April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[ograc]

And maybe Tim has a point... what the IAM brought to UA FSAs was a disgrace and even an insult to those agents, even though it did offer more pay, but little in the way of scope protections. Maybe the CO and UA FSAs expected that mergers mean more money, but without the contracting out of stations, and maybe they decided to their credit that the TA was unacceptable?

To the members' credit, based on the outcome of the vote, they certainly did expect more money and better protection of existing work as a result of the merger. The UA NC and the district leadership seemed to be on another page. It is quite evident, based on the outcome of the vote on the TA at UA, there exists a huge disconnect between the memberships' expectations and the district's. The TA at UA was the result of negotiating for a Transition Agreement rather than Section 6 negotiations. Obviously, a failed strategy, in attempting to gain meaningful improvements in wage, benefits, scope and working conditions for the members. Hopefully, for our sake at US Fleet, the district and the US NC learns from failed past strategy. Go for most of your improvements in Section 6... then, and only then, agree to negotiations for a Transition Agreement. Act while you have true leverage. Sticking to the failed strategy used at UA... we are destined to repeat recent history at US IMO.

 

[Tim Nelson]

To the members' credit, based on the outcome of the vote, they certainly did expect more money and better protection of existing work as a result of the merger. The UA NC and the district leadership seemed to be on another page. It is quite evident, based on the outcome of the vote on the TA at UA, there exists a huge disconnect between the memberships' expectations and the district's. The TA at UA was the result of negotiating for a Transition Agreement rather than Section 6 negotiations. Obviously, a failed strategy, in attempting to gain meaningful improvements in wage, benefits, scope and working conditions for the members. Hopefully, for our sake at US Fleet, the district and the US NC learns from failed past strategy. Go for most of your improvements in Section 6... then, and only then, agree to negotiations for a Transition Agreement. Act while you have true leverage. Sticking to the failed strategy used at UA... we are destined to repeat recent history at US IMO.

i agree with all that you said. Certainly there isnt as much leverage once you get stuck in transition talks.One thing to add is that mx is 6 months deeper into negotiations so i think it is wise to not jump in front of mx . I can imagine the iam wanting fleet to settle first with small pay raises and small gains but then after fleet is locked in, mx will do better. Let mx go first.

We should be excited at finally being in section 6. I know some nc was misinforming so im gonna get some videos and facebook sites going so that the eboard doesnt misinform the membership like they tried to at united. The proper information about processes and case study will help equip the membership against any presumed unfair ta supported by the nc. Regards,

 

[necigrad]

As long as these Section 6 negotiations don't go the same as the last one my workgroup was in...

 

[Jester]

Off current topic but......According to some sources LAS FSE is opening up a significant number of positions. (15 FT and 20 PT?)
Also some rumor about returning to HUB status. Is this related to the merger? Anybody out there with better info? I haven't scanned this thread so maybe its already been mentioned.

Supposedly LAS is bumping up staffing because of a change in terminals. I haven't heard a thing about becoming a hub, and AA and US don't have that many flights there. Personally I think the numbers you heard are way high too. It might (IMO) be 15-20 TOTAL.

As there are around 150 former LAS people now in PHX, this topic has been discussed amongst that group with various numbers, reasons, and suspicions about Management.

I have heard anywhere between 10 and 40 people (PT and FT) to be recalled. The reasons have been due to the merger with AA along with some rumor that US will be handling Virgin America daily and WestJet charter operations. Also the moving of current gates in A terminal with plentty of space into D terminal will require more remoting aircraft to pads as operations will be reduced to just 2 gates (prior to merger with AA which is also located in D terminal).

Surprisingly, many former LAS people have no intention in moving back to LAS as they do not care to be bottom of seniority whereas they are in the top half in PHX. Also many feel this recall will be short-lived and they will be furloughed again, but this time without the ability to move back to PHX, but will be given the option to move to PHL or DCA and no one wants that fate. It seems LAS recalled a few people a couple years ago, only to be furloughed six weeks later, so there is a large amount of distrust of Management to repeat prior recalls in LAS.

 

[700UW]

 

[necigrad]

The headcount increase is because US is moving from the A to D gates. This will increase the time for driving to to/from the gates, bagroom, and carousel. The new facilities int he D gates are designed to be all but turnkey expansion when the merger happens. Punch a few holes for doors and BAM bigger facilities.

To be honest (and I'd LOVE to be proven wrong) I think whoever is suggesting that we'll pick up contracts with other airlines needs to be drug tested. US has taken the position of ELIMINATING contract opportunities. It would be stupid to cancel all the LAS cargo contracts they had, furlough all those people (which is the sole reason for the last furlough), and then start picking up contracts and recalling furloughees to cover for that. That's called a ship without a rudder.

I expect less then 20 recalls and ALL will be due to the terminal change. Nothing more.

Something to remember about potential future furloughs in LAS is the AA employees. Because of how things will happen, there will be quite a few AA people that are junior to furloughed US employees. This doens't mean people getting furloughed so others can come back. It does, however, mean that once the merger happens the lowest in senority will be several AA employyes. I don't know how many though.

EDIT: Regarding distrust with management, you're very right there. There's been five furloughs (I think) in LAS, all post US merger. Since they started in (I think) 2008 the company has failed to process one furlough without errors. People have seen errors KNOWING That they should not be furloughed, told the company, been told "move it or lose it", moved, and then gotten the "Oops, our bad. You can come back." IMPORTANT NOTE: This has nothing to do with local management and everything to do with Tempe. Staying in PHX might be a good idea for those LAS 'refugees', but if PHX gets hacked it might not be any better. The problems will follow.

 

[Jester]

EDIT: Regarding distrust with management, you're very right there. There's been five furloughs (I think) in LAS, all post US merger. Since they started in (I think) 2008 the company has failed to process one furlough without errors. People have seen errors KNOWING That they should not be furloughed, told the company, been told "move it or lose it", moved, and then gotten the "Oops, our bad. You can come back." IMPORTANT NOTE: This has nothing to do with local management and everything to do with Tempe. Staying in PHX might be a good idea for those LAS 'refugees', but if PHX gets hacked it might not be any better. The problems will follow.

I don't know how many people from LAS I have spoke with who were told they are furloughed, and then told, "our bad"... most just decided as they were already out the door just to leave instead of being the lowest seniority. Amazing disregard to employees' lives and uprooting people's families in order to keep their job. As for staying in PHX, most of the LAS refugees would probably be in a safer position, as being in the top 50% would be better than being on the LAS bubble, that's if one's plans are to stay with the Company.

 

[737823]

Time for membership paid trip on the Lear to Bermuda to celebrate...

Josh

 

[700UW]

You must have been seriously spurned by an IAM member who rejected you.

Go back to your bridge.

 

[robbedagain]

thats a nice pic i knew the iam form back in the late 1800s but i was not sure where or what company thanks 700 for the pic

 

[cltrat]

Time for membership paid trip on the Lear to Bermuda to celebrate...

Josh

somewhere a bridge is missing its troll

 

[necigrad]

Just did some looking at the LAS seniority list. I'm GUESSING that, if the rumors are true and we see 15-20 recalls the junior FSE will have a 1998 hire date MAYBE 1999. These are NOT official numbers, just my guessing. I believe the current junior FSEs are '95 and '98 respectivly for FT and PT. Currently, since I don't know the actual number, and certianly not the FT/PT breakdown, I'll make a reluctant guess at '96 for FT. And these are sloppy numbers, there's just not enough REAL information (i.e. not rumor) out there, plus the fact that I'm not 100% certain that I have an accurate senority list.

One thing is almost certain IMO, for just about every other FT opening there will be a PT opening. This is based on some FTers being displaced to PT and others electing to go to Furlough status. So if they create 15 FT and 20 PT positions as the Bagfathers suggested, I think there will 8 PT going to FT, and thus 28 PTers from furlough or displacement. Remember that I think his numbers are WAY high though, with my guess 15-20 TOTAL in an unknown split.

Of course all these numbers are made up and there are no real numbers at this time.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

FWIW, there are 87 Clerks and 10 Crew Chiefs in LAS.CC seniority is '75 and '90. FT is '79 and '90 respectively and PT is '84 and '08.

 

[pjirish317]

The following is what I think would be a great Fleet Service Manifesto

1. Stick to section 6 bargaining and refuse to sign a quickie contract that doesn't adequately address the following mandatories: Scope, retirement, wages.
Our members waited 14 years to finally get in section 6 talks, which we haven't been in since 1999. Section 6 is where the best gains will come from, not transition talks which lack the strength and risk that section 6 creates for management. These section 6 talks are further leveraged with the fact that management now needs cooperation to move the merger forward. Add on the fact that the environment forecasted $4 billion net profit for the combined airline in 2015. Also add on that our peeps will be in negotiations NOT with a mom and pop, or regional airline, but with the world's biggest airline as soon as the merger is approved! Management WANTS transition talks for sure! Screw that until our peeps are taken care of. Everyone needs to benefit from this merger, NOT just management and the collective bargaining agents.

The path should be: Strong TA in section 6 then another bump in transition talks.

a. Wages: Industry leading wages are 25.97 but since the US AIRWAYS members don't have anything of real substance, it is unlikely that 25.97 can be attained until a transition agreement gives us a final bump. But, for now, comparable wages to non union airlines like Delta ought to be. $23.16 + longevity pay of an additional .60 [provided our members get the scope and other benefits]. The IAM should use the AMR bankruptcy pay scale as the bar to cross and advance far past. Then in transitions, we advance the bar further. [Warning: our NC is currently asking for alot less. What they are 'asking for' won't even bring our membership to non union levels. Never mind that it isn't even considering many of the other enhancements below.]

regards,

Tim,

I am pretty sure that they are sticking with section six negotiations. And here is my take on wages, of course I expect you to disagree, but that's the point isnt it? I do not think that we should be above AA is wages, and here is why. If US fleet service gets, for example what tim sez we "should" get that being $25.97, and AA is stuck at $22 and change, I don't know what the exact scale is, is there anybody, even you tim, who thinks that the new AA would surpass southwest in wages in transition talks? I seriously doubt it. IMO, the only offer would be to bring the AA folks up to our higher scale and we get zip, nada, nothing as far as a pay increase. Keep in mind also, we are currently negotiating as the #5 carrier, not the worlds biggest airline, that has to considered. regards

 

[robbedagain]

pj i am not sure of what the scale is for DL or currently for UA CO but would you agree that may be for US FSAs something along the lines of 22 may be 23 an hr for wages also whats your opin on the 401k match etc as for me i hope we get something far more better to be honest and a suggestion i think the nd should put something regardin open time in the contract so that mgmt cannot use it to their advantage in my station alone ive seen a lot of bs crap regarding that and that was one reason why i and a number of other in the past got out of it which the mgmt said they were not happy about that...