District Force,
I understand your opinion that if fleet votes this down that the United merger won't happen and US AIRWAYS would have to go it alone, in which case you have been explicit that you believe US will file chapter 7 if this contract doesn't ratify [even though the Parker said he has no problem keeping the pilots separate if that's what they want].
Your opinion on the contract itself suggest that you think this contract sux like 100% of fleet service workers do. But your reason of supporting the contract is quite different from the others who have admitted that this contract is a rape job but still worthy of some yes votes.
So here's my question, If fleet service rejects this contract and it decided to protect the 22 west stations and keep the CIC merger protections, AND United still mergers with US AIRWAYS, does this contract have any merit at that point? Would you vote Yes or would you vote NO if you didn't think US would end up in bankruptcy? FWIW, I think I know who you are and you have always been a solid IAM leader and I know you'll support us if this contract goes down.
regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
Tim, I have been painfully honest with fleet service over the past 6 months and I will continue to do so in this post. I will try to incorporate both of your post under this post. I appreciate the fact that you know I would support a rejection if that was the way the membership chose to go. I would actually admire it if fleet service made it through the risk associated with possibly causing your airline to lose its merger partner. But this whole vote is a direct result of the United merger. Your company had no intentions of negotiating if not for the M & A environment that is being forced on this industry.
Before I answer your questions, I will clarify my position. This tentative is not something to be proud of and it will be used as leverage against our United Airline brothers and sisters when they come to the table in 2009. That's not a proud thing to say but it is what it is because the alternative might be no merger and both airlines in chapter 7.
I have been in this business a long time and I believe that United airlines is not in position to pay fleet service the wages that your merger protections spell out. I also doubt United airlines would want to staff the small west stations or even keep PHX and LAS as hubs. So without a contract ratification, United may think twice about investing in US AIRWAYS. I also believe your company is not a stand alone company and a rejection of this contract will seriously impact 8,000 housholds who may be out of a job. Then where does that leave everyone, at the Lowes unemployment line?
Only a merger makes sense for preserving the jobs of most of our members. We also have a responsibility to make sure those employers who employ our members stay in business. Mergers are never friendly to labor and we realize the ramifications that United may seriously scale back the west side of US AIRWAYS and that a reduced capacity may mean job cuts everywhere, but, the alternative to a merger may mean that neither PHX, LAS, PHL, or CLT are hubs since chapter 7 may very well be around the corner with oil at record highs, stock very low, and other airlines going bankrupt. Does a yes vote make sense yet under these very real circumstances? It makes perfect sense to me to preserve 6,000 households instead of throwing all 8,000 under the Nelson vote no bus.
Now, hypothetically, if I were as smart as you and knew that the United merger and its announcement wasn't being held up by the outcome of this vote, then I'd answer that I would vote no if I could vote.
I'm being fair to your question Tim so don't take this out of context when you know I do not believe a United merger will take place with a rejection. That's all I can say on this matter.
The reason I would vote no is that it would allow fleet service to keep things open where fleet can continue to be a participant at the table during the merger. A ratification will lock fleet service in and silence fleet service for the immediate future. Your ratified contract would then present itself as an annoyance as it will no doubt be used by United as leverage against us when we open up traditional bargaining in 2009 for our United members. However, not in any case do I agree with you that United will shelve US AIRWAYS fleet service until 2016. It's all about M & A activity Tim, you must recognize this. None of us are saying we are thrilled with this tentative but the risks to 8,000 households if United walks away is very real. You don't seem to indicate this as a very real possibility and I think that is unwise.
Again, my positon is that a rejection of this contract may force United to rethink a merger. I think that is a very real possibility that our members must give serious thought to when they chose on May 8th.
