Strike? Food for thought

[Hopeful]

For those of you who may be unaware of what transpired this week regarding the Qatar Airways situation at JFK....here's a recap.
Local 501 filed a lawsuit against AA and Qatar airlines claiming that AA TWU members should service Qatar.
Well the judge dismissed the lawsuit..
Anyone wanna know why?

BECAUSE THE TWU INTERNATIONAL CHOSE NOT TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT AND HAS NOT AUTHORIZED LOCAL 501 TO SUE ON ITS BEHALF....


Now I ask all of you who believe the TWU will ever let us strike....DO YOU TRULY BELIEVE THE TWU WILL EVER LET US STRIKE AFTER TURNING ITS BACK ON A LOCAL WHOSE MEMBERS ARE AT RISK OF LOSING ALL CONTRACT WORK?


https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment?ui=2&ik=04c1f7f5b6&view=att&th=12fe514c66fa71f2&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_gnlvam1h0&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P--a0Pbaso5tOTSmHxlyfan&sadet=1305293078452&sads=pvNNYuHshbM8NGhBdZRppPbd-e0&sadssc=1

 

[FWAAA]

I'm confused. Qatar Airways isn't a partner of AA in any way, is it? Can't earn AAdvantage miles and AA does not codeshare with Qatar. So on what basis would the TWU local assert that its scope clause requires that it provide ground service to QR. Is it because QR uses T8?

Who services AirBerlin, Brussels, Finnair and Jet (the other airlines using T8)? All of those are (or were) AAdvantage partners and/or codeshare partners. Does 501 believe that it owns all ground service at T8?

 

[Hopeful]

I'm confused. Qatar Airways isn't a partner of AA in any way, is it? Can't earn AAdvantage miles and AA does not codeshare with Qatar. So on what basis would the TWU local assert that its scope clause requires that it provide ground service to QR. Is it because QR uses T8?

Who services AirBerlin, Brussels, Finnair and Jet (the other airlines using T8)? All of those are (or were) AAdvantage partners and/or codeshare partners. Does 501 believe that it owns all ground service at T8?

The assumption was that ALL work done on AA property should be done by TWU members. That was the basis of the lawsuit by 501. They thought it was a violation of the contract.
But they already knew the answer because the TWU never tried to sue on behalf of mechanics who never did the work on some contract carriers.

At JFK, AA fleet service works on JetAirways, AirBerlin and finnair. Maintenance is done by Swissport.

Already the rumblings are that Finnair wants to use Swissport ala Qatar .....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Imjustsayin]

For those of you who may be unaware of what transpired this week regarding the Qatar Airways situation at JFK....here's a recap.
Local 501 filed a lawsuit against AA and Qatar airlines claiming that AA TWU members should service Qatar.
Well the judge dismissed the lawsuit..
Anyone wanna know why?

BECAUSE THE TWU INTERNATIONAL CHOSE NOT TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT AND HAS NOT AUTHORIZED LOCAL 501 TO SUE ON ITS BEHALF....


Now I ask all of you who believe the TWU will ever let us strike....DO YOU TRULY BELIEVE THE TWU WILL EVER LET US STRIKE AFTER TURNING ITS BACK ON A LOCAL WHOSE MEMBERS ARE AT RISK OF LOSING ALL CONTRACT WORK?


https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment?ui=2&ik=04c1f7f5b6&view=att&th=12fe514c66fa71f2&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_gnlvam1h0&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P--a0Pbaso5tOTSmHxlyfan&sadet=1305293078452&sads=pvNNYuHshbM8NGhBdZRppPbd-e0&sadssc=1

What a ridiculous waste of time, energy and money.

 

[1AA]

What a ridiculous waste of time, energy and money.

I agree especially when your own International does not back up it's local in the fight to create jobs.

 

[eolesen]

Where exactly in the scope clause does it prohibit an airline subleasing space from being able to select their own ground handler?....

T-8 isn't AA property. It's the Port Authority's property, and I seriously doubt that the lease between AA and the Port would allow any situation allowing a closed shop, so to speak. If the Port Authority owns the bag sortation system and jetbridges, you have no case. If AA owns the bag sortation system and jetbridges, I can see where those pieces of equipment would have to be operated by AA employees, but as for loading the bags into a cart and taking them out to the plane? Seems to be fair game.

 

[eolesen]

Oh, and the link in Hopeful's original post... can't access it. Can anyone else?

 

[Frank Szabo]

Oh, and the link in Hopeful's original post... can't access it. Can anyone else?

It's an "https" url - won't fly.

 

[Imjustsayin]

I agree especially when your own International does not back up it's local in the fight to create jobs.

I don't think the TWU International wanted to support a rogue local, with a bad "grievance" running off to "court" on their own.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'm confused.

Sorta reading between the lines, I assume Quatar needed some unscheduled maintenance done on one of it's planes so arranged space with AA and mechanics from someone else - probably their regular maintenance contractor in JFK.

As you undoubtedly know, no airline has it's own maintenance people and facilities at every airport it serves. They contract with someone - normally another airline unless it's a small outstation - for mechanics and if hanger space is needed may contract with someone else for that on a one-time basis.

US has an A320 in TPA now that needs a wing repair so contracted with PIMCO for hanger space and are getting TIMCO to send mechanics from TIMCO's facility in the panhandle to do the work (TIMCO is one of US' normal outsourced overhaul contractors).

I've also seen a Delta plane at the US hanger in CLT for an engine change.

Tying it back to the thread title, I'd be surprised if a strike over this would be considered a legal strike. A contract dispute maybe, to be settled like any other contract dispute.

Jim

 

[Hopeful]

Oh, and the link in Hopeful's original post... can't access it. Can anyone else?

Sorry...can't get the court ruling uploaded..Try this..google docs

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=16B21ifbMONLDCP3GBVj7KivnV90ffWQpupkoW54QwM5eOGKnQxLIWXUNCrlO&hl=en

 

[eolesen]

Short sweet and to the point by the judge...

I just went and read Article 1 for both M&R and Fleet, and I don't see where it is implied that protected work includes any aircraft parked at an AA facility.

I suppose you could try to claim past practice here, but that only seems to matter in an arbitration, and this was a court of law. Even in an arbitration, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the intent of recognition & scope is supposed to carry over to another company's airplane.

The appearance here is that Qatar chose to proffer out the ground handling and passenger handling separately.

Had AA won the contract to do all-inclusive ground handling, and tried to bring in Swissport or Menzies as a subcontractor, you'd have a more valid argument.

 

[LAX AMT]

For those of you who may be unaware of what transpired this week regarding the Qatar Airways situation at JFK....here's a recap.
Local 501 filed a lawsuit against AA and Qatar airlines claiming that AA TWU members should service Qatar.
Well the judge dismissed the lawsuit..
Anyone wanna know why?

BECAUSE THE TWU INTERNATIONAL CHOSE NOT TO JOIN THE LAWSUIT AND HAS NOT AUTHORIZED LOCAL 501 TO SUE ON ITS BEHALF....


Now I ask all of you who believe the TWU will ever let us strike....DO YOU TRULY BELIEVE THE TWU WILL EVER LET US STRIKE AFTER TURNING ITS BACK ON A LOCAL WHOSE MEMBERS ARE AT RISK OF LOSING ALL CONTRACT WORK?


https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment?ui=2&ik=04c1f7f5b6&view=att&th=12fe514c66fa71f2&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_gnlvam1h0&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P--a0Pbaso5tOTSmHxlyfan&sadet=1305293078452&sads=pvNNYuHshbM8NGhBdZRppPbd-e0&sadssc=1

In my 25 plus years as an AMT at Americans Airlines I have yet to see the TWU authroize a strike at AA for ANY reason. Here at LAX when Quantas was using our gates and ramp AA provided the cabin services and ramp services but not the maintenance. TWU couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it either.

 

[Bob Owens]

In my 25 plus years as an AMT at Americans Airlines I have yet to see the TWU authroize a strike at AA for ANY reason. Here at LAX when Quantas was using our gates and ramp AA provided the cabin services and ramp services but not the maintenance. TWU couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it either.

I agree that the TWU should have been more assertive and agressive at getting that work years ago for us but tell me this, at this point does Fleet losing the work make it more or less likely we will ever see it?

I know the TWA guys freak out when they see other carriers coming on our ramp and outsiders doing the work, that didnt happen at TWA. My guess is the IAM had language that the TWU never pursued.

 

[eolesen]

I thought it was because TWA's wages were so low that they were actually cost competitive with the Triangle's and Menzies' of the world...

Again, you guys and AA don't own the ramp anymore. Leases have changed significantly since the days of exclusive use. You can thank the IAM for that, ironically.... Eastern's estate tied up gates at ATL and JFK for years. No such problem at MIA because they only gave preferential use on a rolling 30 or 90 day basis back in those days. Not sure what it is today, but with or without AA, the airline is ultimately on the hook for covering the payments on the building.