2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

tim,
I stand correted. Page 139/140. I does state "eligable P/T rates are two times the F/T rates" My apologies for my mistake.

+1

 

[Tim Nelson]

ANY allowance for outsourcing will get a NO vote from me.

They tweaked the Cinderella date to 'before the amendable date' and wanted to leave the scope alone.  That will sway the votes of those in the small stations who need a couple year bridge to retirement.  That was part of the union's movement that the NMB pounced on to schedule more talks. A release is now officially dead, even though it was somewhat mythical anyways since there never was an impasse.
 
But this isn't an issue that Ole AH is done with.  The only remaining item as of last week was scope.  AH insisted upon bumping up the minimums higher than 56.   Failing to grandfather all current work in this incredibly great negotiation environment is a flat out no from me.  What does it matter if AH pays them $23.30 to come up to AMR rates in return for a higher minimum unless one is in a hub?  One would have thought that they learned from the error of their ways after United.
 
And FWIW;  The wage isn't the biggest hangup with me.  It may be with others and I understand, but for me, this opportunity in section 6 was all about enhancing scope and grandfathering the current work. It didn't happen.  And, no, Cindy dates is NOT scope, and 'no layoff' clauses have nothing to do with scope.  We have a no layoff clause in our classification article for anyone with 1999 seniority already and that doesn't do dick unless someone wants to travel thousands of miles.

 

[WeAAsles]

Looking at it you guys do have a better rate than we do. As a single I pay $124.76 per month for medical. $3.94 per month Dental and $5.84 per month for vision. The vision is horrible though and many people choose to go to Costco instead.

http://www.iam141.org/docs/IAM-FS_2008_Contract_Final_to_Print_102808.pdf

 

[mike33]

Mike, what's your payoff gonna be?

Show me the TA and i'll figure it out and share it with you.......

 

[737823]

What are the implications for AMR in terms of changes to your scope? Obviously in section 6 this CBA will be interim for US only, but will the company still contract out those stations lingering the activity level at the Cinderella date (places like ATL, SAT, STL, and TPA)? If they give up scope now the company will get two more bites of the apple.

Josh

 

[mike33]

Any time a strong member has a difference of opinion, they claim its division.  Division from what is the question?  From another lame ass sellout agreement?  Well, hell yeah I would want to divide against that! 
 
Dividing against anti union and lame ass negotiators who put their wallet ahead of members is something NOT to be in unity with.  Mike is a kumbuya sorta guy.  He has all the evidence in front of him how these guys screwed our craft already but believes his boys will see the error of their ways and flip like a pancake and finally stand up against Ole AH.  And to build his strawmen, he has to close his eyes and blame me, the membership and everyone else who realizes the truth.

Wrong again...like i said when you emailed me......i don't have anything to hide...you wanted to share something with me as long as i don't post it on the internet or share it publicly...I told you i was non political and i wouldn't take your offer because i don't play the secrets game......
When I see a TA then i will make my decisions about things and Negotiators. Put it in writing and i'll either approve or shoot it down. 
I don't Kumbuya. I make decisions and based on fact and until its on paper and both sides sign as such.... I will Kumbuya neutral.
Anyone who knows me knows its not about the money for me. 
Until its actually S**t? Its just talk !!!

 

[WeAAsles]

They tweaked the Cinderella date to 'before the amendable date' and wanted to leave the scope alone.  That will sway the votes of those in the small stations who need a couple year bridge to retirement.  That was part of the union's movement that the NMB pounced on to schedule more talks. A release is now officially dead, even though it was somewhat mythical anyways since there never was an impasse.
 
But this isn't an issue that Ole AH is done with.  The only remaining item as of last week was scope.  AH insisted upon bumping up the minimums higher than 56.   Failing to grandfather all current work in this incredibly great negotiation environment is a flat out no from me.  What does it matter if AH pays them $23.30 to come up to AMR rates in return for a higher minimum unless one is in a hub?  One would have thought that they learned from the error of their ways after United.
 
And FWIW;  The wage isn't the biggest hangup with me.  It may be with others and I understand, but for me, this opportunity in section 6 was all about enhancing scope and grandfathering the current work. It didn't happen.  And, no, Cindy dates is NOT scope, and 'no layoff' clauses have nothing to do with scope.  We have a no layoff clause in our classification article for anyone with 1999 seniority already and that doesn't do dick unless someone wants to travel thousands of miles.

Tim do you know how many stations you would have to assume still could be protected by the merging of our airlines that you have not put into consideration? Let's take ORD for instance. Obviously once we merge since that is a hub for us it will not close for you either. And vice versa for those wishing eventually to get back to the cities that you now serve as hubs.

Basically if they do agree to scope changes as you say (IF) how many stations on your side could that potentially affect and how many members do you think that is?



 

 

[Tim Nelson]

What are the implications for AMR in terms of changes to your scope? Obviously in section 6 this CBA will be interim for US only, but will the company still contract out those stations lingering the activity level at the Cinderella date (places like ATL, SAT, STL, and TPA)? If they give up scope now the company will get two more bites of the apple.

Josh

I haven't heard that they caved to that yet.  All they did was decided not to enhance it and just go with a no layoff, and a cindy extension sometime before the amendable date. Legally, this isn't an interim agreement. This is a real CBA and is distinct.  It can even be renegotiated instead of joint talks as well, but that wouldn't make any sense unless joint talks stalled for more than 4 years.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Wrong again...like i said when you emailed me......i don't have anything to hide...you wanted to share something with me as long as i don't post it on the internet or share it publicly...I told you i was non political and i wouldn't take your offer because i don't play the secrets game......
When I see a TA then i will make my decisions about things and Negotiators. Put it in writing and i'll either approve or shoot it down. 
I don't Kumbuya. I make decisions and based on fact and until its on paper and both sides sign as such.... I will Kumbuya neutral.
Anyone who knows me knows its not about the money for me. 
Until its actually S**t? Its just talk !!!

You, sir, are not neutral.  You have kumbuya'd with the negotiation team, which lied to you btw, and at the same time busted my balls.  If you were neutral you would be just as harsh to the negotiation team who tells you updates but lies out their asses.  Kindly review all of their bull shitting about 'strike' and 'release' and 'impasse'.   Who told you as we approach June that all of that bull shitting is going to come to a grinding halt?  I did.  Who #### the hell out of you and claimed that 'We ready to strike!" and that June didn't mean dick?
 
I hate being right about these things but I don't bull ****.

 

[mike33]

Tim comes on here and gives facts, then you come on here and add nothing but blame Tim. 
 
He is spot on, and always has been, even though I questioned him like you presently do. I've read his post the last several days and he sounds like a member who is very upset about added concessions in your talks.  I don't see anything political about his facts. 
 
Somehow he gets inside information that is not well received by members because it flies in the face of what Rich Delaney may have told your group.  Much easier to be comfortable believing a lie.  After we found out that Tim was the truthful one, we realized that we were played by officers who told us lies.  I'm not expert on usair but it seems like the current officers have a dozen of you coming on here blaming Tim for everything when he hasn't done anything wrong but stood up for all of our members. 
 
Tim knows who I am and he didn't take anything personal that I used to throw his way last year when I got blistering mean with him. We respect him in ord and we will deliver for him and his whole team.

You were brought a TA for you to read and vote on.............
Tim has brought things to the board that may be true......
Show me the TA that states those truths, thats all I'm saying........
It can't be done because there is not one for the time being, but that may change after this week......

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim do you know how many stations you would have to assume still could be protected by the merging of our airlines that you have not put into consideration? Let's take ORD for instance. Obviously once we merge since that is a hub for us it will not close for you either. And vice versa for those wishing eventually to get back to the cities that you now serve as hubs.

Basically if they do agree to scope changes as you say (IF) how many stations on your side could that potentially affect and how many members do you think that is?



 

I'm uncomfortable guessing outside of the contracts but I presume that has something to do why AH is wanting to increase the minimums above 56.  One of the things that a union will sell with a Cindy date is that, the union, will be in joint talks, and be in position to secure a joint agreement prior to the expiration of the Cindy dates.  I believe that is a fatal flaw.  Cindy dates give management more leverage as the date is approached and incites management to delay any joint agreement until after it has the liberties to exercise the built in mine fields.  The union will also take a naïve approach and suggest to the members that all the non hubs may cross the threshold if you simply add the AMR jets and US AIRWAYS jets together.  ORD is a hub, and so is MIA, so those two US AIRWAYS stations will be safe.  But when we see the trend caused by the United agreement with Airline Management, we don't see any evidence that totaling flight activity from both separate contracts is wise.  In theory, if you total both sets of flight activity together then you can build a strawman argument that a city, once combined, will be covered.  But that assumes any joint contract will keep the better scope clause, and that management will not 'rightsize' a particular station.   Stations like IND, BNA, RDU, etc would come into play.   It's fun to look at it that way and it does provide an element of peace of mind, and maybe RDU, IND, BNA will meet thresholds, but I'm just uncomfortable making those assumptions by totaling activity and basing it on scope of a particular contract that will not even be in existence when the totaling occurs.  That said, your opinion is certainly just as valid as mine on this.

 

[WeAAsles]

You, sir, are not neutral.  You have kumbuya'd with the negotiation team, which lied to you btw, and at the same time busted my balls.  If you were neutral you would be just as harsh to the negotiation team who tells you updates but lies out their asses.  Kindly review all of their bull shitting about 'strike' and 'release' and 'impasse'.   Who told you as we approach June that all of that bull shitting is going to come to a grinding halt?  I did.  Who #### the hell out of you and claimed that 'We ready to strike!" and that June didn't mean dick?
 
I hate being right about these things but I don't bull ####.

Tim I think at this moment you're putting the cart before the horse as you don't have an agreement that has been announced yet. IF again one comes to light you may have your moment to stand in the spotlight. But also you can't assume that this was a concerted effort at deception on your NC's part.

It merely could be that the final pieces of the puzzle for the merger entity were finalized a few weeks ago, (Final Court Approval) and the company was ready to move down from their hard line stance?

I really doubt that the company cares even a whit about the IAM politics and was holding back an agreement to make sure those won office that they wanted to deal with. That's a little too Illuminati for anyone to fly with if you ask me. 

 

[28L_or_10R?]

They tweaked the Cinderella date to 'before the amendable date' and wanted to leave the scope alone.  That will sway the votes of those in the small stations who need a couple year bridge to retirement.  That was part of the union's movement that the NMB pounced on to schedule more talks. A release is now officially dead, even though it was somewhat mythical anyways since there never was an impasse.
 
But this isn't an issue that Ole AH is done with.  The only remaining item as of last week was scope.  AH insisted upon bumping up the minimums higher than 56.   Failing to grandfather all current work in this incredibly great negotiation environment is a flat out no from me.  What does it matter if AH pays them $23.30 to come up to AMR rates in return for a higher minimum unless one is in a hub?  One would have thought that they learned from the error of their ways after United.
 
And FWIW;  The wage isn't the biggest hangup with me.  It may be with others and I understand, but for me, this opportunity in section 6 was all about enhancing scope and grandfathering the current work. It didn't happen.  And, no, Cindy dates is NOT scope, and 'no layoff' clauses have nothing to do with scope.  We have a no layoff clause in our classification article for anyone with 1999 seniority already and that doesn't do dick unless someone wants to travel thousands of miles.

If this is the case then it is unacceptable and won't get my vote.

 

[Tim Nelson]

You were brought a TA for you to read and vote on.............
Tim has brought things to the board that may be true......
Show me the TA that states those truths, thats all I'm saying........
It can't be done because there is not one for the time being, but that may change after this week......

I brought him things prior to his TA.  It angered him.  Delaney brought him a TA that he saw as lies, since it smacked in the face of what Delaney said in the updates about 'leading industry',  'landmark', etc.
Now, him and others at United realize that I stood up and took the heat for the sake of the truth.  Bottom line.
 
Just like all the 'strike' ,  'release',  'impasse' and "Help, Police, Murder" hoopla spread about by your negotiation team....it was all bull shitting.  Who told you as June approaches that they would "Pipe Down" and claim great progress?
I'm not a prophet.  Cripes, open your eyeballs!

 

[mike33]

You, sir, are not neutral.  You have kumbuya'd with the negotiation team, which lied to you btw, and at the same time busted my balls.  If you were neutral you would be just as harsh to the negotiation team who tells you updates but lies out their asses.  Kindly review all of their bull shitting about 'strike' and 'release' and 'impasse'.   Who told you as we approach June that all of that bull shitting is going to come to a grinding halt?  I did.  Who #### the hell out of you and claimed that 'We ready to strike!" and that June didn't mean dick?
 
I hate being right about these things but I don't bull ####.

My being neutral is not for you to decide. If i say I'm neutral then you must be calling me a liar........
Your delivery is to be desired...not whether you speak the truth or not. I will know that when a TA comes out on paper. I'm not going to agree just because you say things are what you say they are.