JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[ograc]

I think it is funny. What else is there to talk about? You guys have beaten down the last negotiation update so much that all of your conclusions had nothing to do with the actual
update. As negative as this board is, I keep hearing that management wants a deal by September so I will not be surprised if tomorrow's update is a breath of fresh air. This board needs it because you guys all sound like you are resigned to 5 years of negotiations and fighting for the perfect contract. This contract is going to lose catering, unlike Timmy said, and I can't see it keeping small stations, or our health care, but management won't bend on those things even if we drag this out 5 years. So, might as well take what we can get now and move things forward for the greater population.

 
Wow! That's an awful lot of concessions you seem to be already willing to accept from a company making record profits. I don't see the NC, or the majority of the membership, being so willing. At least; I would hope not. 
 

 

[WeAAsles]

Wow! That's an awful lot of concessions you seem to be already willing to accept from a company making record profits. I don't see the NC, or the majority of the membership, being so willing. At least; I would hope not.

Just to play Devils advocate he also said:

"you guys all sound like you're resigned to 5 years of negotiations and fighting for the perfect contract"

What is your opinion of that comment? Are we either of those?

Basically Cargo everyone has a line in the sand. What is your personal line in the sand?

 

[Worldport]

I think it is funny. What else is there to talk about? You guys have beaten down the last negotiation update so much that all of your conclusions had nothing to do with the actual
update. As negative as this board is, I keep hearing that management wants a deal by September so I will not be surprised if tomorrow's update is a breath of fresh air. This board needs it because you guys all sound like you are resigned to 5 years of negotiations and fighting for the perfect contract. This contract is going to lose catering, unlike Timmy said, and I can't see it keeping small stations, or our health care, but management won't bend on those things even if we drag this out 5 years. So, might as well take what we can get now and move things forward for the greater population.

They are having problems with the catering vendors  I doubt they would switch to one now especially in CLT or PHL but if they have something up their sleeve they might want the option. Of course there will be a no layoff clause in the contract to make it sound good

 

[WeAAsles]

They are having problems with the catering vendors  I doubt they would switch to one now especially in CLT or PHL but if they have something up their sleeve they might want the option. Of course there will be a no layoff clause in the contract to make it sound good

The no layoff clause in the agents contract is ONLY if you exercise your full seniority rights. Meaning you can be displaced to a new location and they have to provide you with somewhere to go.

So you get a WARN notice, then you get an option list in Jetnet/Workbrain that tells you what's available. If you don't chose ALL the options on that list in first to worst order, then you didn't abide by the agreement of the contract and they can lay you off if you didn't get one of the options you chose by seniority.

 

[ograc]

Just to play Devils advocate he also said:

"you guys all sound like you're resigned to 5 years of negotiations and fighting for the perfect contract"

What is your opinion of that comment? Are we either of those?

Basically Cargo everyone has a line in the sand. What is your personal line in the sand?

 
My opinion is that everyone should realize this JCBA will be the cornerstone and the base line for future contract negotiations. It is important that we establish a good baseline to build on. We need to realize the challenges of establishing this foundation. Both carriers have gained huge concessions through past contracts with both the IAM and TWU. Both contracts agreed to under the protection of bankruptcy proceedings. I would like to see a TA that promises a better future for our members through better wages (especially the starting steps on the wage progression scale) and protection of all existing work. We should not be conceding existing work anywhere. That is the starting point for the next contract. Line in the sand: Protect existing work! The less members and stations... the less leverage at the table in the future. As a proud represented agent, on the sunset of a career spanning 36+ years, I am hopeful we can get this cornerstone right. Lots of future livelihoods on the line WeAAsles. Would you agree?    
 

 

[Worldport]

The no layoff clause in the agents contract is ONLY if you exercise your full seniority rights. Meaning you can be displaced to a new location and they have to provide you with somewhere to go.

So you get a WARN notice, then you get an option list in Jetnet/Workbrain that tells you what's available. If you don't chose ALL the options on that list in first to worst order, then you didn't abide by the agreement of the contract and they can lay you off if you didn't get one of the options you chose by seniority.

I know but "no layoff clause"sounds good . With catering in the hubs they would probably be able to absorb most.

 

[WeAAsles]

My opinion is that everyone should realize this JCBA will be the cornerstone and the base line for future contract negotiations. It is important that we establish a good baseline to build on. We need to realize the challenges of establishing this foundation. Both carriers have gained huge concessions through past contracts with both the IAM and TWU. Both contracts agreed to under the protection of bankruptcy proceedings. I would like to see a TA that promises a better future for our members through better wages (especially the starting steps on the wage progression scale) and protection of all existing work. We should not be conceding existing work anywhere. That is the starting point for the next contract. Line in the sand: Protect existing work! The less members and stations... the less leverage at the table in the future. As a proud represented agent, on the sunset of a career spanning 36+ years, I am hopeful we can get this cornerstone right. Lots of future livelihoods on the line WeAAsles. Would you agree?

I absolutely want as much work as we can possibly secure. What and where that work exists is up to interpretation? How it's secured and at what cost to keep it secure also has to be factored in.

"Current" record profits or not.

 

[WeAAsles]

I know but "no layoff clause"sounds good . With catering in the hubs they would probably be able to absorb most.

I expect a lot of movement will be made through attrition and "maybe" buyout offers down the line?

 

[700UW]

Your current PMUS CBA was not done in bankruptcy.

 

[Worldport]

Your current PMUS CBA was not done in bankruptcy.

Then why didn't they use that contract and up the money and holidays vacation etc?

 

[700UW]

Because you don't do that when you combine two contracts

 

[Tim Nelson]

Because you don't do that when you combine two contracts

you talking about the 2008 contract?

 

[WeAAsles]

I know but "no layoff clause"sounds good . With catering in the hubs they would probably be able to absorb most.

Probably be better to call it a "guaranteed employment" clause. If they worded it that way people might actually read what it means rather than making assumptions like unfortunately most people do.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I know but "no layoff clause"sounds good . With catering in the hubs they would probably be able to absorb most.

A "No Layoff" Clause is good, although it sounds great. But it must be at DOS. For instance, the "No Layoff" Clause in the United contract is for anyone with 1999 employment, in which case, it has no teeth and the protections are not any more practical than any reduction in force article that we already have. A No Layoff clause must protect everyone at DOS for it to be worth anything. A "No Layoff" Clause comes under Job Protection and is worth a helluva lot LESS than scope. United Airlines members got brutalized with guaranteed 98% job protections, however, job protections don't mean D if you don't have scope, i.e., whose job is it? Consider Southwest Airlines. The TWU never had "Job Protection language" but had scope. If you take care of 'scope' and 'who does this job' then the rest doesn't matter as much. But if you don't take care of 'scope', then you really don't have any job protection at all if you don't want to travel hundreds of miles. While "job protection language' is good, 'work protection' is better all of the time. Especially since the reduction in force articles already provide job protection.

 

[WeAAsles]

Hey Conehead777

You have a little obsession with me I see. Checking out my profile and this page every day and hitting me with red marks.

What's the matter. You don't like being a mechanic or just annoyed that a FSC is much much smarter than you? I tried to send you a PM to ask you about this but you have me blocked from sending you a message?

You know back in NYC we have a name for guys like you. Can't call you that name on Forums though. Starts with a big P. Take a guess man.