2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

 
 
No movement on Scope is a deal breaker, IMO. That offer should be dead before it even leaves the room.

These guys all blow smoke.  The thing that chaps my ass is how they focus on more days off without protecting the work.  Cinderella dates are time bombs.  At any rate, this will be the last time we are in section 6 talks until prolly 8 years.  Me thinks joint talks will last about 4 years with an ammendability date guess of about 2022.   This will be the last section 6 talks for guys my age.  By waiving off scope, and not building upon it like one is suppose to do when a company is making Billions and a union is in section 6, they are basically tossing in the towel.  IMO, I don't even look at the wage without scope.  Wage doesn't matter if it's $26 if there isn't scope for many of our stations.  Who said United didn't matter?

 

[Kev3188]

No movement because of cinderella dates or no movement because it isn't being enhanced?

Josh

 
 

what scope is the company trying to push?.....TWU AA scope?  i assumed scope was not on the table.

 
Good questions. I'm just going off of what Wikileaks posted. I was under the impression that one of the stated goals of the NC was to tighten up the existing language? If, as he indicates, the company is "not willing to budge," that tells me that at best they're offering status quo. If I was on the NC (or a US employee), I'd find that unacceptable.

 

[Kev3188]

These guys all blow smoke.  The thing that chaps my ass is how they focus on more days off without protecting the work.  Cinderella dates are time bombs.  At any rate, this will be the last time we are in section 6 talks until prolly 8 years.  Me thinks joint talks will last about 4 years with an ammendability date guess of about 2022.   This will be the last section 6 talks for guys my age.  By waiving off scope, and not building upon it like one is suppose to do when a company is making Billions and a union is in section 6, they are basically tossing in the towel.  IMO, I don't even look at the wage without scope.  Wage doesn't matter if it's $26 if there isn't scope for many of our stations.  Who said United didn't matter?

 
I agree with all of that, and honestly hope this isn't the case. Guess we'll all see here soon enough...

 

[Tim Nelson]

what scope is the company trying to push?.....TWU AA scope?  i assumed scope was not on the table.

Scope was the first thing on the table.  Problem is that it is the first thing now off the table.  Everything about these talks was suppose to be centered around scope and grandfathering all stations like the TWU did at Southwest in 2009, and like other unions did.  Maybe we have members who will pass $22 and more time off, I'm just speaking for myself.  My perspective is that nobody should be agreeing to more days off if scope isn't enhanced to protect the work of all current stations.  Not sure how things will shake out this week yet, but it appears that days off became the big grab. What good are days off if we lose work in dozens of stations, and then those members displace members from hubs?

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
 
 
Good questions. I'm just going off of what Wikileaks posted. I was under the impression that one of the stated goals of the NC was to tighten up the existing language? If, as he indicates, the company is "not willing to budge," that tells me that at best they're offering status quo. If I was on the NC (or a US employee), I'd find that unacceptable.

You are correct brother.  They agreed to status quo on scope.  Nothing less but nothing more.  Maybe they put a band aid on there with a Cindy date but I don't understand for my life how they can't grandfather all current stations under scope.  Again,  maybe the members approve a contract with $22 and change because they are hungry, that is their right and I can respect that, but I would have to recommend a rejection if it meant no enhancement of scope. And I wouldn't care if it was $26, without more scope, there will be a lot of seat warmers around here still.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Roabilly has to wait for his boy prior to him posting.

 

[737823]

Without scope nothing they negotiate is of substance, no drop dead/cinderella dates. They should have protection for all existing stations.

Josh

 

[rockit2]

Negotiations Update.... The company has moved on wages, they are now offering mid $22 for top scale also an extra week of vacation, a couple of extra holidays and full sick pay for time used. However they are not willing to budge on SCOPE. As far as back pay goes the company is only willing to pay back-pay  from the date of merger closing not since the contract became amendable. The negatiating team is not ready to accept this offer just yet, they need a little more. IMO the IAM needs to fight for full back pay like what UA employees got.

The weak shall inherit the contract..............that's right folks. The junior and the weak senior agents will vote this **** in overwhelming. MF and Delaney should stand before their constituents and reep what they sow. MF should have to work under this proposed cba. Why shouldn't we get full retro, we saved this company not the management. The people in the trenches deserve more of the pie. AGC' on the US side are weak.

 

[rockit2]

Roabilly has to wait for his boy prior to him posting.

Roa doesn't care about scope....he's retired and he doesn't care about anything accept making sure his buddies get re-elected

 

[Tim Nelson]

Roa doesn't care about scope....he's retired and he doesn't care about anything accept making sure his buddies get re-elected

Yeah but his buddy assured him that his IAMPF is in good hands. Dearest Roabilly has nothing better to do on his front porch.

 

[mike33]

Scope was the first thing on the table.  Problem is that it is the first thing now off the table.  Everything about these talks was suppose to be centered around scope and grandfathering all stations like the TWU did at Southwest in 2009, and like other unions did.  Maybe we have members who will pass $22 and more time off, I'm just speaking for myself.  My perspective is that nobody should be agreeing to more days off if scope isn't enhanced to protect the work of all current stations.  Not sure how things will shake out this week yet, but it appears that days off became the big grab. What good are days off if we lose work in dozens of stations, and then those members displace members from hubs?

  Scope as it is, is a false hope for those stations that were protected in the letter 3 mos ago. Places like Jacksonville. An added day or week of vac does you no good if you have to use it to commute to work. Lets see what happens this week. Keep your vacation and at least grandfather those and all existing stations that will be gone when that LOA expires 4/2015......

 

[Tim Nelson]

  Scope as it is, is a false hope for those stations that were protected in the letter 3 mos ago. Places like Jacksonville. An added day or week of vac does you no good if you have to use it to commute to work. Lets see what happens this week. Keep your vacation and at least grandfather those and all existing stations that will be gone when that LOA expires 4/2015......

My understanding is that the union moved as well and that scope was checked off....no increase, no decrease.  I really hope they reconsider, and if that means grandfathering all current work and not an extra week of vacation then I'm all for it. Again, what does extra days off mean if folks lose their work.  Even if they come up with some United hoopla that claims to guarantee a job for everyone, from 2013 seniority, who is willing to chase a job?  If they bring that back, that should be shoved up their asses.  There is no job guarantee without scope that protects your work.

 

[Jester]

The scope issue is problematic, and sadly, no movement, even in the slightest amount with a modest topped-out wage increase would be disappointing.  More vacation is nice, but frankly, 5-weeks after 25 years of shucking bags and cargo, and I would have a longer "vacation," better known as "disability."
 
Personally, I could live with a very modest change in scope with three conditions: 1) The amount of mainline flights needed to contract out a station would be the same to bring back in-house, 2) all stations are treated the same such that if a station requires 56 mainline average flights per week, then all stations have that same amount, and 3) all existing stations stay the same until the ratification of the joint contract with AA FSAs.
 
I think with the merger of the two airlines, many cities will see an increase in mainline flights between the new additional hubs.  If we can keep those stations who are on the bubble with the Cinderella dates into the joint contract, the minimum number of average weekly flights would be adequate to keep fleet service in-house. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

The scope issue is problematic, and sadly, no movement, even in the slightest amount with a modest topped-out wage increase would be disappointing.  More vacation is nice, but frankly, 5-weeks after 25 years of shucking bags and cargo, and I would have a longer "vacation," better known as "disability."
 
Personally, I could live with a very modest change in scope with three conditions: 1) The amount of mainline flights needed to contract out a station would be the same to bring back in-house, 2) all stations are treated the same such that if a station requires 56 mainline average flights per week, then all stations have that same amount, and 3) all existing stations stay the same until the ratification of the joint contract with AA FSAs.
 
I think with the merger of the two airlines, many cities will see an increase in mainline flights between the new additional hubs.  If we can keep those stations who are on the bubble with the Cinderella dates into the joint contract, the minimum number of average weekly flights would be adequate to keep fleet service in-house. 

I believe scope is off the table.  However, going by your idea, if all current stations got grandfathered till a joint ratification, then essentially that would mean we have scope for all the work at current stations, provided the clause doesn't say '1 day before amendable date'.  Thus, any clause that says all stations are essentially grandfathered [and all work like tower, catering, CLP, etc] until a joint contract is ratified, then that is a good safeguard and keeps it on our side of the table.  I know wikileaks, respect him even though he will fight like hell to support Team Delaney [His team wink wink],  he isn't a bull sh*tter.  If he says no scope movement....there is no scope movement period!  
 
Same stuff I heard from someone else in negotiations.  Hopefully, wiki gives a further report after this week.  What I didn't hear but a technique from Delaney that I don't agree with is to offer phantom job security as what is already contained in our contract where it says "Everyone from 1999 has a job".  That clause didn't work too well for thousands of us, and any new one won't work either without scope enhancements. The fundamental question as to why anyone wants a union is to define "Who does this work?".  That has been lost on Delaney's group and the whole labor movement lately. That has to change.
 
At any rate, I don't believe in paternalism.  Whatever they come up with, let's get real, and recommend a rejection if it has no scope movement but allow members to vote on it. Whatever the case, let's move this crap forward one way or another and allow the membership to see the damn proposal, whether I like it or not.

 

[roabilly]

Hey Nelson, and Rockit... EAT S***!
 
I’m with an ailing elderly parent... a parent that actually was a career Airline Employee covered under IAM contracts! That's why I haven't posted!
 
Incidentally, a parent that NEVER spewed the friggin bullshit you guys do attempting to get elected!