Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Of note. American just put in another monster order for rjs. It is imperative that our people hang on to the 69 seat language. I dont want to hear any bull s that "management can stick those somewhere other than a lcc subsidary". Psa has the best pilot contract for management and thats where the previous order went.

 

[737823]

Of note. American just put in another monster order for rjs. It is imperative that our people hang on to the 69 seat language. I dont want to hear any bull s that "management can stick those somewhere other than a lcc subsidary". Psa has the best pilot contract for management and thats where the previous order went.

Tim, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that language only apply to hubs? The AA TWU agreement only covers mainline departures at the 17 stations. Upon the amendable date, if daily departures are below 15 they can be outsourced, however those stations do not need to be restaffed until they are above an annual average of 20 daily departures.

Josh

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that language only apply to hubs? The AA TWU agreement only covers mainline departures at the 17 stations. Upon the amendable date, if daily departures are below 15 they can be outsourced, however those stations do not need to be restaffed until they are above an annual average of 20 daily departures.
Josh

The usairways contract has the sole surviving protections against large regional jet encroachment. The station classification, as measured by daily flights, includes every usairways inc jet over 69 seats. That would certainly include psa which is the company's choice to dump the jets due to pilot and crew cost being significantly less.

As i read the contract, a case can be made that any ae jet over 69 seats would also now be incorporated since inc, is transferred and now a.l.l. assigned with the merger language in the contract. Im sure management would dispute that but it would be worth the $3,000 arbitration cost to find out. Unfortunately, delaney will refuse to file that grievance. There are a number of stations that would have to be positevly reclassified this april if our leaders werent pushovers by passing on that grievance.

 

[737823]

The usairways contract has the sole surviving protections against large regional jet encroachment. The station classification, as measured by daily flights, includes every usairways inc jet over 69 seats. That would certainly include psa which is the company's choice to dump the jets due to pilot and crew cost being significantly less.

As i read the contract, a case can be made that any ae jet over 69 seats would also now be incorporated since inc, is transferred and now a.l.l. assigned with the merger language in the contract. Im sure management would dispute that but it would be worth the $3,000 arbitration cost to find out. Unfortunately, delaney will refuse to file that grievance. There are a number of stations that would have to be positevly reclassified this april if our leaders werent pushovers by passing on that grievance.

Tim, although legally AA and US are other the same umbrella legally, operationally they are still separate carriers with separate CBAs and operating certificates. Hopefully the DL 141 and TWU will push to preserve and enhance this language especially as the AA S80s are phased out. It would seem many of the remaining S80 routes will be backfilled with the large RJs so thats many midwest cities from DFW and ORD that could see significantly more Eagle flying. Obviously some will continue to be replaced by 737-800s and A319s, but my feeling is despite the company spin that this replaces 50 seaters it will also backfill the S80s.

Going forward, does DL 141/142 continue negotiating for stand alone US Airways? At what point does the TWU get involved? My fear is they will try to get two bites out of you guys, first on a CBA for US and then a second time at a JCBA. They may throw a few pieces of chomp change to get the people in the hubs/larger stations to vote yes but I imagine they will seek scope concessions to the tune of UAL. No time bomb/cinderella dates either like in the UAL agreement.

Josh

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, although legally AA and US are other the same umbrella legally, operationally they are still separate carriers with separate CBAs and operating certificates. Hopefully the DL 141 and TWU will push to preserve and enhance this language especially as the AA S80s are phased out. It would seem many of the remaining S80 routes will be backfilled with the large RJs so thats many midwest cities from DFW and ORD that could see significantly more Eagle flying. Obviously some will continue to be replaced by 737-800s and A319s, but my feeling is despite the company spin that this replaces 50 seaters it will also backfill the S80s.Going forward, does DL 141/142 continue negotiating for stand alone US Airways? At what point does the TWU get involved? My fear is they will try to get two bites out of you guys, first on a CBA for US and then a second time at a JCBA. They may throw a few pieces of chomp change to get the people in the hubs/larger stations to vote yes but I imagine they will seek scope concessions to the tune of UAL. No time bomb/cinderella dates either like in the UAL agreement.Josh

I dont go by what the district officers say, i go by what they do. In doing so, it has given me the insight needed to stay ahead of them as i inform the members. You can smell their cologne before they turn the corner.
The district officers said all the same bs at united. They even stayed in single talks long after filing single carrier.

Today, united eliminated 134 FT positions in ord. I informed members of the bull **** lies of our eboard by posting my own videos saying exactly what would happen. I wasnt a prophet, i know what happens by what is written. Thedistrict eboard is mostly incredibly ill versed with research, legal, or formal education so they voted unanimously to send this S to united members and were too ignorant to realize the hoodwinking from the "experts".

 

[cltrat]

Josh I think your fear is well founded

 

[AANOTOK]

Tim,
 
As a longtime Fleet Service Clerk at AA, and knowing a few "well positioned" reps in the union, I have absolutely
no doubt that they will be looking to increase the PT and decrease the FT employees here in DFW. Our latest BK contract allowed AA to go from 200 PT in Dallas to 400, and they wanted more. With the joint, I have no doubt there will be a huge push for PT.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
As a longtime Fleet Service Clerk at AA, and knowing a few "well positioned" reps in the union, I have absolutely
no doubt that they will be looking to increase the PT and decrease the FT employees here in DFW. Our latest BK contract allowed AA to go from 200 PT in Dallas to 400, and they wanted more. With the joint, I have no doubt there will be a huge push for PT.

Honestly, unions dont give a s about full time family rearing jobs when they can double their members with part time. The ibt started this at ups and these iam stoges just followed what the twu did. All talk but no walk. All Bull S.

 

[737823]

I dont go by what the district officers say, i go by what they do. In doing so, it has given me the insight needed to stay ahead of them as i inform the members. You can smell their cologne before they turn the corner.
The district officers said all the same bs at united. They even stayed in single talks long after filing single carrier.

Today, united eliminated 134 FT positions in ord. I informed members of the bull #### lies of our eboard by posting my own videos saying exactly what would happen. I wasnt a prophet, i know what happens by what is written. Thedistrict eboard is mostly incredibly ill versed with research, legal, or formal education so they voted unanimously to send this S to united members and were too ignorant to realize the hoodwinking from the "experts".

Sorry to hear that, so it seems even the people in the hub cities are not immune to this BS despite all the promises from the AGCs and district. What is mind boggling to me is why the district is so willing to give away scope without a fight. I mean sure, they got unlimited part time and protected core work at the hub cities along with cinderella dates for the other 23 stations. But what happens in 2018? Once only seven stations have scope, even with unlimited part time, wouldn't that be fewer members (and dues)? No way they would willingly give up dues payers, they must have some arrangement with UA to have Air Wily/Swissport/etc come in and take over as they would lose dues. I mean ZW is leaving IAD per the new CBA, I'm sure DL 142 is being made whole for the dues payers they are losing with that work being in-sourced to UA. Hopefully they will go in a new direction at AA/US and get new DL leadership.

Josh

 

[737823]

Josh I think your fear is well founded

I hope I am wrong on that. I just worry the AA S80 retirements will wind up like the UAL 733/735 retirements in 2008-2009 time frame. Many, many UAL stations went to Express (BTV, MIA, MHT to name a few)

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

As more and more aircraft come online the older planes will be retired josh

 

[charlie Brown]

The usairways contract has the sole surviving protections against large regional jet encroachment. The station classification, as measured by daily flights, includes every usairways inc jet over 69 seats. That would certainly include psa which is the company's choice to dump the jets due to pilot and crew cost being significantly less.
As i read the contract, a case can be made that any ae jet over 69 seats would also now be incorporated since inc, is transferred and now a.l.l. assigned with the merger language in the contract. Im sure management would dispute that but it would be worth the $3,000 arbitration cost to find out. Unfortunately, delaney will refuse to file that grievance. There are a number of stations that would have to be positevly reclassified this april if our leaders werent pushovers by passing on that grievance.

Tim
Trying to understand what your telling people on here? So when the contract states in article 3 " 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 or fewer seats."
Your saying if those new jets go to PSA then that work is covered by the above quote?

 

[ograc]

Speculate all you want. Cast blame wherever you want. One thing is certain; The "New American" will be seeking to eliminate as many mainline IAM Fleet Service represented jobs as possible. Same whore in a new dress. When will the collective group come to realize this? When will the collective group stand united and say "hell no"? When will the district / IAM leadership realize they are being played into "check mate"? Time will tell. In the meantime I encourage all to LOCK and LOAD! Solidarity behind our NC and accountability to district and international Officers who sell us out! The outcome of contract negotiations at US will tell all about the true resolve and agenda of the district and the International. Let this serve as notice to the fore mentioned: the educated, active and engaged members are watching.   

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim
Trying to understand what your telling people on here? So when the contract states in article 3 " 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 or fewer seats."
Your saying if those new jets go to PSA then that work is covered by the above quote?

Im saying that the seating configuration is significant in adding up the amount of flights in the classification totals.
Very important in the yearly calculations that determine if mainline work could be contracted out or not.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The 69 seat configuration aircraft is CRUCIAL to keep. It is a sweet buffer for stations that may otherwise fall under yhe minimums and get whacked. Especially with hundreds of these birds coming in like a fall movement of birds.
Go PSA!