Us Airways, Flight Attendants Deal Near

[SpinDoc]

I am not at liberty to discuss what is going on.

Would you like to wager about what I know or where I have been or what I am participating in?

There are a select few who know who I am and what I am currently doing.

The IAM does not negotiate through the media nor on message boards.

[post="228147"][/post]​

So, I guess that means we won't be hearing
from you until an agreement is reached. That's
good. See you in a few weeks.

You said it. You won't be negotiating on this forum
so we fully expect you to remain off the forum
until you can back up your illogical postings with
verifiable information after a TA is reached
with the company.

 

[700UW]

Spin Spin Spin,

Your name fits you appropriately.

I do not have to back up anything, everything I have said is logical.

Sorry if you don't have a backbone and can't accept that there are unions that don't willingly bend over and let the company do as they please. (See ALPA) for unions that don't have a backbone.

And you are the one who is illogical.

The IAM has been updating its members through bulletins posted on the respective web pages.

 

[motnot]

Motnot:

At this point I believe the company could care less if they have a TA with the IAM-M. Management may make public and private statements to the contrary (especially in front of the court), however, they just might like to get rid of the IAM-M all together. Without a deal the company would be free to outsource all maintenance so any talk about a strike may be pointless.

Nobody knows if a strike could occur and there are a number of hurdles for a union to seek "self help". ... However, a job action may play right into the company's hands.

[post="228101"][/post]​

USA320Pilot,

I have no doubt that the company would be happy to outsource all maintenance. The trend in the industry is toward more and more outsourcing in that department. IMO, that is where the next major battles will be fought in the coming years.

However, it is my belief that a contract abrogation will cause the IAM (or the AFA or CWA, if those unions don't ratify TAs) to immediately call a strike. Further, I believe such a strike -- even if the legality is in question -- would be honored by the other unions, even your own.

IMO, if the company wants to survive, it must preclude an abrogation by find a way to reach TAs that will pass all groups. I don't know if that's possible with the IAM. As the union official said in the article, if the pay cuts are too high, it won't pass, and if too many jobs are lost, it won't pass.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Nah, you fly boys will bend over and open your wallets again.

[post="228144"][/post]​

700 -

You are absolutely right. History is on your side here.

The Chicken-Little brigade of ALPA (with USA320pilot near the forefront) has brainwashed 58% of the membership, and that 58% has demonstrated to the company in no uncertain terms that the pilots have not given enough. As long as the pilot group, at the behest of their "leadership," will roll over with ratification votes like that, the company will be back.

58% approval of the pilots' LOA93 just transmits to the company that they didn't demand enough. They will be back time and time again until there is a majority rejection. And the weak-richard "union" leadership will do everything in their power to scare the vote into approval. Again. And again. And yet again.

So, IAM, AFA, CWA: Hang tough. The pilots will absorb the pain for you. History is on your side. And, even USA320pilot is on your side if you stop to think about it.

 

[ITRADE]

Spin Spin Spin,

Your name fits you appropriately.

[post="228160"][/post]​

As was yours LavMan.

 

[Atlantic]

700,
Whats with this 90% of c/o's not taking an a/c with the a/p on mel? Across the N/A, I could see that. Infact, I would be one. Something you don't know, the flight crew is with any given a/c two legs before we change a/c. And while I have your attention, whats up with this hardon you have against pilots?

 

[USA320Pilot]

As Mike Abram, ALPA General Counsel, and Michael Glanzer, ALPA's Investment Banker said, US Airways is not demanding the cost cuts, the creditors are demanding the cost cuts. In fact, the GECAS and ATSB agreements have been filed with the court and specifically require the employee cuts or US Airways says it will liquidate in about one month.

Do not let the facts get in the way...

Either the cuts come by consensual agreement or by imposition, but they will come one way or another. Judge Mitchell has no choice but to rule in favor of the company and prevent "self help" or the business enterprise will fail. Mitchell’s primary responsibility is to the creditor’s and their committee has spoken.

All the chest pounding and rhetoric will not matter in the end. The creditors committee supports the company's motion, ATSB and GECAS guidelines must be met, and a business plan must be submitted to support the POR.

Due to union resistance the company's ask has increased to about $1.1 billion and those unions without agreements will likely give more than their "ask", just like ALPA's RC4 negotiated with the company.

It's too bad because it did not have to be this way...

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

It was a repsonse to A320 Driver and I agree across the N/A, I was talking Domestic flying.

No beef with pilots, just hitting him back with his own medicine.

Now understand this. For many of us, our families come first. If that means making sacrifices, then that's the way it will have to be. Those folks at the counters and working the ramp are the ones making the REAL sacrifices. They couldn't care less for your diatribes into trade unionism. The simple truth is while 3 folks are suffocating in the back of my aircraft loading and unloading, 6 of your union members are in the breakroom watching TV, playing cards or reading the paper. Many of your IAM members are on their feet less than 2 hours out of an 8 hour shift. The scales are tilted instead of balanced and you couldn't care less. That lack of productivity is a prime reason for our costs being so high. We fix this now or we are toast. But that's what it has come down to isn't it? The IAM gets it's way, keeps things just as they are, or they attempt to take down the airline. I say attempt because there are many in every work group that will not go quietly...and that includes IAM as well.
A320 Driver

[post="228100"][/post]​

 

[700UW]

As Mike Abram, ALPA General Counsel, and Michael Glanzer, ALPA's Investment Banker (Who was paid by US Airways) said, US Airways is not demanding the cost cuts, the creditors are demanding the cost cuts(Funny I don't see the creditors in negotiations with the unions). In fact, the GECAS and ATSB agreements have been filed with the court and specifically require the employee cuts or US Airways says it will liquidate in about one month. (As did UAL and the judge said no you cant force a company to stop its obligations ie UAL Pension Plans)
Do not let the facts get in the way...

Either the cuts come by consensual agreement or by imposition, but they will come one way or another. Judge Mitchell has no choice but to rule in favor of the company and prevent "self help" or the business enterprise will fail. (See CAL 1983 Strike) Mitchell’s primary responsibility is to the creditor’s and their committee has spoken.

All the chest pounding and rhetoric will not matter in the end. The creditors committee supports the company's motion, ATSB and GECAS guidelines must be met, and a business plan must be submitted to support the POR. (Company has no business plan as they admitted the first POR was a failure)

Due to union resistance the company's ask has increased to about $1.1 billion and those unions without agreements will likely give more than their "ask", just like ALPA's RC4 negotiated with the company. (Don't worry you fly boys will open your wallets again)

It's too bad because it did not have to be this way...

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="228171"][/post]​

Guess you will never learn, your own ALPA attorney has even said a union can strike after a contract abrogation, it happened at CAL and Judge Mitchell cannot stop self-help, even the company's executives know that upon a contract abrogation and labor strife the ATSB will pull their money. Sun Yi Trust all ready has, and Bank of America refused to step up as the secondary lender so Citibank has with an increase of interest rates.

And read the following and learn:

Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

 

[A Baby Ate My Dingo]

Ahh, yes, edited. Pretty much the #1 instigator on the old Yahoo message board and singlehandedly ruined it.

Fits exactly.