 
I'm going to ask what may very well be a dumb question but how can the Association file for anything when it hasn't been voted on and approved by the membership?
 
700UW said:
Watch the association file the SCS, that would throw a monkey wrench at AH.
How is it a monkey wrench?  A single carrier application MUST still be filed by the TWU or on its behalf,  and MUST be supported by the TWU to satisfy its contract.  AH wants the process triggered and he covered his legal bases to do that.  I don't think AH really cares if the members vote on the Association or the TWU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top