April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[freedom]

I used to think PHX would get cut ... but I've been told that the landing fees are 135 dollars in LAX vs 35 bucks here in PHX ... that makes a STRONG argument for keeping and even growing PHX ...

I used to be worried , but the others have talked me into not being so scared ..

 

[necigrad]

That's actually a DECENT use of logic there, except for two problems. One is that it's not just landing fees. The second is that, using your logic, you've just made LAS, which has NO landing fees, the main hub for every airline.

 

[ograc]

I used to think PHX would get cut ... but I've been told that the landing fees are 135 dollars in LAX vs 35 bucks here in PHX ... that makes a STRONG argument for keeping and even growing PHX ...

I used to be worried , but the others have talked me into not being so scared ..

Although landing fees may be taken into consideration, comparing the two, I believe origin traffic is a big driver behind the final decision. Not sure which;.LAX or PHX has more.

 

[mike33]

Although landing fees may be taken into consideration, comparing the two, I believe origin traffic is a big driver behind the final decision. Not sure which;.LAX or PHX has more.

Most times it goes by landing a/c wgt now days....$?? per 1,000 lbs......i believe. But anyway, i cant see phx being only 35$ per. that i think would be a bargain.

Example LAX :
a. Permitted Air Carriers

• $57.00 for each landing of aircraft having a maximum gross landing
  weight of 12,500 pounds or less.
• $109.00 for each landing of aircraft having a maximum gross landing weight of more than 12,501 pounds up to and including 25,000 pounds.
• $3.57 per 1,000 pounds of maximum gross landing weight for each landing of aircraft-cargo having a maximum gross landing weight of more than 25,000 pounds, provided the landing fee payment is received by the Los Angeles World Airports within 20 days following the end of the calendar month of operation.
• $4.36 per 1,000 pounds of maximum gross landing weight for each landing of aircraft-passenger having a maximum gross landing weight of more than 25,000 pounds, provided the landing fee payment is received by the Los Angeles World Airports within 20 days following the end of the calendar month of operation
• RDU:
• 
  
  [background=rgb(30, 61, 84)]Landing Fees - $1.39/ 1000lb.[/background]​
  
  
  [background=rgb(30, 61, 84)]Terminal Fees - $88/ sq ft.[/background]​

 

[700UW]

http://www.lawa.org/...arketShare.aspx

AA is #1 in LAX for 2012

The combined UA and CO is #1 for 2013, after the US/AA merger, AA will be #1 again.

And LAX O&D is one of the top in the US, PHX isnt.

The data I found shows LAX #1 and PHX#9

 

[robbedagain]

PHX WILL BE CUT just dont know how bad it will be you dont need a hub in btwn dfw n lax and with lax being larger i think they will be ok vs phx

 

[mike33]

Fly to phx to connect to Mexico and fly RJ's to some destinations

Fly to LAX to connect with the rest of the world

 

[robbedagain]

thats basically what it will come down to mike... its just a matter of time....

 

[T5towbar]

I'm hoping that is not the case but I fear it may be. I'm hoping others on this forum can provide first hand input on what the District's take is on the rejected TA. On another note... I view engaging in meaningless chatter with certain poster's credibility on this forum as a distraction from the credible issues that should be being discussed and considered. I would hope, going forward, posters who have a history of bringing factual information to the table, disengage with the distractions and the distractors.

From what I'm hearing, they are planning to send us back the same TA, dressed up in another suit. They said that they didn't "explain" it properly. Yeah right........ I also hear that there will be no sCO members at the table. I hope that this rumor is false.

I don't understand this union, and it is definitely turning off the members on the sCO side. As I said before, this union is fighting against 3 forces (apathy; anti-union supporters; and the IBT), and the only way this district can bring people over to its side is to show some fight. They know that this TA is DOA if they send the same thing back. Now they will try to have the members vote in person instead of a mail ballot. They are counting on sCO's well known apathy to bring the numbers down even further. We will see.........

 

[Tim Nelson]

From what I'm hearing, they are planning to send us back the same TA, dressed up in another suit. They said that they didn't "explain" it properly. Yeah right........ I also hear that there will be no sCO members at the table. I hope that this rumor is false.

I don't understand this union, and it is definitely turning off the members on the sCO side. As I said before, this union is fighting against 3 forces (apathy; anti-union supporters; and the IBT), and the only way this district can bring people over to its side is to show some fight. They know that this TA is DOA if they send the same thing back. Now they will try to have the members vote in person instead of a mail ballot. They are counting on sCO's well known apathy to bring the numbers down even further. We will see.........

While it is disturbing that the IAM bosses kicked out all sCO negotiating members, it isn't like they were doing you any good. K from ewr became impressed and dazzled with Delaney's 'theories', and JB from IAH never stopped talking about the next AGC spot. So just because you previously had some sCO negotiators, that didn't mean you had a voice. Besides those sCO negotiators hadn't a clue or any education about what they were doing anyways. That's how Delaney picks them. That being said, sCO ought to have someone in there but Delaney chose otherwise. I agree with you about the fight. Unfortunately, the eboard of this union sucks up to Delaney and has decided to 'free load' on the membership dime instead of engaging the membership at all. Another ta like the first one, and I don't think the sUA members will hold out for the IAM and it could spell 'doom' for the IAM in this industry. regards,

 

[ograc]

From what I'm hearing, they are planning to send us back the same TA, dressed up in another suit. They said that they didn't "explain" it properly. Yeah right........ I also hear that there will be no sCO members at the table. I hope that this rumor is false.

I don't understand this union, and it is definitely turning off the members on the sCO side. As I said before, this union is fighting against 3 forces (apathy; anti-union supporters; and the IBT), and the only way this district can bring people over to its side is to show some fight. They know that this TA is DOA if they send the same thing back. Now they will try to have the members vote in person instead of a mail ballot. They are counting on sCO's well known apathy to bring the numbers down even further. We will see.........

Are you suggesting the approach going forward by the District will be "same Ho... new dress"? Although I did not disclose peviously, before soliciting input from what others had heard from the District, I have heard option 2 from a Grievance Chairpersons Conference attendee and a UA AGC. Option 2 being... the TA was rejected because of an uneducated membership, not enough time to explain in detail the TA, problems with the mail in ballot procedure and get this... the opposition on Facebook. The strategy of voting in person at one's local lodge seems to be an attempt to bring the numbers down. Especially on the sCO's side. Does this strategy, going forward, reflect a Leadership Team that is out of touch with the membership's true expectations? Should we expect as much from the district on the US side of contract negotiations?

 

[ograc]

While it is disturbing that the IAM bosses kicked out all sCO negotiating members, it isn't like they were doing you any good. K from ewr became impressed and dazzled with Delaney's 'theories', and JB from IAH never stopped talking about the next AGC spot. So just because you previously had some sCO negotiators, that didn't mean you had a voice. Besides those sCO negotiators hadn't a clue or any education about what they were doing anyways. That's how Delaney picks them. That being said, sCO ought to have someone in there but Delaney chose otherwise. I agree with you about the fight. Unfortunately, the eboard of this union sucks up to Delaney and has decided to 'free load' on the membership dime instead of engaging the membership at all. Another ta like the first one, and I don't think the sUA members will hold out for the IAM and it could spell 'doom' for the IAM in this industry. regards,

The district is free to choose their own path. If they choose the latter of the two options (as previously posted) they are subject to the consequences. I agree...the consequences of pursuing the road of option 2, with many bargaining units in the industry, including Fleet Service at AA/US, will be "doom" for the IAM. I would strongly encourage the IAM and the District Leadership to choose wisely at this fork in the road.

 

[robbedagain]

orgac i hear ya on that bro that ole t/a that ua had that was rejected should truly serve as a wake up call no excuse for a piece of sh!t contract that protects just the hubs...

 

[T5towbar]

orgac i hear ya on that bro that ole t/a that ua had that was rejected should truly serve as a wake up call no excuse for a piece of sh!t contract that protects just the hubs...

What protection for the hubs? I'm in a hub and it sure doesn't offer protection for many of my fellow co-workers. And forget about the line stations. I don't know what hub is most junior.

This TA protects no one because it does not provide any scope.

 

[robbedagain]

T5 i thought that the last ta that was shot down would have protected the hubs only and outsource the rest at ual? i may have misread what had been posted i do apologize but i interpetted that ua T/A as only protecting the hubs yet gave up all the other cities best of luck to you and the rest of the ua folks whats next?