JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet
- Thread starter AANOTOK
- Start date
- Status
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
It'd be fun playing poker against you. You'd lose your shirt and have to hitchhike your way home.
You have no Poker face at all.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
And you like to B, Moan and Complain like a little girl.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
That was hilarious.
Nyer +1
Weez and Jerry Glass -1
Its not like you or anyone out here altars the company negotiators stances but if we do then i hope the that the iamnpf is replaced with a 9% 401k and ill make sure the lus side is educated that the iam pension fund is a disaster and will be cut massively in the next 18 months according to the valuation report.
Weez is just fascinated with Jerry Glass and wants a free drink.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
Attachments
NYer
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,167
- Reaction score
- 905
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
C'mon NYer stop sucking up to Timmy for one of his +1's now.
gulfcoast1
Senior
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 30
I did not want to take up too much real estate by quoting Weez's email briefing post, but this is in response to that.
I agree with most of what the negotiator said. I am LAA and would vote no. It sounds like way too many lost jobs to me, and the wage increase is not nearly sufficient especially if they want to raise Medical for LUS. No extra week of VC and 7 holidays does not sound industry leading to me. The loss of Scope is the main issue though. I do not want to see any entire work classifications given up by either side.
The only thing I am not sure I understand correctly is that the person writing the email said money would be left on the table because not all employees would enroll in the 401k. I thought the co proposal was for a contribution and a match. Everyone would get the contribution correct? The match would require a something from the employee, but the contribution should not. All employees would benefit, although employees who contributed fora match would benefit more. The company would have to pay something for every employee though? If I am mistaken please correct me.
It doesn't matter that much to me though. As written I would be voting no.
I agree with NYer that it is good to see this because of the lack of information previously. If the worry is that some would want to rush to a vote, I don't think that would happen if this is what is being offered. We really need more information.
I agree with most of what the negotiator said. I am LAA and would vote no. It sounds like way too many lost jobs to me, and the wage increase is not nearly sufficient especially if they want to raise Medical for LUS. No extra week of VC and 7 holidays does not sound industry leading to me. The loss of Scope is the main issue though. I do not want to see any entire work classifications given up by either side.
The only thing I am not sure I understand correctly is that the person writing the email said money would be left on the table because not all employees would enroll in the 401k. I thought the co proposal was for a contribution and a match. Everyone would get the contribution correct? The match would require a something from the employee, but the contribution should not. All employees would benefit, although employees who contributed fora match would benefit more. The company would have to pay something for every employee though? If I am mistaken please correct me.
It doesn't matter that much to me though. As written I would be voting no.
I agree with NYer that it is good to see this because of the lack of information previously. If the worry is that some would want to rush to a vote, I don't think that would happen if this is what is being offered. We really need more information.
NYer
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,167
- Reaction score
- 905
"Sucking up to Timmy"?
Is not like I took a selfie with him. 🙄
(BTW--most people notice when you try to change the subject.)
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
I'm not the one who posted the Meme as the response guy.
I gave you "English words" and I got an SNL cast member with a hand on her forehead? Lol.
Edit: Rolling her eyes I mean. Didn't originally pay much attention to it as it was a juvenile response to what I thought was a thoughtful answer to NYer.
Last edited:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
Many new hires and PT Members would not put any money at all into the 401k. So in that case the Company would only need to put in a 3% contribution based off the lower to bottom of the wage scale.
Otherwise the Company would have to put in whatever amount was agreed to equally to even Jr Scale members.
Big differences financially and the Company is well aware of it. (So should we be)
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 25,237
- Reaction score
- 5,332
NYer
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,167
- Reaction score
- 905
Intelligent responses require intelligent posts.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
- Reaction score
- 2,242
And that brings up another Item I did not see mentioned, PART TIME. I would like to get some kind of idea what AA was proposing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
