AA and Labor Negotiations-2020

[T5towbar]

Just saw Kirby's video on FT. People are puzzled because he is saying that he wants to avert layoffs after Oct. 1 (to save junior people) by having everybody working less hours (ie: the 32 or 30 hour option that some people are taking right now for a FT employee), instead of the straight by the contract furlough, since a lot of people have a lot of years (and the target is to get some of these people off the books).
I'm on FB now and everybody I have been chatting with says it needs some cash to make it attractive.

Also saw Klemm's response to Kirby's video. He says that the company is not considering any ideas that the IAM has.

 

[Kev3188]

Kev.
The problem is there isn't any money involved with this offer.

I know the company is trying to hold on to all the cash they can, but if you included some money, since no one is getting any furlough pay, some money should be included. The offer is decent, but if you put some sort of cash component, you would get a lot of the people you are targeting out the door.

Since you are hoarding cash, you still have to spend some to accomplish your goal of shrinking (personnel) down the road. Are DL and AA is offering some cash in their offers?

Just my opinion on this.

DL is.

There are 2 different programs; an Enhanced Retirement, and an Opt-Out. Your age + years of service have to be more than 70 by year’s end to be eligible for the retirement. Everyone is able to take the Opt-out.
Severance is up to 26 weeks for the retirement and 20 for the opt out. All Earned vacation and PPT (what we use for sick and DAT days) time paid out as well.

 

[T5towbar]

Now they are sending out emails to everybody who is at eligible (years + age) whether you want to take the VSP 2.
The letter said I would be in the "Option B" category. I just got mine a few seconds ago. I'm too young to retire right now (about 8 years from SS), and hope to ride this out and see what happens. As I said again, it needs some money to make it work.

 

[1AA]

Just saw Kirby's video on FT. People are puzzled because he is saying that he wants to avert layoffs after Oct. 1 (to save junior people) by having everybody working less hours (ie: the 32 or 30 hour option that some people are taking right now for a FT employee), instead of the straight by the contract furlough, since a lot of people have a lot of years (and the target is to get some of these people off the books).
I'm on FB now and everybody I have been chatting with says it needs some cash to make it attractive.

Also saw Klemm's response to Kirby's video. He says that the company is not considering any ideas that the IAM has.

I've seen this before. First you say you have more employees than needed to run the operation. Then you say you would rather cut pay and keep employees on the payroll. Then you know what comes next?
You end up laying off anyway and the ones that took the cut in pay got screwed because layoffs happened anyway.

 

[ALUS78]

ALUS78 Just a question who is going to make the decision on who gets cut? If there is a layoff then straight by seniority and then let the chips fall where they may.
You sound like you think you are more important than the next guy, Well someone may think that he/she is more important than YOU. NO CUTS should be taken layoff as many as needed that way when you get recalled you come back with what you had, and then the next round of negotiations will start from there since the Unions don't put snap back clauses in the deals we have now. WAKE UP.

How many more times are you guys going to let the unions/company cuts wages so that they can keep heads then cut the heads anyway. When are YOU going to learn?

I agree with you my point was dont give everyone a huge cut in pay or hours just to keep bodies on the property that aren't needed. That would be done by seniority I might sound like a chithead cause I'm senior but that's the way it should be done.

 

[ALUS78]

I've seen this before. First you say you have more employees than needed to run the operation. Then you say you would rather cut pay and keep employees on the payroll. Then you know what comes next?
You end up laying off anyway and the ones that took the cut in pay got screwed because layoffs happened anyway.

Okay I'm a scumbag I dont know why you would want to keep people on the payroll if there is no work and have everyone be pained by a pay cut especially if you plan to permanently shrink the airline. It's like overloading the lifeboat.

 

[ALUS78]

I've seen this before. First you say you have more employees than needed to run the operation. Then you say you would rather cut pay and keep employees on the payroll. Then you know what comes next?
You end up laying off anyway and the ones that took the cut in pay got screwed because layoffs happened anyway.

Exactly and you know our unions favor this for dues.All you get is ALL your employees being bitter for years

 

[1AA]

Okay I'm a scumbag I dont know why you would want to keep people on the payroll if there is no work and have everyone be pained by a pay cut especially if you plan to permanently shrink the airline. It's like overloading the lifeboat.

It's a two part cost cutting process.
You know you are fat on the headcount. So you convince the unions to cut pay to save jobs. The second part of the process further reduces costs. You layoff and the pay cuts stayed in effect. AA unions fell for that in 2003 in lieu of a BK filing. Pay cuts and layoffs.

 

[T5towbar]

Layoffs are going to happen anyway, no matter what. Don't know the number, but I'm thinking 30% across all workgroups. Last I checked, there were about 15000 of us on the ramp, (and about that that many in Customer Service) so do the math.

IMHO. I think that they do not want to cut too deep as they did during the merger, as a lot of the people that they wanted to bring back from the recall lists, took other jobs, and didn't come back. (That is what happened in my hub) We wound up being very short in a lot of areas, which led to a lot of bad things. It took a while to recover and some hiring had to be done as well. We also lost market share as well. So I guess they do not want to make that mistake. But as many are or will be coming off COLAS, etc, there shouldn't be cutting hours, as people are already doing/did their share to help out. If you want people to leave, spend some money. $$$$$

I've seen this before. First you say you have more employees than needed to run the operation. Then you say you would rather cut pay and keep employees on the payroll. Then you know what comes next?
You end up laying off anyway and the ones that took the cut in pay got screwed because layoffs happened anyway.

Yup............ Let the chips fall where they may on Oct. 1st.

 

[ALUS78]

Layoffs are going to happen anyway, no matter what. Don't know the number, but I'm thinking 30% across all workgroups. Last I checked, there were about 15000 of us on the ramp, (and about that that many in Customer Service) so do the math.

IMHO. I think that they do not want to cut too deep as they did during the merger, as a lot of the people that they wanted to bring back from the recall lists, took other jobs, and didn't come back. (That is what happened in my hub) We wound up being very short in a lot of areas, which led to a lot of bad things. It took a while to recover and some hiring had to be done as well. We also lost market share as well. So I guess they do not want to make that mistake. But as many are or will be coming off COLAS, etc, there shouldn't be cutting hours, as people are already doing/did their share to help out. If you want people to leave, spend some money. $$$$$




Yup............ Let the chips fall where they may on Oct. 1st.

I doubt there are go to many jobs for those who get payed off to take, at least not a job that pays the same.

 

[ALUS78]

It's a two part cost cutting process.
You know you are fat on the headcount. So you convince the unions to cut pay to save jobs. The second part of the process further reduces costs. You layoff and the pay cuts stayed in effect. AA unions fell for that in 2003 in lieu of a BK filing. Pay cuts and layoffs.

How much convincing are the unions going to need the more bodies the more dues so the union and company going to be working against you

 

[Kev3188]

I’m sure there will be a full court press from both.

 

[Rogallo]

I doubt there are go to many jobs for those who get payed off to take, at least not a job that pays the same.

What?

 

[dfw gen]

How much convincing are the unions going to need the more bodies the more dues so the union and company going to be working against you

The twu? Not much at all. They probably are asking the iam tight now howmuch they should give back

 

[swamt]

DL is.

There are 2 different programs; an Enhanced Retirement, and an Opt-Out. Your age + years of service have to be more than 70 by year’s end to be eligible for the retirement. Everyone is able to take the Opt-out.
Severance is up to 23 weeks for the retirement and 20 for the opt out. All Earned vacation and PPT (what we use for sick and DAT days) time paid out as well.

Kev.,
Is the earned VAC for just the one year (last year before EO) or is it all years included? In other words, what would be the max amount of days paid of earned Vac, sick and DAT?
It appears early that the 20-23 weeks would be just under 50K, but could equal or increase over with vac, sick and DAT added. I am sure Buck meant to say 50K not 500K over at United.

It's a two part cost cutting process.
You know you are fat on the headcount. So you convince the unions to cut pay to save jobs. The second part of the process further reduces costs. You layoff and the pay cuts stayed in effect. AA unions fell for that in 2003 in lieu of a BK filing. Pay cuts and layoffs.

And it keeps them at the reduced pay when they do come back instead of coming back to a better wage, it's a win-win for both the company and the union.

How much convincing are the unions going to need the more bodies the more dues so the union and company going to be working against you

NONE at all. This asso. works WAY too much hand-n-hand with this company and agreeing to everything they ask for. The asso. will simply cave to anything the company wants and in return the company will do the reduced pay and/or hours or a combo of both, and then later on, say by end of year they will scream they need to layoff in order to stay out of BK, and then even after the layoffs the BK filing will follow anyway. It's the exact same playbook they played the last two times a crisis hits. Pay cuts first (to save jobs and union from missing dues) then layoffs second (in order to stay out of BK) then they file for BK anyway and get yet more concessions. Then they will sit on that BK contracts for as long as they can drag it out. Last time was 17-18 years I do believe. And you all didn't get a new contract outside of the BK contract from 2003 until 17 years later. AA made out like a bandit.
This will be the second time AA will get out of a good looking contract shortly after it was just signed in. They did it last time after 9-11, and now they will try it again...