AFA MEC E-line "New USAirways"

[rjh]

I'm (sort of) with Parker on this.

The IAM and AFA "business" when not meeting with the company is union business. Ergo, why should the company pay for it? "Representing the members" is a problem of the union, not the company. "Representing the members" is not company business. I'm sort of suprised that the old US paid for this type of thing in the first place.

That said, VPs should only be space positive on company business, and only then in Y. On their own time/dime, it's to the back of the bus. I would not be flying vendors around either (in fact, I'd require potential vendors to buy their freaking tickets on US).

The former is the more important point here. That AFA has multiple LECs or that the IAM has one GC representing 20 stations is the unions' problem, not US'.

I agree 100% on both counts. In many cases, union reps & company execs should not even travel positive space on company business. If Doug has to go to DC to meet with Senators or the FAA, or if a manager has interviews scheduled with employees in another city, that's all one thing.

But, many "company business" trips can be scheduled when it is most likely they will get a seat.

Same goes for union business. If there is a negotiation scheduled with the company, then positive space is it. BUt going out to meet with emploees in the field . that can be scheduled at the most optimum days of the week and times.

The company did not choose for the employees to be represented by the union, neither did the non-union employees. Why should we (and especially the passengers), risk not getting a seat so union reps can fly out to meetings with the head of their particular union?

 

[PITbull]

As I read this the thing that leaps out at me is the disparity between "Management" and Labor Leadership when it comes to Non-Rev travel.

Anyone above a certain level on the non union side gets space positve while Labor Leaders go begging.

When you have two sets of rules you create divisions that do not need to exist in an organization that already has to many.

When you create an organization where in some regards EVERYone is equal it fosters teamwork which improves productivity, which improves profits which benefit everyone.
I could totally support Parkers point of view if everyone except the VP's traveled the with the same Non-Rev status as the balance of the workforce does. That would be fair.

And your point of view is totally reasonable. If you present this to DP, he will give you the same answer he gave me back in October...its a perk for the execs to keep them from bouncing to another airline for the perk.

BS!

 

[hp_fa]

And your point of view is totally reasonable. If you present this to DP, he will give you the same answer he gave me back in October...its a perk for the execs to keep them from bouncing to another airline for the perk.

BS!

Gee, I would have thought just being an exec at Airways and making the big bucks would have been enough to keep them. Also, for them to move doesn't there need to be a spot for them to move to and don't they already have their cream of the crop?

May I toss a BS flag now?

 

[ClueByFour]

And your point of view is totally reasonable. If you present this to DP, he will give you the same answer he gave me back in October...its a perk for the execs to keep them from bouncing to another airline for the perk.

I'd buy that with the old HP crew--they did make money before buying US.

Now, unless Parker cleans out the last of the cruft really, really fast (tomorrow), I don't buy it now. The airline is losing money again. The big execs are not cutting the mustard.

 

[PITbull]

What's really funny in retrospect, Forbes Magazine did a huge article back in April or May of 2003 catapolting Dave Siegel as the "Man who would revolutionize the airline industry".
I sure would like to contact the writer of the article and ask him to interview the "King" and ask just what is he doing now?????

I just can't find the article, damn it.

Now, Wall street is praising Doug Parker and saying he is going to catapolt USAirways into greatness.

Well, if this ya-hoo isn't listening to his customers, nor his employees, he isn't going anywhere but home every night.

 

[rjh]

Gee, I would have thought just being an exec at Airways and making the big bucks would have been enough to keep them. Also, for them to move doesn't there need to be a spot for them to move to and don't they already have their cream of the crop?

May I toss a BS flag now?

I certainly agree that execs should only get positive space travel for company business, and should fly SA like the rest of us on vacation.

But I see the point about keeping that benefit so we don't lose the good ones. And keep in mind that our execs are paid well below the industry standard.

 

[700UW]

Doug is paid more then the CEO of WN and B6.

WN is the most profitable airline and until last quarter B6 was profitable also.

 

[700UW]

When it becomes Piney Bob's US Aviation, then you can tell me what to post till then, don't waste your time and energy.

NOTE #2: For an exampe of how to accomplish the above read the book "Iacocca"! He took ZERO salary and a ton of stock. If the company was successful then so was he. If not he lost big time. This move got Labor on his side and he was a tough negotiator too. When he finally turned Chrysler around he became a wealthy man. Far wealthier then Wolf/Gangwal/Siegel/Cohen put together. WHY because he put his fortune and reputation on the line with the employees and no one cared if he got rich because they knew the deal upfront.

Gee Bob, take your own advice the above has nothing to do with Positive Space Travel for Union Reps.

 

[tahitigirl]

As a f/a who paid $468.00 in union dues last year (just finished my taxes yesterday) I don't see a problem with the union getting space positive travel for company business only. To be honest I never realized that they received space positive travel for anything else. Why should the company pay for travel for the union for anything else? I don't think anyone should get space positive travel unless on company business and this includes the guys at the top.

 

[700UW]

Any jackass can take a paragraph out of context to make a point!

Guess you don't like it when you are proven to do the very thing you accuse someone else of doing.

Keep up the good work bobby, lol!

 

[Paul]

AFA MEC E-line "New USAirways", March 20, 2006 "Union disrespect"

Let's get this one back in line folks.

Thanks

 

[tahitigirl]

Well Unions live and die over the concept of "Past Practice" which in our ever changing economic climate is no longer realistic. If you study the collapse of "Big Steel" one of the largest single reasons for failure was clause 2b of the 1959 contract which was a "Past Practices" clause.

It's funny you bring up "Big Steel", I've been listening to a book on CD called Good to Great by Jim Collins. Throughout the book he talks a lot about the steel industry and how a small company call Newcor came along and whipped the big boys rear. About getting the right people on the bus and making the necessary changes to make a good company great.

While I've been listening to the book I've thought about our company and the changes in the last few months. I don't see it as disrespect to change the travel benefits for the union. Nor do I believe the union really needs to be all that involved in the design of new aircraft. What our union needs to concentrate on is creating a new contract that will benefit the f/a group and yes the company.

After reading that letter from Mike I felt the urge to send him some cheese (for his whine).

 

[700UW]

It is not whining, apparently you have not traveled to represent a member during peak travel times and the member would have never been able to get with the union rep unless the rep has positive space travel.

I am speaking from experience.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well Unions live and die over the concept of "Past Practice" which in our ever changing economic climate is no longer realistic. If you study the collapse of "Big Steel" one of the largest single reasons for failure was clause 2b of the 1959 contract which was a "Past Practices" clause.

Past practice swings both ways. Sometimes the company cites it too. The fact is if companies want to make changes they can, but if the change is in something covered by the contract they have to negotiate with the union for them. Since most changes involve a means for the company to save or earn more , often at the expense of the worker, then why shouldnt the worker demand some benifit? If two corporations have a contract and one party wants to change the deal, to their own benifit, is the other party obliged to consent?

 

[PITbull]

I certainly agree that execs should only get positive space travel for company business, and should fly SA like the rest of us on vacation.

But I see the point about keeping that benefit so we don't lose the good ones. And keep in mind that our execs are paid well below the industry standard.

So does the rest of labor. That's why DP touts that we have the industry LEADING contracts...meaning low of the lowest.

Any jackass can take a paragraph out of context to make a point! The point is/was that true leaders recognize the need for uniform policies throughout the chain of command which applies to executives traveling in the same manner as Labor leaders. So their style AND approach is relevent NOT their total compensation or the compensation of other CEO's now a comparisson of other Non-Rev policies would be appropriate.

As for your comment PITbull that "That's the way it's always been" if we follow that logic, Dougie should have taken his bonus because CEO's at US "ALWAYS" put themselves ahead of workers.

Actually Bob, DP only deferred it; he didn't refuse it. Refusing it would mean to either not defer it or give it to an organization like the Pegusus Project.

As a f/a who paid $468.00 in union dues last year (just finished my taxes yesterday) I don't see a problem with the union getting space positive travel for company business only. To be honest I never realized that they received space positive travel for anything else. Why should the company pay for travel for the union for anything else? I don't think anyone should get space positive travel unless on company business and this includes the guys at the top.

Space positive is only for company business. When the officers are at the office in PIT, what do you think they do? Its grievances, scheduling issues, communication, meetings etc...everything and anything that has to do with enforcing the contract. You don't work as efficiently from home as you do in an office setting, and they MUST be in the office so the f/as have access to the MEC officers as well.