2015 Fleet Service thread

[WeAAsles]

While the CWA is caving on scope in some areas, keep in mind that they are keeping ALL of the out stations as well as getting several back in house. On top of that, no jobs are going to be lost due to the relaxed scope in regard to the SAR work. The day that the fleet group can even come close to keeping, or getting jobs back at the same level will have me amazed.

According to the new TA that they have to vote on they will be losing several job functions to lower paid CARS employees. 5 functions. The "No furlough" language is nothing but a farce. In their TA it reads that they must exercise their full seniority rights. So what's going to happen more than likely is that the company wants to transition (herd) people over into the hubs where they can account for any overages. AA side doesn't perform functions that CARS are doing so when they replace the "Red Coats"that's where they're going to expect the U side overages to go.

The problem there is going to be in the language "Provided they" Many agents are women with families. So say in one of those stations that loses certain functions to CARS, the company says you can keep your higher paying job if you go to DFW? Her husband say's "Oh hell no" Now she has no choice to be able to stay in her city with her family but to take one of those positions in CARS. CARS top pay is only going to be $17,84 per hour DOS.

But then again, here's a perspective from someone who was a part of those negotiations and the agents have to make up there own minds. 

 
"So let's talk for a moment... and give some examples regarding the thing most everyone on this board is worried about, their jobs.
Let's start with yes, under the new TA the company can restructure their operation, and we know historically following mergers, that is what does happen and that is what will happen. Without the new TA, the company can and will do the same thing.
Let's assume we are operating under our current contract language, LUS covered by it, LAA not. As part of restructuring, let's say the new company starts flying all LAA metal to city... where before it was maybe a mix of the two. The LUS agents could now be furloughed from that station, UNDER CURRENT language. Clearly, these types of shifts will be more likely to effect smaller stations, but it is very possible and in fact probable this will happen in some cities, that AA metal takes over some former US metal routes.
Under the current contract you can be furloughed to the street, go to an open position elsewhere in the system (with you figuring out how to get there) and be making you 21.44 if you're topped out pay, or as a full timer you can go to where the most junior lart timer is in the system and bump them if no openings are available.
Under the new TA... this situation cannot occur as all AA metal flights now fall under the covered work.
If you were displaced due to downsizing of a station (should you choose to displace) remember they can't furlough you to the street or a lower rated classification if you want to keep your job... then all your moving expenses are paid (check out the moving policy, it's good) and you are guaranteed s position in another station at your current rate of pay, 29.27.if you are topped out.
We dont have protection from all the restructuring that will be ocurring in the next few months and years that will be coming... not under the current agreement.
While we cant stop the company from doing the aforementioned things, the new Ta guarantees us a job, the better pay...and benefits.
Everyone by now has heard the story of the saving of the 30 cities, that was a very real threat. That and BSO were the two final issues remaining. We were about to reach an agreement.
Then two weeks before current TA came out DL announced their pay raises. We thought oh good, more money for us. But you have to remember, DL + 7 and the new DL + 3 was always inclusive of everything DL has. Meaning 50% of their employees are ready reserve with no benefits and an average pay of 11 an hour. And they outsource many station... then the company looks at UA who saved only 30 largest stations at the expense of everyone else. This is what DL +7 and the new DL + 3 looks like in the company's mind.
So in the end to protect our scope the best we could... your bargaining committee had to make some extremely hard decisions. Not asking for sympathy but it was to say the least a very rough 2 weeks. It took it's toll on all of us.
In the end we got an agreement to keep the thirty cities in the ways outlined in the TA.. protecting everyone's job at the expense of our BSO duty assignment. Anyone who is effected by a BSO being outsourced cannot be displaced from their station, they will have to work at the ticket counter or gates if and when that happens.
We went into this negotiations with 15k jobs and we expect to gain about 2k more over the life of this contract. CARS duties are very limited, dont twist things, read the language carefully... agents will still be at all resolution centers, full service counters, and first class areas. CARs are limited to kiosk areas and activation stations (except where the company has them doing UMs and Wheelchairs).
With all the redcoats getting the boot within 12 months... it's safe to say that many of them will be replaced by CARS.. but the current redcoats do much more than what CARS are limited to in this TA. Agent will have to be hired to replace the masses of redcoats as well, thats a lot of jobs brought back in.
19 cities currently staffed by LUS employees.. where AA has it's work being vendored out are being brought back in.
Think about all this... verify it in the language... and realize we went into these negotiations with 15k, but may very well come out of it close to 17k. Thats a huge success in my book, and anyone who doesn't see that is drinking some seriously negative kool-aid.
Our jobs are well protected, the language is in there and clear. We have bargaining notes scribed by myself and our official scribe Valerie Dirks.
A no vote takes us into very uncertain times while the company is doing their restructuring, but I think you all get the point.
I was asked tonight by a MIA agent what the three best things were and three worst were according to me and my thoughts on the contract.
My three favorite things 1..Job protection for all. 2. Wages including double time and 3. Protecting the jobs in those 30 cities. Many on this board are seriously underestimating how hard we had to fight to get what we did and keep those cities.
My least favorite three? 1. Definitely BSO... awful decision to have to make, hated it hated it haaated it. But I will sleep ok at least knowing no one will lose their jobs or be displaced if a station decides to outsource their BSO work. 2. Insurance. I dont love the AA insurance plans. I understand and know why and how we got there, and also dont think the plans were as bad as weve all (including myself) been led to believe... but ours are MUCH better. Im glad we have the opportunity to try to get something better by June, and we may have a good shot... but it's not a sure thing. And 3. The 30 small stations... I love that we saved them... but I dont love that one day.... in some cases many many years down the road, the company will have the right to outsource.
That's as honest and real as it gets. Anyone who says CARS will take all our work and we wont have any agents... which TA are you reading? Anyone who says are jobs are less protected than before? Which contract are you reading? It's all there for you in black and white.
Not every answer is in one spot... sometimes you have to combine articles to get a full picture..3 and 4 for example. Or parts of 3 with 12 etc.
I challenge all of you to read the TA and poit out to everyone where and how are jobs are less protected. We all know changes have been made to our scope... but our protections for the work we negotiated are even stronger. I challenge you to read through the TA and prove that wrong (im sure someone will come up with something).
I cant live on facebook all day although theres so much going on here that it's tempting..... but ill try to answer some questions if theyre asked and many other people here who know the current contract well can point out differences as well.
Many are scared, there's a lot of distrust... understandably so... we dont trust the company either, thats why we take notes. We are ALL on the same side. We are ALL protected under the TA better than we are today."

 

[WeAAsles]

This is the first contract for 70% of the cwa. With recognition in all stations with 5 flights or more, plus with grandfather rights for stations with less than 5 flights, how did they lesson scope? Thousands of jobs had no scope prior, even the redcoats.

 

Correct. And something that needs to be considered especially on the AA side of the fence. They have no contract and currently wear no pants. (Just like the PM Co people did at UAL, right Tim?)
 

I think if our members could get any station with 5 flights and also grandfather in lesser stations then our members will probably figure thats alot better than only having 17 stations.

 

Again it depends on how the language is written? Just having stations or jobs for sake of having stations or jobs doesn't sit well with me if they were all like the "Ready Reserve" jobs they have over at Delta. $12,00 per hour with no medical type jobs to me I'd say the company can keep them and shove them up their rear. 

If something even similar ever came our way for new Stations then I'd know for a fact that it's only to grab some dues cash and nothing more. It would frankly make me puke.

 

[WeAAsles]

getting the assist work in scope is better than not getting it in scope. Assist peeps arenot trained and qualified like csa. I think weaasles is suggesting wheelchair pushers and kiosk assisters should be making $29.27.

But that is a different classification. Much like utility and a a&P mechanic. It would be nuts to pay utility the same as a mechanic.

regards,

I just love how you have singled out what jobs in their workgroup should be lower paid functions. Those jobs currently like BSO are now going to be handed over to the lower paid classification.

If it were you in that job I doubt you'd be very happy about that?

BTW Tim many out there in the World believe that what we do should be put into the same classification. I hope that you don't concur with their thoughts?

 

[Kev3188]

According to the new TA that they have to vote on they will be losing several job functions to lower paid CARS employees. 5 functions. The "No furlough" language is nothing but a farce. In their TA it reads that they must exercise their full seniority rights. So what's going to happen more than likely is that the company wants to transition (herd) people over into the hubs where they can account for any overages. AA side doesn't perform functions that CARS are doing so when they replace the "Red Coats"that's where they're going to expect the U side overages to go.

The problem there is going to be in the language "Provided they" Many agents are women with families. So say in one of those stations that loses certain functions to CARS, the company says you can keep your higher paying job if you go to DFW? Her husband say's "Oh hell no" Now she has no choice to be able to stay in her city with her family but to take one of those positions in CARS. CARS top pay is only going to be $17,84 per hour DOS.

But then again, here's a perspective from someone who was a part of those negotiations and the agents have to make up there own minds. 

 
"So let's talk for a moment... and give some examples regarding the thing most everyone on this board is worried about, their jobs.
Let's start with yes, under the new TA the company can restructure their operation, and we know historically following mergers, that is what does happen and that is what will happen. Without the new TA, the company can and will do the same thing.
Let's assume we are operating under our current contract language, LUS covered by it, LAA not. As part of restructuring, let's say the new company starts flying all LAA metal to city... where before it was maybe a mix of the two. The LUS agents could now be furloughed from that station, UNDER CURRENT language. Clearly, these types of shifts will be more likely to effect smaller stations, but it is very possible and in fact probable this will happen in some cities, that AA metal takes over some former US metal routes.
Under the current contract you can be furloughed to the street, go to an open position elsewhere in the system (with you figuring out how to get there) and be making you 21.44 if you're topped out pay, or as a full timer you can go to where the most junior lart timer is in the system and bump them if no openings are available.
Under the new TA... this situation cannot occur as all AA metal flights now fall under the covered work.
If you were displaced due to downsizing of a station (should you choose to displace) remember they can't furlough you to the street or a lower rated classification if you want to keep your job... then all your moving expenses are paid (check out the moving policy, it's good) and you are guaranteed s position in another station at your current rate of pay, 29.27.if you are topped out.
We dont have protection from all the restructuring that will be ocurring in the next few months and years that will be coming... not under the current agreement.
While we cant stop the company from doing the aforementioned things, the new Ta guarantees us a job, the better pay...and benefits.
Everyone by now has heard the story of the saving of the 30 cities, that was a very real threat. That and BSO were the two final issues remaining. We were about to reach an agreement.
Then two weeks before current TA came out DL announced their pay raises. We thought oh good, more money for us. But you have to remember, DL + 7 and the new DL + 3 was always inclusive of everything DL has. Meaning 50% of their employees are ready reserve with no benefits and an average pay of 11 an hour. And they outsource many station... then the company looks at UA who saved only 30 largest stations at the expense of everyone else. This is what DL +7 and the new DL + 3 looks like in the company's mind.
So in the end to protect our scope the best we could... your bargaining committee had to make some extremely hard decisions. Not asking for sympathy but it was to say the least a very rough 2 weeks. It took it's toll on all of us.
In the end we got an agreement to keep the thirty cities in the ways outlined in the TA.. protecting everyone's job at the expense of our BSO duty assignment. Anyone who is effected by a BSO being outsourced cannot be displaced from their station, they will have to work at the ticket counter or gates if and when that happens.
We went into this negotiations with 15k jobs and we expect to gain about 2k more over the life of this contract. CARS duties are very limited, dont twist things, read the language carefully... agents will still be at all resolution centers, full service counters, and first class areas. CARs are limited to kiosk areas and activation stations (except where the company has them doing UMs and Wheelchairs).
With all the redcoats getting the boot within 12 months... it's safe to say that many of them will be replaced by CARS.. but the current redcoats do much more than what CARS are limited to in this TA. Agent will have to be hired to replace the masses of redcoats as well, thats a lot of jobs brought back in.
19 cities currently staffed by LUS employees.. where AA has it's work being vendored out are being brought back in.
Think about all this... verify it in the language... and realize we went into these negotiations with 15k, but may very well come out of it close to 17k. Thats a huge success in my book, and anyone who doesn't see that is drinking some seriously negative kool-aid.
Our jobs are well protected, the language is in there and clear. We have bargaining notes scribed by myself and our official scribe Valerie Dirks.
A no vote takes us into very uncertain times while the company is doing their restructuring, but I think you all get the point.
I was asked tonight by a MIA agent what the three best things were and three worst were according to me and my thoughts on the contract.
My three favorite things 1..Job protection for all. 2. Wages including double time and 3. Protecting the jobs in those 30 cities. Many on this board are seriously underestimating how hard we had to fight to get what we did and keep those cities.
My least favorite three? 1. Definitely BSO... awful decision to have to make, hated it hated it haaated it. But I will sleep ok at least knowing no one will lose their jobs or be displaced if a station decides to outsource their BSO work. 2. Insurance. I dont love the AA insurance plans. I understand and know why and how we got there, and also dont think the plans were as bad as weve all (including myself) been led to believe... but ours are MUCH better. Im glad we have the opportunity to try to get something better by June, and we may have a good shot... but it's not a sure thing. And 3. The 30 small stations... I love that we saved them... but I dont love that one day.... in some cases many many years down the road, the company will have the right to outsource.
That's as honest and real as it gets. Anyone who says CARS will take all our work and we wont have any agents... which TA are you reading? Anyone who says are jobs are less protected than before? Which contract are you reading? It's all there for you in black and white.
Not every answer is in one spot... sometimes you have to combine articles to get a full picture..3 and 4 for example. Or parts of 3 with 12 etc.
I challenge all of you to read the TA and poit out to everyone where and how are jobs are less protected. We all know changes have been made to our scope... but our protections for the work we negotiated are even stronger. I challenge you to read through the TA and prove that wrong (im sure someone will come up with something).
I cant live on facebook all day although theres so much going on here that it's tempting..... but ill try to answer some questions if theyre asked and many other people here who know the current contract well can point out differences as well.
Many are scared, there's a lot of distrust... understandably so... we dont trust the company either, thats why we take notes. We are ALL on the same side. We are ALL protected under the TA better than we are today."

Point of order: It's accurate to note a high percentage of the gate/tkt./counter agents at DL are Ready Reserve, we still have a ton of stations staffed. Well over 100, IIRC...

 

[WeAAsles]

Point of order: It's accurate to note a high percentage of the gate/tkt./counter agents at DL are Ready Reserve, we still have a ton of stations staffed. Well over 100, IIRC...

So the debate or question has to be is it really worth it having so many stations if they are mostly staffed with "Ready Reserve" or some type of equivalent?

That's why for me I'd have no problem if "New" stations were staffed with the rate being tied to the revenue that the company believes it can generate in that location. People who live in small towns or cities generally aren't transferring on to Europe so the revenue the airline collects mostly is only tied to a point to point domestic destination.

And I don't believe that a hub should subsidize from its revenue a small city just for the sake of someone being able to live anywhere they want at a very high wage. Especially when the cost of living in that area is dirt cheap.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Correct. And something that needs to be considered especially on the AA side of the fence. They have no contract and currently wear no pants. (Just like the PM Co people did at UAL, right Tim?)
 

Again it depends on how the language is written? Just having stations or jobs for sake of having stations or jobs doesn't sit well with me if they were all like the "Ready Reserve" jobs they have over at Delta. $12,00 per hour with no medical type jobs to me I'd say the company can keep them and shove them up their rear. 

If something even similar ever came our way for new Stations then I'd know for a fact that it's only to grab some dues cash and nothing more. It would frankly make me puke.

Seems to me that the CWA did very very well with the 10 holidays, double time, 12 full paid sick days, $32, shift differ. The question was how they addressed scope. The CWA had two choices, it could expand scope to all stations and allow for flexibilities, or it could have limited flexibilities and reduced the station count by 30, according to them. Apparently, Parker wasn't going to give both, under the scope article.

But there are ALWAYS some groups subsidizing the topped out worker like me and you, whether I agree with it or not. At Delta, they have 43 stations and 17 cargo centers where full timers work and enjoy benefits, profit sharing, and wages far above ours. But they are subsidized by DGS in all other stations, and 30% ready reserve at the 43 + 17 stations/centers.

At American, the full timers at 17 airports are subsidized by thousands of vendors at 80% of the other stations. At US AIRWAYS, the full timers are subsidized by vendors at all other stations minus our 33 stations, and the full timers are also subsidized by part timers who pay double the medical and have the worst retirement contribution in the industry.

At United, there is little scope, so vendors work in most locations, even the hubs where vendors do baggage makeup, and IAM members are also vended out in 15 stations with lower pay, less benefits, and no work rules.

Of all of these, the United employees have it worse than everyone with no scope, and plenty of vending and uncertainty.

To be fair, my view is to expand scope without compromising the core scope in the stations we already have. I've repeated myself about grandfather rights over the years on here and I'm finally thankful to see that at least one union [CWA] made sure it secured those rights for all of its members in stations not protected. These were similar grandfather rights for the NW folks with the RJ8 protections that converted non mainline stations into express stations but allowed our IAM members to continue staying there at same wages and benefits. As each IAM member left, retired, or otherwise, such employee was replaced with a vendor. But the point is that members like Ograc will be grandfathered at his station and NOT forced to move as a result of his station presumably having less than the required amount of flights. Grandfather rights don't extend to anyone wishing to transfer to such stations, and eventually, some small stations will be lost over time when the last member leaves. After a first reading of the CWA TA, it appears that their grandfather rights are better than the old NW one, insomuch that as long as there is one member then that's their work [but I have to read that again].

Who knows how this is going to shake out but one issue is cabin services. If we are expanding scope, imo, it should start with the scope lost in bankruptcy, and that would bring back certain bag running functions and cabin services.

I can't knock the CWA contract negotiators just like I couldn't knock the IAM negotiators in our stand alone agreement. Neither was a hatchet job like at United.

Oh and one last thing, we have to protect full time family rearing jobs. That means that it is absolutely profane NOT to have a part time cap.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

So the debate or question has to be is it really worth it having so many stations if they are mostly staffed with "Ready Reserve" or some type of equivalent?

That's why for me I'd have no problem if "New" stations were staffed with the rate being tied to the revenue that the company believes it can generate in that location. People who live in small towns or cities generally aren't transferring on to Europe so the revenue the airline collects mostly is only tied to a point to point domestic destination.

And I don't believe that a hub should subsidize from its revenue a small city just for the sake of someone being able to live anywhere they want at a very high wage. Especially when the cost of living in that area is dirt cheap.

I couldn't ever bargain for less wages for those of us working in smaller stations. It's a slippery slope WeAAsles and it happened before at LUS. Most of our stations were on a Tier 2 pay scale and it caused tons of division within our union. Hubs don't get away with screwing non hub members. The company picks a favorite son in the first contract, then a few years down the road, the company picks the new favorite son that hammeres the first. At US AIRWAYS, the hubs got screwed over and only got a partial raise when all the class 2 stations and PHX hub outnumbered the Class 1 LUS station vote and voted for our 2008 agreement. A game of division. And at United, they have expanded to 18 stations now that have IAM members with reduced wages and benefits and have split shifts. Those stations had a gun to their head but they are very upset about it. I believe a union can be stronger than that.

regards,

 

[Traymark]

So the debate or question has to be is it really worth it having so many stations if they are mostly staffed with "Ready Reserve" or some type of equivalent?
That's why for me I'd have no problem if "New" stations were staffed with the rate being tied to the revenue that the company believes it can generate in that location. People who live in small towns or cities generally aren't transferring on to Europe so the revenue the airline collects mostly is only tied to a point to point domestic destination.
And I don't believe that a hub should subsidize from its revenue a small city just for the sake of someone being able to live anywhere they want at a very high wage. Especially when the cost of living in that area is dirt cheap.

Is it worth having so many stations at ready reserve pay?
To the IAM , jonesing for more money for its flailing IAMNPF, you better believe it.
I believe you are now starting to see the whole thing coming into focus.
The IAM is driving this bus and you are about to find out the #1 item on their agenda list.
Maiximizing dues paying members that will pump up the IAMNPF with much needed cash.

The same type of scope deal that's in the CWA TA is coming down the pike for Fleet and Mech and related.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Is it worth having so many stations at ready reserve pay?
To the IAM , jonesing for more money for its flailing IAMNPF, you better believe it.
I believe you are now starting to see the whole thing coming into focus.
The IAM is driving this bus and you are about to find out the #1 item on their agenda list.
Maiximizing dues paying members that will pump up the IAMNPF with much needed cash.

The same type of scope deal that's in the CWA TA is coming down the pike for Fleet and Mech and related.

TWU folks don't get it, yet. I've tried to tell WeAAsles that the IAMPF is the most sacred that drives everything else. The IAMPF sucks balls as it robs its members like all of us fleet service when it stole 40% of our future benefits. Now, with the new law passed, those SOB's can haunt its retirees as well. It's a real scandal and for members like me who are not shills for the IAM, it is very very clear. These SOB's rob the members, dammit, and still have not negotiated ANY company contributions into my 401k pocket. I damn sure don't want any increases going into the IAMPF pocket. Rat Bastrrds. It isn't guaranteed and it could all be gone if the dumb arse pension ends up in the red again.

regards,

 

[ograc]

Seems to me that the CWA did very very well with the 10 holidays, double time, 12 full paid sick days, $32, shift differ. The question was how they addressed scope. The CWA had two choices, it could expand scope to all stations and allow for flexibilities, or it could have limited flexibilities and reduced the station count by 30, according to them. Apparently, Parker wasn't going to give both, under the scope article.

But there are ALWAYS some groups subsidizing the topped out worker like me and you, whether I agree with it or not. At Delta, they have 43 stations and 17 cargo centers where full timers work and enjoy benefits, profit sharing, and wages far above ours. But they are subsidized by DGS in all other stations, and 30% ready reserve at the 43 + 17 stations/centers.

At American, the full timers at 17 airports are subsidized by thousands of vendors at 80% of the other stations. At US AIRWAYS, the full timers are subsidized by vendors at all other stations minus our 33 stations, and the full timers are also subsidized by part timers who pay double the medical and have the worst retirement contribution in the industry.

At United, there is little scope, so vendors work in most locations, even the hubs where vendors do baggage makeup, and IAM members are also vended out in 15 stations with lower pay, less benefits, and no work rules.

Of all of these, the United employees have it worse than everyone with no scope, and plenty of vending and uncertainty.

To be fair, my view is to expand scope without compromising the core scope in the stations we already have. I've repeated myself about grandfather rights over the years on here and I'm finally thankful to see that at least one union [CWA] made sure it secured those rights for all of its members in stations not protected. These were similar grandfather rights for the NW folks with the RJ8 protections that converted non mainline stations into express stations but allowed our IAM members to continue staying there at same wages and benefits. As each IAM member left, retired, or otherwise, such employee was replaced with a vendor. But the point is that members like Ograc will be grandfathered at his station and NOT forced to move as a result of his station presumably having less than the required amount of flights. Grandfather rights don't extend to anyone wishing to transfer to such stations, and eventually, some small stations will be lost over time when the last member leaves. After a first reading of the CWA TA, it appears that their grandfather rights are better than the old NW one, insomuch that as long as there is one member then that's their work [but I have to read that again].

Who knows how this is going to shake out but one issue is cabin services. If we are expanding scope, imo, it should start with the scope lost in bankruptcy, and that would bring back certain bag running functions and cabin services.

I can't knock the CWA contract negotiators just like I couldn't knock the IAM negotiators in our stand alone agreement. Neither was a hatchet job like at United.

Oh and one last thing, we have to protect full time family rearing jobs. That means that it is absolutely profane NOT to have a part time cap.

regards,

Tim.
Talks have not yet begun. Therefore, it's a little early to assume anyone is being grandfathered. That said; The CWA agreement does seem to secure those rights. IMO... it demonstrates recognition of 35+ years of service. I agree, that as time plays out, some small stations will ride into the sunset. As I stated earlier... my concern is for the countless members, from newly hired to many years of seniority, caught in the impending battle of scope and the protection of work in the future JCBA. To be fair, you are getting a little long in the tooth as well.  In the meantime... we LOCK AND LOAD!!!
 

 

[wings396]

At one point, a lot of people wanted to transfer to the smaller stations after putting in their time in a hub. I can say without a doubt that those who are in the small stations work much harder than those in a hub. They load, clean, cater, and even deice in some locations. A lot less skipping out on work too, since there's only a few on a shift.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim.
Talks have not yet begun. Therefore, it's a little early to assume anyone is being grandfathered. That said; The CWA agreement does seem to secure those rights. IMO... it demonstrates recognition of 35+ years of service. I agree, that as time plays out, some small stations will ride into the sunset. As I stated earlier... my concern is for the countless members, from newly hired to many years of seniority, caught in the impending battle of scope and the protection of work in the future JCBA. To be fair, you are getting a little long in the tooth as well.  In the meantime... we LOCK AND LOAD!!!

At one point, a lot of people wanted to transfer to the smaller stations after putting in their time in a hub. I can say without a doubt that those who are in the small stations work much harder than those in a hub. They load, clean, cater, and even deice in some locations. A lot less skipping out on work too, since there's only a few on a shift.

I hear ya, bro

regards,

 

[iluvaa]

#isupporttimnelson

 

[Kev3188]

At one point, a lot of people wanted to transfer to the smaller stations after putting in their time in a hub. I can say without a doubt that those who are in the small stations work much harder than those in a hub. They load, clean, cater, and even deice in some locations. A lot less skipping out on work too, since there's only a few on a shift.

Inarguable truths...

 

[WeAAsles]

Seems to me that the CWA did very very well with the 10 holidays, double time, 12 full paid sick days, $32, shift differ. The question was how they addressed scope. The CWA had two choices, it could expand scope to all stations and allow for flexibilities, or it could have limited flexibilities and reduced the station count by 30, according to them. Apparently, Parker wasn't going to give both, under the scope article.

But there are ALWAYS some groups subsidizing the topped out worker like me and you, whether I agree with it or not. At Delta, they have 43 stations and 17 cargo centers where full timers work and enjoy benefits, profit sharing, and wages far above ours. But they are subsidized by DGS in all other stations, and 30% ready reserve at the 43 + 17 stations/centers.

At American, the full timers at 17 airports are subsidized by thousands of vendors at 80% of the other stations. At US AIRWAYS, the full timers are subsidized by vendors at all other stations minus our 33 stations, and the full timers are also subsidized by part timers who pay double the medical and have the worst retirement contribution in the industry.

At United, there is little scope, so vendors work in most locations, even the hubs where vendors do baggage makeup, and IAM members are also vended out in 15 stations with lower pay, less benefits, and no work rules.

Of all of these, the United employees have it worse than everyone with no scope, and plenty of vending and uncertainty.

To be fair, my view is to expand scope without compromising the core scope in the stations we already have. I've repeated myself about grandfather rights over the years on here and I'm finally thankful to see that at least one union [CWA] made sure it secured those rights for all of its members in stations not protected. These were similar grandfather rights for the NW folks with the RJ8 protections that converted non mainline stations into express stations but allowed our IAM members to continue staying there at same wages and benefits. As each IAM member left, retired, or otherwise, such employee was replaced with a vendor. But the point is that members like Ograc will be grandfathered at his station and NOT forced to move as a result of his station presumably having less than the required amount of flights. Grandfather rights don't extend to anyone wishing to transfer to such stations, and eventually, some small stations will be lost over time when the last member leaves. After a first reading of the CWA TA, it appears that their grandfather rights are better than the old NW one, insomuch that as long as there is one member then that's their work [but I have to read that again].

Who knows how this is going to shake out but one issue is cabin services. If we are expanding scope, imo, it should start with the scope lost in bankruptcy, and that would bring back certain bag running functions and cabin services.


Cabin Service has now been moved over to the Maintenance class and craft according to the NMB. But maybe that can be regained for our members to have the "choice" to move over into that job if it's brought back home?


I can't knock the CWA contract negotiators just like I couldn't knock the IAM negotiators in our stand alone agreement. Neither was a hatchet job like at United.

"Oh and one last thing, we have to protect full time family rearing jobs. That means that it is absolutely profane NOT to have a part time cap."

 

Not a bad response. But we don't know what direction our talks will ultimately end up at, so we don't know about Grandfathering just yet. 

And I highlighted your last comment because absolutely that needs to stand. The CWA TA does not have PT caps and we currently do in both contracts. If we were to receive a TA removing caps that would absolutely get a NO vote from me.