2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[cltrat]

wiki.. if what youre saying is true.. then something is wrong     why should US folks have to wait longer to get topped out..    while that is a concern   what is more of an important concern is scope    how much higher are they willing to push the envelope before saying... guess what... we are gonna outsource your city..     we got to have scope protection   but we should also not have to wait til next yr for top out at AA wages...    Where's the source for this info wiki?

I should probably just quite reading this mess.I'm getting more disgusted  by it by the moment.

 

[WeAAsles]

Demanding excellence of your elected officials is a positive, IMO.
 
 

AMR Lead pay is $1.50/hr., correct?
 
I know top loading a scale has a certain- and targeted- appeal, but it's an injustice to the junior & mid-tier people.

Also, not for nothing crew chiefs at DL make $25.45 (base + override) today. Why is that not the target?

What you call leads are called Crew Chiefs in our language. Here is a link to our contract.

As for DL remember that there are far fewer actually making that rate then there would be under unionized AA and USair.

http://www.twu.org/Portals/0/AirContracts/aa_FleetServiceAgreement.pdf

 

[WeAAsles]

wiki.. if what youre saying is true.. then something is wrong     why should US folks have to wait longer to get topped out..    while that is a concern   what is more of an important concern is scope    how much higher are they willing to push the envelope before saying... guess what... we are gonna outsource your city..     we got to have scope protection   but we should also not have to wait til next yr for top out at AA wages...    Where's the source for this info wiki?

IF any of this is true you have to remember that you are going to get a second bite at the apple during JCBA talks. As I've said before the company I'm sure would like to leave some room for improvements for all of us to want to go to the table to try to attain?

If there isn't some type of carrot on the stick why would either union really care about negotiating with the company?

 

[Tim Nelson]

wiki.. if what youre saying is true.. then something is wrong     why should US folks have to wait longer to get topped out..    while that is a concern   what is more of an important concern is scope    how much higher are they willing to push the envelope before saying... guess what... we are gonna outsource your city..     we got to have scope protection   but we should also not have to wait til next yr for top out at AA wages...    Where's the source for this info wiki?

The reality is that once the union leaders moved towards the company, all release and all impasse talk was goosed. That said, a release prolly was a huge long shot anyways, so my main concern is why settle on wages that agree to merge with AMR after AMR's last snapshot date with some morphed installment plan like what happened with America West?   Seems management doesn't mind US AIRWAYS members being paid the same but doesn't want to tilt the pay parity for the TWU members.  Why would the IAM agree to that?  Why the BS?  Why not get what we agree to at ratification instead of this insane implementation bull **** that T5towbar knows all too well.  STOP IT!
Even the days off that were increased are back loaded with accruals that DON"T begin until NEXT F year. 
 
I have maintained through all of these threads that scope is more important than anything and I can see our members being accepting of $23.30 [including the longevity] if scope was enhanced by lowering the flight activity bar or grandfathering all current work.  But agreeing to just add another Cinderella date to scope isn't going to give any leverage in joint talks, in fact, it will encourage management to have a reason to drag out joint talks until that Cinderella date 'pops'. 

 

[cltrat]

IF any of this is true you have to remember that you are going to get a second bite at the apple during JCBA talks. As I've said before the company I'm sure would like to leave some room for improvements for all of us to want to go to the table to try to attain?

If there isn't some type of carrot on the stick why would either union really care about negotiating with the company?

sorry that don't include a 2015 AMR match in my book and it don't include lower % increase down the scale either, deal breakers both

 

[Tim Nelson]

What you call leads are called Crew Chiefs in our language. Here is a link to our contract.

As for DL remember that there are far fewer actually making that rate then there would be under unionized AA and USair.

http://www.twu.org/Portals/0/AirContracts/aa_FleetServiceAgreement.pdf

We have a lead ratio of 1 lead for every 12 employees.  United had a raito as well but gave that up.  Not sure if sAA has it or not???  Of course, sUS also has part time leads.

 

[WeAAsles]

sorry that don't include a 2015 AMR match in my book and it don't include lower % increase down the scale either, deal breakers both

You don't know "exactly" what the offer is yet because the negotiating hasn't been concluded. Anyway "Base Rate" is only one part of the overall picture.

Purely for the debate sake. We in Fleet here pay 17% of the company cost of our medical. Don't you guys pay a lower percentage currently? That cost really adds up with the more dependents you have. What if also "hypothetically" you were offered the same 401k match as we currently have? 5.5%. Plus on top of that the company continued making contributions to your IAMNPF? Doesn't that add a great deal of value to your "Overall Compensation" package?

 

[Kev3188]

What you call leads are called Crew Chiefs in our language. Here is a link to our contract.

As for DL remember that there are far fewer actually making that rate then there would be under unionized AA and USair.

http://www.twu.org/Portals/0/AirContracts/aa_FleetServiceAgreement.pdf

I hear ya, but that doesn't change my initial contention that the DL rate should be the target. Not in 2015 or '16. Today.

As for total numbers, I'd have to do some math, but there's more Crew Chiefs here (or "ALA's" in the DL parlance) than one might think.

 

[cltrat]

You don't know "exactly" what the offer is yet because the negotiating hasn't been concluded. Anyway "Base Rate" is only one part of the overall picture.

Purely for the debate sake. We in Fleet here pay 17% of the company cost of our medical. Don't you guys pay a lower percentage currently? That cost really adds up with the more dependents you have. What if also "hypothetically" you were offered the same 401k match as we currently have? 5.5%. Plus on top of that the company continued making contributions to your IAMNPF? Doesn't that add a great deal of value to your "Overall Compensation" package?

that's a lot of 'what if "

 

[WeAAsles]

I hear ya, but that doesn't change my initial contention that the DL rate should be the target. Not in 2015 or '16. Today.

As for total numbers, I'd have to do some math, but there's more Crew Chiefs here (or "ALA's" in the DL parlance) than one might think.

Of course the "Top" DAL rate should be the target but again that just doesn't paint the whole picture of "Total Value Compensation" There are a lot of items contained within a CBA that gives each of us value some depending on the individual usage? I for one put 20% into my 401k and get the full match from the company for it. Thankfully I don't use my medical too much but others do and that creates a value as well.

All the companies look at it from the perspective of overall labor costs in comparison to their competitors by percentage of size. Together we are going to be the largest airline in the world so you have to suspect that AA's cost will be a little higher than the next nearest legacy competitor down the line?

Why can't that cost be right now? Again because it would leave us with no reason to want to go to the bargaining table for JCBA talks. When this first part is done we will both have items in our respective CBA's that we'll want to have integrated into one. Basically something to shoot for.

 

[Tim Nelson]

You don't know "exactly" what the offer is yet because the negotiating hasn't been concluded. Anyway "Base Rate" is only one part of the overall picture.

Purely for the debate sake. We in Fleet here pay 17% of the company cost of our medical. Don't you guys pay a lower percentage currently? That cost really adds up with the more dependents you have. What if also "hypothetically" you were offered the same 401k match as we currently have? 5.5%. Plus on top of that the company continued making contributions to your IAMNPF? Doesn't that add a great deal of value to your "Overall Compensation" package?

our part timers get HAMMERED.  Part time pays twice the insurance which is comparable to the part time at AMR.  Our full time insurance, imo, is the best in the industry now as far as contribution goes. But 40% of our group is part time that pays twice the insurance, and gets only 1/4 of IAMPF credit.  The company contributes .65 an hour for part timers max for IAMPF.  All contributions are capped at 40 hours for full time, and regular hours for part time.

 

[WeAAsles]

that's a lot of 'what if "

Trust me, you guys have far more insiders than I do so my "What If" examples have to be taken with an extreme amount of salt.

All I'm saying is don't focus exclusively on the base rate. That does an injustice to all the other items you might have in your contract that are very important as well.

 

[WeAAsles]

our part timers get HAMMERED.  Part time pays twice the insurance which is comparable to the part time at AMR.  Our full time insurance, imo, is the best in the industry now as far as contribution goes. But 40% of our group is part time that pays twice the insurance, and gets only 1/4 of IAMPF credit.  The company contributes .65 an hour for part timers max for IAMPF.  All contributions are capped at 40 hours for full time, and regular hours for part time.

Exactly my point again. What if you have a CBA to vote on where all of that doesn't exist anymore? That absolutely has to weigh in on a decision of whether to pass the TA or not?

If something like that were to remain status quo though that would be a huge item to be talked about in joint talks. Our part timers still pay the same rate as their full time counterparts and the same 401 match as well.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Exactly my point again. What if you have a CBA to vote on where all of that doesn't exist anymore? That absolutely has to weigh in on a decision of whether to pass the TA or not?

The frame of this deal is leaked out but I agree that there are some language things outstanding that we simply will have to wait on like the health care which is suppose to be a 'cost neutral' but language was dabbled. Me thinks concessionary though but that's just a hunch regarding the health care.
The actual pay increase is suppose to be inclusive of a longevity establishment that, in total, brings the top out just over $22 as of two negotiation sessions ago.  United parity will mean $25.35.  Delta means $24.45 plus any raise they may get next April.  So let's assume delta doesn't get anything just to go on what we know.  US AIRWAYS at just over $22 will still give sAA a wage parity bump of at least another quarter. If they decided to bump up the last remaining article [scope] to more than 56 flights after a new cut off date of December 31, 2017, and management barters that by paying more wage up front then the pay parity would increase.  Management has been hellbent against increasing your pay parity but it also wants to increase the contracting out bar higher than 56. That may be the final contention that gets settled this week.

 

[737823]

Trust me, you guys have far more insiders than I do so my "What If" examples have to be taken with an extreme amount of salt.

All I'm saying is don't focus exclusively on the base rate. That does an injustice to all the other items you might have in your contract that are very important as well.

 
700 will slam you for questioning IAMNPF and its viability. 
 
Josh