American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[WeAAsles]

sure, technically this is correct.

how did some acquire and accumulate seniority from one side that javits counted and how did some have seniority that didn't count, from another side?

obviously, i don't do a good job of explaining. i'm hoping that maybe a laa guy like weaasles or NYer can explain the issue that i have, much better.

Dude I still remember the bruising back and forths you and I had on this issue. I can also tell that Racer X is enough of an authority to figure out what you’re talking about without me maybe muddying the waters if you want to hop on that ride again?

If you don’t mind I’m gonna pass on this Hot Potato.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

right...an authority. so, he knows what he wrote is technically correct.

i know that mike mayes would give his post a 'like' and a 'winner'. that's the true association working in tandem.

harmony and synergy.

 

[Racer X]

sure, technically this is correct.

how did some acquire and accumulate seniority from one side that javits counted and how did some have seniority that didn't count, from another side?

obviously, i don't do a good job of explaining. i'm hoping that maybe a laa guy like weaasles or NYer can explain the issue that i have, much better.

No matter what....the seniority was a decision by neutral Javitz. That is outside of any JCBA. However.....the way it is applied may be in JCBA.

 

[WeAAsles]

Here is some food for thought for all of you "Must Have" guys...

If Medical was a "must have" for the Airline Business Model, why did LUS simply not take it away in bankruptcy when they could have without our consent?
The very same dude that was running LUS is now running AA. What has changed?
Cadillac Medical should be even less expensive for the combined companies, since larger employee bases ultimatly lower costs. Also, Trump killed Obamacare, so that is even more reason to keep LUS medical for the entire group! Thanks Trump!

The same for Catering, if it was not working in the pre-merger business model for LUS, why did they not take it away in abrogation? The two combined Companies have less competition, more resources, and more net profits than either of the two pre-merger companies combined!

Why were "must haves" post-merger, not "must takes" pre-merger?

>SPIT<

PIEDMONT you must understand. This work that the Company has requested we hand back to them does not fall under the description of my “CORE” work in the recently arrived pamphlet that came in my mailbox.

In it my “CORE” work was described now clearly to me as anything only and solely having to do with putting my hands on (Not in) people’s luggage. So anything past that is a gift that the Conpany has continued to bless me with keeping.

In the future I suppose that all driving functions will be outsourced to some low wage vendors who will drive the veyors up to the Aircraft for me to get in and stack the bags and another contractor will drive up the carts for one of my Union Brothers to chuck me those bags.

When we’re finished the Contractors will push the plane from the gate.

<spit>

 

[Racer X]

We have a lot of guys here in MIA who like to do holdover so yes adding more people into that mix with the PT is a concession piece for the FT Members. If I’m correct it’s anything “under” 4 hours needed and they can be called?

So I’m wondering could a creative Management team who needs a 4 hour covered say we have 3.7 hours available to get those PT into the mix since they would only be gettng straight time up until 40 hours?

And BTW that 2x for second day off is a DRAMATIC improvement over what we used to have and it might even entice me to occasionally throw my hat in the ring and sacrifice a Weekend. (I bet I could always get Super Bowl Sunday weekend)

Just to be clear....2x on second day off only happens if you work at least 4 hours on first day off. Or after 8 hours worked on second day off if no OT on first day off was worked. Also any hours after 8 hours on first day off are all 2x and on scheduled work day after 8 hours straight time is met the first 4 hours would be 1.5x any hours over 4 would be 2x rate.
That is good language.

 

[WeAAsles]

right...an authority. so, he knows what he wrote is technically correct.

i know that mike mayes would give his post a 'like' and a 'winner'. that's the true association working in tandem.

harmony and synergy.

Like I said bro and it really is out of complete respect.

 

[NYer]

The pt issue is not finalized yet. Doesn’t TWU language say (paraphrasing of course) pt numbers stay the same in 13 cities but can increase on a 1:1 ratio? That would mean the pt% could increase. The pay progression scale to my knowledge is not finalized yet. OT language is a step backwards in what members eyes? Full time LAA? Just with the 2x alone is a Major plus. Ft Giving pt some ot will be a very small compromise in exchange for the gain The grievance procedure is more TWU based than IAM based. And the CS POLICY is subject to change at any time. So contractual language is better.

PTers: The current TWU CBA contains the 1:1 language after certain numbers are met. In the case of MIA, let's assume our numbers are 1500 FT and 500 PT. That would mean that any number above 1500 would mean they can add the equivalent number of PTers, or 1600 and 600.

OK. So if we had 1800 FTers in MIA, it means they could add an additional 300 PTers. In order to make that more difficult for them to do we use our OT language to dissuade their use of more PT. They would need to hold all the FTers on OT before they could hold or extend a PTer. That has been a successful mechanism in order to control the proliferation of PT despite their contractual ability to raise their numbers.

The IAM has a different philosophy and culture with the PTers and the OT language may not mean a great deal. To the TWU side, having PTers held rather than FTers and having 3-hour shifts really puts the pressure on tamping down the PT numbers even if we keep our current language, nevermind if we go to a 40% number.

2X: We've had double-time before and in a station like MIA that may be an overall detriment rather than a plus. Obviously, if you get the double-time it would be good but they will clamp down on the ability to get it consistently. A benefit to having the 1.5x is that we get OT in the 6 to 8 range after your shift. Many people like that because they can get their OT in one day rather than stay multiple days. We'll take the 2x but it isn't a huge deal and some will argue it is a detriment especially with PTers taking some of that away. It is probable that some will have the earnings actually go down because the pool for the OT will increase.

In MIA, we have hundreds of hours of OT a day, but usually less than 100 PT extended hours per month. That will change drastically.

Grievance: Right now, the process we use is better suited to getting quicker results. In the future, the compromise means two added layers to the process and slows down the results and bogs down the machinery. If you have a disciplinary letter and it takes a couple of months to process waiting an extra couple of months is unneeded stress.

CS: Those in the know agree having contractual language is usually better than not, but when the policy in place has been pretty consistent over the years, except for a few hiccups, it makes that transition more worrisome. I don't think the change is too bad, but any change that places restrictions is seen as a negative.

In the IAM world, all this may seem perfectly reasonable but the TWU has had different systems, philosophies, and cultures.

 

[WeAAsles]

Just to be clear....2x on second day off only happens if you work at least 4 hours on first day off. Or after 8 hours worked on second day off if no OT on first day off was worked. Also any hours after 8 hours on first day off are all 2x and on scheduled work day after 8 hours straight time is met the first 4 hours would be 1.5x any hours over 4 would be 2x rate.
That is good language.

Well what makes it especially good is that in our old language back in the year 1862 second day off was also paid at 2x BUUUUUTTTTTT you went to the bottom of the OT list so it was almost an Act of God (Or major screwup) if they ever called you for that second day. In your current language and our new (someday) future language no more back of the line for second day.

And if I’m correct PT Members are not included for Day Off Call In, in the mix with FT? I assume they can sign up but will only be called if the FT list is exhausted?

 

[NYer]

I am not sure it would have been different without 2 unions but maybe the wounds would heal faster as the changes might have been more faster than fester. I do see why LUS FT employees with family plans would not want to go to LAA medical. But I also see why I LUS PT employees might want to or might not care. I do not know what the company must haves are but it sounds like they want everyone on the LAA plan

Imagine for a moment if the TWU would have won a representational fight, which I don't believe would have been a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, as it stands with the Association there needs to be consensus for something to come out for a vote. When it does and gets voted in the without the IAM medical all fingers won't be able to be point strictly at the TWU because the vote would be a mutual decision.

If the TWU alone voted away the IAM medical, simply because of the majority, there would never be a unified Fleet group.

I support the idea of the Association because it entails we work together whether we like it or not. If one group overpowered the other, the bad blood from that would be something we may never overcome.

 

[WeAAsles]

PTers: The current TWU CBA contains the 1:1 language after certain numbers are met. In the case of MIA, let's assume our numbers are 1500 FT and 500 PT. That would mean that any number above 1500 would mean they can add the equivalent number of PTers, or 1600 and 600.

OK. So if we had 1800 FTers in MIA, it means they could add an additional 300 PTers. In order to make that more difficult for them to do we use our OT language to dissuade their use of more PT. They would need to hold all the FTers on OT before they could hold or extend a PTer. That has been a successful mechanism in order to control the proliferation of PT despite their contractual ability to raise their numbers.

The IAM has a different philosophy and culture with the PTers and the OT language may not mean a great deal. To the TWU side, having PTers held rather than FTers and having 3-hour shifts really puts the pressure on tamping down the PT numbers even if we keep our current language, nevermind if we go to a 40% number.

2X: We've had double-time before and in a station like MIA that may be an overall detriment rather than a plus. Obviously, if you get the double-time it would be good but they will clamp down on the ability to get it consistently. A benefit to having the 1.5x is that we get OT in the 6 to 8 range after your shift. Many people like that because they can get their OT in one day rather than stay multiple days. We'll take the 2x but it isn't a huge deal and some will argue it is a detriment especially with PTers taking some of that away. It is probable that some will have the earnings actually go down because the pool for the OT will increase.

In MIA, we have hundreds of hours of OT a day, but usually less than 100 PT extended hours per month. That will change drastically.

Grievance: Right now, the process we use is better suited to getting quicker results. In the future, the compromise means two added layers to the process and slows down the results and bogs down the machinery. If you have a disciplinary letter and it takes a couple of months to process waiting an extra couple of months is unneeded stress.

CS: Those in the know agree having contractual language is usually better than not, but when the policy in place has been pretty consistent over the years, except for a few hiccups, it makes that transition more worrisome. I don't think the change is too bad, but any change that places restrictions is seen as a negative.

In the IAM world, all this may seem perfectly reasonable but the TWU has had different systems, philosophies, and cultures.

NYer I don’t want you to ever get me wrong on this but no I don’t like the idea in the slightest of MIA possibly growing larger in future PT numbers. Again all I’ve said was that the middle ground between the two competing philosophies was nice to hear.

I’ve actually heard from many IAM guys that are pretty firm in the belief that if it’s a PT hole that needs to be filled why should it go to a FT? So I think they may have been quite prepared to go with PT getting anything less than 8 hours first over a FT?

And BTW if Station ratios as I’ve said before aren’t maintained I’m not going to support any agreement that comes out for my consideration.

Scary to even consider a Hub being staffed over half or more with a PT workforce.

 

[WeAAsles]

PTers: The current TWU CBA contains the 1:1 language after certain numbers are met. In the case of MIA, let's assume our numbers are 1500 FT and 500 PT. That would mean that any number above 1500 would mean they can add the equivalent number of PTers, or 1600 and 600.

OK. So if we had 1800 FTers in MIA, it means they could add an additional 300 PTers. In order to make that more difficult for them to do we use our OT language to dissuade their use of more PT. They would need to hold all the FTers on OT before they could hold or extend a PTer. That has been a successful mechanism in order to control the proliferation of PT despite their contractual ability to raise their numbers.

The IAM has a different philosophy and culture with the PTers and the OT language may not mean a great deal. To the TWU side, having PTers held rather than FTers and having 3-hour shifts really puts the pressure on tamping down the PT numbers even if we keep our current language, nevermind if we go to a 40% number.

2X: We've had double-time before and in a station like MIA that may be an overall detriment rather than a plus. Obviously, if you get the double-time it would be good but they will clamp down on the ability to get it consistently. A benefit to having the 1.5x is that we get OT in the 6 to 8 range after your shift. Many people like that because they can get their OT in one day rather than stay multiple days. We'll take the 2x but it isn't a huge deal and some will argue it is a detriment especially with PTers taking some of that away. It is probable that some will have the earnings actually go down because the pool for the OT will increase.

In MIA, we have hundreds of hours of OT a day, but usually less than 100 PT extended hours per month. That will change drastically.

Grievance: Right now, the process we use is better suited to getting quicker results. In the future, the compromise means two added layers to the process and slows down the results and bogs down the machinery. If you have a disciplinary letter and it takes a couple of months to process waiting an extra couple of months is unneeded stress.

CS: Those in the know agree having contractual language is usually better than not, but when the policy in place has been pretty consistent over the years, except for a few hiccups, it makes that transition more worrisome. I don't think the change is too bad, but any change that places restrictions is seen as a negative.

In the IAM world, all this may seem perfectly reasonable but the TWU has had different systems, philosophies, and cultures.

On that new Grievance language I was informed that you don’t necessarily have to use those extra steps? I hope that’s true because otherwise I agree with you.

A Member should never have to wait needlessly long for an answer to any grievances.

 

[NYer]

Here is some food for thought for all of you "Must Have" guys...

If Medical was a "must have" for the Airline Business Model, why did LUS simply not take it away in bankruptcy when they could have without our consent?
The very same dude that was running LUS is now running AA. What has changed?
Cadillac Medical should be even less expensive for the combined companies, since larger employee bases ultimatly lower costs. Also, Trump killed Obamacare, so that is even more reason to keep LUS medical for the entire group! Thanks Trump!

The same for Catering, if it was not working in the pre-merger business model for LUS, why did they not take it away in abrogation? The two combined Companies have less competition, more resources, and more net profits than either of the two pre-merger companies combined!

Why were "must haves" post-merger, not "must takes" pre-merger?

>SPIT<

It wasn't a must-have for LUS.

For LAA, the medical for all work groups have been in the mix for the last 10 years. It has been a target and something they worked towards for a quite some time and they're now on the final lap in their quest.

If the LUS management team was willing to let it go because they had in the past, it would have started with the CWA-IBT as they also fought to stay out of the LAA medical. However, in those negotiations and in recent town hall proclamations they have echoed the same lines we've been hearing for the last 10 years. That seems to indicate the LUS management team has picked up the LAA moniker on the medical rather than their own positions from the recent past.

 

[Kev3188]

...So the whole idea in any good poker match in the end is to figure out just who the hell is really bluffing and who is holding the Aces?

Easy. Jerry Glass. That only changes when people consider withholding their labor as a viable option.

Are there any viable options to get everything we might want (The Moon) of course not.

Of course there is.

The same for Catering, if it was not working in the pre-merger business model for LUS, why did they not take it away in abrogation? The two combined Companies have less competition, more resources, and more net profits than either of the two pre-merger companies combined!

Why were "must haves" post-merger, not "must takes" pre-merger?

>SPIT<

Remind me again how many small stations were wiped off the map in exchange for catering? How about "Mainline Express," or that 90-days-and-you-lose-your-seniority nonsense?

Keeping catering was a steal for the company.

PIEDMONT you must understand. This work that the Company has requested we hand back to them does not fall under the description of my “CORE” work in the recently arrived pamphlet that came in my mailbox.

In it my “CORE” work was described now clearly to me as anything only and solely having to do with putting my hands on (Not in) people’s luggage. So anything past that is a gift that the Conpany has continued to bless me with keeping.

In the future I suppose that all driving functions will be outsourced to some low wage vendors who will drive the veyors up to the Aircraft for me to get in and stack the bags and another contractor will drive up the carts for one of my Union Brothers to chuck me those bags.

When we’re finished the Contractors will push the plane from the gate.

<spit>

Welcome to DL.

 

[WeAAsles]

It wasn't a must-have for LUS.

For LAA, the medical for all work groups have been in the mix for the last 10 years. It has been a target and something they worked towards for a quite some time and they're now on the final lap in their quest.

If the LUS management team was willing to let it go because they had in the past, it would have started with the CWA-IBT as they also fought to stay out of the LAA medical. However, in those negotiations and in recent town hall proclamations they have echoed the same lines we've been hearing for the last 10 years. That seems to indicate the LUS management team has picked up the LAA moniker on the medical rather than their own positions from the recent past.

Saying “target” is much more polite and I would say accurate description.

I don’t think CWA/IBT had power to argue against much when around 70% of their newly combined Brothers and Sisters had no CBA under their belt?

I’m not saying they could have won the battle anyway but I don’t think they had much (if any) ammunition really to do it with?

BTW in fairness to your “target” line, no guarantee we’re going to be able to save much of a semblance of that Medical for ourselves either ultimately?

Maybe in the end you’re absolutely right and the entire AA workforce gets stuck on the hook with that crappy 21% (But that crap shouldn’t come cheap IMO)

 

[NYer]

NYer I don’t want you to ever get me wrong on this but no I don’t like the idea in the slightest of MIA possibly growing larger in future PT numbers. Again all I’ve said was that the middle ground between the two competing philosophies was nice to hear.

I’ve actually heard from many IAM guys that are pretty firm in the belief that if it’s a PT hole that needs to be filled why should it go to a FT? So I think they may have been quite prepared to go with PT getting anything less than 8 hours first over a FT?

And BTW if Station ratios as I’ve said before aren’t maintained I’m not going to support any agreement that comes out for my consideration.

Scary to even consider a Hub being staffed over half or more with a PT workforce.

Depending on how they count it, we're already at 34%.