What's new

2014 Fleet Service Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
mike33 said:
Hey Tim. Pollyanna here. Let me know when I can come out from under this rock will you?

What happened to the June 6 force down our throats single carrier status?

Aue Na ho'i ei' ( good grief )
as we spoke earlier, there is a 30 day resolution process that the company and union agreed to that if the single carrier is in dispute that an arbitrator will decide prior to July 9.  Contracts are valid so I assume that the TWU and management are following the triggers contained in them. I couldn't imagine the company not wanting single carrier so I see no reason why that process isn't proceeding by contract.  That has nothing to do with politics.
 
Tim Nelson said:
as we spoke earlier, there is a 30 day resolution process that the company and union agreed to that if the single carrier is in dispute that an arbitrator will decide prior to July 9.  Contracts are valid so I assume that the TWU and management are following the triggers contained in them. I couldn't imagine the company not wanting single carrier so I see no reason why that process isn't proceeding by contract.  That has nothing to do with politics.
Actually Tim it comes out to at least 60 days to be settled depending on availability of the arbitrator and following submission to the system board. I don't see any dispute in the interpretation of the MOU but because of the Association that could be determined to be a dispute for the application? 

Either way it buys a few more months.

Page 4, paragraph 9.

http://www.twulocal568.org/docs/Memorandum_of_Understanding%5B1%5D.pdf

 
 
When you are finished changing … Your finished. EWR will be the last UA/CO to vote for CHANGE or RISING ? D-141/D-142/ASSOCIATION will then FOCUS on US/LCC TA . The MEMBERS will VOTE and decide . 
 

Attachments

  • 10259005_1430841947185168_3798053216105505083_o copy.webp
    10259005_1430841947185168_3798053216105505083_o copy.webp
    47.1 KB · Views: 56
MET NIELSON N
CLT @ HALL>HE
DNT EVEN KNW
IT WUZ ME! HEZ
A LOT SHRTER
THN I THGHT!
 
Tim Nelson said:
as we spoke earlier, there is a 30 day resolution process that the company and union agreed to that if the single carrier is in dispute that an arbitrator will decide prior to July 9.  Contracts are valid so I assume that the TWU and management are following the triggers contained in them. I couldn't imagine the company not wanting single carrier so I see no reason why that process isn't proceeding by contract.  That has nothing to do with politics.
Nothing to do with Politics hunh? Please explain your post below from April!
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
2014 Fleet Service Discussion
 Posted by Tim Nelson on 15 April 2014 - 10:36 AM in US Airways
 
Fleet Service Update
 
 1. When the IAM is talking about a release, the NMB will likely not consider releasing both MX and Fleet service at the same time.  Thus, even though a release is not likely, if it were granted, the question becomes which group gets released.
 
 2. Over the past 12 months, we have seen a normal pattern by the NMB which calls a meeting about every other month, then ices both parties and repeats the cycle. Some of you have PM'd me and have mistakenly thought that the NMB already ruled that there was an impasse.  The reality is that the IAM has put out news reports about every 3 months talking about an impasse but no impasse was ever ruled upon.  Thus, we are simply not at that part of the process.  Hopefully, the NMB rules that there is an impasse and then furthers the process and grants a release.
 
 3.  Chances of a release.   Nobody knows but the likelihood winds down to null around June 1.   The best we can do is follow NMB patterns which says that a release is unlikely. Our hope should be that some political pressure in the Obama administration will intervene and break the pattern.
 
 4. Single carrier.   Management signed a pact with the TWU last year that promised 4.3% pay increase in return for other items, which included filing single carrier status by June 9, 2014.  There is a resolution process in that contract that puts this, at the latest, July 9.  The significance of this is that management expects and knows that a single carrier will be filed, at the latest, in less than 3 months.  In application, you should also know that the NMB has never, ever, granted or considered a release by any union, in the entire history of the RLA, when a single carrier application was triggered.  That means that if the NMB doesn't release your group after considering the May 1 meetings, then it isn't going to.
 
 5.  Stand alone talks.  You should know that stand alone talks can continue even if the NMB rules that there is now only one carrier. However, the Association Q & A clearly says that the IAM will negotiate stand alone until [IAM's words, not mine] the NMB rules on a single carrier.  I am not privy to the Association arrangement but undoubtedly, the TWU agreed to support stand alone until at least single carrier is ruled upon [presumably in September].  It is my hope, and should be your's, that the IAM and TWU extend the agreement past the single carrier ruling as both parties can certainly amend the agreement. 
 
 regards,
 
roabilly said:
Nothing to do with Politics hunh? Please explain your post below from April!
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
2014 Fleet Service Discussion
 Posted by Tim Nelson on 15 April 2014 - 10:36 AM in US Airways
 
Fleet Service Update
 
 1. When the IAM is talking about a release, the NMB will likely not consider releasing both MX and Fleet service at the same time.  Thus, even though a release is not likely, if it were granted, the question becomes which group gets released.
 
 2. Over the past 12 months, we have seen a normal pattern by the NMB which calls a meeting about every other month, then ices both parties and repeats the cycle. Some of you have PM'd me and have mistakenly thought that the NMB already ruled that there was an impasse.  The reality is that the IAM has put out news reports about every 3 months talking about an impasse but no impasse was ever ruled upon.  Thus, we are simply not at that part of the process.  Hopefully, the NMB rules that there is an impasse and then furthers the process and grants a release.
 
 3.  Chances of a release.   Nobody knows but the likelihood winds down to null around June 1.   The best we can do is follow NMB patterns which says that a release is unlikely. Our hope should be that some political pressure in the Obama administration will intervene and break the pattern.
 
 4. Single carrier.   Management signed a pact with the TWU last year that promised 4.3% pay increase in return for other items, which included filing single carrier status by June 9, 2014.  There is a resolution process in that contract that puts this, at the latest, July 9.  The significance of this is that management expects and knows that a single carrier will be filed, at the latest, in less than 3 months.  In application, you should also know that the NMB has never, ever, granted or considered a release by any union, in the entire history of the RLA, when a single carrier application was triggered.  That means that if the NMB doesn't release your group after considering the May 1 meetings, then it isn't going to.
 
 5.  Stand alone talks.  You should know that stand alone talks can continue even if the NMB rules that there is now only one carrier. However, the Association Q & A clearly says that the IAM will negotiate stand alone until [IAM's words, not mine] the NMB rules on a single carrier.  I am not privy to the Association arrangement but undoubtedly, the TWU agreed to support stand alone until at least single carrier is ruled upon [presumably in September].  It is my hope, and should be your's, that the IAM and TWU extend the agreement past the single carrier ruling as both parties can certainly amend the agreement. 
 
 regards,
I think it speaks for itself.  I was correct about both items.  All talk about a release has ceased as I indicated above.  I wasn't trying to be prophetical in  April, as it was readily available for anyone to read.
And the resolution process hasn't changed and is still through July 9th as indicated above.  I'm not sure why we have to discuss this????
 
Tim Nelson said:
I think it speaks for itself.  I was correct about both items.  All talk about a release has ceased as I indicated above.  I wasn't trying to be prophetical in  April, as it was readily available for anyone to read.
And the resolution process hasn't changed and is still through July 9th as indicated above.  I'm not sure why we have to discuss this????
It's real simple, you used the SCS drama as a scare tactic in your election propaganda! you said the IAM Leadership was lying, and we had NO leverage in that regard. The archives are full of your posts that prove it. Here is another one from March below... It was ALL politically motivated!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Posted by [SIZE=8.5pt]Tim Nelsonhttp://www.airlineforums.com/user/1575-tim-nelson/[/SIZE] on 20 March 2014 - 10:26 AM in [SIZE=8.5pt]US Airways[/SIZE]
700UW, on 20 Mar 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:http://www.airlineforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=1073306
 
Single carrier is coming.  The TWU will file in July or risk 'great financial pain'.  It will file.  And due to politics, and elections in 141 and 142, the leadership is lying out of their ass about it saying there won't be any single carrier [SIZE=10.5pt]filing until there is a stand alone contract. [/SIZE]
 
You idiots are once again risking the jobs of thousands of members and families because single carrier is real.  You know that the TWU has to file as well but you won't admit it.  And you can get away with it since most members have no idea about the legal proceeedings in mergers.  This is the part that really pisses me off about our leaders, they blow so much smoke up folks asses and will NOT be forthcoming about the inevitable single carrier application.   AH knows this.  I know this,  and you know this.  But our leaders keep calling for a release without addressing the single carrier application which is coming very very soon.  I hope your boys don't F this whole thing up like they did at United when they blabbed their mouths the same way then got $0 because they F up by putting politics ahead of negotiations.
 
Tim Nelson said:
I think it speaks for itself.  I was correct about both items.  All talk about a release has ceased as I indicated above.  I wasn't trying to be prophetical in  April, as it was readily available for anyone to read.
And the resolution process hasn't changed and is still through July 9th as indicated above.  I'm not sure why we have to discuss this????
Actually Tim it puts the resolution as no earlier than August 9. First the submission to the system board has to be made by the company and then it's subject to the availability of the arbitrator. Reading the process makes the likelihood that it would still take roughly over 3 months and that's if everything leading up to the process starting is expeditious.
 
roabilly said:
It's real simple, you used the SCS drama as a scare tactic in your election propaganda! you said the IAM Leadership was lying, and we had NO leverage in that regard. The archives are full of your posts that prove it. Here is another one from March below... It was ALL politically motivated!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Posted by [SIZE=8.5pt]Tim Nelson[/SIZE] on 20 March 2014 - 10:26 AM in [SIZE=8.5pt]US Airways[/SIZE]
700UW, on 20 Mar 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:
 
Single carrier is coming.  The TWU will file in July or risk 'great financial pain'.  It will file.  And due to politics, and elections in 141 and 142, the leadership is lying out of their ass about it saying there won't be any single carrier [SIZE=10.5pt]filing until there is a stand alone contract. [/SIZE]

There is no area where there would be any financial pain actually. Unless the TWU decided after the arbitrator decision if it was in the company favor to ignore that decision.

I doubt since your process of obtaining a CBA is so far along that the company has even filed or will file the dispute?


 
 
You idiots are once again risking the jobs of thousands of members and families because single carrier is real.  You know that the TWU has to file as well but you won't admit it.  And you can get away with it since most members have no idea about the legal proceeedings in mergers.  This is the part that really pisses me off about our leaders, they blow so much smoke up folks asses and will NOT be forthcoming about the inevitable single carrier application.   AH knows this.  I know this,  and you know this.  But our leaders keep calling for a release without addressing the single carrier application which is coming very very soon.  I hope your boys don't F this whole thing up like they did at United when they blabbed their mouths the same way then got $0 because they F up by putting politics ahead of negotiations.
Actually Roa I have to give Tim a pass on that one. I think just like myself he may have misinterpreted the language, particularly the wording "application"?

If he did actually read it?

 
 
WeAAsles said:
Actually Roa I have to give Tim a pass on that one. I think just like myself he may have misinterpreted the language, particularly the wording "application"?

If he did actually read it?

 
it certainly was.  The whole idea of a release faded as I said, due to the timelines.  In fact, the IAM completely eliminated any talk of a release as I said it would.  The single carrier is real and I'm sure the company will fully expect the TWU to be in compliance. If not, then that's what court cases are made of and the TWU will be financially obligated.  None of that will happen though. Either management extends some timeline with a new MOU or it forces single carrier. There is no way out, still no way out, for the TWU.  Watch.
 
WeAAsles said:
Actually Roa I have to give Tim a pass on that one. I think just like myself he may have misinterpreted the language, particularly the wording "application"?

If he did actually read it?

 
There is a huge difference between misinterpreting, and misrepresenting for political purposes! Tim was using this language as tool in his campaign in an attempt to portray the Leadership as dishonest, and inept. He further accused them of not revealing the SCS scenario to the Membership as being an obstacle to Section 6.
 
700, myself, and others pointed out the likelihood of arbitration, but Tim insisted it was non-negotiable, and non-applicable, thus resulting in NO leverage in Section Six talks. His argument was for political reasons, and we are now on the precipice of an agreement WITHOUT SCS being an issue! 
 
Tim Nelson said:
it certainly was.  The whole idea of a release faded as I said, due to the timelines.  In fact, the IAM completely eliminated any talk of a release as I said it would.  The single carrier is real and I'm sure the company will fully expect the TWU to be in compliance. If not, then that's what court cases are made of and the TWU will be financially obligated.  None of that will happen though. Either management extends some timeline with a new MOU or it forces single carrier. There is no way out, still no way out, for the TWU.  Watch.
I never said that my union wasn't eventually obligated to have to file SCS. But the language does have built in room for that process to be delayed. I did talk about that before.

As for them being financially obligated. Outside of paying half the cost for the arbitration process, no. The only penalties would be if they defied the decision of the arbitrator?

Not going to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top