The teamsters have said and will say again we will be done by date of hire. we on the west know that! the thing your thinking about is the part of no furlowed employees can bump an active employee that was also Doug Parkers statement also. we also know you have alot of people that have been there a long time but we also have people that have alot of time with awa the majority of our techs are over 15 years with awa we are not as low as you may think. I heard your layoff date was around 89 don't know if thats correct but thats about half our mx work force. just remember witch ever union wins the election that will happen there will be work brought back and the jobs will come in too.
senority rules for all employees
- Thread starter AIRCRAFTMECHANIC
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #17
This is not the first merger usair has had there was piedmont psa mohawk alleghany lake central trump shuttle
all have been DOH.....now you want to change it because your junior.I dont think so...immoral i think you are being immoral.ungratefull.I dont think so....you all seem to forget that usair group owns us. How can it be immoral if thats the way it always was done .Like i said Theres a long history here. We have been around for a long time and the rules were set a long time before you were even working.Your the one whos being self centered.Not our fault that you werent hired before us.Thats your fault.
In any merger its always been based on date of hire/ Look at the history.When peidmont was aqied by usair did we throw a fit because we were intrigated by date of hire no....did we try to do the immoral thing by reducing there senority....no same with PSA...usair has always been fair to its workforce in reguards to senority...as with almost every other merger. Now you waant to do away with senority because your junior....now thats immoral.Doesnt matter waht you think fair is fair and your way of thinking is self serving....I too used to be junior and suffered for years for it.Get used to it , even the union knows its fair. You dont see us wining about piedmont or psa do you.
Uh...yes. Otherwise, why would you and your ilk keep bringing it up? :unsure:
and plz tell how that has been a benifit to AWA employees only us east flys those routes so plz do me a favor get a clue.
AIRWOMAN
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2005
- 3,440
- 0
Just as 320Tech has posted, the IBT is in agreement with DOH seniority. There is no argument over that issue.
Forget non rev and boarding issues.......we should all be concerned about having a job first so that we all may enjoy the non rev adventure.
I don't understand your statement about it not being right to have junior employees working while senior employees are furloughed. Are you implying that junior employees should go and the previous furloughed employees who happen to be senior, come back to work??? Senior furlougees displacing junior active employees?? :unsure:
USstew23
Veteran
LISTEN MOUTH--- it should be fair to EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!! Stop it with the Titanic and ch. 7 crap!! You're no more superior than anyone else here. Some people can say that if not for Doug Parker that you might have been gone long before this so called "Titanic" even saw BK1. Now seriously that is not my point and certainly not my way of thinking. I (most of US) want what is fair for everyone and that includes those folks at West that were already at the bottom of the list. My hope is that we can be frugal enough to get it together and be able to expand so that the current seniority issue is a NON-ISSUE in a few years. And for the record I do not think that I deserve anything over anyone else. The only thing that I deserve to have is the time that I have been active. Nothing more and I certainly do not think that the active junior folks should be displaced out of a job by the more senior furloughees. It they do this right then everyone should be able to have a job.
The Teamster's seniority proposal is far more libral than what was first hinted at by Parker - no one is doing away with seniority so I have no clue as to where you pulled that idea out of. Furloughed USA would be able to fill open positions at the AWA stations once there they will be able to use thier seniority to fill what position and days off that thier seniority will allow them to, which means that they could probably bump about 2/3rd's of us off our days or shift. Seniority is not going anywhere. But as has been stated by management from day one in this so called merger no furloughed will bump an active. And that is from the top down not the unions.
I don't see what makes the furloughed people who haven't been in a US uniform in 5-6 years so virtuous. Why are the active US people so protective of the rights of these people? Have the bulk of the provisions of the TA's been built around the protection of the furloughees? Are most active US people making donations to the furloughees on a regular basis? Have they petitoned management to open up contract negotiations to allow workers to work reduced hours so that a furloughee can come back at least part-time? Have they volunteered to pay the COBRA and later the full medical insurance premiums of these people? Are they going to the homes of the furloughees and painting their house and fixing up their cars?
Or (more likely) have these furloughees gotten on with their lives and left US as only a memory. They are not coming back to the same job they left, and it is patronizing to them to assume that they are clamoring for the chance to return to what US has become. I was a furloughee from another airline for over 5 years, so I am sympathetic to their plight. A 1-2 year recall period is fair. Beyond that you tread into the bizarre world of perpetuating the pain of the furlough by displacing a current worker with someone who has already (or should have)begun a new life.
If some folks feel the need to belong to a "tribe" and protect their members from some perceived threat, this is no place for you. Unless everyone pulls in the same direction the money will run out and no one will have a job to come back to.
Or (more likely) have these furloughees gotten on with their lives and left US as only a memory. They are not coming back to the same job they left, and it is patronizing to them to assume that they are clamoring for the chance to return to what US has become. I was a furloughee from another airline for over 5 years, so I am sympathetic to their plight. A 1-2 year recall period is fair. Beyond that you tread into the bizarre world of perpetuating the pain of the furlough by displacing a current worker with someone who has already (or should have)begun a new life.
If some folks feel the need to belong to a "tribe" and protect their members from some perceived threat, this is no place for you. Unless everyone pulls in the same direction the money will run out and no one will have a job to come back to.
Dea Certe
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 889
- 0
luvn737,
You've made some interesting points. I'm sure there are some furloughees who have "gotten on with their lives" and wouldn't want to come back to the unstable, insecure airline industry.
Some may be waiting to come back. I think they should have the right to return when there's an opening.
Would you have wanted to be called back to the airline you were furloughed from?
It seems fair to me that no active employee be bumped out by a furloughee. I also think a furloughee should return to the place on the seniority list they left.
Mergers are a painful and stressful business, as we all know only too well. In the airline industry, we've suffered through downsizing. Bases open and close. Time shifts from one base to another. There's little sense of security.
I don't know when I'll quit but I am certain of one thing: The day I started. That's something I can't change.
As to why I support the rights of the furloughees, I suppose it's a sense of fairness. We can't deny the date they were hired.
I wish I had understood much sooner in my career how important retirement was. I would have been much more proactive about pension benefits. Perhaps if I had been, some of the more senior mamas would retired and left me another spot up the seniority ladder!
We've got to find a way to come together as a group and focus on doing the best jobs we can to make this airline work.
No doubt more mergers are on the horizon. I believe even Doug has said so. What if the next merger is with an even more senior group? Or a much junior group? WE have to figure out a way make it work so the least amount of pain is shared. Does that make sense?
During the previous mergers, AFA always went by DOH and it seems to be the least disruptive, least acrimonious system.
Dea
You've made some interesting points. I'm sure there are some furloughees who have "gotten on with their lives" and wouldn't want to come back to the unstable, insecure airline industry.
Some may be waiting to come back. I think they should have the right to return when there's an opening.
Would you have wanted to be called back to the airline you were furloughed from?
It seems fair to me that no active employee be bumped out by a furloughee. I also think a furloughee should return to the place on the seniority list they left.
Mergers are a painful and stressful business, as we all know only too well. In the airline industry, we've suffered through downsizing. Bases open and close. Time shifts from one base to another. There's little sense of security.
I don't know when I'll quit but I am certain of one thing: The day I started. That's something I can't change.
As to why I support the rights of the furloughees, I suppose it's a sense of fairness. We can't deny the date they were hired.
I wish I had understood much sooner in my career how important retirement was. I would have been much more proactive about pension benefits. Perhaps if I had been, some of the more senior mamas would retired and left me another spot up the seniority ladder!
We've got to find a way to come together as a group and focus on doing the best jobs we can to make this airline work.
No doubt more mergers are on the horizon. I believe even Doug has said so. What if the next merger is with an even more senior group? Or a much junior group? WE have to figure out a way make it work so the least amount of pain is shared. Does that make sense?
During the previous mergers, AFA always went by DOH and it seems to be the least disruptive, least acrimonious system.
Dea
- Thread Starter
- #26
No
But I do think that layed off employees should have a oppertunity to bid openings.I dont want anyone to loose there jobs, and like has been said the junior employees that are active should not be displaced.This is a tough subject, because I have been layed off.I believe the unions have made the correct decision in protecting active employees and allowing furlughed employees to bid openings.
I feel for anyone who has been furloughed in this day and age of layoffs nationwide.I just wish that anyone who wanted to work who was layed off was able to work.
AIRWOMAN
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2005
- 3,440
- 0
Thanks for your clarification on that. I agree. Furloughed employees should have the option to return to open positions. I don't think you're alone.......haven't we all been layed off/furloughed at one point in our aviation careers?? I have also.
- Thread Starter
- #28
I dont know of any mechanics that would move to the west.At the most probably be 10/20 that would ever move there. We are older men and women and we are settled our kids are either in school or settled them selves and phx is more expensive than most of us could afford as is vegas.
So I wouldnt worry about anyone moving in and bumping you all out of your days off...Its not going to happen.The west
is all safe.This senority issue is really not going to matter in the big picture. How many of AWA employees would want to move to Charlotte or Pitt or Philly...Its the same here.
I was trying to make a point...not complain.The piedmont and psa employees are my friends and I was trying to say I wouldnt take a day from them or you.
delldude
Veteran
curious now as to how someone who has opined already to be non union is now speaking for IBT?
from IBT contract:
1. if the Company is the surviving carrier, the Company will integrate the
two Mechanic groups in accordance with <<<IBT>>> Merger Policy if both
groups are <<<IBT>>> represented, and in accordance with Section 3 and 13 of
the Allegheny Mohawk LPPs if the Mechanics of the Company's merger
partner are not represented by the IBSand
2. if the Company is not the surviving carrier, the Company will make
reasonable efforts to have the surviving carrier integrate the two Mechanic
groups in the same manner as stated in (1) of this paragraph.
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,037
- 1,529
I suggested that you read the words of Doug Parker:
"We raised a lot of capital by doing this deal, and that's put us in a very solid place financially."
"Without the merger, neither of the former airlines would be where we are today."
After the synergies of the merger are complete it's conceivable that you could be flying an Airbus 350 to an international destination.
Sounds as if you are the clueless one in this dialogue.
Similar threads
