2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[700UW]

Have they always had them? No.

If having those things they have in their deal isn't concessionary then the issue may be your definition. By your definition, if you lose certain Scope items it isn't a concession because other have lost the same thing? I'm sure that's not what you mean, right.

The value of their CBA went up, thats improvements, the value didnt go down, if it did that would be concessionary, and your union did a great job at AA right? LOL!

 

[NYer]

The value of their CBA went up, thats improvements, the value didnt go down, if it did that would be concessionary, and your union did a great job at AA right? LOL!

 
So, again by your definition, if the IAM is able to get a net gain in value on a contract while giving up on Scope or another item by your definition that's NOT a concessionary contract?

 

[700UW]

This is the first section 6 negotiations that US has had with the ramp since 1999.
 
Do you understand that?
 
Chapter 11 filing in 2002 and 2004 Section 1113c forced negotiations for concessions or face an abrogation like M&R did.
 
2008, Transition Agreement which gave improvements in the CBA, not concessions.
 
Lets see AA and you gave concessions in 2003 while AA WASNT in Bankruptcy and you never got a new CBA until Section 1113 C which was a concessionary agreement.
 
How is that glass house you are living in?

 

[NYer]

This is the first section 6 negotiations that US has had with the ramp since 1999.
 
Do you understand that?
 
Chapter 11 filing in 2002 and 2004 Section 1113c forced negotiations for concessions or face an abrogation like M&R did.
 
2008, Transition Agreement which gave improvements in the CBA, not concessions.
 
Lets see AA and you gave concessions in 2003 while AA WASNT in Bankruptcy and you never got a new CBA until Section 1113 C which was a concessionary agreement.
 
How is that glass house you are living in?

 
It's quite apparent you're trying to take a step back from your assertion on Southwest and trying to divert attention from the exercise of what you believe "concessions" means. Trying to push the argument towards another subject doesn't take away the fact that you can't substantiate you assertion and you can give us a satisfactory explanation of what you believe "concession" means in order to make sense of you ranting.
 
And the glass is fine thanks. It seems you may have been drinking out of yours a bit too much. =)

 

[T5towbar]

Is this thread now about Southwest? We spent months talking about UA, we may as well throw in some comparisons in with all the Carriers that are UNREPRESENTED!
 
I think that would be a better comparison... how about Union Workers vs. Non-Union Workers? To make it even more interesting, let’s go GLOBAL! Specifically, let’s compare ourselves to European Airline/Airport Workers, where there are little restrictions on striking, like the RLA here in the States!
 
 Is anybody game?
 
​Check THIS out!

I guess it was mentioned because the TWU (555) represents their ramp. They must have done something right.
Since there is an "association" with the combined IAM/TWU, how will it play out once SC is filed. And who do you think in your opinion will be the single entity? Or do an out of the box thing like combining forces? Will both unions can use their resources for both Fleet and MX to get respectable contracts?

Like Kev always says. What affects one, affects everybody else. Whether is representative or not. That's why I'm hoping that you guys do better than us.

LH is having their three day strike for pilots. Last week, it was the ground workers. In Europe, at least their unions are not neutered. And even though there are a lot of contractors over in Europe, I'm quite sure their compensation is much better than it is over here. The revolving door vendor system here is bringing all of our jobs down to the lowest common denominator. With a bad economy and all of the propaganda, it hurts all of our causes for improvements. At least the public over there hasn't fully bought into the notion that unions are evil and must be brought down.

 

[700UW]

 
It's quite apparent you're trying to take a step back from your assertion on Southwest and trying to divert attention from the exercise of what you believe "concessions" means. Trying to push the argument towards another subject doesn't take away the fact that you can't substantiate you assertion and you can give us a satisfactory explanation of what you believe "concession" means in order to make sense of you ranting.
 
And the glass is fine thanks. It seems you may have been drinking out of yours a bit too much. =)

You still havent proved how WN's agents negotiated a concessionary contract.
 
They have never been in Chapter 11 nor asked for concessionary bargaining, they have always negotiated in Section 6 and havent taken concessions.
 
So show the board how they took concessions.
 
They dont outsource Res nor CSA work, unlike AA.
 
They have the highest total compensation, scope, benefits and retirement in the industry.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way.

 

[NYer]

You still havent proved how WN's agents negotiated a concessionary contract.
 
They have never been in Chapter 11 nor asked for concessionary bargaining, they have always negotiated in Section 6 and havent taken concessions.
 
So show the board how they took concessions.
 
They dont outsource Res nor CSA work, unlike AA.
 
They have the highest total compensation, scope, benefits and retirement in the industry.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way.

 
Now you added "negotiated" to the mix? Go back to your original statement...."Southwest doesn't have a concessionary contract." Stick with your original premise, you can start a different conversation if you'd like, but at least finish this one first.
 
You haven't presented any facts...It's just that you "say so."

 

[700UW]

You are the master of avoidance.
 
For the fifth time, explain to the board how the most compensated workers in the industry are working under a concessionary contract.
 
You stated it, so now back it up, showing a part time cap and no family insurance doesnt make the CBA concessionary.
 
So are you going to man up and cost it out and show the whole board how it is concessionary?
 
Or shall I call my good friend at WN who was the President of the IAM PHX lodge who is a WN employee to inform you of how valuable their non-concessionary CBA is?

 

[roabilly]

Speaking of scope and Southwest-- To my knowledge,  WN and US are the ONLY carriers left that still maintain contractual "scope language" regarding flight-line delivery, and recovery of in-flight commissary items (Catering)... AA contracts this function out...
 
If that language were to be lost, you would see several hundred Fleet Service jobs disappear on the US side!

 

[T5towbar]

Speaking of scope and Southwest-- To my knowledge,  WN and US are the ONLY carriers left that still maintain contractual "scope language" regarding flight-line delivery, and recovery of in-flight commissary items (Catering)... AA contracts this function out...
 
If that language were to be lost, you would see several hundred Fleet Service jobs disappear on the US side!

That's the part of "harmonizing" you will be hearing soon. If you guys have that function, and AA doesn't, well you can figure out what if it will stay or not. They will deem it a not a "core" function of Fleet, and will be eliminated.

Hell, they told us that Cargo wasn't a "core" function and it had to be "harmonized", even though it is a profitable. Now it is in shambles with the vendors.

Compare the functions between both groups (AA/US). If either group has a function that is not a so called "core" function, you can bet that the company will try to eliminate it.

Bank on it!

 

[WeAAsles]

The exercise seems to be in understanding what concessionary means? If there is any pullback or giveup in any part of a contract even if it benefits the other end then that is concessionary. The prime example being weakening of SCOPE in allowing stations to be outsourced or allowing more part timers or A, B or C scale pay rates, tier cities, whatever. You can easily have in appearance within a CBA that there are more benefits than harms but say in the case of adding more part timers you are still damaging your contract and giving the company that cracked door they're looking for. 

Honestly this idea of "Ready Reserve" and PTers paying double for medical has to be without a doubt the most disgusting things I've ever heard. I hope in the future no matter what they offer the rest of us neither of these pure Skunks ever enter a contract that I have to vote on.

To reiterate if these items are in the SWA CBA's and they originally weren't then YES they live under a concessionary contract.

 

[roabilly]

That's the part of "harmonizing" you will be hearing soon. If you guys have that function, and AA doesn't, well you can figure out what if it will stay or not. They will deem it a not a "core" function of Fleet, and will be eliminated.

Hell, they told us that Cargo wasn't a "core" function and it had to be "harmonized", even though it is a profitable. Now it is in shambles with the vendors.

Compare the functions between both groups (AA/US). If either group has a function that is not a so called "core" function, you can bet that the company will try to eliminate it.

Bank on it!

 
That would be a very tough sell to the Membership in terms of the ratification of any Section 6 Agreement. For instance, Catering Fleet Service in CLT alone is roughly 20% of the hub workforce! In addition, it is high sonority, so getting the other 80% to accept it would mean selling them on losing 20% of their own Ramp Workforce, since they would be bumped down, and possibly out by displaced Catering Members.
 
In terms of cost savings to the Company, there is little to none to use vendors...
 
So... it’s NOT something I would bank on!

 

[700UW]

Using you're logic Weaa, then everyone is under a concessionary CBA in the industry.
 
Because no one has everything their CBA since the first one that any union and any company has negotiated and ratified.

 

[roabilly]

The exercise seems to be in understanding what concessionary means? If there is any pullback or giveup in any part of a contract even if it benefits the other end then that is concessionary. The prime example being weakening of SCOPE in allowing stations to be outsourced or allowing more part timers or A, B or C scale pay rates, tier cities, whatever. You can easily have in appearance within a CBA that there are more benefits than harms but say in the case of adding more part timers you are still damaging your contract and giving the company that cracked door they're looking for. 

Honestly this idea of "Ready Reserve" and PTers paying double for medical has to be without a doubt the most disgusting things I've ever heard. I hope in the future no matter what they offer the rest of us neither of these pure Skunks ever enter a contract that I have to vote on.

To reiterate if these items are in the SWA CBA's and they originally weren't then YES they live under a concessionary contract.

WeAAsles... does AA currently have any Air Cargo Fleet positions protected in the current agreement?

 

[roabilly]

Using you're logic Weaa, then everyone is under a concessionary CBA in the industry.
 
Because no one has everything their CBA since the first one that any union and any company has negotiated and ratified.

You are correct, the only way that could possibly happen, is if the Company/Companies just signed whatever the Unions proposed without negotiating, or even looking at it!
 
Not a very realistic scenario... at least not in this Universe!
 
P.S. I'm e-mailing Steven Hawking to get his assessment of this possibly transpiring in alternate universes, utilizing quantum-mechanics, and related cosmology...