2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Solidarity]

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!

ROABILLY,
 
FAMILY FIRST......ALWAYS

 

[700UW]

You know you all are taking Tim's word for the gospel.
 
He isnt on the Negotiating Committee, he isnt an IAM representative.
 
Maybe you should all wait till something official comes out.
 
Tim uses this board for political gain, not to help or benefit the membership.

 

[mike33]

ROABILLY,
 
FAMILY FIRST......ALWAYS

Second That !!!!!

 

[ograc]

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. 

Condition 3, regarding scope, would be the very least. Without it; it's DOA in JAX and all other outline stations. Hope the members in the larger stations feel the same. We must stop the bleeding of represented work and jobs for bumps in hourly wage and a few more days off. Are we really going to take the bait again?

 

[Tim Nelson]

I thought this whole section 6 negotiations was about Scope, primary, before anything else was settled?  This will be the absolute last section 6 talks this decade. Two things that helps all of us, including TWU....wage, and scope.  IMO, we clean those two up, and address days off in joint talks before compromising on scope enhancements.  

 

[ograc]

After the UA agreement I would hope the leadership of the Grand Lodge and District 141 would realize the importance of protecting the existing work in negotiations. This one issue is what is seen, by many on the UA side, as being the sell out of the membership. How the membership will react to this perception, by voter turnout in June, remains to be seen. One thing is certain regarding US negotiations; if they don't, at the very least, protect scope until a JCBA is reached, I'm recommending rejection of any such agreement. Additionally, I believe an agreement brought back to the membership, that falls short of this minimal scope protection will have an impact on the membersips' choices in June. Fool us once... shame on you. Fool us twice... shame on us.   

 

[rockit2]

After the UA agreement I would hope the leadership of the Grand Lodge and District 141 would realize the importance of protecting the existing work in negotiations. This one issue is what is seen, by many on the UA side, as being the sell out of the membership. How the membership will react to this perception, by voter turnout in June, remains to be seen. One thing is certain regarding US negotiations; if they don't, at the very least, protect scope until a JCBA is reached, I'm recommending rejection of any such agreement. Additionally, I believe an agreement brought back to the membership, that falls short of this minimal scope protection will have an impact on the membersips' choices in June. Fool us once... shame on you. Fool us twice... shame on us.   

What's sad Ograc, is that 141 leadership and the Int'l reps think the UA deal was a landmark CBA and they did right by the membership. When you are in a small station and your back is against the wall it's a different story. All I can say to the folks in the hubs, especially the one 's that are on the day light bubble, seniority will come your way and night shift for you is going to be a reality.

 

[737823]

You know you all are taking Tim's word for the gospel.
 
He isnt on the Negotiating Committee, he isnt an IAM representative.
 
Maybe you should all wait till something official comes out.
 
Tim uses this board for political gain, not to help or benefit the membership.

Are you an IAM representative? You post things and expect people to take your word for it. You get very touchy whenever someone criticizes the IAM, really makes me wonder.

Josh

 

[ograc]

What's sad Ograc, is that 141 leadership and the Int'l reps think the UA deal was a landmark CBA and they did right by the membership. When you are in a small station and your back is against the wall it's a different story. All I can say to the folks in the hubs, especially the one 's that are on the day light bubble, seniority will come your way and night shift for you is going to be a reality.

I can't speak for other outline stations only my own. Many are in their mid to late 40s with 20-30 years seniority. Too young to seperate and too old to be starting a new career. Others, like myself, are a bit older with 30+ years seniority. Close this station... and we're coming to the hubs. Multiply this by 20 or so outline stations and you'll have countless very senior agents moving to the hubs in droves. Scope and job protection is an issue that affects everyone.

 

[700UW]

Are you an IAM representative? You post things and expect people to take your word for it. You get very touchy whenever someone criticizes the IAM, really makes me wonder.

Josh

Neither you nor Tim are reps, now are you?
 
Nor are either of you on the Negotiating Committee, now are you?
 
And where is the proof of what Tim has said is factual?
 
He hasnt provided any.
 
So go stalk someone else and stick to the topic at hand.

 

[737823]

Neither you nor Tim are reps, now are you?
 
Nor are either of you on the Negotiating Committee, now are you?
 
And where is the proof of what Tim has said is factual?
 
He hasnt provided any.
 
So go stalk someone else and stick to the topic at hand.

You aren't on the fleet negotiating committee, you have no clue what transpired with the company.

Tim speaks the truth and holds the IAM leaders accountable unlike you.

The IAM would love to have a repeat of UA agreement.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Once again you dont answer what is asked of you.
 
Are you or Tim on the Negotiating Committee?
 
Are you or Tim an IAM Representative?
 
Where is the proof of what Tim is claiming is factual?
 
And yes I was in contact with someone in the know yesterday, while I was busy with Erskine Bowles last night.

 

[737823]

No one cares what you were doing or who you were doing "events" for. You aren't on the NC, anything you heard is second hand. Get off your high horse.

Refute what Tim posted if you have all this inside information, shouldn't be difficult.

And no I am not on the NC obviously.


Josh

 

[700UW]

I dont have to refute anything.
 
He provided NO actual proof of what he posted is true.
 
Does anyone find it interesting why a so called JP Morgan employee defends Tim like he does?

 

[cltrat]

maybe ,but no more so than why an "event holder" defends the IAM as you do.