April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[Tim Nelson]

Ograc
Not trying to speak for ROA. But I took his post to mean the same thing you are saying. And that is that we are in section 6, since we have been in it awhile now, lets stay in it. Even if that means remaining in section 6 post merger. Roa correct me if I'm wrong. Like I have said, IMO since there is no run off election now, we can stay in section 6 as long as we need.

that's how I took it. I don't think he was referring to post merger as transition. Besides, section 6 or transition will both be post merger if the merger is assumed to be legally complete by September 1. Any word on the timeline on when an association vote would occur? Hopefully, not for a while but as long as it is a regular NMB vote, it should sail clearly. If it's a thumbs up or thumbs down like 700 says then my concern is that many AMR TWU will vote it down. regards,

 

[charlie Brown]

Another thought for everyone!
Since many have stated on here that we need to use the leverage that the company wants to get a integrated agreement and combine the two groups. Wouldnt we still have that same leverage being in joint talks? After all, being in joint talks, doesn't mean anything to the company. It's only once they get us in a agreement that means anything. I know the leverage in section 6 that we have. I'm just asking everyone's opinion on dont they think we would still have some leverage in joint talks to get what we want? Or else we won't settle on a joint agreement. Opinions please!!

 

[ograc]

that's how I took it. I don't think he was referring to post merger as transition. Besides, section 6 or transition will both be post merger if the merger is assumed to be legally complete by September 1. Any word on the timeline on when an association vote would occur? Hopefully, not for a while but as long as it is a regular NMB vote, it should sail clearly. If it's a thumbs up or thumbs down like 700 says then my concern is that many AMR TWU will vote it down. regards,

I respectfully stand down. Took it as being better off in transition talks. If I misinterpreted... my apologies to ROA.

 

[charlie Brown]

that's how I took it. I don't think he was referring to post merger as transition. Besides, section 6 or transition will both be post merger if the merger is assumed to be legally complete by September 1. Any word on the timeline on when an association vote would occur? Hopefully, not for a while but as long as it is a regular NMB vote, it should sail clearly. If it's a thumbs up or thumbs down like 700 says then my concern is that many AMR TWU will vote it down. regards,

Tim
I have been told that it would take place after merger is finalized. No specific date though. And although I know 700 disagrees, Ive been told that we will vote either for a union, which will be the coalition, or no union. I'm trying to confirm that though.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim
I have been told that it would take place after merger is finalized. No specific date though. And although I know 700 disagrees, Ive been told that we will vote either for a union, which will be the coalition, or no union. I'm trying to confirm that though.

I hope you are right, otherwise we will have to explain to the TWU members how important this association would be to raise the bar. regards,

 

[Solidarity]

Does anyone one this board ever consider that management probably reads this more than even the membership? I, for one, believe that it would be in the best interest to not drop the playbook into the hands of management and let them run with it. The NC will determine as a group which way to go in June and I think that we should support that. Also, I have said before.....get a hold of your AGCs and ask them direct questions regarding what concerns you. CB has been more than forthcoming and I think that we need to focus on USAirways not HA, UA, or the other airlines that have not been able to get, what some individuals believe, is a good contract. The NC has a hard time ahead and I believe that we need to be UNIFIED in order to be successful.

 

[ograc]

Another thought for everyone!
Since many have stated on here that we need to use the leverage that the company wants to get a integrated agreement and combine the two groups. Wouldnt we still have that same leverage being in joint talks? After all, being in joint talks, doesn't mean anything to the company. It's only once they get us in a agreement that means anything. I know the leverage in section 6 that we have. I'm just asking everyone's opinion on dont they think we would still have some leverage in joint talks to get what we want? Or else we won't settle on a joint agreement. Opinions please!!

Kicking the can down the road to joint talks would be interpreted as a concession by the company. They would "raise" with sub par contractual language. Look at what happened at UA. US/AA will follow the same strategy. If you agree we have the leverage in section 6; why would you be willing to conceed such leverage? For the hope we will have it in transition negotiations? The strategy was already tried at UA. The strategy proved to be fruitless. Let's not make the same mistake again.

 

[robbedagain]

as long as we have the leverage at this point in the game... use it to our fullest now to at the very least get our scope enhanced protectin what we have now higher wages increased sick/vacation i think if we dont get it done now... we may end up with something similar to ua

 

[charlie Brown]

Kicking the can down the road to joint talks would be interpreted as a concession by the company. They would "raise" with sub par contractual language. Look at what happened at UA. US/AA will follow the same strategy. If you agree we have the leverage in section 6; why would you be willing to conceed such leverage? For the hope we will have it in transition negotiations? The strategy was already tried at UA. The strategy proved to be fruitless. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Ograc
I don't think we should give up any leverage. I was just pointing out that some think that all our leverage will be gone once we go into joint talks. The company wants to get us under one agreement. We will still have leverage even in joint talks because of this. Granted its not the same as section 6.

 

[Tim Nelson]

as long as we have the leverage at this point in the game... use it to our fullest now to at the very least get our scope enhanced protectin what we have now higher wages increased sick/vacation i think if we dont get it done now... we may end up with something similar to ua

another thing is that if we kick most the can down the road then who says that the industry wont change and that airlines wont start losing millions again. Leverage is always greatest in a profitable environment.

 

[roabilly]

Ograc
Not trying to speak for ROA. But I took his post to mean the same thing you are saying. And that is that we are in section 6, since we have been in it awhile now, lets stay in it. Even if that means remaining in section 6 post merger. Roa correct me if I'm wrong. Like I have said, IMO since there is no run off election now, we can stay in section 6 as long as we need.

Yup Charlie... that's That exactly what I meant… Cargo and several others did not glean what I was attempting to convey.... muss be tha southern dialect!

 

[roabilly]

Does anyone one this board ever consider that management probably reads this more than even the membership? I, for one, believe that it would be in the best interest to not drop the playbook into the hands of management and let them run with it. The NC will determine as a group which way to go in June and I think that we should support that. Also, I have said before.....get a hold of your AGCs and ask them direct questions regarding what concerns you. CB has been more than forthcoming and I think that we need to focus on USAirways not HA, UA, or the other airlines that have not been able to get, what some individuals believe, is a good contract. The NC has a hard time ahead and I believe that we need to be UNIFIED in order to be successful.

Hmmm… not really… it’s not like we have a myriad of options! Actually, you can count um one hand! The company has the play book anyway… it’s called the RLA!

Lastly, this could all be a decoy… secreting the ol’ Schwarkopf Hail Mary Play!

 

[roabilly]

Another thought for everyone!
Since many have stated on here that we need to use the leverage that the company wants to get a integrated agreement and combine the two groups. Wouldnt we still have that same leverage being in joint talks? After all, being in joint talks, doesn't mean anything to the company. It's only once they get us in a agreement that means anything. I know the leverage in section 6 that we have. I'm just asking everyone's opinion on dont they think we would still have some leverage in joint talks to get what we want? Or else we won't settle on a joint agreement. Opinions please!!

Charlie,

To paraphrase a statement you made several times in the past… Talk is Talk… Action is Action! Negotiations are "Talk”… not actions! The actions only happen when the final agreement is presented to the Membership for ratification or dismissal ! I’m sure the company would love to just talk, talk, and talk forever... without providing any actions!

As far as leverage goes, I think it would essentially be the same in six as in transition-- Especially, if six spilled over into the transition time frame!

 

[roabilly]

I respectfully stand down. Took it as being better off in transition talks. If I misinterpreted... my apologies to ROA.

Accepted Bro!

Cargo... you n' me ain't far apart on this stuff. I say... let's forget th' politics n' finger pointin' 'n Git-R-Done!

 

[T5towbar]

Kicking the can down the road to joint talks would be interpreted as a concession by the company. They would "raise" with sub par contractual language. Look at what happened at UA. US/AA will follow the same strategy. If you agree we have the leverage in section 6; why would you be willing to conceed such leverage? For the hope we will have it in transition negotiations? The strategy was already tried at UA. The strategy proved to be fruitless. Let's not make the same mistake again.

I agree with you on that. Our negotiations were pretty bad and we don't know what is going to happen next. At least you guys are in a better starting position with your Section 6, so get what you can now, instead of doing it in transition. You clearly saw our mistake. Use whatever leverage you have and run with it.