AMR/APA might be nearing a deal!

[Ifly2]

No pay proposal yet...

Scope not worked out...

Gonna' be awhile... and 3/1/1, or any scope gives will make it DOA

Good time to get patient... real patient...

 

[Super FLUF]

Jim Thomas - "Director of Pilot Engagement"

Boy, that sounds really wonderful doesn't it?

Previous poster correct - no pay proposal from the company, and still not in the same universe on scope.

The railway labor act is a punchline.

 

[damajagua]

After reading the chief pilot update I wonder if the alternate
landing he is talking about is bankruptcy.

 

[Super FLUF]

After reading the chief pilot update I wonder if the alternate landing he is talking about is bankruptcy.

They are threatening bankruptcy, a merger, and/or dramatic shrinkage at the negotiating table. They will not say this publicly, but what goes on behind closed doors during negotiations is another matter.

 

[Birdman]

No pay proposal yet...

Scope not worked out...

Gonna' be awhile... and 3/1/1, or any scope gives will make it DOA

Good time to get patient... real patient...

Has the pilot rank and file come to the same conclusion as the mechanics, that the current agreement trumps any agreement their leadership can broker in the near future? The pilots and mechanics replaced their leaderships and appear no closer to a deal than before. It's apparent that this is one of those "It's the economy, stupid" moments.

 

[Bob Owens]

View attachment Confidentiality Agreement.pdf

They are threatening bankruptcy, a merger, and/or dramatic shrinkage at the negotiating table. They will not say this publicly, but what goes on behind closed doors during negotiations is another matter.

Thats why I wont sign a letter of Confidentiality agreement with the company, its like giving them a license to lie.

 

[Rogallo]

The pilots and mechanics replaced their leaderships and appear no closer to a deal than before.

And who is the new 'Leader' of the mechanics? I haven't heard. Did they replace the unelected, unaccountable, dues stealing bunch in the int'l?

 

[Buck]

And who is the new 'Leader' of the mechanics? I haven't heard. Did they replace the unelected, unaccountable, dues stealing bunch in the int'l?

I believe Birdman is referring to the election of new local officers.....

 

[Bob Owens]

I believe Birdman is referring to the election of new local officers.....

It is a valid sentiment, the Pilots changed the guy in charge, we change the witnesses. The fustration is understandable and shared but even though they have more control they(pilots) dont have a deal yet either, but then again they are going for industry leading while we are going for middle of the road.

 

[Rogallo]

I believe Birdman is referring to the election of new local officers.....

Local officers... We all know who's in charge of the ATD!!

 

[Buck]

Local officers... We all know who's in charge of the ATD!!

The President?

 

[strikeforce]

It is a valid sentiment, the Pilots changed the guy in charge, we change the witnesses. The fustration is understandable and shared but even though they have more control they(pilots) dont have a deal yet either, but then again they are going for industry leading while we are going for middle of the road.

Bob, with all due respect please stop misleading the membership by calling the local negotiators "witnesses". It's been made quite apparent that the INTL "owns" the contract but, it's also very apparent to the membership that the local presidents have a clear hand in some the decisions that directly affect how negotiations progress, like the vote the local presidents took last month to write a formal letter to the NMB if negotiations fail to produce a T/A this month. Your name, along with 16 or so other presidents, and how YOU voted are on official TWU documents that are part of the minutes taken in negotiations, and passed along to the membership during the TWU's official update......that's all the membership has as far as updates, and that's what the membership will use to judge the performance of our negotiating team.....as far as I'm concerned You and the other local presidents will be held accountable for the fate of our negotiations. So, please stop calling yourself a witness to negotiations because the membership doesn't view it that way.

The INTL isolates themselves from responsibility by placing 17 presidents in the line of fire......You, Bob, will be the one defending the actions of the baffoons (INTL) if a bad T/A comes back to the membership!

I said it before, the 17 local presidents voted to bring back the rejected T/A, not the INTL. I presume one of the local presidents made a motion to accept the T/A, and it was seconded by another local president, and then a vote was taken.....and a roll call vote was needed to bring it back, right Bob???? Nowhere in that statement did I hear that the INTL held a gun to any of the president's heads to hold a vote. You guys decided through the democratic process using Robert's Rules of Order. That demonstrates that it was 17 local presidents, and not 17 witnesses, decided our fate.

Bob, you and the other local presidents have to live with the terms of any T/A....I'm having a hard time understanding the thought process behind voting in favor of bringing back a POS T/A just for the sake of appeasing the NMB or INTL just because they tell you to. Isn't that what happened when the local presidents voted to bring back the rejected T/A??? WHY?????

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, with all due respect please stop misleading the membership by calling the local negotiators "witnesses". It's been made quite apparent that the INTL "owns" the contract but, it's also very apparent to the membership that the local presidents have a clear hand in some the decisions that directly affect how negotiations progress, like the vote the local presidents took last month to write a formal letter to the NMB if negotiations fail to produce a T/A this month. Your name, along with 16 or so other presidents, and how YOU voted are on official TWU documents that are part of the minutes taken in negotiations, and passed along to the membership during the TWU's official update......that's all the membership has as far as updates, and that's what the membership will use to judge the performance of our negotiating team.....as far as I'm concerned You and the other local presidents will be held accountable for the fate of our negotiations. So, please stop calling yourself a witness to negotiations because the membership doesn't view it that way.

The INTL isolates themselves from responsibility by placing 17 presidents in the line of fire......You, Bob, will be the one defending the actions of the baffoons (INTL) if a bad T/A comes back to the membership!

I said it before, the 17 local presidents voted to bring back the rejected T/A, not the INTL. I presume one of the local presidents made a motion to accept the T/A, and it was seconded by another local president, and then a vote was taken.....and a roll call vote was needed to bring it back, right Bob???? Nowhere in that statement did I hear that the INTL held a gun to any of the president's heads to hold a vote. You guys decided through the democratic process using Robert's Rules of Order. That demonstrates that it was 17 local presidents, and not 17 witnesses, decided our fate.

Bob, you and the other local presidents have to live with the terms of any T/A....I'm having a hard time understanding the thought process behind voting in favor of bringing back a POS T/A just for the sake of appeasing the NMB or INTL just because they tell you to. Isn't that what happened when the local presidents voted to bring back the rejected T/A??? WHY?????

Show me where Roberts Rules of order has weighted votes. About half the negotiators are Presidents, half arent. I did not vote to bring back the TA so I cant tell you why others did, ask your President.

By the way I made the motion to get released back in April, was told we needed to wait until the company actually gave us a counter proposal, then in May when we got the counter proposal was told that by June the company will have a better idea of what they could offer, then in June was told that the Subcommittee is not authorized to make that call, then in July we had the vote of the full committee, it passed and Little asked us to wait till Larry Gibbons addressed the committees, said that he would ask for the release if we did not have a TA by the end of that week in August, after the NMB said they were done with us and Gibbons, former head of Aircon, told us we needed to move closer to the company (still doing his part to control airline labor costs) the International said the company was willing to continue talks but "only if they were productive" , now we were into September, big board meeting and Pilots negotiations, so we waited till October, in October your Pres pulled the Roll Call and now it was voted down even though the motion had passed back in July, the motion was then made to wait till after the November session, it passed. So thats where we are now. My gut feeling is that in November there wont be a request either, if they cant jam through a concessionary deal then it will be that we dont want to piss off the NMB and interfere with the Fleet contract or something. Hopefully I'm wrong but we shall see.

Its true, we are more than witnesses, not to underestimate the imporance having witnesses (sometimes it can change the outcome) the International knows that without Local support none of their concessionary deals it has brokered over the last few decades would have passed. Its been this way as long as I've been here. A crappy deal goes through and the International says "dont blame us blame the committee" but in reality the International brokers the deal. The committee doesnt even meet with the company at all anymore, two, or three representatives from the International and one Local President are the only ones who meet. I believe the objective is to get the members of the committee to support whatever it is the International promised the company. You see back in May of 2010 they screwed up, one of the things in the TA was something that came from the TWU that the committee never saw until AFTER it was accepted by the company. How can it be said that we negotiated the deal when things are put in there that we never even saw or discussed until AFTER the company accepted it? This was the Spin off protection language that Don was waiving around saying that "its industry leading, nobody has anything close to it, this is as good as its going to get and we should not do counter proposals". To me the language explicitely stated that they could spin off up to 25% of the value of the operation and not do anything for our guys and that if they spun off more than 25% in one year that the new owner had to offer employment to displaced workers, in other words it was garbage. The motion was made to accept the deal as is and you know the rest. Here is the real kicker, as soon as it passed the first words out of Dons mouth was "Remember YOU GUYS OWN IT". Afterwards the Prefunding was changed around a bit as well.

Over the last few years many faces have changed on the M&R Committee, all of them elected, the only one that has not changed is the Chairman who is not elected and has not gone three years without a raise either. I guess its easy to wait things out when you get raises every year and your quality of life isnt affected either way.

I think we are a bit off topic and this should be on the M&R Negotiations thread.

 

[strikeforce]

Show me where Roberts Rules of order has weighted votes. About half the negotiators are Presidents, half arent. I did not vote to bring back the TA so I cant tell you why others did, ask your President.

By the way I made the motion to get released back in April, was told we needed to wait until the company actually gave us a counter proposal, then in May when we got the counter proposal was told that by June the company will have a better idea of what they could offer, then in June was told that the Subcommittee is not authorized to make that call, then in July we had the vote of the full committee, it passed and Little asked us to wait till Larry Gibbons addressed the committees, said that he would ask for the release if we did not have a TA by the end of that week in August, after the NMB said they were done with us and Gibbons, former head of Aircon, told us we needed to move closer to the company (still doing his part to control airline labor costs) the International said the company was willing to continue talks but "only if they were productive" , now we were into September, big board meeting and Pilots negotiations, so we waited till October, in October your Pres pulled the Roll Call and now it was voted down even though the motion had passed back in July, the motion was then made to wait till after the November session, it passed. So thats where we are now. My gut feeling is that in November there wont be a request either, if they cant jam through a concessionary deal then it will be that we dont want to piss off the NMB and interfere with the Fleet contract or something. Hopefully I'm wrong but we shall see.

Its true, we are more than witnesses, not to underestimate the imporance having witnesses (sometimes it can change the outcome) the International knows that without Local support none of their concessionary deals it has brokered over the last few decades would have passed. Its been this way as long as I've been here. A crappy deal goes through and the International says "dont blame us blame the committee" but in reality the International brokers the deal. The committee doesnt even meet with the company at all anymore, two, or three representatives from the International and one Local President are the only ones who meet. I believe the objective is to get the members of the committee to support whatever it is the International promised the company. You see back in May of 2010 they screwed up, one of the things in the TA was something that came from the TWU that the committee never saw until AFTER it was accepted by the company. How can it be said that we negotiated the deal when things are put in there that we never even saw or discussed until AFTER the company accepted it? This was the Spin off protection language that Don was waiving around saying that "its industry leading, nobody has anything close to it, this is as good as its going to get and we should not do counter proposals". To me the language explicitely stated that they could spin off up to 25% of the value of the operation and not do anything for our guys and that if they spun off more than 25% in one year that the new owner had to offer employment to displaced workers, in other words it was garbage. The motion was made to accept the deal as is and you know the rest. Here is the real kicker, as soon as it passed the first words out of Dons mouth was "Remember YOU GUYS OWN IT". Afterwards the Prefunding was changed around a bit as well.

Over the last few years many faces have changed on the M&R Committee, all of them elected, the only one that has not changed is the Chairman who is not elected and has not gone three years without a raise either. I guess its easy to wait things out when you get raises every year and your quality of life isnt affected either way.I think we are a bit off topic and this should be on the M&R Negotiations thread.

All I can say is thanks for the insight into what's really happening at negotiations. This is classic INTL crap that most members don't hear about. And, this is the very reason why there needs to be OBSERVERS at negotiations. Phat Don and the boys are fat, DUMB, and happy because they don't have to live under the terms of our 9 year raping.

 

[Super FLUF]

All base chiefs flew to DFW today. The prevailing rumor is that they are being schooled on how to sell an offer about to be unveiled by the company to the rank and file.

I wonder if local area used car salesmen have been called in as consultants.