American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[B737 driver]

Dude, I have zero answers for you. What if they don't offer. What if we go to section 6. What if LUS medical is left but deicing is gone. I have no answers to anything. The Association got us into this mess we can do nothing but wait.

It sounds like most people will just ride it out retire, and then the next generation is left with the same mess. In reality you really have that at all Airlines.

 

[PIEDMONT784]

That’s all well and good on paper but I think they’d look over their glasses and say we’ll give you 3% over DL and you can keep catering on those couple cities that have ,if that don’t work for then we’ll see you in arbitration.
Then what?

His solution is simple, BLAME the UNION! If what you presented actually happens, he will be in here telling everyone how sorry the union is -- Posting daily about how if HE were in charge, this would never happen! I suppose there would also be a handful of digital surrogates backing him up, along with a lot of "we told you so's... you guys are dumb... Sito is crooked"... on and on...

>SPIT<

 

[1AA]

it didnt help that the ibt hoodwinked and knifed laa mx. i cant believe some mx still want ibt. ibt is just awful.

I fear if a drive should start the IBT will pull the same stunt and set us back at least two more years in a NMB lockout.
We allow this crap to happen time and time again. I'm baffled by the stupidity of our work group when it pertains to obtaining a change in union representation. Then you have the ones that complain but do nothing or won't make an attempt to better themselves.

 

[Tim Nelson]

That’s all well and good on paper but I think they’d look over their glasses and say we’ll give you 3% over DL and you can keep catering on those couple cities that have ,if that don’t work for then we’ll see you in arbitration.
Then what?

well, are you saying we just voluntarily give up our health and part time caps at that point?
First off, there hasnt ever been any arbitration in the history of airline labor negotiations unless a union consents. And i doubt any iam leader would agree to arbitration.
But, yea, if the company walked away and said it will not negotiate unless we concede then im fine keeping what we have. We cant just voluntarily hand them unlimited pt and our health care. Both of those items are almost priceless in this industry along with our scope. Now if they gave us an exchange of 16% base 401k like the pilots for health care exchange then that makes things more interesting. But why cash in our health care at 0% value when the same benefit was exchanged for cost positive?

 

[CremaDiLimone]

But why cash in our health care at 0% value when the same benefit was exchanged for cost positive?

who says you and lus guys will get nothing for it, if it 'magically' goes away? surely, the assoc. isn't that dumb?

would it anger you if laa guys shared in the spoils of losing your medical?

 

[Tim Nelson]

His solution is simple, BLAME the UNION! If what you presented actually happens, he will be in here telling everyone how sorry the union is -- Posting daily about how if HE were in charge, this would never happen! I suppose there would also be a handful of digital surrogates backing him up, along with a lot of "we told you so's... you guys are dumb... Sito is crooked"... on and on...

>SPIT<

actually, i didnt complain much when the twu stood down all allowed us to get a solid ta. And i like the present position as i cant argue with the iam current position. But its all bs cuz we know what sito did everywhere else and superfly said sito already aip. I got dat punk cuffed until April 2019.
Until then, thankfully, we keep what we got. What i would have done differently was presented a better proposal by not just keeping what we have but asking for more scope and to eliminate the part time double payment on healthcare and to bring pt up to same retirement contributions. All ive seen from the union bosses are a best of both, not an enhancement in our healthcare.

 

[Tim Nelson]

who says you and lus guys will get nothing for it, if it 'magically' goes away? surely, the assoc. isn't that dumb?

would it anger you if laa guys shared in the spoils of losing your medical?

i work with laa guys and i fully can appreciate their perspective. I wouldnt be angry at all but anger is something we all need more of insomuch that we ought to be angry towards greed.

 

[swamt]

$44.92 base.

Add in licenses, shift differential, etc. and it could get close to that.

Ok thx. Kinda what I thought..

 

[CremaDiLimone]

good...

i work with laa guys and i fully can appreciate their perspective. I wouldnt be angry at all but anger is something we all need more of insomuch that we ought to be angry towards greed.

at a personal level, what would you find acceptable getting back for losing your lus insurance?

if this saves the company $39 million per year and indirectly, maybe more..what is acceptable?

do you feel as though this should be the lus mindset? or, be defiant and never give in on this issue?

 

[cltrat]

well, are you saying we just voluntarily give up our health and part time caps at that point?
First off, there hasnt ever been any arbitration in the history of airline labor negotiations unless a union consents. And i doubt any iam leader would agree to arbitration.
But, yea, if the company walked away and said it will not negotiate unless we concede then im fine keeping what we have. We cant just voluntarily hand them unlimited pt and our health care. Both of those items are almost priceless in this industry along with our scope. Now if they gave us an exchange of 16% base 401k like the pilots for health care exchange then that makes things more interesting. But why cash in our health care at 0% value when the same benefit was exchanged for cost positive?

No with billion dollar profits each quarter nothing should be given up only enhanced. Like jack leg Parker as said multiple times industry leading. That garbage they proposed is a jokethat some would actually take. You like to use the term sad now that’s sad. I am just coming back at you from what the company might do that’s all

 

[P. REZ]

who says you and lus guys will get nothing for it, if it 'magically' goes away? surely, the assoc. isn't that dumb?

would it anger you if laa guys shared in the spoils of losing your medical?

CremaDiLimone,

Of course we know the numbers. Let me throw some numbers out there. Gain 1 sick day, get full pay for first sick day, get 3 holidays, get $.55-$.61 shift differential if you fit the hours, get $.70 if a CC, get $.24 raise at top out, get 5% 401k, get up to 4% match 401k if you put in up to 4%, get 6 weeks vacation at 30 years. Here's what else the company wants besides just the insurance: lose 500-700 catering jobs, lose 60-80 mail in LAS and PHX, lose 5.5%-11.5% pension contribution depending on where you are on scale. That's for LUS.

Now for LAA. You gain 5 holidays, 5 sick days, 6 weeks vacation at 30 years, $.11 CC, $.55-$.61 shift differential, $.24 raise, get 5% 401k, get up to 4% 401k match, double time OT. What do they want from you: to fill FT vacancies when they occur with roughly 1000 part time employees, lose deicing.

And for the icing on the company cake, they want several jobs on the "when and where directed" list which would be lavs, water, etc.

I don't have the numbers but this contract offer is cost negative or at best cost neutral. Reminder, the company wants 17% of our jobs between fleet and MX.

Anybody still wonder why we are saying phuck you company?

P. Rez[/QUOTE]

 

[robbedagain]

Make greedy self centered d.p. eat his own words.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

im guessing that the prefunding will b a disappointment and section 6 insomuch that you will have more support soon enuf especially if they/you set up a gofundme.
imo the iam and twu need to pick a craft. As iam im comfortable with our contract, considering all the chit contracts Sito has signed but not sure why laa mx would support our position. Ill give Alex Garcia and Gary Petersen points for blowing smoke at you guys to keep you content at standstill.

AA AMTs will not take your outsourcing. You don't mind it cause you already live it. We are used to doing our own maintenance and our engine shop being a real engine shop that actually tears down and builds up engines.

 

[Vortilon]

Here is a little blast from the past. TWU taking care of AMTs.



Bob OwensVeteran
Joined:
Sep 9, 2002
Messages:
14,273
Likes Received:
6,111
#1Bob Owens, Apr 2, 2003
April 1, 2003

TO: AA Members Locals 501-590

On March 30, 2003, the Company presented the TWU with the term sheets describing the concessions it would seek from us in the event we could not reach consensual agreements, and the Company files for bankruptcy. These demands would be made of us in accordance with 11 U.S.C. 1113 which requires that, subsequent to filing a petition for bankruptcy, the debtor must make a proposal for those necessary modifications in the employee''s benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor, and all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably. All other unions on the property were presented with similar proposals which the Company called the Vermont plan.

The Vermont plan is similar to concessions which have already been imposed or which the Company is demanding that the Court impose on UAL employees. When concessions such as these are demanded in bankruptcy, the Union cannot reject them without good cause. Good cause in the context of bankruptcy means that the modifications are not required for the reorganization of the Company. If a union does not have good cause for rejecting a Company''s demands in bankruptcy, its entire contract will be rejected.

Sincerely & fraternally,

James C. Little

Director Air Transport Division


Response;

I don’t know what one would expect from the company other than an ultimatum at the midnight hour of their choosing. It’s disturbing to see the blatant lack of leadership or resistance that our International has shown. The fact that the Union allowed the negotiations to take place on Company property, in a room that may have been bugged by the company reveals at best a lack of judgment, at worst complicity. A list of what they will demand means nothing. They can ask for the moon. It does not mean that they will get it. To date, other than the 14% emergency cut that the Judge has imposed upon UAL mechanics their contract remains intact. They are 5 months into the process.

The law states that “all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably†However as you can see on JETNET management are not taking the same cuts as we are. Management is not being told to accept a “Six Year†deal. It’s very possible that management’s salaries could be fully restored by next year while we are locked into a six-year deal. Unless ALL of managements compensation is tied to ours, and unless they are tied for the entire Six-year period equitable treatment does not exist.

Jim Little and the Internationals failure to seek out inform and argue the merits of the many points that support rejection is a betrayal of his position and obligation to the members. A leader should not stand by and forward the company’s propaganda unchallenged. Jim Little previously maintained “ Not on my watch†the concept of a six-year deal.

The term of six years in an industry that usually recovers in less than two is unreasonable. Having experienced the unnecessary hardship that a six year deal imposed on us through the 90s it would be foolish to allow ourselves to be fooled into accepting another one. One thing that Little and the International have left out is that the Airlines are considered an essential industry. So in addition to consideration that an abrogation of the contract could result in a strike or other actions that would cause harm to the value of the creditors assets the Judge must take into consideration the effect of a strike on the economy as a whole. This point has been completely omitted from any correspondence from the union. So we are not completely without clout, just leadership. We have a situation referred to as MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept world peace for 50 years.

The International Union has agreed to unreasonably onerous terms for an excessively long period of time. It is up to us to protect our future by rejecting this agreement, informing all interested parties that we are agreeable to reasonable changes and that if that fails to materialize we will strike to protect our interests.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Oh! Well if Bob says so.

All the boogeymen are gone so I guess you guys will recover everything now.

 

[NYer]

Here is a little blast from the past. TWU taking care of AMTs.



Bob OwensVeteran
Joined:
Sep 9, 2002
Messages:
14,273
Likes Received:
6,111
#1Bob Owens, Apr 2, 2003
April 1, 2003

TO: AA Members Locals 501-590

On March 30, 2003, the Company presented the TWU with the term sheets describing the concessions it would seek from us in the event we could not reach consensual agreements, and the Company files for bankruptcy. These demands would be made of us in accordance with 11 U.S.C. 1113 which requires that, subsequent to filing a petition for bankruptcy, the debtor must make a proposal for those necessary modifications in the employee''s benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor, and all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably. All other unions on the property were presented with similar proposals which the Company called the Vermont plan.

The Vermont plan is similar to concessions which have already been imposed or which the Company is demanding that the Court impose on UAL employees. When concessions such as these are demanded in bankruptcy, the Union cannot reject them without good cause. Good cause in the context of bankruptcy means that the modifications are not required for the reorganization of the Company. If a union does not have good cause for rejecting a Company''s demands in bankruptcy, its entire contract will be rejected.

Sincerely & fraternally,

James C. Little

Director Air Transport Division


Response;

I don’t know what one would expect from the company other than an ultimatum at the midnight hour of their choosing. It’s disturbing to see the blatant lack of leadership or resistance that our International has shown. The fact that the Union allowed the negotiations to take place on Company property, in a room that may have been bugged by the company reveals at best a lack of judgment, at worst complicity. A list of what they will demand means nothing. They can ask for the moon. It does not mean that they will get it. To date, other than the 14% emergency cut that the Judge has imposed upon UAL mechanics their contract remains intact. They are 5 months into the process.

The law states that “all affected parties are treated fairly and equitably†However as you can see on JETNET management are not taking the same cuts as we are. Management is not being told to accept a “Six Year†deal. It’s very possible that management’s salaries could be fully restored by next year while we are locked into a six-year deal. Unless ALL of managements compensation is tied to ours, and unless they are tied for the entire Six-year period equitable treatment does not exist.

Jim Little and the Internationals failure to seek out inform and argue the merits of the many points that support rejection is a betrayal of his position and obligation to the members. A leader should not stand by and forward the company’s propaganda unchallenged. Jim Little previously maintained “ Not on my watch†the concept of a six-year deal.

The term of six years in an industry that usually recovers in less than two is unreasonable. Having experienced the unnecessary hardship that a six year deal imposed on us through the 90s it would be foolish to allow ourselves to be fooled into accepting another one. One thing that Little and the International have left out is that the Airlines are considered an essential industry. So in addition to consideration that an abrogation of the contract could result in a strike or other actions that would cause harm to the value of the creditors assets the Judge must take into consideration the effect of a strike on the economy as a whole. This point has been completely omitted from any correspondence from the union. So we are not completely without clout, just leadership. We have a situation referred to as MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept world peace for 50 years.

The International Union has agreed to unreasonably onerous terms for an excessively long period of time. It is up to us to protect our future by rejecting this agreement, informing all interested parties that we are agreeable to reasonable changes and that if that fails to materialize we will strike to protect our interests.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Always goes back to 2003, doesn't it.

Once in BK in 2012, there was also urging for maintenance workers to vote no on their TA and face abrogation of the CBA because it is the only way to get a good deal.

If that's what the maintenance group believes then keep saying no and you'll eventually get all you believe you deserve. Right.