2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[NYer]

Not sure where I was monumentally wrong at?  The leverage was strong. I remember NYer saying to take a small bump in wages and any crumbs you can get otherwise, instead of fighting for every small station.  NYer was presenting his "reality of the environment' speeches mentioning the impracticality of getting scope for all stations.  Now, it seems he continues to carry that flag and is already once again, you and him, are presenting your realities that small stations will need to be sacrificed.

Again ,trying to put words in other people's mouth.

There was no leverage. The IAM took the best deal possible with the heavy lifting to come during the Joint talks, just as it was presented to you several times. Your need to create chaos has you blinded to the logic of how these negotiations were to evolve.

 

[WeAAsles]

How about enough of who was wrong and who was right. Your point on the company making part-timers a main part of the workforce is noted and should be a major concern. Seen the company in the past abuse this situation. Legacy American has been unionizes a long time and should have/had solid past history language in their contract

During our BK when we had to vote in a concessionary contract part of that was Pters were going to pay double the medical. When we were given a 3% give back due to the pilots changes, some of us out there advocated that the PT medical rate should be changed back! And it was. Our PTers pay the same rate as FTers.

I have no reason to change my views that it's morally wrong and I'm also very safely FT myself.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I don't think you should worry too much about it Tim. We can always shift the burdon of those extra costs on down to the Part Timers, right?

I don't like that part time wasn't addressed either as they get a absolutely ridiculous company contribution into the retirement and have to pay twice of what a full timer pays in medical.  In fact, I don't think any other part timer in the airline industry is taxed like that.
 
As far as scope, the TWU is the vast majority so I would think that a joint contract with 10 flight minimums could pass and be seen as a gain from LAA.  A lot of things have to be worked out. 

 

[NYer]

During our BK when we had to vote in a concessionary contract part of that was Pters were going to pay double the medical. When we were given a 3% give back due to the pilots changes, some of us out there advocated that the PT medical rate should be changed back! And it was. Our PTers pay the same rate as FTers.
I have no reason to change my views that it's morally wrong and I'm also very safely FT myself.

Aside from the moral stance....you also don't want to give the Company a financial incentive if PT over FT in total labor costs. Taking that away better protects the ability to keep FT over PT. Having the PT workers pay a higher premium is tantamount to "insourcing," in my opinion.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Again ,trying to put words in other people's mouth.

There was no leverage. The IAM took the best deal possible with the heavy lifting to come during the Joint talks, just as it was presented to you several times. Your need to create chaos has you blinded to the logic of how these negotiations were to evolve.

No, not trying to put words in your mouth, just repeating the words out of your mouth.  There you said it again, we had no leverage.  You sir, are incorrect once again.  We had a lot of leverage, even thanks to the support from the TWU. Without leverage, this contract wouldn't have produced the scope for all stations.  In fact, I find it preposterous that you can't understand that. 

 

[NYer]

I don't like that part time wasn't addressed either as they get a absolutely ridiculous company contribution into the retirement and have to pay twice of what a full timer pays in medical.  In fact, I don't think any other part timer in the airline industry is taxed like that.
 
As far as scope, the TWU is the vast majority so I would think that a joint contract with 10 flight minimums could pass and be seen as a gain from LAA.  A lot of things have to be worked out.

Since the current number is 7 flights and the MOU agreement was 7 flights, anything higher would be a concession. Couple that number with the current industry standard and that would seem to be a starting point to get the best number attainable.

 

[WeAAsles]

Aside from the moral stance....you also don't want to give the Company a financial incentive if PT over FT in total labor costs. Taking that away better protects the ability to keep FT over PT. Having the PT workers pay a higher premium is tantamount to "insourcing," in my opinion.

Absolutely. Our Presidents could have applied the savings back to the BASE rate and we all could have been making just a little more in that area. But at what cost? The company most certainly would have wanted to max our PT cap in every single station in the system if that double medical had stayed.

 

[john john]

I'm also very safely FT myself.

Reality! Our union members in BWI/PIT/DAY/LAS/CMH etc. along as some medium station said the same thing guess what happen when they got de-HUB and downsize

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't like that part time wasn't addressed either as they get a absolutely ridiculous company contribution into the retirement and have to pay twice of what a full timer pays in medical.  In fact, I don't think any other part timer in the airline industry is taxed like that.
 
As far as scope, the TWU is the vast majority so I would think that a joint contract with 10 flight minimums could pass and be seen as a gain from LAA.  A lot of things have to be worked out. 

Tim when we go into the next phase after you ratify your TA it's no longer going to be a LAA vs a LUS issue anymore. It's just going to be what's good for ALL of us.

Both sides will be sitting in the drivers seat together.
 

 

[NYer]

No, not trying to put words in your mouth, just repeating the words out of your mouth.  There you said it again, we had no leverage.  You sir, are incorrect once again.  We had a lot of leverage, even thanks to the support from the TWU. Without leverage, this contract wouldn't have produced the scope for all stations.  In fact, I find it preposterous that you can't understand that.

Scope language that mentions it has a shelf life is not exactly a triumph. That us merely an admission on bboth sides that the Scope issue will be more permanently addressed during Joint talks. It is simply a placemat.

What created the ppossibility if that language was the Merger and prospect if Joint talks, not any supposed leverage gained due to mediation as you infer. C'mon, you're not even that creative. Read your documents.=\

 

[WeAAsles]

Reality! Our union members in BWI/PIT/DAY/LAS/CMH etc. along as some medium station said the same thing guess what happen when they got de-HUB and downsize

John John I know what you are talking about but that's not where I am going with my thoughts. We're also coming out the other side of an incredibly difficult time for all of us. I don't think you are going to see situations like what you described happen in the future?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Scope language that mentions it has a shelf life is not exactly a triumph. That us merely an admission on bboth sides that the Scope issue will be more permanently addressed during Joint talks. It is simply a placemat.

What created the ppossibility if that language was the Merger and prospect if Joint talks, not any supposed leverage gained due to mediation as you infer. C'mon, you're not even that creative. Read your documents.=\

The scope life has a shelf life that goes on forever until a new contract is signed. Whether Joint contract or not, it was the result of leverage. Leverage that was also admittedly due to the merger, but leverage that was also due to many other things including section 6 and The Association agreement that gained the support of the TWU. 

 

[NYer]

The scope life has a shelf life that goes on forever until a new contract is signed. Whether Joint contract or not, it was the result of leverage. Leverage that was also admittedly due to the merger, but leverage that was also due to many other things including section 6 and The Association agreement that gained the support of the TWU.

Like the kind of shelf life all language has under the Railway Labor Act since all airline contracts never expire...By the way, once the TA is passed the TWU Members will get the same Scope language.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Like the kind of shelf life all language has under the Railway Labor Act since all airline contracts never expire...By the way, once the TA is passed the TWU Members will get the same Scope language.

How? WIth a MOU?  So you are saying that all LAA stations will be under TWU scope with 1 flight?

 

[Tim Nelson]

I'm still trying to digest why the NC would subject our medical plans to being completely abolished.   This isn't the sorta contract that should get a 90% approval as Prez suggested. Maybe it will, but this would be the only health care article in any labor contract that I have seen that allows the complete abolishment and allows a company such freedoms of even having new plans.  None of us would know anything about what we would be paying?  What deductible? What out of pocket? What lifetime?   Terrible.
 
ANd the part timers were apparently lied to because I didn't see where the NC merged their retirement or health care cost in with full time as was expected.
 
No more holidays, still get tagged with half sick pay, and get stuck with the lowest wage of all legacy carriers.   The scope I do like but the cost neutral basis means that our health care plans are in the hands of an arbitrator or management. WTH?
 
To Charlie Brown,  did the stews or pilots agree to something similar to the Health Care attachment in their stand alone agreements they signed recently?
 
At any rate, as I voiced my concerns last week, suspecting that there was a big concession on health care, the big 2, i.e., scope and health care are very important.  We had great health care for full timers, not so good for part timers, and the scope imo sucked.  But hammering the health care to get better scope wasn't the path that I would have gotten excited about from my perspective.   I could certainly understand the small stations voting for this due to scope, and other employees just to get the long overdue pay raises, but I certainly can't vote for this.   Gosh forbid we lose the scope in joint talks but keep the nasty 'drop dead health care". 
 
Exchanging 'drop dead scope dates' for 'drop dead health care dates' is rather distasteful.