2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[NYer]

 

 
The arbitration was not a blind endeavor. There were things that both parties agreed to before they moved forward. The floor of the agreement was the "market aggregate" and they were able to move above that. Too many are thinking of this process as a regular Section 6 arbitration, which it is not. The arbitrator himself acknowledged that his abilities were severely restricted.

Exactly right. This is NOT section 6 and anyone who goes into that negotiating room thinking that is not thinking with their head. The Company "wants" to have deals done with all their work-groups to show confidence to Wall Street for investing in AA for the future, but they do not HAVE to have it.

UAL is surviving to this day without some JCBA in some of their groups. AA wants to do more than survive and we can capitalize on that if we are SMART.
 
 
As we can see with the APA and APFA, it doesn't seem this process is being used as knife to anyone's throat. I fear that we won't have a similar set-up and the JCBA talks will drag, and drag while our opportunities dissipates. It will be a carbon copy of the 2007-2008 negotiations where we went for "restore and more" and ended up with a BK.

Fear is ok but don't let it override your thoughts. From the guy who's not Religious, have a little faith. 

 

 
Have a little faith? This is the future of thousands of Members and faith is not a tangible item we can rely on. It is an emotion that leaves the majority in limbo. There markings of the parallels with those ill-fated negotiations are already apparent. For someone that wants to count on "faith," you need to have something tangible to keep you on that path. So far, there is none.
 
Action speak louder than words, and the actions with this situations is already speaking.

 

[NYer]

on the usairways side, i think most would b willing to wait for a fair contract as opposed to blowing a load with a quickie that cramps our scope. Im not convinced we should lose any scope. The usairways scope should b applied to the joint contract by applying it to the 17 stations, many of which are already part of the 33 at usairways. Then tweaking the insourcing language. Any deal that gets rid of any station that already has scope is a bad deal.

 
That "temporary" Scope achieved in the last CBA is not going to survive. It will probably be in the area of 10 to 15 flights to maintain them open or to re-open. Scope, however, won't be the biggest test...for the IAM, it will be maintaining the multi-employer medical in its present form.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Have a little faith? This is the future of thousands of Members and faith is not a tangible item we can rely on. It is an emotion that leaves the majority in limbo. There markings of the parallels with those ill-fated negotiations are already apparent. For someone that wants to count on "faith," you need to have something tangible to keep you on that path. So far, there is none.
 
Action speak louder than words, and the actions with this situations is already speaking.

Don't you think that saying that our negotiations are going to be "ill fated" is putting the cart before the horse? You know better than most that items that have leaked on social media sites have more often then not caused unneeded anxiety and have even been cause to exacerbate an issue further than it needed to.

If the leadership of BOTH Unions have decided to keep things a little closer to the vest I have to say that's probably the smart thing to do.

There's probably a very good reason why things have been so quiet lately.  

 

[NYer]

Don't you think that saying that our negotiations are going to be "ill fated" is putting the cart before the horse? You know better than most that items that have leaked on social media sites have more often then not caused unneeded anxiety and have even been cause to exacerbate an issue further than it needed to.

If the leadership of BOTH Unions have decided to keep things a little closer to the vest I have to say that's probably the smart thing to do.

There's probably a very good reason why things have been so quiet lately.  

 
You don't want to see the actions but they're there in all it's glory.
 
They are not preparing with the IAM for negotiations...They are not explaining to the Members what the differences in the CBA's are....They sending out different surveys to different parts of the Membership....They have not picked or not announced who the negotiating committee is......They sent letters back and forth and publicly engaged in a hussy fit.....There are leaders who have publicly denounce the Association.....There are Local leaders engaged in lawsuits against their union over the Association.....There is little to no information on the process and the current situation, although the "tough guy" letters made it to the public.....The APFA has an agreement, the APA is on it's final approach to an TA and the agents have already engaged the airline in their talks. US....we wait faithfully for mommy to give us a cookie.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
You don't want to see the actions but they're there in all it's glory.
 
They are not preparing with the IAM for negotiations...They are not explaining to the Members what the differences in the CBA's are....They sending out different surveys to different parts of the Membership....They have not picked or not announced who the negotiating committee is......They sent letters back and forth and publicly engaged in a hussy fit.....There are leaders who have publicly denounce the Association.....There are Local leaders engaged in lawsuits against their union over the Association.....There is little to no information on the process and the current situation, although the "tough guy" letters made it to the public.....The APFA has an agreement, the APA is on it's final approach to an TA and the agents have already engaged the airline in their talks. US....we wait faithfully for mommy to give us a cookie.

And after all of that huge hullabaloo so far the last few weeks it's been as quiet as a Church Mouse in a Library. Sometimes silence really does speak volumes.

Sometimes whether we like it or not we're forced to just ride the wave. And let's not forget about the National Mediation Board either while we're at it. They control the tide more than anyone right now.

 

[NYer]

And after all of that huge hullabaloo so far the last few weeks it's been as quiet as a Church Mouse in a Library. Sometimes silence really does speak volumes.

Sometimes whether we like it or not we're forced to just ride the wave. And let's not forget about the National Mediation Board either while we're at it. They control the tide more than anyone right now.

 
Another excuse...The NMB does not control the process in which unions can prepare themselves for upcoming negotiations. It is a ridiculous notion that we must sit on the sidelines and do nothing until the NMB puts out a ruling. To the contrary, we should be fully prepared the minute they allow Joint Negotiations to move forward. Sitting around and waiting is tantamount to being unprepared in a process where we will need full engagement by all parties and most of all the Members. How can we possible be ready to meld two distinctly different contracts against an organization and negotiating process the TWU doesn't have experience in.
 
We have never negotiated a contract with US Airways management. The negotiators have never faced this type of process and this is not a Section 6 negotiations where we are building upon something we already know, against a nemesis we understand and have dealt with before.
 
This is new and we've, so far, wasted 6 months of preparation time waiting on the sidelines.
 
The survey's were sent out in a format where some Members can make choices others can't. That confuses the process and leaves other Members with the inability to make the same choices as their colleagues.
 
Take Profit Sharing, the airline has made it clear in all their negotiations they're unwilling to furnish that item. We have even received value for that in two separate occasion, yet that is an item on the survey. What do you suppose we do if and when it becomes a priority? How do we address other items if the focus is on that battle line? Because we're not prepares, are going to argue that issue during the process and couldn't it cause an emotional decision during any TA vote? Certainly, so.

 

[WeAAsles]

Ok I have to head to work but before I leave looking back at the comments made by CB it doesn't seem like he's too concerned about rushing the process? And he will be a part of that negotiating committee. I'd also love to read what P. Rez has to say about all of this since he'll also be a part of those negotiations?

Let's get some other long time thread posters to express their opinions also. Particularly I'd love to hear from Ograc and 700UW when they get the chance and catch this convo. Hell let's even hear from Tim.

Personally I think we'll be hitting the ground running right after the Holidays? But that's just my opinion.

 

[NYer]

Ok I have to head to work but before I leave looking back at the comments made by CB it doesn't seem like he's too concerned about rushing the process? And he will be a part of that negotiating committee. I'd also love to read what P. Rez has to say about all of this since he'll also be a part of those negotiations?

Let's get some other long time thread posters to express their opinions also. Particularly I'd love to hear from Ograc and 700UW when they get the chance and catch this convo. Hell let's even hear from Tim.

Personally I think we'll be hitting the ground running right after the Holidays? But that's just my opinion.

 

Ok I have to head to work but before I leave looking back at the comments made by CB it doesn't seem like he's too concerned about rushing the process? And he will be a part of that negotiating committee. I'd also love to read what P. Rez has to say about all of this since he'll also be a part of those negotiations?

Let's get some other long time thread posters to express their opinions also. Particularly I'd love to hear from Ograc and 700UW when they get the chance and catch this convo. Hell let's even hear from Tim.

Personally I think we'll be hitting the ground running right after the Holidays? But that's just my opinion.

 
In October, you said that the negotiations prep was for the middle of November and we had plenty of time to get the issues resolved. We're past November and into the middle of December and now we should wait until past the holidays. That just means we wasted October, November, December and into January.
 
Survey are supposedly being filled out to be submitted in January, with no input from the Local's. Has this issue been addressed in any of the membership meetings you've attended?

 

[P. REZ]

Ok I have to head to work but before I leave looking back at the comments made by CB it doesn't seem like he's too concerned about rushing the process? And he will be a part of that negotiating committee. I'd also love to read what P. Rez has to say about all of this since he'll also be a part of those negotiations?
Let's get some other long time thread posters to express their opinions also. Particularly I'd love to hear from Ograc and 700UW when they get the chance and catch this convo. Hell let's even hear from Tim.
Personally I think we'll be hitting the ground running right after the Holidays? But that's just my opinion.

WeAAsles,

First off, Led Zeppelin is the best band ever but Van Halen and Rush are awesome too. Lol. Seriously though, we have our work cut out for us and I am like CB, no hurry is needed and we must have a chance to meet with our AA negotiators and try and get on the same page. We are all in this to put two diverse workgroups under one CBA and many challenges lie ahead. I am excited to get this process rolling but patient enough to get it right.

P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim your comment is admirable but let's suppose something. We lost Cabin Service in the BK. Here in MIA that was 350 jobs. What if the company was willing to give back those jobs but wanted a SCOPE for station staffing in the middle of what you currently have and what we have? Say that affected 150 members for a net gain of 200 jobs in another location? Now put something like that into a system wide scale. What if it was jobs that you guys lost in your BK?
I know that people in small stations wouldn't be very happy to be forced to move to keep a job but with the loss of Cabin we had members who felt forced to retire because they didn't believe they could do the heavy lifting jobs any longer. I never really liked working in Cabin Service but it was nice to know that job existed if I ever felt lifting bags was just becoming too hard on my aging body.

more scope in the hubs always means more leverage unless there are drop dead dates. Much more power with more scope in hubs. Cabin service or even express but not with expiration dates as there is in uniteds contract.

 

[Tim Nelson]

That "temporary" Scope achieved in the last CBA is not going to survive. It will probably be in the area of 10 to 15 flights to maintain them open or to re-open. Scope, however, won't be the biggest test...for the IAM, it will be maintaining the multi-employer medical in its present form.

The medical does get fuzzy but the scope is not temporary unless you call our contract temporary. I guess it wont last forever but its legally binding until we decide on something else.

 

[NYer]

The medical does get fuzzy but the scope is not temporary unless you call our contract temporary. I guess it wont last forever but its legally binding until we decide on something else.

 
The 7 flights is a placeholder until a JCBA is ratified, as written in the MOU. The CBA itself still has the same Scope language as existed before the ratification of the current deal. Isn't that correct?

 

[Tim Nelson]

The 7 flights is a placeholder until a JCBA is ratified, as written in the MOU. The CBA itself still has the same Scope language as existed before the ratification of the current deal. Isn't that correct?

the mou was incorporated in our contract at ratification. One and the same.

 

[NYer]

the mou was incorporated in our contract at ratification. One and the same.

 
Right. So we agree the Scope language in Article 3 did not change, but was augmented by the MOU which is viable only until there is a JCBA. Is that correct?

 

[WeAAsles]

NYer is correct Tim. It is currently a placeholder until there is a JCBA. The TA highlights do say to refer to the MOU as attachment B.