2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Not saying that it doesn't clearly state how we will board. It does. That's why a grievance is filed. Just saying 28d gives the company a lot of leverage as to what the travel program will actually be. We could win the DOH issue, but lose in the overall travel issue.

Is delaney and our agcs supporting the grievance that was filed on this?
Cb are you suggesting that AH will possibly cut non rev travel for everyone if we enforce article 7 with the grievance procedure? I have a hard time coming to that conclusion.

 

[charlie Brown]

I'm just saying, I have seen what this company will do. And I'm just saying we need to be careful on this. 28d states per company regulations. The words " free" and " unlimited" are not in there, nor anywhere else in the contract. Company regulations could be much different but you could still board by DOH. And yes Delaney and the AGC,s support this grievance.

 

[ograc]

As stated earlier I believe DP wants FCFS boarding for a reason. DP has to be aware of the countless displaced workers, across all work groups at US, who rely on non rev travel to commute to their assigned station to report for work and likewise commute home to their original station. FCFS boarding will be yet another obstacle and hardship commuters will have to live with. This additional obstacle and hardship may force some, if not many to eventually seperate from the company. Another "synergy" to be realized by DP and the shareholders as a result of this merger. DP's support of FCFS boarding has nothing to do with liesure non rev travel. The question is; if it's a contractual issue what are the NCs involved willing to sacrifice to block it? A nice game of chess as I see it.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I'm just saying, I have seen what this company will do. And I'm just saying we need to be careful on this. 28d states per company regulations. The words " free" and " unlimited" are not in there, nor anywhere else in the contract. Company regulations could be much different but you could still board by DOH. And yes Delaney and the AGC,s support this grievance.

I wonder if it would be useful or productive if the iam and cwa moved the two grievances in some joint way.

 

[700UW]

The AFA at US east won a grievance on this right before it went to arbitration and the AFA West also won an arbitration case in this matter due to contractual language.

 

[Tim Nelson]

As stated earlier I believe DP wants FCFS boarding for a reason. DP has to be aware of the countless displaced workers, across all work groups at US, who rely on non rev travel to commute to their assigned station to report for work and likewise commute home to their original station. FCFS boarding will be yet another obstacle and hardship commuters will have to live with. This additional obstacle and hardship may force some, if not many to eventually seperate from the company. Another "synergy" to be realized by DP and the shareholders as a result of this merger. DP's support of FCFS boarding has nothing to do with liesure non rev travel. The question is; if it's a contractual issue what are the NCs involved willing to sacrifice to block it? A nice game of chess as I see it.

Why would anything have to be sacrificed if something is explicitly in the contract like doh for application of boarding?

 

[charlie Brown]

I wonder if it would be useful or productive if the iam and cwa moved the two grievances in some joint way.

Tim
I would think a grievance like this would probably need to be moved along like that. This will effect many in the work place. So I would think that would be considered.

 

[Senor Pelon]

I was with TWA for 34 years and we also used DOH for travel. When we moved to AA it changed to FCFS. Let me tell you that after a while I liked the FCFS better. Now I just retired 9 months ago and will be D2R. once the new travel policy takes effect. Its just a matter of getting accustomed to the new rules.

 

[rockit2]

As stated earlier I believe DP wants FCFS boarding for a reason. DP has to be aware of the countless displaced workers, across all work groups at US, who rely on non rev travel to commute to their assigned station to report for work and likewise commute home to their original station. FCFS boarding will be yet another obstacle and hardship commuters will have to live with. This additional obstacle and hardship may force some, if not many to eventually seperate from the company. Another "synergy" to be realized by DP and the shareholders as a result of this merger. DP's support of FCFS boarding has nothing to do with liesure non rev travel. The question is; if it's a contractual issue what are the NCs involved willing to sacrifice to block it? A nice game of chess as I see it.

I firmly agree that DP and his cronies want to shed as many US workers as they can. This merger is all about AA employees. " Hey all you US folks, you have gotten us this far but we don't need you now ". After this merger, there will be fewer and fewer US employees around. It's a shame but when your a big shot like DP, the little guy's don't count.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I was with TWA for 34 years and we also used DOH for travel. When we moved to AA it changed to FCFS. Let me tell you that after a while I liked the FCFS better. Now I just retired 9 months ago and will be D2R. once the new travel policy takes effect. Its just a matter of getting accustomed to the new rules.

Well, i think if we voted on the non rev policy instead of the tail, it would appear that fcfs would win out since it seems thats what aa employees are comfortable with.

The greater question is how will the company make a seamless transition if it previously agreed to make doh a contract issue when applying boarding. From my perspective, and im not trying to be a d#ck, i dont think our iam union should waive off the contract articles to make things more seamless for management since management is being rather difficult with our nc. It isnt like our nc is being greedy or asking for something unreasonable, yet management remains uncooperative.

 

[robbedagain]

Has the nmb scheduled any talks yet w the iam 141 n the outfit?

 

[pjirish317]

Well, i think if we voted on the non rev policy instead of the tail, it would appear that fcfs would win out since it seems thats what aa employees are comfortable with.

The greater question is how will the company make a seamless transition if it previously agreed to make doh a contract issue when applying boarding. From my perspective, and im not trying to be a d#ck, i dont think our iam union should waive off the contract articles to make things more seamless for management since management is being rather difficult with our nc. It isnt like our nc is being greedy or asking for something unreasonable, yet management remains uncooperative.

Tim,
 
Rarely as of late have I agreed with you, but I 100% agree here. And I believe that our NC will not agree to anything. We contractually have a DOH boarding policy, that should not be used as a bargaining chip at all, and if the company wants to go to a fee based system , I wonder how the AA folks will feel about that, along with DOH boarding priority. Because it will not just affect US when it is all said and done.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
Rarely as of late have I agreed with you, but I 100% agree here. And I believe that our NC will not agree to anything. We contractually have a DOH boarding policy, that should not be used as a bargaining chip at all, and if the company wants to go to a fee based system , I wonder how the AA folks will feel about that, along with DOH boarding priority. Because it will not just affect US when it is all said and done.

Lol. You are righta about that. Im not sure if i agreed with you over one item over the past x amount of years. Glad you agree with this.

 

[mike33]

Why would anything have to be sacrificed if something is explicitly in the contract like doh for application of boarding?

Be careful what we wish for. There could be a 2 tier non-rev system. Because you have a contract that says DOH wont necessarily mean you board first!...With an alphabet in front of your employee number, you could board first amongst your alphabet related employees but FCFS could take precedence. Far fetched?.....don't be so sure. Remember its computer generated. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Be careful what we wish for. There could be a 2 tier non-rev system. Because you have a contract that says DOH wont necessarily mean you board first!...With an alphabet in front of your employee number, you could board first amongst your alphabet related employees but FCFS could take precedence. Far fetched?.....don't be so sure. Remember its computer generated.

far fetched? Well, i guess nothing is too far fetched for management but i like the language and i think they need cooperationin these negotiations so it isnt like previous negotiations. I think we can stay aggressive is my opinion.