IAM Fleet Service topic

Status
Not open for further replies.
urbff,
Does Randy know that you like to talk to all these Brawny guys on here with honey, sugar and baby.

I'm thinking Randy wouldn't like one of his girls flirting with the membership. :eek:
 
perv,
"**o'man I know your on vacation so I took the top spot on this page if thats' OK."


didn't last long did it. :D :lol: :lol:
 
i heard at the local the other day they had less than 40 people show up to voice any displeasures. I believe these numbers to be correct because i spoke to someone who went to the morning meeting and was told less than 10 people showed up. An afternoon attendee told me there was about 25-30 at that one.

P2Philly,
Did you ever stop to think that YOUR membership that YOUR in charge of may be tired of hearing PF try to spin a T/A that

is in HIS best interest (11,000.00 raise) for Your guys to vote in. and besides YOU live in the fishbowl so HOW would YOU know what

YOUR memberships wants...
 
Urbnf: I think your wrong about the west into the east thing. When
pushed on the subject all union officials back off of the subject.
Did you not read P. REZ's post that originally the company offered this
but the union turned it down, do mainly to the outsourcing language.

That was over two years ago. Now things have turned around to some
degree. First of all the amendable date is approaching fast. From our standpoint
it may seem like a long way off but IMO to the LLC it seems very close.
And with the upcoming merger and UA's amendable date it is imperative for
the LCC to get this TA passed.

The east contract also has the COC in it. How much that is of value to the
LCC is open to disscusion, but with all of FS included it seems to me the
the value would go up. Remember the language has that 4 1/2% pay
raise at the end of the contract.

Yes the LCC would benifit from the potential outsourcing language, at least
from a purely crass view of the "bottom line". But it still would take time.

Unless it were voted on, it would be open to legal challenges from many in
the west who would be adversely affected. Look at the relatively trivial
grievence that the west FAs just won concerning flight benefits. The Judge
even said that even though the flight benefits were possibly overall better,
enough were treated unfairly to rule in their favor.

For me this TA represents too big of a loss. The possibility that we won't
be able to negotiate a contract again until UAs next one becomes amendable
is very real. What's $20.00 going to be worth in 2014,15 or 16?

Ive already explained the losses involved in the face value of the TA for me.
So what am I saying to you. I guess the only thing I'm really trying to say
Is that I'm very firm on what I believe is the right way to go. But my
wishes for FS are long term. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the
TWU contract was barely voted it in 2000. We all took some solace in knowing
it was amendable in 5 years. That as it has turned out did not come to fruition.

It might have been said that we were advised to "live to fight another day".
For me that day has come. I can't expect much of this to have any meaning
to someone who doesn't feel the same way do and I can totally understand
other viewpoints, especially the desire for a larger paycheck.
Thanks BF
 
you sound a lot like Tim did a few weeks ago , going on about how there would be no merger without this TA going through , but now he knows better … this company and united will merge with or without us ..
Where did I say fleet service could stop a merger? What I did say is that United would have to deal with the ramp before a transition could go through. Politically, through the union, and with a vote we could 'stop transition'. That is still true.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
 
With renegotiations 6 months away for a new, better CBA you all would be willing to sign off this lousy TA and put off bargaining until lets say 7 more years at lie flat on the bottom of the barrel until then? I actually find that pretty amusing.

My opinion is the same as it was for the last IAM TA. VOTE NO.
If you cannot understand this than look at it this way. The Company wants you to vote for this so that means you must vote AGAINST it.
Also remember that when it is signed off the medical costs will increase drastically making this extra chump change disappear.

Vote no this week.
 
With renegotiations 6 months away for a new, better CBA you all would be willing to sign off this lousy TA and put off bargaining until lets say 7 more years at lie flat on the bottom of the barrel until then? I actually find that pretty amusing.

My opinion is the same as it was for the last IAM TA. VOTE NO.
If you cannot understand this than look at it this way. The Company wants you to vote for this so that means you must vote AGAINST it.
Also remember that when it is signed off the medical costs will increase drastically making this extra chump change disappear.

Vote no this week.
couldnt have said it any better! Thanks!
 
With renegotiations 6 months away for a new, better CBA you all would be willing to sign off this lousy TA and put off bargaining until lets say 7 more years at lie flat on the bottom of the barrel until then? I actually find that pretty amusing.

My opinion is the same as it was for the last IAM TA. VOTE NO.
If you cannot understand this than look at it this way. The Company wants you to vote for this so that means you must vote AGAINST it.
Also remember that when it is signed off the medical costs will increase drastically making this extra chump change disappear.

Vote no this week.

The company wants you to vote for this because they want to keep our ( UA and US ) negotiations separated for as long as they can and not have to NEG all the contracts together in 09. Accept this TA and we will be the dividing line in the sand when a merger happens and we all will have to make a difficult choice when UA Negotiates their contract!!!!!! It will be Deja Vu or possible work action. Vote NO and walk together in negotiations with UA in 2009........

Which do you think is the stronger position to be in....????????

Transition employees to Amend Contracts ??

or

Amend Contracts and Transition Employees ??
 
you sound a lot like Tim did a few weeks ago , going on about how there would be no merger without this TA going through , but now he knows better … this company and united will merge with or without us ..

As for the COC that perseverance talks about , WOW …. I wonder who told you guys about it , I mean who explained it to you , a lot of you still can’t stop worshiping it … try to keep in mind that you’ve already lost it once , a second time would be more painful than the first .


Here is a lesson for you. Article 2. page 4 starting line 32 and ending page 5 line 12 is the Change In Control language (CIC). Another tip "Union Privilege" You can *consult* with a lawyer for free. CIC did not apply then. To say that it won't apply now is absurd. To give it away for nothing as Randy wants is idiotic.


You mention rat tales that I’m only seeing the shinny pennies , well I think your missing that large knife in your hand with the blood dripping off of it … there’s going to be a lot of backstabbing over in the east as you claw over your junior guys to get increased wages , and I tell ya … given the choice between rolling into your contract and keeping ours , I’ll skip your 60 day rule ..

What in my previous post do you not understand? I specifically stated that I would most certainly trade a raise for job protections. You are not even taking my statements out of context. You're making sh#t up so you don't feel so bad. That works out in the end because the thousands of others who read this board will see this too and that makes the words you feverishly type irrelevant.



OH one more thing , the scope for your field stations is improved with this TA is it not , from 69 flights necessary not to get cut to now 14 ? But I guess YOUR field stations don’t matter to you either …


Article 3.B.4.(a)

Change in Station Classification:

(a) Changes in city classification shall be based
on a twelve-(12) month weekly average,
with the average to be calculated each year
on April 5. All calculations for scheduled
mainline jet departures will be based on US
Airways, Inc., jet departures only, and
excluding any aircraft with a seating
configuration of sixty nine (69) or fewer
seats.

You are looking at the shiny penny T/A again. That distracts you from looking at the language that still exists in the Contract.
"based on US Airways, Inc., jet departures only"
Have you seen the size and seating capacity of the RJ's that are running routes now? They are all "not" included as US Airways, Inc., jet departures. Look at what happened to PIT and tell me how much better the scope is. ANY ONE OF YOUR STATIONS can have the majority of their mainline flights replaced with RJ's.
 

Here is a lesson for you. Article 2. page 4 starting line 32 and ending page 5 line 12 is the Change In Control language (CIC). Another tip "Union Privilege" You can *consult* with a lawyer for free. CIC did not apply then. To say that it won't apply now is absurd. To give it away for nothing as Randy wants is idiotic.


uh huh ... i don't need a lawyer to tell me that this company can just structure any merger around it ... did you ever read my post on the change of control ? sure i'm no lawyer , but it doesn't take one to tell you that it's too narrow to be effective ...



What in my previous post do you not understand? I specifically stated that I would most certainly trade a raise for job protections. You are not even taking my statements out of context. You're making sh#t up so you don't feel so bad. That works out in the end because the thousands of others who read this board will see this too and that makes the words you feverishly type irrelevant.

you would trade a raise for job protections ? well then tell me ,WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE SIXTY DAY RULE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ?

you see IF we vote this IN , the SIXTY DAY RULE , it goes AWAY ! no more of your east coast brothers and sisters can be harmed by it , AND with an upcoming MERGER , what do you think is going to happen ? The people who have fallen to it are already SOL , why don't you work on protecting the ones you have left .


{so on and so forth}

Article 3.B.4.(a)

Change in Station Classification:

. ANY ONE OF YOUR STATIONS can have the majority of their mainline flights replaced with RJ's.

uh huh , excpet of course your forgetting that the goal of this restructring is to reduce capacity , that means fewer flights a day with aircraft , in fact everything i've been hearing is that the RJ's are dragging us down and it would be better if we had LESS of them , so no , i don't see a sky full of RJ's coming to destory us ....
 
Well bag chucker , fact of the matter is that any west worker who votes yes on this is in fact selling out their field stations .. That’s the truth , there’s no denying it so I feel no need to hide it …

The other fact of the matter is that now with the upcoming merger , any east worker who votes no on this is now selling out their brothers and sisters to the sixty day rule ….

Eh sometimes the truth hurts , but I’d rather be open about it than dance around it ..

For instance , I think we can all agree those thrown out under the 60 day rule from the previous BK are all SOL no matter what happens …

PHX could be cut dramatically , that could happen , CLT could be cut , that could also happen , these are all real possibilities ,might as well confront them head on .


However we have too many who like to hide their motives in this or that ..


I enjoy reading the posts of people who tell me I’m crazy to want to pass this when we only have to wait until dec 31st 2009 to get our section six …..

Those people don’t seem to understand that in the last TA vote , only half of our workforce showed up …. For any strike authorization you need at LEAST 50 percent , does anyone honestly believe that out of the 50 percent that voted for the TA that entire 50 percent will completely agree, to the man to vote for a strike ? No way , no how , doubtful ..

I then have to listen to people , the SAME people #### to me about how wonderful the change of control is ….. When they just lost it not even a year ago …

Then on top of all of THAT , there are the unbelievers , the people who think the economy is going to be all roses and sunshine in another year and a half …Whoever they are , they must not follow the news , BEAR STERNS anyone ? 116 a barrel oil ? Airlines going out of business ? Ding dong … anyone home ?

I’m not against you personally bag chucker , I can understand your position , and if I was in the field station I’d fight as hard, if not harder than you are now .
 
In any future merger with any airline , there’s only one man talented enough to lead the new entity to profitability , and that man is DOUG PARKER ….. He and his hand picked team leave me astounded … I know talent when I see it , and he’s got it …

Two thumbs up for DP and his crew ….. WAY UP! :up:


I figured it out!

You are Doug Parker!!!!

It all makes sense now...the drunken inspired rants...the push to vote yes...you wont get a penny more in this economy... why didnt you just come out and tell us? we would have understood.

DoUgIe......WELCOME TO THE BOARD

thx cltrat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.