scorpion 2
Veteran
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 539
- Reaction score
- 562
I love it! The iam and the twu side of the house. It didn't have to be this way but to have a DUES COALITION it does. Will scope have to change that much for them to get what they want? With all the new aircraft and longer engine life by the time maintenance becomes a real issue most of us will be gone. A new contract will be negotiated 5 years from now with a lot smaller work force that will not be affected by more outsourcing. Personally I dont think they give a rats butt whether we are merged work forces or not if it costs them money to make it happen . We can file grievances all we want but Parker and the boys will be above the fray wont care whether we are merged forces. We always settle for pennies on the dollar anyway.Overspeed said:MetalMover,
I agree with you that the company wants to have a JCBA in place. The ability to merge work forces was most likely one of the ways they would lower costs through being able to have all US and AA AMTs work on any aircraft in the new AA. The problem is as you say, how many compromises will the company ask us for to get that JCBA with DL+7? It sounded like Isom in one of the town halls alluded to altering scope to give more latitude to outsource work like DL. There is still a substantial amount of airframe and engine overhaul in-house. I am interested to see the company's initial proposal. Could be ugly for overhaul. I suspect merging and downsizing of overhaul capacity will be one of the proposals. I heard from PIT mechanics that they felt US before the merger had plans to move the base work to CLT. Put that with maybe more airframe work in TUL being outsourced and it could be a fight that delays any new JCBA for a while.
Scorpion2,
I don't know why the lack of leverage was not brought up. Look at early openers in the last CBA. Did we have the ability to ask for release prior to the amendable date? No, but we had the ability to talk and change the existing CBA. And we all know where we ended up eventually. The IAM is right, there pay position will most likely improve relative to where they were not too long ago. The problem is on the TWU side of the house. We have more overhaul work in-house than US and Isom/Seymour/Parker want more ability to outsource than they have now. What that means or what they exactly want I don't know. Need to get to the table and talk.