2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

I bet the Delta executives just threw their anti union handbook up in the air in pure disgust? :angry2:

 

[blue collar]

American Airlines and US Airways flight attendants' union has tentatively agreed to a new joint contract with the Fort Worth-based airline.

"The contract is by far the leading the industry with the network carriers. I think it finally brings us to where we need to be," Glading said in an interview.

http://blogs.star-te...h-american.html

Good for them, and I hope it is what's in the future for all workgroups. I couldn't help but notice the WT-esque qualifier of 'network' though.

 

[ograc]

Adequate Staffing. That is the issue, as we move forward in announced stations, to insource vendor work being done for AA. The question is... Will Manpower Staffing, Finance and other departments, be able to approve and provide enough additional staffing to handle the additional work in a timely manner? Aggressive effective dates for all of the announced stations. It remains to be seen if the company will have adequate and trained staffing in place to handle the additional workload. The IAM membership wants the work. We want to be successful with this insourced work, however, we must have the staffing in place to accomplish the task. 

 

[Jester]

Adequate Staffing. That is the issue, as we move forward in announced stations, to insource vendor work being done for AA. The question is... Will Manpower Staffing, Finance and other departments, be able to approve and provide enough additional staffing to handle the additional work in a timely manner? Aggressive effective dates for all of the announced stations. It remains to be seen if the company will have adequate and trained staffing in place to handle the additional workload. The IAM membership wants the work. We want to be successful with this insourced work, however, we must have the staffing in place to accomplish the task. 

 
Orgac,
 
I agree with you... we are getting way too many A321s to think 4 people are adequate having to load/unload forward and aft at the same time during a ground turn.  Even the smaller A320s with the new loading procedures are requiring 2 people in the aft bin whereas short-stacking was the norm with all the additional space in A2 being pretty much unused.
 
We keep hearing "work safe" but I am not seeing anyone refusing to work alone in the bins by having to load into A1 of an A320, which tells me there is no cordinated effort by the local union reps to stop this practice.

 

[ograc]

 
Orgac,
 
I agree with you... we are getting way too many A321s to think 4 people are adequate having to load/unload forward and aft at the same time during a ground turn.  Even the smaller A320s with the new loading procedures are requiring 2 people in the aft bin whereas short-stacking was the norm with all the additional space in A2 being pretty much unused.
 
We keep hearing "work safe" but I am not seeing anyone refusing to work alone in the bins by having to load into A1 of an A320, which tells me there is no cordinated effort by the local union reps to stop this practice.

 
 
It is not up to the union representatives to determine what an individual's opinion is concerning unsafe work practices. Safety parameters should be determined by the individual
member. If an individual member feels they need assistance; than the existing safety policies of the company, support that. The company does not and will not support an individual working unsafe. If an individual needs assistance; they are within their rights to wait for it. If the company chooses to take disciplinary action against an employee for wanting to work in a safe manner than it is the responsibility of the union representatives to defend such action. 

 

[Kev3188]

they are gutting lines (for FT'ers) and getting rid of a lot of senior (cushy) jobs (lines) on the bid, forcing senior people to bad work areas. It (IMHO) is becoming the "squeeze play" furloughing junior members while at the same time forcing senior people into bad lines (aka back in the pit) accelerating retirement in some cases; while us in the middle do twice as much work with less. Sad......

...Happening here as well...
 
 

And your son really isn't Jewish
 
 
 
Josh

F**k off, Josh.
 
 

Adequate Staffing. That is the issue, as we move forward in announced stations, to insource vendor work being done for AA. The question is... Will Manpower Staffing, Finance and other departments, be able to approve and provide enough additional staffing to handle the additional work in a timely manner? Aggressive effective dates for all of the announced stations. It remains to be seen if the company will have adequate and trained staffing in place to handle the additional workload. The IAM membership wants the work. We want to be successful with this insourced work, however, we must have the staffing in place to accomplish the task.

Imagine that! A group of professional men & women ready & willing to take on extra work, asking only for the right resources to do the job to a high standard.

Let's hope AA doesn't let you guys down...
 
 

It is not up to the union representatives to determine what an individual's opinion is concerning unsafe work practices. Safety parameters should be determined by the individual
member. If an individual member feels they need assistance; than the existing safety policies of the company, support that. The company does not and will not support an individual working unsafe. If an individual needs assistance; they are within their rights to wait for it. If the company chooses to take disciplinary action against an employee for wanting to work in a safe manner than it is the responsibility of the union representatives to defend such action.

+1

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim
What you say is true. The contracting in of work was not in the contract. However both sides knew when the scope was agreed to that this would probably be the result in certain cities. If you have profection of only 1 flight a day, which includes AA medal. And the US members were gonna be there no matter what, then why keep paying the vendors in these cities? Doesn't make economical since. Its like everything else to this company. Its a money issue. Nothing to do with Parker turning over a new leaf.

"[American CEO] Doug Parker had always said he couldn't pay network wages until he had a network carrier, and now that he has one, he has definitely stepped up and shown us he is willing to do that," Glading said. 
 
Really amazing. When was the last time a union gave credit to management? I really hope the APFA union leaders aren't blowing smoke.

Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/09/flight-attendants-reach-joint-contract-deal-with-american.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Jester]

 
 
It is not up to the union representatives to determine what an individual's opinion is concerning unsafe work practices. Safety parameters should be determined by the individual
member. If an individual member feels they need assistance; than the existing safety policies of the company, support that. The company does not and will not support an individual working unsafe. If an individual needs assistance; they are within their rights to wait for it. If the company chooses to take disciplinary action against an employee for wanting to work in a safe manner than it is the responsibility of the union representatives to defend such action. 

 
 
Not to worry... policies are written in blood.
 
For example, a couple of weeks ago, a lead was nearly crushed to death after a chock fell into the engine compartment of a belt loader.  As he went to remove the chock, an assist lowered the hydraulics to the lift to allow another assist to exit the aft bin, thus pinning the lead between the right side fender and underside of conveyor belt mechanism.  The lead required hospitalization.  Now there is a push to place the main landing gear chocks underneath the plane right wing tip instead of on the belt loaders.
 
Such as it will be when agents suffer partial paralysis of backs and arms by over-exertion of loading into further bin areas as will the policies change.  Shame that neither the Management nor the Union is being pro-active about the matter, but again.... policies are written in blood.

 

[ograc]

 
 
Not to worry... policies are written in blood.
 
For example, a couple of weeks ago, a lead was nearly crushed to death after a chock fell into the engine compartment of a belt loader.  As he went to remove the chock, an assist lowered the hydraulics to the lift to allow another assist to exit the aft bin, thus pinning the lead between the right side fender and underside of conveyor belt mechanism.  The lead required hospitalization.  Now there is a push to place the main landing gear chocks underneath the plane right wing tip instead of on the belt loaders.
 
Such as it will be when agents suffer partial paralysis of backs and arms by over-exertion of loading into further bin areas as will the policies change.  Shame that neither the Management nor the Union is being pro-active about the matter, but again.... policies are written in blood.

Jester. The said incident was indeed a tragic accident. I'm not sure, though, it can be compared to members who feel obligated to sacrifice their own safety out of fear or intimidation to get a flight out on time. OSHA regulations are indeed written in blood. However, the company's safety policies do not demand an employee to work in an unsafe manner. A lot of those parameters are given to the employee. Do I risk injuring myself loading 100+ bags in the bin of an aircraft by myself or should I wait for assistance? When an employee blows a back out loading those 100+ bags by themselves'; the first question the company is going to ask is "Why didn't you get assistance?" Been there brother; as a union representative. The group who is not being pro active, to the safety polices in place, are the employees who choose to disregard the said policies. They are not doing the company, or the union, any favors. I'm not sure what motivates employees to sacrifice their own safety. Especially, when there are policies in place by the company to insure a safe working environment.     

 

[blue collar]

Maybe the union should educate the members better as to their safety 'rights'? I believe that's what's been suggested previously, but seems to have been shrugged off onto personal responsibility.

 

[Jester]

 
 
It is not up to the union representatives to determine what an individual's opinion is concerning unsafe work practices. Safety parameters should be determined by the individual
member. If an individual member feels they need assistance; than the existing safety policies of the company, support that. The company does not and will not support an individual working unsafe. If an individual needs assistance; they are within their rights to wait for it. If the company chooses to take disciplinary action against an employee for wanting to work in a safe manner than it is the responsibility of the union representatives to defend such action. 

 
 
So, if the company is going to ask, "Why didn't you get assistance," what would be the magic number to request help?  100 bags? 50 bags? 10 bags maybe?  How far should I have expect to stack a bag before I begin to request help?  3 feet?  8 feet?  20 feet?  Other side of any bin net (excluding A319 taper) regardless of bag quantity?  Might we agree that people have different abilities and to allow Management to question our need for help, now allows Management to decide what was "appropriate" after the fact of an injury on a discretionary basis?  We need standards!
 
Let's face another reality... I have personally witnessed rampers who were working safe placing bags onto the belt, not rushing, and a tendon tore loose and the muscle rolled back along his arm.  There are assumed risks of this occupation, even while working safely.  Was he suppose to ask for assistance just before his tendon separated from the bone?  Could Management even suggest that ONE average bag caused the injury instead of cumulative effect of tens of thousands of bags over decades of work, even on less noticable injuries which manifest themselves suddenly while performing some mundane task at home or work?  I could be disabled on a small task that a "reasonable" person would say is acceptable, but because I didn't ask for help I am now complicit (or that activity "shouldn't have caused the injury"), and called into question as to a workers comp claim???
 
My problem is that you (and the IAM) are willing to allow Management to set the subjective, individualized, ever changing standards based upon the circumstances as to the necessary assistance to avoid injury.  I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind finding this to be a satisfactory norm.

 

[ograc]

 
 
So, if the company is going to ask, "Why didn't you get assistance," what would be the magic number to request help?  100 bags? 50 bags? 10 bags maybe?  How far should I have expect to stack a bag before I begin to request help?  3 feet?  8 feet?  20 feet?  Other side of any bin net (excluding A319 taper) regardless of bag quantity?  Might we agree that people have different abilities and to allow Management to question our need for help, now allows Management to decide what was "appropriate" after the fact of an injury on a discretionary basis?  We need standards!
 
Let's face another reality... I have personally witnessed rampers who were working safe placing bags onto the belt, not rushing, and a tendon tore loose and the muscle rolled back along his arm.  There are assumed risks of this occupation, even while working safely.  Was he suppose to ask for assistance just before his tendon separated from the bone?  Could Management even suggest that ONE average bag caused the injury instead of cumulative effect of tens of thousands of bags over decades of work, even on less noticable injuries which manifest themselves suddenly while performing some mundane task at home or work?  I could be disabled on a small task that a "reasonable" person would say is acceptable, but because I didn't ask for help I am now complicit (or that activity "shouldn't have caused the injury"), and called into question as to a workers comp claim???
 
My problem is that you (and the IAM) are willing to allow Management to set the subjective, individualized, ever changing standards based upon the circumstances as to the necessary assistance to avoid injury.  I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind finding this to be a satisfactory norm.

 
It's common sense. If you feel you need assistance wait for it and get it. Every one of us has different physical capabilities. Management does not decide what is appropriate by setting defined standards. You can't standardize the issue. They leave it to the employees' discretion to determine the parameters of their own personal safety. What do you propose should be the all inclusive, satisfactory norm?
 

 

[Jester]

 
It's common sense. If you feel you need assistance wait for it and get it. Every one of us has different physical capabilities. Management does not decide what is appropriate by setting defined standards. You can't standardize the issue. They leave it to the employees' discretion to determine the parameters of their own personal safety. What do you propose should be the all inclusive, satisfactory norm?
 

 
It isn't "common sense"... that's my point, because you are allowing Management to decide.  For example, I could by fine one day tossing 20 bags into A1 of an A320, and then next day I get 20 heavy bags and get injuried.
 
And all inclusive?  Not going to happen as cargo is the great unknown based upon size, weight, type of packaging, but as most of bin loading is bags, I would be happy with that.  And I told you my standard that I think should be used...
 

 
Other side of any bin net (excluding A319 taper) regardless of bag quantity? 
 

 
Maybe with a clarification... obviously, I am not including bin door netting.  And yes, let's include cargo.  If it cannot be short-stacked without going into the other side of a bin net, then two agents in the bin, at least, on NB Airbus.  Of course, the B757 is a different matter as the length of the bins without bin netting, but those are few in number.
 
As the Company thinks following AA way of loading will lead to some savings in fuel economy moving bags an extra 10 feet in the bin, then let the Company realize there will be costs in additional staffing as rampers are placing themselves into greater risk of injury as a result.
 
Now there's a standard that easy to follow, easy to measure, and reasonable in its application.

 

[AANOTOK]

I agree with you Jester. I have witnessed clerks putting bags on a belt where each bag was touching each other (because the belt was so slow) and then putting only three or four bags on the belt at a time (because the belt was to fast) and the supervisor question was there a slowdown and why. On more than one occasion I have witnessed a supervisor consider it a slowdown when actually it was working safe. We have all heard "work by the book" or "work safe" and it is almost always construed as a "slowdown". Having said that, at times we are our on worst enemy because we do cut corners and work unsafe just to play cards, get on the laptop, or enjoy a longer break.
Always work safe and management won't have a leg to stand on if both the clerk and the UNION are doing their respective jobs.

 

[TRAVIS]

 

אבל אתה יודע למה לא​

 ​

Josh

Josh was nice to met you today. Stop by any time my friend.