JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[ograc]

Ground down sized no more than two times and I think the size for feeders would be 4/0?
 
But back to the topic at hand... I think it is a mistake to focus solely on pay, especially for a relatively low seniority person even in a hub, as $30/hour jobs will cause outstations to migrate towards places like DFW. Personally, I have always had a problem with the idea of an airline with the majority of its stations being contracted-out as it begins to feel more like a "virtual airline" where workers are just uncommitted, short-term hires waiting for the next job.

 
Nice shut down jester! Agree with your topic at hand opinion and observations. You demonstrate the ability to see the whole picture. Others lack this ability. 
 

 

[WeAAsles]

cmon weasle, you claim guaranteed information that often falls thru, so before you start another back and forth with nyer over rhetorical questions, instead use your smarts. 5% is based on total earnings of all employees. The Afa posted it a while ago. Presumably its the same one for the cwaibt and us as well.

pre·sum·a·bly
prəˈz(y)o͞oməblē/
adverb
used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain.
"the Yakima Indians presumably came from Asia by way of the Bering Strait"
synonyms: I presume, I expect, I assume, I take it, I suppose, I imagine, I dare say, I guess, in all probability, probably, in all likelihood, as likely as not, doubtless, undoubtedly, no doubt
"presumably, they'll want an ocean view"

 

[NYer]

Tim...the fence walking displayed by Weaasle is just a defense mechanism. It allows his to be able to have a condescending tone while at the same not take a position himself. His posts are filled with question marks and supposition but at the same time, he wants to profess knowledge. It is quite literally the opposite quality of a leader, or at least someone that purports to want to be a leader.

 

[700UW]

Tim...the fence walking displayed by Weaasle is just a defense mechanism. It allows his to be able to have a condescending tone while at the same not take a position himself. His posts are filled with question marks and supposition but at the same time, he wants to profess knowledge. It is quite literally the opposite quality of a leader, or at least someone that purports to want to be a leader.

Says the guy on the outside looking in.

 

[NYer]

Says the guy on the outside looking in.

 
Outside of what, looking where?
 
I guess everyone else is an insider...impressive.

 

[WeAAsles]

Tim...the fence walking displayed by Weaasle is just a defense mechanism. It allows his to be able to have a condescending tone while at the same not take a position himself. His posts are filled with question marks and supposition but at the same time, he wants to profess knowledge. It is quite literally the opposite quality of a leader, or at least someone that purports to want to be a leader.

Who's being condescending? The topic is Profit Sharing. I've agreed that it more than likely will be based on the former formula that it used to be? But if our group and the Pilots have not yet signed off on it, then wouldn't you say that it's still in the air?

Until anything is verified as absolute in writing and signed there's no position to be made on the subject. And you and I (And Tim) have no control over that. Perhaps our negotiators are looking for something different?

 

[WeAAsles]

Outside of what, looking where?
 
I guess everyone else is an insider...impressive.

You're not one of the negotiators. And you already tried to project to Charlie Brown who (IS) a negotiator what the absolute formula for disbursement is when he said they haven't even gotten to that subject of discussion with the company yet.

You presume much by projecting your view into a topic that you have no say in.

Ever think that's why those people don't think very highly of you? Arrogance and egocentrism aren't going to propel you into a seat in that wheelhouse.

 

[NYer]

Who's being condescending? The topic is Profit Sharing. I've agreed that it more than likely will be based on the former formula that it used to be? But if our group and the Pilots have not yet signed off on it, then wouldn't you say that it's still in the air?

Until anything is verified as absolute in writing and signed there's no position to be made on the subject. And you and I (And Tim) have no control over that. Perhaps our negotiators are looking for something different?

 
No. It's not in the air. There will not be separate plans for separate groups, the plan payout is based on earnings. If you've paid attention to the last several years, it has become painfully clear the Company has moved towards having everyone with the same plans, whether it be medical or profit sharing. It is either accepted, or it won't but changing it is not an option that is available. (by the way it is the same exact plan we had before)

 

[NYer]

You're not one of the negotiators. And you already tried to project to Charlie Brown who (IS) a negotiator what the absolute formula for disbursement is when he said they haven't even gotten to that subject of discussion with the company yet.

You presume much by projecting your view into a topic that you have no say in.

Ever think that's why those people don't think very highly of you? Arrogance and egocentrism aren't going to propel you into a seat in that wheelhouse.

 
That is not a subject matter that will lead to negotiate a different plan or payout, It is either accepted or it isn't. The alternative will be no profit sharing in 2017, so it will be accepted.

 

[WeAAsles]

No. It's not in the air. There will not be separate plans for separate groups, the plan payout is based on earnings. If you've paid attention to the last several years, it has become painfully clear the Company has moved towards having everyone with the same plans, whether it be medical or profit sharing. It is either accepted, or it won't but changing it is not an option that is available. (by the way it is the same exact plan we had before)

So again you discount even the slightest bit of room to discuss the topic with the company. Your position then I'm guessing is "sign it and be done" Next. Let's hurry up and get through the process.

This is the same line of thinking you had when you negotiated to give away our Cabin Service before we were forced to by the Judge. The same thinking that would have lost us 20 Million in contract value that would have been lost to us when we ultimately had to give up 17% of our total value.

If our negotiators want to hold back a few more months before "maybe" accepting the agreement that the company has in mind, why do you have an issue with that?

 

[WeAAsles]

That is not a subject matter that will lead to negotiate a different plan or payout, It is either accepted or it isn't. The alternative will be no profit sharing in 2017, so it will be accepted.

Ah there you are again. Mr Absolute. No need to even discuss it even if the payout doesn't come for almost a full year still.

Let me ask you. If you know the situation with "Temporary Employees" would you have said "Ok the company doesn't seem to want to budge on this one, let's just take it and move on"?

Your time spent as a negotiator unfortunately was in concessionary bargaining. Did you ever think that maybe you're stuck in that mindset and can't break out of that? Seriously.

 

[NYer]

So again you discount even the slightest bit of room to discuss the topic with the company. Your position then I'm guessing is "sign it and be done" Next. Let's hurry up and get through the process.

This is the same line of thinking you had when you negotiated to give away our Cabin Service before we were forced to by the Judge. The same thinking that would have lost us 20 Million in contract value that would have been lost to us when we ultimately had to give up 17% of our total value.

If our negotiators want to hold back a few more months before "maybe" accepting the agreement that the company has in mind, why do you have an issue with that?

 
Funny how you can't stay on topic.
 
No one has suggested to "hurry up" and sign it. That's your invention.
 
Merely, the plan is set, They payout formula is set. It will be based on earnings, the same as it was agreed during the BK. That offer for the profit sharing will be accepted and the payout will be based on earnings.
 
That's it.

 

[NYer]

Ah there you are again. Mr Absolute. No need to even discuss it even if the payout doesn't come for almost a full year still.

Let me ask you. If you know the situation with "Temporary Employees" would you have said "Ok the company doesn't seem to want to budge on this one, let's just take it and move on"?

Your time spent as a negotiator unfortunately was in concessionary bargaining. Did you ever think that maybe you're stuck in that mindset and can't break out of that? Seriously.

 
Mindset? You seem to not pay much attention outside what others tell you.
 
The profit sharing plan has been reinstated, the choices in the matter are to either accept or not. There is no choice to change the method of payout. It has been put in writing and even the APFA has issued a release to the method of payout. Of course, your interest only lies in what others tell you with little to no effort on your part to seek out information that is not biased or tainted. You're very gullible and naive and those feeding you your rhetoric are completely in charge of what you think.
 
Anyway...the Profit Sharing plan will be based on earnings. Keep playing the card with the "maybe's" and "could be's". At some point, you will realize the information you're being given is biased and you're being used to fulfill the agenda of others. You're just a vessel...Let me guess, I bet your handlers are very good are telling you how much smarter you are than everyone else, but at the same time, they never come out and defend their point of view. They won't come here a refute what we share, they just whisper in your ear and open the barn doors.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Funny how you can't stay on topic.
 
No one has suggested to "hurry up" and sign it. That's your invention.
 
Merely, the plan is set, They payout formula is set. It will be based on earnings, the same as it was agreed during the BK. That offer for the profit sharing will be accepted and the payout will be based on earnings.
 
That's it.

I didn't invent anything. I asked you a question. But if you're willing to capitulate right away on this issue, what others would you be compelled to capitulate on? What's the difference between this one or any other issue?

Sounds fine by me. Can you produce the document verifying that and signed in writing by the TWU/IAM Association Negotiators?

Am I asking for too much on this?

 

[NYer]

Sounds fine by me. Can you produce the document verifying that and signed in writing by the TWU/IAM Association Negotiators?

Am I asking for too much on this?

 
Well, then, I guess what is spoken on these pages (including the negotiators) mean nothing unless they have a signed letter.
 
You've spent many years on these pages and I guess all your contributions have been backed up by signed letters from everyone you purport to get information from.
 
That's pretty impressive, Weasle.
 
Well, then it doesn't matter the payout methodology released by the Company is meaningless...I guess the formula released by the APFA is also moot.
 
Disregard, my contributions then. Didn't realize we needed to have signed documents in order to prove our positions. That criteria kind of makes this forum obsolete.
 
Well, it was good while it lasted. In a few months, we'll look back to this thread and realize it worked out as described.