2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[mike33]

RE: SCS / MOU
 
This subject is closed for me. I'll let the lawyers play this out

 
 

admittedly, it does produce a headache for all.  May be wise for me to skip this topic as well.

 
Right!!!   You can't help yourself .....................
 
BTW...The audience has left the building

 

[roabilly]

 
In my opinion, since Cargo is a direct revenue generating function it may have the best chance to survive...although the goal should be to save all of them.
 
In the BK, we were able to save Cargo because the arguments were made that BK is a process to eliminate what is causing debt or losses. The Cargo Division was already a profit center with the current Labor structure and cuts was not "necessary" to keep the airline afloat.

I understand your argument Sir,
 
May I submit one more thing for your consideration; Catering Commissaries are a revenue producing department as well. The Airlines have within the last decade or so, embarked on alternate revenue capturing initiatives that have expanded well beyond the basic ticket fares. (I’m certain AA has done this as well)
 
In the In-flight arena, this was accomplished with what is known as BOB (Buy On Board) Programs. These programs offer passengers the ability to purchase amenities such as Snacks, Beverages, and even Duty Free items such as cosmetics, electronics, clothing, tobacco products, and jewelry.
 
My understanding is that these endeavors, when coupled with the baggage fees, are instrumental in the new business model.
 
For that reason, I would place Catering on equal level with Cargo, especially since domestic Air Cargo is limited by available storage space (Cargo bins) that are now full of revenue producing baggage. However, my understanding is that International Cargo is a workable revenue segment in terms of return for available cargo space...

 

[700UW]

My last word on this SWA silliness. Here is another way to see how SWA can do more with less and that correlates to their work rules and productivity
 
Airline                    Planes                    Departures                     Employees     
 
AA-mainline            627                            3300                              80,000
 
US-main & reg.       620                            3000                              45,000
 
SWA-mainline         680                            3600                              32,000
 
At AA we don't typically work Eagle flights, so those numbers were not included. At US, they do work some of the US Express flights so all those numbers were included. As you can clearly see, SWA has more flights than either AA or US, but they also have a substantially smaller employee footprint.
 
If you have less employees doing more then you total costs are kept down and you can pay those that you do have a higher wage while your entire Labor costs is held down by other means, such as lower medical insurance costs, no pension obligations and thousands of positions that just don't exist.

And WN doesnt fly widebodies which require more employees than just a 737,
 
Apples to apples, not oranges.

 

[roabilly]

One other thing NYer,
 
Scope is Scope, it doesn't matter if is on the TWU side, or the IAM side...
 
At some point, to harmonize the combined entity, DP will have to address these issues with BOTH Unions, and/or the Association. I can tell you what he chose to do in the US/AW merger, and that was to leave Catering intact on the US side, and Cargo intact on the AW side.
 
I think in his long term planning, he knew another "mega merger" (this one) would eventually lead him to re-address the synergies again, so he simply left them alone. 

 

[roabilly]

Right!!!   You can't help yourself .....................
 
BTW...The audience has left the building

His "audience" is disenfranchised, and disengaged! My bet is that there will be whole new slant inserted here soon that just coincidentally (wink-wink) attempts to convey to the Membership that the current talks are fruitless, and the Union Leadership is inept.
 
Let's see... I wonder who would benefit from such an argument? Hmmmm...

 

[NYer]

I understand your argument Sir,
 
May I submit one more thing for your consideration; Catering Commissaries are a revenue producing department as well. The Airlines have within the last decade or so, embarked on alternate revenue capturing initiatives that have expanded well beyond the basic ticket fares. (I’m certain AA has done this as well)
 
In the In-flight arena, this was accomplished with what is known as BOB (Buy On Board) Programs. These programs offer passengers the ability to purchase amenities such as Snacks, Beverages, and even Duty Free items such as cosmetics, electronics, clothing, tobacco products, and jewelry.
 
My understanding is that these endeavors, when coupled with the baggage fees, are instrumental in the new business model.
 
For that reason, I would place Catering on equal level with Cargo, especially since domestic Air Cargo is limited by available storage space (Cargo bins) that are now full of revenue producing baggage. However, my understanding is that International Cargo is a workable revenue segment in terms of return for available cargo space...

 
I guess you can consider it that way, but I'd assume Cargo is a larger revenue stream. It may have been an argument that worked under the umbrella of BK and not necessarily in regular negotiations. I guess time will tell. 

 

[NYer]

One other thing NYer,
 
Scope is Scope, it doesn't matter if is on the TWU side, or the IAM side...
 
At some point, to harmonize the combined entity, DP will have to address these issues with BOTH Unions, and/or the Association. I can tell you what he chose to do in the US/AW merger, and that was to leave Catering intact on the US side, and Cargo intact on the AW side.
 
I think in his long term planning, he knew another "mega merger" (this one) would eventually lead him to re-address the synergies again, so he simply left them alone. 

 
They could keep both with an LOM that has the current Cargo and Catering functions remain at their current locations.
 
It may not be probable, but I hope it's possible.

 

[roabilly]

 
I guess you can consider it that way, but I'd assume Cargo is a larger revenue stream. It may have been an argument that worked under the umbrella of BK and not necessarily in regular negotiations. I guess time will tell. 

That is why you guys on the TWU side... need to be entirely cognizant of SCOPE on BOTH sides! 

 

[roabilly]

 
I guess you can consider it that way, but I'd assume Cargo is a larger revenue stream. It may have been an argument that worked under the umbrella of BK and not necessarily in regular negotiations. I guess time will tell. 

The newly acquired sources of revenue are not something I see going away. The "post bankruptcy business model" has been proven to work, and it depends on these components in the equation...

 

[WeAAsles]

That is why you guys on the TWU... side need to be entirely cognizant of SCOPE on BOTH sides! 

That's the part that should be beneficial about the association you hope. The NC for both sides should be cognizant and well versed of each others contracts and their applications on both sides and should be able to advise each other of the benefits that are in them.

They also have to understand there may be things in each others contract that would not be liked by the other side. Take the fact that CS's are a contractual item in the IAM contract and with us it's a company policy. Our "policy" is actually far more liberal than it is in your contract. There have been a few tweaks to it over the years but I'm sure our side would prefer to leave it as is as it benefits both ourselves and the company far more than yours in it's current form.

 

[WeAAsles]

And WN doesnt fly widebodies which require more employees than just a 737,
 
Apples to apples, not oranges.

Ignore given facts, stick to agenda. Ignore given facts, stick to agenda. Seems you and Nelson read the same playbook.

 

[roabilly]

Ignore given facts, stick to agenda. Ignore given facts, stick to agenda. Seems you and Nelson read the same playbook.

I know 700 personally,
 
I’ll assure you he is NOT a divider... he is extremely knowledgeable in collective bargaining.
In addition, there are many things he has done to support and unite the groups (Fleet and MX) that he did on his own time. I've seen it first hand... personally!
He is one of the most devoted practitioners of Unionism that  I've ever met...
 
Comparing him to Tim, is like comparing Gandhi to Genghis Khan!

 

[700UW]

My last word on this SWA silliness. Here is another way to see how SWA can do more with less and that correlates to their work rules and productivity
 
Airline                    Planes                    Departures                     Employees     
 
AA-mainline            627                            3300                              80,000
 
US-main & reg.       620                            3000                              45,000
 
SWA-mainline         680                            3600                              32,000
 
At AA we don't typically work Eagle flights, so those numbers were not included. At US, they do work some of the US Express flights so all those numbers were included. As you can clearly see, SWA has more flights than either AA or US, but they also have a substantially smaller employee footprint.
 
If you have less employees doing more then you total costs are kept down and you can pay those that you do have a higher wage while your entire Labor costs is held down by other means, such as lower medical insurance costs, no pension obligations and thousands of positions that just don't exist.

Also, US barely works its own Express, none of the hubs do, nor DCA.
 
So once again you are using numbers that are not correct.

 

[700UW]

Ignore given facts, stick to agenda. Ignore given facts, stick to agenda. Seems you and Nelson read the same playbook.

Excuse me?
 
Given facts are that Widebody Aircraft require more employees, more ramp to load and unload, more catering to service, more cleaners to clean, more flight attendants due to more passengers, more pilots as an IRO is needed, and a crew doesnt do European turns, they fly over, then another crew flies the plane back, more agents to check in and board the flight, and more mechanics are required due to ETOPS and maintenance.
 
You are the one who has ignored the facts.
 
Its is clearly known that a widebody requires more employees to work the plane and maintain it than a narrowbody.

 

[700UW]

I know 700 personally,
 
I’ll assure you he is NOT a divider... he is extremely knowledgeable in collective bargaining.
In addition, there are many things he has done to support and unite the groups (Fleet and MX) that he did on his own time. I've seen it first hand... personally!
He is one of the most devoted practitioners of Unionism that  I've ever met...
 
Comparing him to Tim, is like comparing Gandhi to Genghis Khan!

Thank you for the kind words.
 
Some people just dont like the truth and the facts.