First the Facts (regarding fleet); Then the Speculation

diogenes

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
2,515
0
I have verified, to the best of my abilities, the following with the IAM;
1. Severance - Article 10:A of the 1999 Fleet Service Agreement states The Company shall not be liable for furlough allowances where reductions-in-force are the result of an act of God, war emergency...etc. The latest term sheet''s (iam141.org) war/terrorism contingency states an additional 5% paycut will be applied if the US begins a sustained aerial bombardment of Iraq outside of the current no-fly zone, or introduces ground troops, or there are additional acts of terrorism. I asked should these two texts be read as one, and the answer is YES. If conditions of the term sheet are met, Article 10:A is applicable. In brief, severance pay and benefits are not guaranteed.
2. Mainline Conversion to Express - See Term Sheet, Attachment C. In short, if a mainline station currently handles express flights, and is converted to an express station, the express language is applicable to agents in that location. You will retain your seniority for pay and bidding purposes, and will be covered under the scope of the 1999 Fleet Service Agreement. I have been advised there are few stations that fit that description. There are also three HUGE caveats;
a. If your station is ''expressed'', you will likely need fewer agents than you currently have, so junior agents will still be furloughed.
b. If you''re in a station where express agents already handle express flights, all bets are off. You are not guaranteed to retain your seniority - the language in the first round of concessions merely says the Company will ask the express operator to hire you. Some express operators are already covered by CBA''s, further complicating this matter. Much more detail needs to be provided to the membership on this issue. Any additional info here would be appreciated.
c. The Company can adjust the ratio of CWA to IAM agents. Assume in your current mainline station you have 20 fleet service and 20 CWA agents, for a total of 40. After, ''expression'', the company determines they only need 30 total agents. Don''t assume 15 will be CWA and 15 will be IAM. It could be 20 CWA and 10 IAM agents, regardless of seniority. I speculate the company will finesse this to get the lowest seniority, hence payroll, possible.
3. Voting - The latest round of fleet service furloughs takes effect January 5, 2003. Voting on the latest round of concessions is scheduled for January 10th. Furloughed members will not be allowed to vote, per District 141 bylaws (see iam141.org, and read the latest update). The CWA initially was to complete voting 12/27/02, until further negotiations warranted an extension until 1/10/03. We could have accomplished a vote prior to 1/10/03.
4.Who, how many and where gets furloughed, or reduced to express. There is no answer to this question. There is a spread sheet for mechanics at iam141m.org. Mechs already know, prior to voting, how many furloughs, at what locations, which classifications, etc. There is no comparable document for fleet. The best info I could get was the company initially said only 6 stations would be reduced from mainline to express, and then amended it to 17. Refer to the 1999 FSA, page 122. If 6 is accurate, this gets all the remaining class II stations that are not long distance operations (SFO, SEA etc.) If 17 is accurate, the company can get all of the short distance class II''s, use the express/seasonal language to get the long-range class II''s, and whack some current class I stations. I got, strictly second-hand, that at least 4 current class I''s are slated for class II.
5. Language vs. paycuts - it''s union 101 that you conceed dollars, not language.
The company said they needed $14 mil. annually from fleet, so let''s do some numbers.
Each employee is paying, very conservatively, an additional $30 per month in health insurance costs.
4900 employees x $30 x 12 months = $1,764,000 annually.
That leaves $12,236,000 the company is looking for, annually.
Article 26 of the 1999 FSA says 35% of the work force may be part time. Of 4900 total employees, 3200 may be full-time, 1700 may be part-time (I don''t have the acutal figures, but this should be close).
3200 agents x 2000 hours annually = 6,400,000 man hours.
1700 agents x 1000 hours annually = 1,700,000 man hours.
Total 8,100,000 man hours.
$12,236,000 divided by 8,100,000 = $1.51
We could have given up an additional $1.51 an hour, instead of any jobs, and the company would have gotten its $14 mil.
This is a bit simplistic, but you get the idea. I have no facts as to why we lost language, and the jobs that go with it, instead of dollars. If anyone else has some, we''d be glad to hear it.
Sorry for the long post. Gotta go; running out of gas.
 

night_ice

Advanced
Nov 26, 2002
125
0
www.usaviation.com
geesh...17 stations? that will probably be all stations within 1000 mile radius of CLT, PHL, PIT? (all 3 hubs) I can think of a few stations in particular that have 737's, Airbus 319,320, etc; that currently fly within the 1000 mile range of CLT. Sure would take a lot of RJ's to fill those capacities. (ORF, RIC, RDU)
 
There is an old saying, "It aint over till the fat lady sings."
.
If you work in a small station the fat lady is practicing to sing for ya. The question is "when" will she come to your station and perform. She is coming. May be days away...may be a few months. Rest assured, she knows the song and she is coming. Get ready.
 

sabre

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
161
0
Just think, even if the company closes all 17 stations listed as said...Chip will still be flying them in there.

love
joesy
 
OP
D

diogenes

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
2,515
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/4/2003 12:27:49 AM night_ice wrote:

what 17 stations are mentioned?
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------
That is the information I'm pressing the company for. According to my guy, when this question was broached, the initial response was 6 locations, later ammended to 17. No specific locations or time frames were discussed.

I think a spreadsheet, ala www.141m.org, is in order. We have certainly paid for it.

Anyone out there have any facts on this?
 
Jan 3, 2003
31
0
Our manager told us that there were no numbers of furloughs included for us or fleet because there weren't any reductions in personnel as a result of these latest changes. Except for the mail functions in a few cities which will lose positions as people leave.....but no furloughs to reduce those numbers. Someone asked if we will become MDA or express if our jets are reduced to 2 and our manager said the company said no. The station has to close all mainline flights and become express before we get forced into MDA or express scales. Once the station is express then in the future they have the ability to add jets back in but only the limited number. We were told that the latest package did not include eliminating small cities from mainline flights....but the company can do that anyway without any agreement from us as the market needs change. At least we'll have job options if it happens.
 
Jan 3, 2003
31
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/4/2003 10:50:42 AM deltawatch wrote:

Your manager is wrong, read the contract? Your job is history if this passes, and yes Chip will still be landing in your city twice a day
----------------
[/blockquote]
She spoke with labor relations, so they would know what the contract means. Vote No and our jobs are history.
 
Jan 3, 2003
31
0
The below comments were taken from the "US Airways Responds to CWA Rep.'s Misinformation"
----------------------------------------------------------


Diogenes raises a concern that we are holding something back that I want to address.

Under the CWA and Fleet Service agreements, there are no specific plans to furlough additional people as a result of the changes in their respective agreements. In fact, in the Fleet service agreement, the outsourcing of mail/cargo will be by attrition only, not through the furloughing of additional people. That is why there are no comparable numbers for CWA or IAM fleet -- because we don't anticipate furloughs as a result of our new deals.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Some smaller cities that have traditionally been mainline stations could still be converted to Express, based on market conditions. Our slowness in addressing our high cost structure in these kind of markets opened up opportunities for low-cost carriers and regional airlines to come in and clean our clocks.

Should a station be coverted, agents with seniority rights can move to another station or stay on at Express rates. Is that a perfect solution? No. But we are operating in a tough competitive business and there isn't much room for error, so we are responding by implementing a business plan that will allow us to survive and succeed.

So as it relates to a specific number, target or plan to furlough additional CWA members, there is none.

Chris Chiames
________________________________

Well, Deltawatch, I guess my manager did get the correct information, which is good for us and fleet service.
 

Biffeman

Senior
Nov 25, 2002
447
0
www.usaviation.com
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/4/2003 11:01:14 AM ANNother Voice wrote: [BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/4/2003 10:50:42 AM deltawatch wrote: [BR][BR]Your manager is wrong, read the contract? Your job is history if this passes, and yes Chip will still be landing in your city twice a day
BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]I seriously hope you don't believe everything a company labor relations person tells you.  That is why we have a grievance procedure and that is why arbitration is included in that so an independant person interepts it.  That is why the union has won numerous arbtitration cases cause the IAM does not believe some flunky in labor relations who gets paid by US Airways.
 

14all41

Newbie
Jan 3, 2003
9
0
Thanks for the information Diogenes. This agreement is full of vague language. We must send it back to the table and get some kind of Job Protections
 
OP
D

diogenes

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
2,515
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/4/2003 11:01:14 AM ANNother Voice wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/4/2003 10:50:42 AM deltawatch wrote:

Your manager is wrong, read the contract? Your job is history if this passes, and yes Chip will still be landing in your city twice a day
----------------
[/blockquote]
She spoke with labor relations, so they would know what the contract means. Vote No and our jobs are history.
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

Hello A.V.,

Labor relations say-so is a very weak reed to lean on. I have stone cold knowledge they will tolerate management playing fast and loose with the facts in grievance investigations. Yet ANNother reason to look askance on all company proclamations ! [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

The hour is fast approaching for Concessions, part III - luck to us all.
 
[blockquote]
----------------

Diogenes raises a concern that we are holding something back that I want to address.

...Under the CWA and Fleet Service agreements, there are no specific plans to furlough additional people as a result of the changes in their respective agreements.

... we don't anticipate furloughs as a result of our new deals.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Some smaller cities that have traditionally been mainline stations could still be converted to Express,

Chris Chiames
----------------
[/blockquote]


There are no SPECIFIC plans to furlough additional people H-O-W-E-V-E-R....some smaller cities could (should say WILL) be converted to express (We do not plan to furlough people! We plan for them to accept express jobs when we make their mainline sta a commuter station! They shouldn't be on the streets!)

How else are they going to get $14 mil from F/S...$11mil from C/S ? It don't take a rocket scientist (or being a pilot) to see this is the only option and plan! Do you think they are going to get this much with us only paying increased medical fees? By mainline employees becoming commuter employees, what part of your salary and benefits will US be paying? Did you say NONE... because you are now employeed by MESSA or whomever?

Say you are in a hub/big sta so you are not concerned? Better be. Our contract says if your station is closed...you can "bump" the junior person on the system. If there are a lot of stations made into commuter stations...there could be a lot of 'bumping" to keep mainline jobs.

(I have a vision of what the "big picture" looks like...and it don't look pretty for us!)