April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[P. REZ]

where is the loa? Why are you keeping it from us?

Tim,

If I had a copy of the LOA I would show you.

1. No outsourcing as long as 7 mainline flights per week.

2. No insourcing.

There is nothing in the LOA other then that. We didn't agree to anything else to get that. It was a decent week for US Fleet and I wish you could just accept that.

P. Rez

 

[737823]

You have been quoted as saying "one year protection isn't much to write home about" I beg to differ. Your station was not on the chopping block. Your insensitive and negative comments regarding the LOA speaks volumes. ORD was not on the chopping block because of the existing presence of AA at ORD. Please don't try to insinuate that ORD and JAX are in the same situation. Give credit where credit is due Tim. Whats the fuss?

AA and US at ORD are apples and oranges. It will be some time after the merger, joint CBA, joint seniority abd subsequent integration until they are the same station.

Been nearly three years since CO/UA merged, their stations still aren't integrated. Some stations (ie MIA) are mainline on sCO but express on sUA (thanks IAM), it will take time.

Josh

 

[pjirish317]

Tim, What's the fuss about? The NC accomplished getting BETTER scope for the time being, and you have a problem with this why? IMO, this was a win for US fleet and the NC. Why so negative about the job protection for our members in those cities that "may" have been outsourced?

 

[cltrat]

I think the bottom line is this loa at least prevents the company from doing something they could have already done had they choose too.
I don't necessarily buy into the theory that they wouldn't have anyway because they are looking for merger gov approval. They could have simply spun it as here we are having to close these stations and without the merger there will be more.

That being said I am of the opinion at some point more will close no matter what
hopefully I am wrong.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, What's the fuss about? The NC accomplished getting BETTER scope for the time being, and you have a problem with this why? IMO, this was a win for US fleet and the NC. Why so negative about the job protection for our members in those cities that "may" have been outsourced?

there were two loa. Thankfully the twu posted the loa regarding seniority and i applaud all parties, twu, iam, management as it looks like seniority is going to be seamless. Thats big for ord. But my concerns about the other loa stem from cb comments that said "now that we got that out of the way we can focus on other items until joint talks'. I may not have quoted him exactly but that particular statement kills leverage. Thats why i wanted to see the loa and i dont know why it has to b so secret. PJ, lets wait till we read it, thats all. But the problem still remains. If cb is correct and they have already conceeded a comprehensive proposal then our nc screwed us. 142 has kept a comprehensive proposal and the heat on ah. Ah scored BIGTIME if 141 has shifted. At the end of the day, neither district is going to get a brand new exhaustive contract but the one that folds too quick is gonna get considerably less. I have no problem following 142 lead. They have some line stations that can get whacked probably but they seem to be holding tight. Regards

 

[700UW]

The IAM posted the letter too, its up on the M&R thread.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The IAM posted the letter too, its up on the M&R thread.

atkinson was suppose to post the seniority loa. Hopefully both loa will b posted on 141.

 

[700UW]

142 had it up last night.

 

[freedom]

I'm not terribly interested in following 142's lead ... I think we have our own goals and sets of problems and should worry about how we want to conduct things and not how others are going about it .

 

[700UW]

And hence why you are in the situation that you are in.

There is strength in numbers.

So I see you are happy about the LOA, if so, then why did you throw your coworkers to the street on the transition agreement?

 

[700UW]

Here is the link to the SIL agreement:

http://www.iamdl142.org/Bulletins/2013/US-AirwaysSIL.pdf

 

[charlie Brown]

there were two loa. Thankfully the twu posted the loa regarding seniority and i applaud all parties, twu, iam, management as it looks like seniority is going to be seamless. Thats big for ord. But my concerns about the other loa stem from cb comments that said "now that we got that out of the way we can focus on other items until joint talks'. I may not have quoted him exactly but that particular statement kills leverage. Thats why i wanted to see the loa and i dont know why it has to b so secret. PJ, lets wait till we read it, thats all. But the problem still remains. If cb is correct and they have already conceeded a comprehensive proposal then our nc screwed us. 142 has kept a comprehensive proposal and the heat on ah. Ah scored BIGTIME if 141 has shifted. At the end of the day, neither district is going to get a brand new exhaustive contract but the one that folds too quick is gonna get considerably less. I have no problem following 142 lead. They have some line stations that can get whacked probably but they seem to be holding tight. Regards

Tim
Let me try to clarify for those that may have trouble understanding. As I said in a earlier post, we aren't looking to get a complete new exhaustive contract since the merger was announced. We feel as a committee, that certain things will be better addressed in joint talks. We have been saying this since the merger was announced. There are some specific things we feel we must get our members prior to moving to joint talks. Seniority protection was a must. Scope, while we have made what I consider a very good proposal for article 3 as a whole, the one thing we had to do prior to moving to joint talks was " stop the bleeding " of our jobs and cities. We must also get improvements on the financial side of things before moving to joint talks. Looking at the issues above, this past week, we accomplished what we must have in seniority and scope to get us to the joint talks. We still are working on the financial issues. This in no way means that we are satisfied with scope, it merely means, we got the protection we needed for fleet to get us to joint talks and address it there for the rest of the improvements. The company is very aware of our intent. It is my understanding that 142 is doing the same thing we are. Certain things must be met for them, prior to moving to joint talks. Your entitled to disagree with this approach, which I'm sure you will. Just keep in mind, according to your post about a year ago now, none of this was going to happen. We were going straight into joint talks without getting fleet anything. Now you want to disagree with what we are doing? Lol, I guess that's the beauty of these forums.

 

[freedom]

While there is strength in numbers , there is no strength in crazy ....

I believe in REASONABLE gains ,in fact that's usually where progress can be found ....if other unions want to try to go for the moon more power to them but its gonna be a long ride .

As I've said before I and others accepted that contract because it was either that or work in poverty for who knows how many years .

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim
Let me try to clarify for those that may have trouble understanding. As I said in a earlier post, we aren't looking to get a complete new exhaustive contract since the merger was announced. We feel as a committee, that certain things will be better addressed in joint talks. We have been saying this since the merger was announced. There are some specific things we feel we must get our members prior to moving to joint talks. Seniority protection was a must. Scope, while we have made what I consider a very good proposal for article 3 as a whole, the one thing we had to do prior to moving to joint talks was " stop the bleeding " of our jobs and cities. We must also get improvements on the financial side of things before moving to joint talks. Looking at the issues above, this past week, we accomplished what we must have in seniority and scope to get us to the joint talks. We still are working on the financial issues. This in no way means that we are satisfied with scope, it merely means, we got the protection we needed for fleet to get us to joint talks and address it there for the rest of the improvements. The company is very aware of our intent. It is my understanding that 142 is doing the same thing we are. Certain things must be met for them, prior to moving to joint talks. Your entitled to disagree with this approach, which I'm sure you will. Just keep in mind, according to your post about a year ago now, none of this was going to happen. We were going straight into joint talks without getting fleet anything. Now you want to disagree with what we are doing? Lol, I guess that's the beauty of these forums.

of course i disagree with you because what you did is not going to cover anyone, zippo, when joint talks commence presumably fall of 2014. Then the joint talks themselves will most likely take years. U r doing exactly what i said. At united, afa and ibt first signed no layoff guarantees plus the ibt got a bit more scope.AH owes you a steak for punting on scope/job security because he will have a free hand in less than 12 months. At any rate put up the loa. regards

 

[700UW]

Once again, its all about tim and his personal agenda and his ultimate desire for power.