American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[bob@las-AA]

Since Bob never addressed his statement that the union was lying about all of those jobs, I'm a current lean that Prez is telling the truth or close to it since the company presentation only said that there would be "No layoffs resulting from streamlining its operation." That is company code for layoffs. 100% of the time they say that, after a ratification, everyone gets laid off for other reasons. WIth less work, there WILL BE layoffs Bob. You realize that, yes? What little we know about this offer, low seniority folks are going to be hammered with virtually no chance to get a full time job. Others will be laid off.

Tim, unlike others, I do have a life, and part of having a life is keeping one's self occupied with things that bring meaning and pleasure, for me its is photography, and I'm preparing for a shot in a few hours, I shot rising stars and wannabe models, knowing that none of the subjects I shoot would ever make it as a real model, it still serves a purpose for the subject and I.

Now I'm addressing your quote directly, for the first 4-5 years employed at LAA, I could always look forward to getting a warn letter, if you get one of these at LAA that means that you could get a lay off. Never got laid-off, but I did bet bumped and had to got to ABQ, 2.5 months later I was back in LAS, then LAA filed for BK, a extra 10 clerks flooded LAS, but I didn't get bumped because of that. Now I'm in DFW, why because I survived the lay offs and the BK. Will there be lay-offs, well the answer to that yes, and it has happened with every contract, but I will survive. Prez and CB are from you camp, not the TWU camp,and for some time I have watched them at the start try to be impartial and unbiased only to go to defensive, one sided, and aggressive.
But I have other things to do right now.

 

[WeAAsles]

Prez never addresses the 33% part time who only get 2% retirement contributions from the company. I mean, the only math that matters is .65 per hour for 25 hours x 52 weeks. So you are fine with about $750 a year going into your retirement? And you do realize that at only 25 hours a week, the IAM penalizes them and only gives them partial credit insomuch that their pension benefit is only around $35 multiplier.

The reality of what you are saying is that it is a lie or just ignorant. What the company has offered, i.e., 9% retirement far exceeds the 2%-5% that the majority of workers have right now. Never mind that the pension contribution is capped at only regular hours, i.e., 40 hours for full time, and 25 hours for a 25 hour shift.

Remember, most part timers work 40+ hours a week weez but the company only pays a couple quarters per hour for only 25 hours. All other hours are 'free' for the company. Same with full time. Company doesn't have to pay ANYTHING and is getting a free ride with all of us after it reaches its normal regular hour mark. This encourages the company to want MORE part time. It loves paying only .65 for only 25 hours, then not paying squat for retirement.

You need to get back to the drawing board Weez, I was thinking the extra time off allowed you to properly research.

Irrelevant to my comment.

Irrelevant to my comment that with the Pension the Company has a fixed known cost that is quantifiable that they want to change to a variable cost mix that is not truly quantifiable, but they still want FULL credit for.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

In the hubs it could mean popular early AM or closing shifts moved to all Pt with FT lines being all mid shifts. Yikes.

yes, this an issue for me. this is where the local has to fight tooth and nail to reverse AM shifts/weekends off PT to AM shifts FT & majority weekends off FT.

this is on the local.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

I’ve heard the amount is about 10 Million Dollars?

Why would you assume any of the Negotiators would not do their due diligence gaining as many financial answers as best they can from the Company.

I’d consider that to be a given.

so the swing here, in favor of the company, is just about $50 million per year? and that isn't enough for them? more outsourcing and puny raises?

aa is really piling it on.

 

[WeAAsles]

The cap at DFW was 200 till BK...that cap was never reached at DFW, usually hovered between 165-180...actually the counter offer by the union is 40%, but 40% of the FT heads...the company wants 40% of the total fleet head count including both FT and PT...big difference...

I have to wonder why the Company when they put out their videos wouldn’t disclose this item since they say they’re “Proud of their offer”?

I can see it now. Tons of low Seniority peeps happy camping with that $3000.00 in their pockets until the rug is pulled out from under them and they’re knocked back to only 25 hours per week. (Always read the fine print before you purchase)

 

[WeAAsles]

so the swing here, in favor of the company, is just about $50 million per year? and that isn't enough for them? more outsourcing and puny raises?

aa is really piling it on.

Well you have to remember when Parker says that the Contracts will cost the Company hundreds of millions of dollars he’s also including those raises from 2016 that make up the majority chunk. He’s also talking about the one time cost of any buyouts as well.

That’s why yes in the “Long Game” any individual improvements would be cost neutral or even cost negative to the entirety of the agreements.

The Association currently represents around 30,000 people. Taking out 5000 brings it to 25,000 people and that’s a huge percentage of loss for all of us. Forgetting about the Union dues focusers that kind of a hit effects all of us with losses of Seniority opportunities and different Job functions penning us all in more and more.

 

[WeAAsles]

yes, this an issue for me. this is where the local has to fight tooth and nail to reverse AM shifts/weekends off PT to AM shifts FT & majority weekends off FT.

this is on the local.

Your Local wouldn’t be able to do anything at all if we accept and vote in weaker Staffing language that ties their hands.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

Your Local wouldn’t be able to do anything at all if we accept and vote in weaker Staffing language that ties their hands.

yes...but in the meantime...

 

[P. REZ]

Prez never addresses the 33% part time who only get 2% retirement contributions from the company. I mean, the only math that matters is .65 per hour for 25 hours x 52 weeks. So you are fine with about $750 a year going into your retirement? And you do realize that at only 25 hours a week, the IAM penalizes them and only gives them partial credit insomuch that their pension benefit is only around $35 multiplier.

The reality of what you are saying is that it is a lie or just ignorant. What the company has offered, i.e., 9% retirement far exceeds the 2%-5% that the majority of workers have right now. Never mind that the pension contribution is capped at only regular hours, i.e., 40 hours for full time, and 25 hours for a 25 hour shift.

Remember, most part timers work 40+ hours a week weez but the company only pays a couple quarters per hour for only 25 hours. All other hours are 'free' for the company. Same with full time. Company doesn't have to pay ANYTHING and is getting a free ride with all of us after it reaches its normal regular hour mark. This encourages the company to want MORE part time. It loves paying only .65 for only 25 hours, then not paying squat for retirement.

You need to get back to the drawing board Weez, I was thinking the extra time off allowed you to properly research.

Tim,

First, I am not selling the pension, I'm showing math, and math you can't say is fake news because math is math. I wish you would crunch some numbers yourself but here you go. Take a PT employee not topped out making say $25/hr. and let's say he works 1750 hours in a year. That would give them $43750 for the year. To make it simple, they make $43750 each year for the next 10 years and then retire. With the 9% 401k offer, with putting in 4% of their own money, they would invest $5688 per year for 10 years and with a 7% return have $84089. At retirement, they would take out 4% per year which would equal $280 per month. If they kept the pension instead, they would have $499 per month(49.94x10 years). That's potentially $219 lost for moving to a 401k match.

P. Rez

 

[WeAAsles]

yes...but in the meantime...

Are you having issues on Staffing premium shifts for FT in ORD?

 

[Kev3188]

Again slapping a “When and where so directed” rather than an absolute to the language of any job function provides the Company with the ability to shift that work to someone else.

+1

Irrelevant to my comment.
Irrelevant to my comment that with the Pension the Company has a fixed known cost that is quantifiable that they want to change to a variable cost mix that is not truly quantifiable, but they still want FULL credit for.

No one should be surprised that they're costing it out at the FULL amount. That's just a given. To not do so would be fiscally irresponsible.

I'm saying the NC should be planning it's strategy accordingly.

yes, this an issue for me. this is where the local has to fight tooth and nail to reverse AM shifts/weekends off PT to AM shifts FT & majority weekends off FT.

this is on the local.

In my station, they just went straight to gaslighting all of us by trying to say that no FT people wanted mornings with partials. It went over about as well as you'd expect.

 

[WeAAsles]

No one should be surprised that they're costing it out at the FULL amount. That's just a given. To not do so would be fiscally irresponsible.

I'm saying the NC should be planning it's strategy accordingly.

Ok this is the second time you have made this comment. Personally I don’t think it should be a given when I’m sure there are more than enough studies out there that are accessible to inform the Company what would be their anticipated savings by “forcing” their employees to self fund to receive the match portion.

“Planning their strategy accordingly”? What does this mean?

The strategy is simple. You inform the Company that we do not want any matches and to be forced to self fund to gain the value they would pocket by those who don’t.

No Company matches.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Thx Tim. Is 6 hours still the max hrs for pt to be scheduled

6.5 hr shifts.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Irrelevant to my comment.

Irrelevant to my comment that with the Pension the Company has a fixed known cost that is quantifiable that they want to change to a variable cost mix that is not truly quantifiable, but they still want FULL credit for.

The company doesnt want a possibility of additional risk with the participation in the iam pension. For a good read, look atthe United Airline Annual report. It mentions possible additional risk it may take in regards to the iam pension which itsays its employees make up 5% of it.
United refused to put sCo in it anddidnt want to stay in it.
American has 10% of the entire pension participation. Last august, this wasnt an issue for American management but american wants out to reduce risk. Although it would be liberating to finally get rid of it, I doubt its a dealbreaker for management.

 

[WeAAsles]

The company doesnt want a possibility of additional risk with the participation in the iam pension. For a good read, look atthe United Airline Annual report. It mentions possible additional risk it may take in regards to the iam pension which itsays its employees make up 5% of it.
United refused to put sCo in it anddidnt want to stay in it.
American has 10% of the entire pension participation. Last august, this wasnt an issue for American management but american wants out to reduce risk. Although it would be liberating to finally get rid of it, I doubt its a dealbreaker for management.

Still irrelevant to the point I’m making.