Gee Tim Nelson, what have you got to say about all this? You seem to have the answer for everything!
IMO, the IAM legal staff did a good job at presenting this grievance. It was worthy to be heard and the IAM believed there was a change of control. The leadership of the district was forced to present this case. At any rate, the arbitrator's decision is final. Case closed.
Separately, the previous contract rejection stood on its own, regardless of the COC outcome. The rejected T/A was a concessionary contract all the way around. And the next T/A should be an improvement based on the leverage the union has as a result of US AIRWAYS capital position, continued profits, and inability to raise future capital until it gets the transition agreements Dougie needs. Do you think US AIRWAYS was so quick to schedule new negotiations because they are nice fellas, or do you realize US AIRWAYS needs a transition agreement? If it didn't need a transition agreement, you wouldn't see US AIRWAYS schedule one single negotiations session until 2010. This much is known and a given.
My main concern is the IAM leadership, which has to be replaced.
With the grievance decision, Your IAM leaders are already trying to 'taint the bargaining' and 'prostitute themselves in whoredom' by saying, "Airline industry conditions, and the situation at US Airways in particular, have deteriorated in the last year..." The suggestion of theirs is that you don't deserve what is fair. I say you do but you will have to 'stick together' against the union whores and continue to make it clear to them that you believe you deserve a fair contract.
That statement is a clear indicator that these guys are still the same A$$H**** they have always been. It would have been better for them to say nothing than to continue being the company's mouthpiece. At any rate, the company's financial position is solid with hundreds of millions of dollars in profits during the last 12 months. Further, all analyst project $5 billion estimate of earnings this year for the airline industry, even at $100 barrel for oil.
Here are a few snipets of analyst known as 'airline experts'
"Obviously oil is a big factor, but on the other side of the quarter is airlines keeping passenger loads high and raising airfares," said FTN Midwest analyst Michael Derchin.
news article;
Though high oil prices will continue to dog US Airways and other carriers, Neidl said he expects US Airways to overcome its problems and have a good performance in 2008. He's put an "Add" rating on US Airways stock.
"I'm still looking for only an economic slowdown next year, not a recession," he said. "If that's the case, they should be able to make money in that type of environment, even with the oil prices staying at high levels."
Folks, Labor leaders who are manufacturing 'gloom and doom' negotiations because of $100 oil prices are liars. Real labor leaders will see that:
1. Your company has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 12 months because of the blood, sweat, and tears of the hard working human beings that work for the company.
2. Your company is operating 'business as usual' because money is coming out of its nose. So much that Senior executives have got renewed contracts, plenty of money to appoint even more Vice Presidents, etc.
3. All industry analyst point towards continued profits.
With a profitable environment and your company's need for a transition agreement, leverage is tipped towards the workers. Another thing that helps the leverage of the union is that your pay sux and is at the bottom of the airline industry. Most rampers from non-union Continental, United, American, SWA, etc make over $20hr top out. Even non-union Bankrupt Delta pays rampers more. If you folks were already compensated fairly then your leverage would not be as great. Presumably, because of 'piss clam' pay, you have some folks working the ramp doing things that you have read about in the papers. US AIRWAYS needs to address the human predicament on its property. Bottom line, if US AIRWAYS didn't need to bring home a transition agreement, then NO WAY would US AIRWAYS have agreed to negotiate at this point. They are not nice fellas.
Any negotiations should start where the rejected TA left off at. Remember, the last TA was a concession.
As a side, section 6 negotiations are worthy for the west because of many 'good reasons', but the present leadership doesn't listen. Clearly, nothing is wrong with section 6 negotiations, and in the meantime if a fair transition can be worked out then great.
regards,
