MCI, First SABRE only shows aircraft numbers at whatever maintanence base you type in. As far as sheduled work for the future, I don't know how to pull that up. Concerning Capital Cargo, I read that MCI is going to do pylon modifications on 5 aircraft (according to the local 530 website). According to your statement Its obvious that this work will be done on planes AA is selling them. I thought that they were going to bring planes in that they are already flying. Now as far as grievences and 100% seniority for ex-TWA people, file all you want. But the contract states and Kasher recognized the "hold harmless" clause in the contract in terms of NAAtives. If ex-TWA people are allowed 100% seniority in cities other than STL and MCI then the "hold harmless" clause will be violated because this will result in harm to NAAtives. And remember, TWAs unions relinquished their seniority rights in bankruptcy court so in reality all ex-TWA TWU represented people SHOULD have a seniority date of 4/10/01 EVERYWHERE.
Aa Pension
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
I would also like to add that any NAAtive who was laid off in a 25% city( and even a 100% city) by an ex-TWA person would have good reason to file a grievance because the hold harmless clause was violated with respect to them. I am in a city that is 4/10/01 for TWA people and if the TWA people win their grievances, when the first one comes in above me in seniority, then I will file a grievance because the "hold harmless" clause was violated and I will have been harmed.
aafsc,
Go back and read the Kasher Arbitration ruling.
Kasher clearly deliniates between:
1) those actions, "adverse impact clause," that were the result of the initial integration between AA and TWA; and,
2) furloughs that resulted as a consequence of economic downturns/catastrophies occuring within the the industry.
The bottom line is that any TWA employee seeking to overturn Kasher has to actually go against the IAM, not AA or the TWU. The history has been such that pursuits like these are largely programmed to fail. The IAM F/A's failed, the ALPA-Pilots failed, the Reno F/A's failed. Too much case law and too much background; even for the 9th Circuit.
From Kasher, Opinion and Award:
"In order to resolve this issue, as noted above, this Arbitrator is required by the Arbitration Agreement to apply the merger, purchase and acquisition provisions of the applicable American-TWU collective bargaining agreements. Thus, while striving to fashion a “fair and equitable awardâ€, insofar as incoming TWA employees are concerned, this Arbitrator must respect the contractual condition that the TWU represented workforce will not be adversely impacted in rates of pay, hours and working conditions by the integration of the seniority lists.
The provision in the American-TWU collective bargaining agreements, referred to above, has been correctly characterized by the TWU and American as a “hold harmless†clause.
Initially, it must be observed that the “hold harmless†clause requires, at the very least, that upon integration TWU-represented American employees cannot be displaced from the positions they now hold by TWA employees.
As a corollary, equity requires that IAM-represented employees also have rights to retain the positions they held, unless displacement is necessary to comply with the no “adverse impact†clause.
The enabling language of the American-TWU collective bargaining agreements requires that the seniority integration award provide protection against harm, but it does not guarantee increased seniority benefits as a result of the integration process. Nor does the “hold harmless†provision protect employees from the adverse consequences of downturns in the economy or catastrophic events, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Therefore, while this Arbitrator recognizes that there are some TWU-represented American employees on furlough or otherwise displaced, these adverse developments occurred as a result of the contraction of the airline industry after September 11, 2001, and not as a result of this seniority integration proceeding.
Accordingly, this Arbitrator finds no contractual justification for permitting American employees displaced as a result of the ramifications of September 11, 2001 to displace TWA employees from the positions they now hold performing the work they brought with them. To permit such displacement by American employees would be particularly unfair and inequitable, in view of the fact that TWA employees were laid off in significantly greater proportions since September 11, 2001 than were their American counterparts.
The record evidence indicates that, beyond the initial integration, American and TWU, in their collective bargaining agreements, intended to protect the legitimate expectations of American’s TWU-represented employees in terms of bidding and advancement, and to ensure that the acquisition and seniority integration process did not deprive American’s TWU-represented employees of work opportunities they could legitimately expect.
However, as noted above, the contractual language and the bargaining history does not disclose that there was any guarantee for American’s TWU-represented employees that there would be additional work opportunities created for them by the acquisition and integration, nor does the language dictate that American’s TWU-represented employees benefit at the expense of the IAM-represented workforce.
The “fair and equitable†standard is, by necessity, a subjective one. As past seniority integration awards in the airline industry have demonstrated, there are a variety of methods that may be used to achieve a “fair and equitable†result; and, clearly, what is “fair and equitable†in the eyes of one employee will not, necessarily, be “fair and equitable†to another."
Go back and read the Kasher Arbitration ruling.
Kasher clearly deliniates between:
1) those actions, "adverse impact clause," that were the result of the initial integration between AA and TWA; and,
2) furloughs that resulted as a consequence of economic downturns/catastrophies occuring within the the industry.
The bottom line is that any TWA employee seeking to overturn Kasher has to actually go against the IAM, not AA or the TWU. The history has been such that pursuits like these are largely programmed to fail. The IAM F/A's failed, the ALPA-Pilots failed, the Reno F/A's failed. Too much case law and too much background; even for the 9th Circuit.
From Kasher, Opinion and Award:
"In order to resolve this issue, as noted above, this Arbitrator is required by the Arbitration Agreement to apply the merger, purchase and acquisition provisions of the applicable American-TWU collective bargaining agreements. Thus, while striving to fashion a “fair and equitable awardâ€, insofar as incoming TWA employees are concerned, this Arbitrator must respect the contractual condition that the TWU represented workforce will not be adversely impacted in rates of pay, hours and working conditions by the integration of the seniority lists.
The provision in the American-TWU collective bargaining agreements, referred to above, has been correctly characterized by the TWU and American as a “hold harmless†clause.
Initially, it must be observed that the “hold harmless†clause requires, at the very least, that upon integration TWU-represented American employees cannot be displaced from the positions they now hold by TWA employees.
As a corollary, equity requires that IAM-represented employees also have rights to retain the positions they held, unless displacement is necessary to comply with the no “adverse impact†clause.
The enabling language of the American-TWU collective bargaining agreements requires that the seniority integration award provide protection against harm, but it does not guarantee increased seniority benefits as a result of the integration process. Nor does the “hold harmless†provision protect employees from the adverse consequences of downturns in the economy or catastrophic events, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Therefore, while this Arbitrator recognizes that there are some TWU-represented American employees on furlough or otherwise displaced, these adverse developments occurred as a result of the contraction of the airline industry after September 11, 2001, and not as a result of this seniority integration proceeding.
Accordingly, this Arbitrator finds no contractual justification for permitting American employees displaced as a result of the ramifications of September 11, 2001 to displace TWA employees from the positions they now hold performing the work they brought with them. To permit such displacement by American employees would be particularly unfair and inequitable, in view of the fact that TWA employees were laid off in significantly greater proportions since September 11, 2001 than were their American counterparts.
The record evidence indicates that, beyond the initial integration, American and TWU, in their collective bargaining agreements, intended to protect the legitimate expectations of American’s TWU-represented employees in terms of bidding and advancement, and to ensure that the acquisition and seniority integration process did not deprive American’s TWU-represented employees of work opportunities they could legitimately expect.
However, as noted above, the contractual language and the bargaining history does not disclose that there was any guarantee for American’s TWU-represented employees that there would be additional work opportunities created for them by the acquisition and integration, nor does the language dictate that American’s TWU-represented employees benefit at the expense of the IAM-represented workforce.
The “fair and equitable†standard is, by necessity, a subjective one. As past seniority integration awards in the airline industry have demonstrated, there are a variety of methods that may be used to achieve a “fair and equitable†result; and, clearly, what is “fair and equitable†in the eyes of one employee will not, necessarily, be “fair and equitable†to another."
Winglet said:
Winglet,
You remind me of the ROTC candidate at the end of Animal House, all hell is breaking loose and he is running against the tide yelling, "ALL IS WELL."
In spite of the most comprehensive, well financed, choreographed attack ever waged on a sitting US President; George Bush recieved a higher percentage of the total vote and more actual votes than Bill Clinton during either of his elections.
Kennedy and Carter pushed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
Kennedy and Carter spammed Labor Protective Provisions as cover to the Unions within the ADA of 1978.
Kennedy and Daschle pushed passage of the bill allowing the airlines to continue shortfunding pension committments.
Clinton signed off on NAFTA and GATT, enabling the WTO a veto on US Trade Policy.
The AFL-CIO and the TWU have been in lockstep with all of these provisions throughout all of these years. They have failed to penalize those that failed them.
I am forced to pay Union dues to an Organization that fails to serve my interests. My Union Contract is not Industry Leading in terms of pay, benefits or working conditions but because the Unions get an anti-trust immunity through the RLA, if I leave, I have to start over despite having well more than a decade of service.
The Democratic Party will fight me to keep just such a system in place.
Brother, give it a break. The Democratic Party, as a whole, has been as guilty as any Republican in shanking the working man.
Boomer Apr 27 2005, 12:30 PM
Question(s) to those that may know:
1) What is the percentage matching for the 401(k) now offered by AA?
2) Given a hypothetical employee grossing 50k/yr base, that puts 10k/yr into the 401(k), how much would the % match from above amount to?
I don't know the answers to the above but in talking with others at work, much of the fear in freezing the pension is based on not understanding what would follow and how it would affect them individually.
------------------------------------------------
Connected1 Apr 27 2005, 12:50 PM
I believe the number is 5.5%. So if you put in $10,000 the company will put in its maximum match of $2,750.
------------------------------------------------
Connected1,
Looking at my Total Value Statement for 2004, my DBP plan was around 30% less expensive than the scenario to which you responded.
Even given Sen. Isacksons' recently introduced bill; AA would be faced with much larger payouts unless the match is far less than you detailed.
How can we get a larger benefit without significantly larger time frames over which to act?
Question(s) to those that may know:
1) What is the percentage matching for the 401(k) now offered by AA?
2) Given a hypothetical employee grossing 50k/yr base, that puts 10k/yr into the 401(k), how much would the % match from above amount to?
I don't know the answers to the above but in talking with others at work, much of the fear in freezing the pension is based on not understanding what would follow and how it would affect them individually.
------------------------------------------------
Connected1 Apr 27 2005, 12:50 PM
I believe the number is 5.5%. So if you put in $10,000 the company will put in its maximum match of $2,750.
------------------------------------------------
Connected1,
Looking at my Total Value Statement for 2004, my DBP plan was around 30% less expensive than the scenario to which you responded.
Even given Sen. Isacksons' recently introduced bill; AA would be faced with much larger payouts unless the match is far less than you detailed.
How can we get a larger benefit without significantly larger time frames over which to act?
Connected1
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 332
- Reaction score
- 0
The actual matching percentage match may differ based upon labor group. I consider the match to be interchangeable with salary. That is, if the match were not there then salaries would be 5.5% higher. Therefore, is the match truly more expensive? I'm not sure. That's a matter of subjective economic theory.Boomer said:
Dollar-for-contributed-dollar, 401(k) programs will pay out more over the long term. The value of your pension benefit is more closely related to your seniority and your best years of pay than it is your total contributions. Therefore, the longer you work and the longer you contribute, the less your return on investment. A 401(k) grows in direct proportion to the dollars that you contribute. Therefore, there is no ROI bias for people of varying seniorities and wage levels. Moreover, a 401(k) will generally produce higher annual returns than a more conservatively-invested pension fund. You also have the opportunity to draw down funds early or receive loans based upon the principal invested.
At the end of the day, a 401(k) costs an employer less over the long run because it takes fewer funds to offer a similar retirement benefit.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
Winglet said:
So we do have something in common.......... 😛
B) UT
Fly said:
And he's also presided over a seemingly endless and unnecessary war in Iraq, continues to export working class jobs and the weath of the U.S. to his Chinese friends, enrich his CEO buddies doing the same, and wants to open the floodgates for cheap Mexican labor.
Fly, Winglet:
Do you work for Overland Resource Group; or, are you simply modern day Quislings?
When I view your postings to the entirety of this board, both of you seek that the Unions bow to the inevitability of the Company position.\
At AA, the Ovewrland Group has aided the weak willed TWU in accomodating every CompAAny position without so much as a whimper.
I am forced to pay dues and belong to a CompAAny Union that will not fight and will not accept the will of the members without preventing that will to be expressed as a vote.
Both AA and the TWU willingly included dead guys and terminated former Union members as means to that end.
The NMB staffers, appointed by Clinton, willingly accepted the submissions of the TWU and AA as fact.
Tell me again about how the Unions and AA are working to honestly tell the workers about the challenges we face when they refuse to allow us to vote on which Union we will be forced to pay part of our hourly earnings?
Do you work for Overland Resource Group; or, are you simply modern day Quislings?
When I view your postings to the entirety of this board, both of you seek that the Unions bow to the inevitability of the Company position.\
At AA, the Ovewrland Group has aided the weak willed TWU in accomodating every CompAAny position without so much as a whimper.
I am forced to pay dues and belong to a CompAAny Union that will not fight and will not accept the will of the members without preventing that will to be expressed as a vote.
Both AA and the TWU willingly included dead guys and terminated former Union members as means to that end.
The NMB staffers, appointed by Clinton, willingly accepted the submissions of the TWU and AA as fact.
Tell me again about how the Unions and AA are working to honestly tell the workers about the challenges we face when they refuse to allow us to vote on which Union we will be forced to pay part of our hourly earnings?
Boomer said:
There is no doubt that working people cant trust the Democratic party as it too is owned by the same people who own the Republicans. But, when people vote Republican it sends the message to those people that "all is well, full steam ahead " at attacking our rights and standard of living.
When people vote Democrat they still pursue the same objectives, but they do it more softly. Usually there is a little more compromise built into the deal but they still get what they want.
Blaming the Democrats for Deregulation and Nafta is disingenuous.It implies that the Republicans were against these anti-worker measures. They werent, in fact Republicans overwhelmingly supported those measures. So if a minority of Democrats cross the party line and allow those measures to become law it does not absolve the Republicans, the spin that the "Democrats passed it" is nothing more than Rush Limbauh type of disinformation, half truths. The blame is bipartisan.
There is little doubt that these are the worst years ever for workers in the airline industry, and there is no doubt on which side Bush stands. He has already made it clear that he will use his powers to prevent us from using our collective labor in any way that will enhance our living standards.
He has issued more PEBs against airline workers than any other President in history.
His political ally and fellow REpublican John McCain and several other Republicans brought forth legislation that would strip us of our right to collective bargaining and replace it with a board that would set our wages based upon the companies ability to make profits for it shareholders and hold all other airline workers wages down to the lowest performing carriers. No Democrat has come foward with such a clearly diabolical plan.
Pointing out Clinton or Carters acts which indirectly assaulted our livelyhoods does not absolve Bush, and several of his fellow Republicans of their direct assaults.
The fact is that the Democrats are bad for working people, but the Republicans are worse. We need a Labor Party.
Boomer said:
Just a bit of correction. The staffers are hired help throughout the years. The Board who makes the final ruling and advises the staffers are appointed by the President. In our case all 3 are Bush appointees. Not sure if a change of political party would make a difference as it was obvious to all that what AA wants, AA gets. They want the twu.
NMB Officials
