American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[WeAAsles]

“Fleet has been done for over a year, other than a few tedious things”

“But, there now seems to be movement over the past month for fleet. That's why mediators suggested they focus on fleet things to wrap it up”

“Fleet should wiggle out a TA soon”

Fleet has been finished for over a year. Fleet will soon be wrapping things up. But Fleet has been done for over a year. Fleet just needs to wrap up a few of the items they’ve been done with over a year ago.

And BTW I have the TA and some Beach Front property I’d like to share with the readers here.

 

[B737 driver]

And I'm also convinced that there will be a JCBA for fleet fairly soon, from what I was told. The whole thing has been wrapped up anyways for over a year but the mediator 'very insistently' made the association knock off it's BS about shelving Fleet until MX signs. Fleet is basically done and has been. It's moving quickly because the mediator saw that the damn thing was pretty much done anyways. MX will be solo as it is a gulf apart on scope issues.

I hope so, let maintenance stand on it's own, and let ramp move on. If I was a ramp I certainly wouldn't want to be held up by maintenance.

 

[WeAAsles]

I hope so, let maintenance stand on it's own, and let ramp move on. If I was a ramp I certainly wouldn't want to be held up by maintenance.

Although some would rather have you believe we are. We’re not exactly suffering here in Fleet on either the IAM or TWU side.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I hope so, let maintenance stand on it's own, and let ramp move on. If I was a ramp I certainly wouldn't want to be held up by maintenance.

MX and Ramp should be separate. There simply is no reason to have them together since the NMB and union separated certifications post Eastern.
Your issues are different than fleet service. MX is better off without fleet, and fleet is better off with MX. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever when neither can do self help and most of the merger synergies have already been 'seamless' with the TWU dues grab/cross utilization that abolished the complexities which would have otherwise been incompatible with the flight crews/aircraft.

MX is dealing with global issues. Fleet isn't. Fleet isn't competing with mexico. You can thank Clinton and NAFTA for blowing up the MX craft and dwindling it down 80%. Once there were no more taxes on aircraft parts, hangars started sprouting up everywhere south of the border. That said, there is a monster gulf between where management is and where the Association is regarding scope. The scope that management offered is much improved upon United and Southwest, so the company has all of the leverage. Peterson can ice MX for a decade if he wants, and maybe I would if I were in charge, but Peterson will most likely toss all of the lesser MX aside and cut a deal as well, but fleet is a done deal that needs to be voted upon.

To be sure, imo, nobody should lose scope. Not when a company is making billions.

 

[PIEDMONT784]

You can thank Clinton and NAFTA for blowing up the MX craft and dwindling it down 80%.

You are lying again... tell the f-ing TRUTH... NAFTA was a GOP endeavor from it's inception... It was proposed by Republican Ronald Reagan...
In 1992, the NAFTA treaty was signed by outgoing President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Clinton was sent the bill AFTER it was PASSED by REPUBLICANS in both the Senate and the House.

In fact, In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted AGAINST NAFTA than for it.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL SIGNING OF NAFTA BY H.W. BUSH !

https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...crats-supported-nafta/?utm_term=.43b270ffa511

 

[WeAAsles]

MX and Ramp should be separate. There simply is no reason to have them together since the NMB and union separated certifications post Eastern.
Your issues are different than fleet service. MX is better off without fleet, and fleet is better off with MX. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever when neither can do self help and most of the merger synergies have already been 'seamless' with the TWU dues grab/cross utilization that abolished the complexities which would have otherwise been incompatible with the flight crews/aircraft.

MX is dealing with global issues. Fleet isn't. Fleet isn't competing with mexico. You can thank Clinton and NAFTA for blowing up the MX craft and dwindling it down 80%. Once there were no more taxes on aircraft parts, hangars started sprouting up everywhere south of the border. That said, there is a monster gulf between where management is and where the Association is regarding scope. The scope that management offered is much improved upon United and Southwest, so the company has all of the leverage. Peterson can ice MX for a decade if he wants, and maybe I would if I were in charge, but Peterson will most likely toss all of the lesser MX aside and cut a deal as well, but fleet is a done deal that needs to be voted upon.

To be sure, imo, nobody should lose scope. Not when a company is making billions.

You are lying again... tell the f-ing TRUTH... NAFTA was a GOP endeavor from it's inception... It was proposed by Republican Ronald Reagan...
In 1992, NAFTA was signed by outgoing President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Clinton was sent the bill AFTER it was PASSED by REPUBLICANS in both the Senate and the House.

In fact, In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted AGAINST NAFTA than for it.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL SIGNING OF NAFTA BY H.W. BUSH !

https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...crats-supported-nafta/?utm_term=.43b270ffa511

BOTH Political Parties shared responsibility for NAFTA.

“After much consideration and emotional discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.[23]Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[24][25]Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[26] NAFTA then replaced the previous Canada-US FTA.”

 

[PIEDMONT784]

BOTH Political Parties shared responsibility for NAFTA.

True... however guys like Nelson want everyone to believe it was exclusively Clinton and Democrats that are responsible. This of course is for the reinforcement of his partisan agenda.

Since the GOP conceived the bill, negotiated the deal, and passed it through congress with a majority, that makes Clinton about 25% responsible, and the GOP 75% responsible.

P.S. Clinton was not supposed to win the presidency, or sign NAFTA. The GOP was poised for H.W. to finalize the bill in his second term, and proclaim it as a Republican victory. History shows that Perot screwed all that up for them up with his independent run, which ultimately stole enough votes from Bush to elect Clinton!!

Democrats, and particularly Ross Perot, were OPPOSED to NAFTA. Ironically, MOST Republican voters supported it then!


BUSH SIGNS NAFTA TREATY -- ACTUAL VIDEO

 

[B737 driver]

MX and Ramp should be separate. There simply is no reason to have them together since the NMB and union separated certifications post Eastern.
Your issues are different than fleet service. MX is better off without fleet, and fleet is better off with MX. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever when neither can do self help and most of the merger synergies have already been 'seamless' with the TWU dues grab/cross utilization that abolished the complexities which would have otherwise been incompatible with the flight crews/aircraft.

MX is dealing with global issues. Fleet isn't. Fleet isn't competing with mexico. You can thank Clinton and NAFTA for blowing up the MX craft and dwindling it down 80%. Once there were no more taxes on aircraft parts, hangars started sprouting up everywhere south of the border. That said, there is a monster gulf between where management is and where the Association is regarding scope. The scope that management offered is much improved upon United and Southwest, so the company has all of the leverage. Peterson can ice MX for a decade if he wants, and maybe I would if I were in charge, but Peterson will most likely toss all of the lesser MX aside and cut a deal as well, but fleet is a done deal that needs to be voted upon.

To be sure, imo, nobody should lose scope. Not when a company is making billions.

Well if Peterson wants on time bags, and happy customers, he will probably settle ramp, and push maintenance to the side. SWA has made all the groups happy that move the product. They will pay us, but want work rule changes for more cash. We not me personally rejected less pay for scope, it was an 8 dollar hour raise. But people wanted more, will we go 7 or more years for a 5 year deal, only AMFA negotiators can answer that question.

 

[Tim Nelson]

True... however guys like Nelson want everyone to believe it was exclusively Clinton and Democrats that are responsible. This of course is for the reinforcement of his partisan agenda.

Since the GOP conceived the bill, negotiated the deal, and passed it through congress, that makes Clinton about 25% responsible, and the GOP 75% responsible.

P.S. Clinton was not supposed to win the presidency, or sign NAFTA. The GOP was poised for H.W. to finalize the bill in his second term, and proclaim it as a Republican victory. Ross Perot screwed all that up for them up with his independent run, which ultimately stole enough votes from Bush to elect Clinton!!

BUSH SIGNS NAFTA -- ACTUAL VIDEO

Look, the Republicans loved it as well, it just tickles me and other independents when you and other democrats don't 'Fess Up" about costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs with right leaning trade bills. Obama may have been the worst but thankfully Trump nixed the TPP deal which would have been a disaster for unions cuz of the strange and terrible proposal. At any rate, NAFTA wiped out 80% of the MX jobs in this industry. Thanks Clinton.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law

 

[B737 driver]

Look, the Republicans loved it as well, it just tickles me and other independents when you and other democrats don't 'Fess Up" about costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs with right leaning trade bills. Obama may have been the worst but thankfully Trump nixed the TPP deal which would have been a disaster for unions cuz of the strange and terrible proposal. At any rate, NAFTA wiped out 80% of the MX jobs in this industry. Thanks Clinton.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law

It doesn't matter who pushed it, both sides wanted it, and maintenance paid the price. Look at our group at SWA , basically trying to get a pay scale.After almost 7 years-everything stayed the same. Even if we reach over 800 a/ c or 1000. With our limited language that Swamt loves to crow about, what will we have maybe 3200 to 3500 mechanics, or less. American 10,000 or more.

 

[Tim Nelson]

It doesn't matter who pushed it, both sides wanted it, and maintenance paid the price. Look at our group at SWA , basically trying to get a pay scale.After almost 7 years-everything stayed the same. Even if we reach over 800 a/ c or 1000. With our limited language that Swamt loves to crow about, what will we have maybe 3200 to 3500 mechanics, or less. American 10,000 or more.

I thought you guys turned down a substantial pay raise?

 

[GVPSPIAM]

How did it workout for those mechanics at NW being on their own?

Ramp and MTC at US normally get their TAs at the same time.

Strength in numbers, look at those lonely mechanics at WN, no leverage being on their own.

Timothy Grimm, are you going to post it in two week, like you’ve been saying for months?

I know you don’t care,

DICTIONARY
Search for a word

cred·i·bil·i·ty
/ˌkredəˈbilədē/
noun

1. the quality of being trusted and believed in.
   "the government's loss of credibility"
   synonyms: trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity, character; More
   
   • the quality of being convincing or believable.
     "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility"
     synonyms: plausibility, believability, acceptability, tenability, probability, likelihood, authority, authoritativeness, impressiveness, cogency, weight, validity, soundness; More
     
     
   • another term for street credibility.

 

[GVPSPIAM]

WN gets 12 more 738Ms from a leasing company, deliveries start in July.

Lack of a NEW CBA isn’t harming WN.

 

[GVPSPIAM]

Hey coney, 30 red marks?

Get some help. This is only some.

 

[Tim Nelson]

How did it workout for those mechanics at NW being on their own?

Ramp and MTC at US normally get their TAs at the same time.

Strength in numbers, look at those lonely mechanics at WN, no leverage being on their own.

Timothy Grimm, are you going to post it in two week, like you’ve been saying for months?

I know you don’t care,

DICTIONARY
Search for a word

cred·i·bil·i·ty
/ˌkredəˈbilədē/
noun

1. the quality of being trusted and believed in.
   "the government's loss of credibility"
   synonyms: trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity, character; More
   • the quality of being convincing or believable.
     "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility"
     synonyms: plausibility, believability, acceptability, tenability, probability, likelihood, authority, authoritativeness, impressiveness, cogency, weight, validity, soundness; More
     
     
   • another term for street credibility.

Look, it hasn't worked since Eastern and NAFTA. You can try any model you would like. Obviously, it didn't work at United to have ramp and MX together. It never worked at USAIRWAYS. Two different groups that should be handled independently. There is no evidence that there is any strength in having 30,000 or even 50,000 members on one property here when there is no right to self help, and when the union bit on the dues grab.

Like WN, we can either continue kicking the can and keeping what we have (That's reasonable if we vote a TA down), or we can accept the company's last best offer. There simply is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, NOR have you presented one other than to somehow pin your hopes on a PEB. You will NEVER get to a PEB. Period. Sito even said that with the railway people that the NMB will NOT release them to a PEB. At United, the same thing, Ira Gottleib said it makes NO SENSE to continue dragging things out since it doesn't put additional pressure on the company.

CLTrat's opinion is valid in that he wants to keep what he has. That's a very reasonable opinion. My whole beef with it is that there should be a vote first. Then if people want to take the WN MX route and keep what they have forever then that's fine. Or if people vote on the last offer then that's reasonable too.