2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[N288AA]

Delete

 

[BLUTO]

I wonder what BLUTO thinks. He supports keeping catering not sure about cargo.

Josh

I THNK U R A
FAKE! U R NOT
WHO U SAY U R
U R A TROLL 4
AH!
 
JIM

 

[737823]

I THNK U R A
FAKE! U R NOT
WHO U SAY U R
U R A TROLL 4
AH!
 
JIM

I will meet you and prove exactly who I say I am. Who are you? You keep coming up with multiple names-Dave, John and now Jim.

Josh

 

[T5towbar]

I highly doubt that josh. Need to get over the past the iam rectified what wrong was done at ua and hence the 2014 contract at pmus world of difference

Absoultely!!!!
They saw the grave injustice of our contract, and corrected it by getting you guys a stand alone deal. Something that should have happened at sUA, instead of running to file for single carrier.
 
And I'm confident that the Association will do a much better job.
 

But how and why should TWU members in the five hubs and locations like BOS, DCA, SFO that are relatively high cost places to live and actually have sizable AA operations give away the store so people in ATL, LAS,SAT, SJU, STL, and TPA stay on the headcount? To me that is wrong, everyone can keep saying US IAM scope is better but thy have away the store to get the scope they have now.

Until recently UA had people in places like Columbus and Harrisburg PA which are largely/exclusively Express stations and don't need mainline personnel.

Josh

They went with the first 6.
 

They didn't give away the store. We lost on future money in benefits mostly which yes we do have to make up. The reality is that the high COLA areas do not hold the vote and anything that provided them more relief over DFW would have been rejected by the membership. That's reality.

I am a proponent of COLA depending on where members live and work but that could be difficult considering the two largest hubs in the new AA are DFW and CLT which are low COLA areas. 

How do you convince greedy people that they should provide some relief to their brothers and sisters in the area's you quoted?

We used to have a "Market Rate Adjustment" that the company offered (after the cuts of 04-05) of 1.00 for high cost cities. (for sCO) In a way, it made sense, but it was "red circled" out in the contract. it was mostly the high cost Northeastern cities. And SFO and MIA had their own different scale, but all met at the top in the same.  Something like that would be very difficult to accept for a lot of members who don't live in those cities.

 

[T5towbar]

I don't consider that those members were lied to. Yes the pamphlet that was sent out was very colorful and eye catching and did highlight the improvements over items that were not so good. But the reality still stands that many of those stations were not protected and were going to be closed by UAL whether or not the TA was ratified. And you know that's a fact. There was nothing the IAM negotiators could do about that. They were handed a shitty deal from the IBT prior contract language. Members were given jobs in other locations for the most part whether they wanted them or not. Either way they had no choice. 

 

They why did they ran and filed for single carrier instead of getting sUA a stand alone deal? You can't file that on the IBT. Please explain that?  Our contract (albeit poor) was still in affect at the time, so the natural thing to do was to get improvements for sUA first. They went thru the BK, not us, and those members deserved improvements. They could at least matched our pay, at least!!!  We had improvements, and ATW on the sCO side was the company's "favorite son", so to speak and they weren't going anywhere. But the joint carrier filing killed that. IMHO, Delaney and Co. got outsmarted by Wall and Co. It was about the dues.........
 
THAT WAS MISTAKE NUMBER ONE!!!!!
 
The threat of leaving 13,000 or so members (ATW and BTW) unprotected was just that. A bluff. No way was the company going to decimate TWO large money hubs like EWR and IAH.  The IAM screwed the pooch and lost major leverage. And don't forget the side deal which gave up our Cargo. Didn't know about that until much later. The company called "harmonization".
 
It was various reasons why the contract was given a Yes vote. Stations was going to be closed in Tier 3 anyway whether we had a solid deal or not. That had to be a compromise with vendors breathing down their necks. Also, we don't have a wholly owned outsourcing firm like DGS or Envoy to keep the money "in house" so to speak. That kind of thing can be an insulating factor or not.  And ironically they do a lot of our work in our stations, blocking some of the insourcing at DCA and MCO. 
 
They still won't answer questions.......

 

[ChockJockey]

Greatest union recruiting tool ever created... lousy Managers who abuse workers.

 
Yes and lousy managers who abuse other managers too.  The fear and stress coming off some of those guys is palpable.  It's like they come into work each day and place their neck in a guillotine, and even with all the heads that end up rolling by fresh faces keep showing up to be intimidated and humiliated by their superiors.
 
Although there was one portly bigmouth that was cut recently who I believe few were sorry to see go.  Now there's a nice example of someone who voluntarily threw off his union job protection...and got kicked to the curb.

 

[ograc]

As an IAM member and fleet service employee with US for 34 years I find it rather demeaning for someone like Josh to support subcontracting my job just because I work in an outline station and work a mix of mainline and regional flights. We need to get away from this thought process that the only jobs worth protecting are those in stations with only mainline flights. The below wing work, weather it be mainline of regional, is no different. Matter of fact, a Saab flown by Mesa, with their countless jet way checked bags requires more bodies than a short stacked mainline airbus. Regarding scope and the JCBA; let's set the language bar at weekly departures. Regardless of weather they are mainline or regional. I've spent more time working mainline flights in my career than Josh or other junior agents in hub stations. Josh's reasoning and thought process parallels the company's. Eliminate represented jobs. Lessen the union's leverage in future negotiations and wait for them to collapse from within. Unions are about protecting existing work and jobs. Anyone who perpetuates an agenda contrary to this is not a true unionist. Need I say more Brothers and Sisters?.

 

[WeAAsles]

As an IAM member and fleet service employee with US for 34 years I find it rather demeaning for someone like Josh to support subcontracting my job just because I work in an outline station and work a mix of mainline and regional flights. We need to get away from this thought process that the only jobs worth protecting are those in stations with only mainline flights. The below wing work, weather it be mainline of regional, is no different. Matter of fact, a Saab flown by Mesa, with their countless jet way checked bags requires more bodies than a short stacked mainline airbus. Regarding scope and the JCBA; let's set the language bar at weekly departures. Regardless of weather they are mainline or regional. I've spent more time working mainline flights in my career than Josh or other junior agents in hub stations. Josh's reasoning and thought process parallels the company's. Eliminate represented jobs. Lessen the union's leverage in future negotiations and wait for them to collapse from within. Unions are about protecting existing work and jobs. Anyone who perpetuates an agenda contrary to this is not a true unionist. Need I say more Brothers and Sisters?.

Cargo I beyond respect your 34 years with the airline but a very interesting parallel came up yesterday at our union meeting here yesterday. A member was complaining that where there used to be two manning crew chiefs they now did away with one of those positions. One chief does both the line and bagroom manning. (Yes that chief makes it work even though it's probably too much for one man) The union did respond to the member that this guy is making it work so how can they argue against it. They also pointed out that they gained 5 more CC's in other areas by successfully arguing the need to the company. 1 lost, 4 gained.

Being that you do live and work in a small station I want to gauge your thought here. In our BK we lost 350 jobs when Cabin service was stripped from us here in MIA. What if the company said we will give you back those jobs but we want the equivalent of 200 people by closing X amount of stations. That would be a net gain of 150 jobs although they are no longer spread out over the nation but condensed into one geographic location.

Would you consider the gain of 150 quality Union jobs to be something to call someone not a true unionist?

Not going along Josh's line of trading out jobs for cash. 

 

[WeAAsles]

We used to have a "Market Rate Adjustment" that the company offered (after the cuts of 04-05) of 1.00 for high cost cities. (for sCO) In a way, it made sense, but it was "red circled" out in the contract. it was mostly the high cost Northeastern cities. And SFO and MIA had their own different scale, but all met at the top in the same.  Something like that would be very difficult to accept for a lot of members who don't live in those cities.

Because the reality is even though those who live in low COLA cities won't admit it. Their own personal greed is no different then what we call corporate greed. That $1.00 difference still doesn't make up the divide from people who live in NYC, BOS or LAX but it does provide some relief and let's those members who are struggling know that as Union brothers we hear your plight and we care.   

 

[WeAAsles]

Let's add something to this conversation to express the true reality behind fairness.

Compare some cities people. How about start with CLT vs Queens NY?

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/


 

 

[WeAAsles]

Charlotte NC
$50,000

Comparable salary in
New York (Queens), NY
$79,495
Price difference in New York (Queens), NY

• Groceries 25%more
• Housing 171%more
• Utilities 26%more
• Transportation 22%more
• Health Care 9%more
  
  
  
  Queens NY
  $50,000
  
  Comparable salary in
  Charlotte, NC
  $31,448
  Price difference in Charlotte, NC
  
   
  
• Groceries 20%less
• Housing 63%less
• Utilities 21%less
• Transportation 18%less
• Health Care 8%less
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   

 

[ograc]

Cargo I beyond respect your 34 years with the airline but a very interesting parallel came up yesterday at our union meeting here yesterday. A member was complaining that where there used to be two manning crew chiefs they now did away with one of those positions. One chief does both the line and bagroom manning. (Yes that chief makes it work even though it's probably too much for one man) The union did respond to the member that this guy is making it work so how can they argue against it. They also pointed out that they gained 5 more CC's in other areas by successfully arguing the need to the company. 1 lost, 4 gained.

Being that you do live and work in a small station I want to gauge your thought here. In our BK we lost 350 jobs when Cabin service was stripped from us here in MIA. What if the company said we will give you back those jobs but we want the equivalent of 200 people by closing X amount of stations. That would be a net gain of 150 jobs although they are no longer spread out over the nation but condensed into one geographic location.

Would you consider the gain of 150 quality Union jobs to be something to call someone not a true unionist?

Not going along Josh's line of trading out jobs for cash. 

Interesting question. I would say the number 1 priority is to protect existing work; then go after work that is no longer ours. Union protection, regarding scope, should not be exclusive to members in the hubs. We all pay the same amount in union dues. Although your scenario does not trade jobs for money it trades jobs based on work location. Do you consider this to be justified? Protect existing work first. Let's go for both shall we? After all... this company is projected to make billions in profits. Let's get our share. There should be no negotiating away existing work for jobs in hubs. Let's grow a set prior to JCBA negotiations. Have I made myself clear?   

 

 

[WeAAsles]

Interesting question. I would say the number 1 priority is to protect existing work; then go after work that is no longer ours. Union protection, regarding scope, should not be exclusive to members in the hubs. We all pay the same amount in union dues. Although your scenario does not trade jobs for money it trades jobs based on work location. Do you consider this to be justified? Protect existing work first. Let's go for both shall we? After all... this company is projected to make billions in profits. Let's get our share. There should be no negotiating away existing work for jobs in hubs. Let's grow a set prior to JCBA negotiations. Have I made myself clear?   
 

I'm cool with your scenario my union brother but I would like to find out if people who live in some of those low COLA areas are willing to make some sacrifises for our Brothers and Sisters who do not and do not want to move for money either.

I live and like it here in MIA and I would like some relief. And as NYer originally I'd like to see some of my old friends get some more relief than even I need.

Are we ready to go down that road as Brothers and Sisters and really help out those who need it?

 

[WeAAsles]

I just got back from eating and picking up a Starbucks and wanted to continue with this little mathematical exercise.

Quoting the figures above someone who lives in CLT makes a difference in value per year for their cost of living there of $19,495 compared to someone in JFK or LGA. That comes out to a difference of $9.37 per hour for a NYer to live the same quality of life. So to equal the CLT member an LGA or JFK guy should be paid $32.37 per hour to the member making $23.00 in CLT.

Now for me here in MIA the difference is only $7,623 per year in comparison to the CLT guy. So that's a difference of about $3.66 per hour under my Brothers and Sisters in CLT. So I should be making $26.66 right?

So as much as some of you would like to advocate for the small station members I would like to ask where are the advocates for our Brothers and Sisters in HIGH COLA areas? I feel your pain small station people and you LOW COLA people. I'm walking around with extreme sympathies in my heart for all the pain and suffering you've endured. You have the focus of our attention and your needs will be considered before all others.

Anyone get where I'm going here? 

 

[T5towbar]

As an IAM member and fleet service employee with US for 34 years I find it rather demeaning for someone like Josh to support subcontracting my job just because I work in an outline station and work a mix of mainline and regional flights. We need to get away from this thought process that the only jobs worth protecting are those in stations with only mainline flights. The below wing work, weather it be mainline of regional, is no different. Matter of fact, a Saab flown by Mesa, with their countless jet way checked bags requires more bodies than a short stacked mainline airbus. Regarding scope and the JCBA; let's set the language bar at weekly departures. Regardless of weather they are mainline or regional. I've spent more time working mainline flights in my career than Josh or other junior agents in hub stations. Josh's reasoning and thought process parallels the company's. Eliminate represented jobs. Lessen the union's leverage in future negotiations and wait for them to collapse from within. Unions are about protecting existing work and jobs. Anyone who perpetuates an agenda contrary to this is not a true unionist. Need I say more Brothers and Sisters?.

That is so true. I will say that it should be our work. Anything with our airline's name on it should be ours. Period. Problem is that the company will claim that "we (mainline employee) cost too much." Especially Wall Street and the armchair CEO's says so. Since the other airlines that had employees at stations farmed out to their subsidiaries (or cheaper vendors), we have to be "competitive" and match (or go below) the vendors prices. That's the new claim now. During the "Competitive Market Sourcing" (the new name for the outsourcing program) The rates were so low, none of could compete with what these people were proposing. Especially if you are cheaper than DGS or Eagle. And to mentioned in my last post, we don't have an in-house outfit as well. So when the scope was given up, that meant things are up for grabs. I've even heard (don't know how true this is) that the vendors are wearing UA uniforms. OUR UNIFORMS FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!!  This is lower than low!
 
All I'm saying is that we are paying for the mistake. The next contract MUST protect the remaining work on the larger line stations, and getting back Express in IAD; DEN; SFO; and LAX. That alone should preserve jobs, and stop the downgrades of people. The are taking their pound of flesh now.....
 
You guys are in much better position to preserve scope. I feel that your contract will be a lot better than ours, and if all goes well, might be a new template for airline negotiations for Ramp/Fleet Services.
 
Good luck to you all!