August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Good question Mike

The mou says asap or by 6 months. It will most likely be 6 months which is still speedy quick.

No. The company cant force it, only a union can file. I suppose the company has some legal recourse if the twu stalls after 6 months passes, not because of the nmb rules but because of the mou agreement.
Here is where it gets a little fuzzy for me...i am almost certain that the scs has to be triggered and then a vote. The only hesitation i have in that is if the iam and twu wants a vote up front. If there is a vote up front then any merger and single carrier would be put off for a few more months.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Oh. No it couldnt happen upfront. Duh. Unless there were two separate votes, neither of which would be "the new american"

 

[ograc]

if the company petitions the nmb to force an scc how would that affect the iam sec 6 talks for both groups at US and what then becomes of the sec 6 talks? id think that may be this could be the game play that AH wants to use sort of the ace of spades which is why all the more important we get a deal now under sec 6 while we have the leverage

We certainly do have the leverage now in Section 6 vs. no leverage in Transition Talks. Let us not lose sight though; AH and the company considers the proposals put forth by the NC for Fleet at US as "extreme and outrageous". Until the company changes it's selfish and greedy position in contract negotiations, I say we remain patient, persistent and in Section 6 talks. Accepting a sub par contract in Section 6 is exactly what the company wants. Their agenda moves forward; while we continue to work for the industry's largest carrier under a below industry average contract. Thanks but No Thanks AH! I say we stick together, show some resolve and get back what we came into contract negotiations for! The NC laid out 8 proposals that are "must have" for any chance of ratification. IMO...The ball is in the company's court now. The choice is a smooth transition and merger or a merger plagued with labor unrest, dissention, resistence and obstacles. They must choose. In the meantime... lock and load Brothers and Sisters!

 

[mike33]

Good question Mike

The mou says asap or by 6 months. It will most likely be 6 months which is still speedy quick.

No. The company cant force it, only a union can file. I suppose the company has some legal recourse if the twu stalls after 6 months passes, not because of the nmb rules but because of the mou agreement.
Here is where it gets a little fuzzy for me...i am almost certain that the scs has to be triggered and then a vote. The only hesitation i have in that is if the iam and twu wants a vote up front. If there is a vote up front then any merger and single carrier would be put off for a few more months.

I was thinking the company could force the TWU since the language says SHALL and not May or WILL. There are legal misuses of the word SHALL in contracts.

To correctly use "shall," confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor. Bryan A. Garner,​

A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage

940–941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). Here's how:​

• Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .

In other words--​

• Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .

They may have a duty to Declare if things are met and not wait the 6 months.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Mike, single carrier status is a very subjective thing. They clearly have 6 months. 6 months is actually extremely quick. I wouldnt be concerned about it. I really like our position with this association.
The iam did a good job negotiating against the twu.

 

[ograc]

Mike, single carrier status is a very subjective thing. They clearly have 6 months. 6 months is actually extremely quick. I wouldnt be concerned about it. I really like our position with this association.
The iam did a good job negotiating against the twu.

With the co - representation agreement (the association) between the IAM and TWU it seems to derail this requirement under the MOU for the TWU to file for SCS. I would think the election would have to be conducted first. If the election endorses the co - representation ageement (the association); then it is up to the elected association to file for SCS. If this is the case... then the filing for SCS will be done on our terms and time frame. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Tim Nelson]

With the co - representation agreement (the association) between the IAM and TWU it seems to derail this requirement under the MOU for the TWU to file for SCS. I would think the election would have to be conducted first. If the election endorses the co - representation ageement (the association); then it is up to the elected association to file for SCS. If this is the case... then the filing for SCS will be done on our terms and time frame. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The MOU locks in SCS as it is part of the official labor agreement. Look at it like this, another part of that agreement between the company and the TWU is the 4.3% wage hike. You see?

At any rate, no vote can happen before single carrier anyways. The New American simply will not exist until SCS is determined. Until that happens, there is only US AIRWAYS, and only American Airlines, and the accompanying representational certifications.

The IAM and TWU have said from the beginning that both groups will be a part of the representational dispute that will lead to a NMB vote. The only way that is possible is after a SCS has been filed, and only after it has been determined that SC does exist.

I suppose the IAM and TWU could have imputed support to the 'association' prior to SC if they wanted the IAM members and TWU members to vote separately but that wouldn't make any sense and would have already happened since the "Association" filed an LM1 already and is legally recognized by the NMB.

All of the above suggest that management doesn't like the idea and will NOT voluntarily recognize "The Association". Otherwise, there would be no fuss and it would be 'seamless' as it was for the CWA/IBT.

At any rate, I do have some questions myself but time will certainly answer them as we move along. At this point, I really like the association idea if both the TWU and IAM stick to what they said.

 

[mike33]

The MOU locks in SCS as it is part of the official labor agreement. Look at it like this, another part of that agreement between the company and the TWU is the 4.3% wage hike. You see?

At any rate, no vote can happen before single carrier anyways. The New American simply will not exist until SCS is determined. Until that happens, there is only US AIRWAYS, and only American Airlines, and the accompanying representational certifications.

The IAM and TWU have said from the beginning that both groups will be a part of the representational dispute that will lead to a NMB vote. The only way that is possible is after a SCS has been filed, and only after it has been determined that SC does exist.

I suppose the IAM and TWU could have imputed support to the 'association' prior to SC if they wanted the IAM members and TWU members to vote separately but that wouldn't make any sense and would have already happened since the "Association" filed an LM1 already and is legally recognized by the NMB.

All of the above suggest that management doesn't like the idea and will NOT voluntarily recognize "The Association". Otherwise, there would be no fuss and it would be 'seamless' as it was for the CWA/IBT.

At any rate, I do have some questions myself but time will certainly answer them as we move along. At this point, I really like the association idea if both the TWU and IAM stick to what they said.

I am just a little gun shy of course, but i feel a little better as it is talked about.

Anyways, AH can smirk all he wants during negotiations and proclaim woe is Usairways, but the bottom line is we deserve what we deserve and make no mistake! He wiont want to revisit the days of Al Crellins demise. He has a responsibility and without a BK judge to hide behind, we are going to push being fair.

 

[rockit2]

Tim,
What leverage does fleet service have? I keep hearing about it but what is the leverage. Can we stall the merger? How can fleet force Uncle Al to an agreement?

 

[mike33]

Tim,​
What leverage does fleet service have? I keep hearing about it but what is the leverage. Can we stall the merger? How can fleet force Uncle Al to an agreement?

It will come be patient......you will know when the time comes...no need to explain here but section 6 and the prospect of being release have many implications and opportunities in our favor.

I cant wait for the DOT to approve this merger next month....as Cargo said ..."Lock and load. Its on"

 

[Black Magic]

Lots of whispers and some fear spreading in the phx breakrooms lately after seeing the company newsletter with vice presidents of the combined aa/us. Apparently Tim Ahern will be the vp of Lax, Jfk, Dca, and Phx. Meanwhile other hubs get their own dedicated individual vp. Signs of things to come with phx being a focus city? Could mean nothing or could mean something....

 

[robbedagain]

blackmagic.. ive long said this... i do think phx will be down graded from a hub to a focus city but i do not think us is going to give it up completely lax may add few more flights etc as may jfk but i do think phl youll see an increase in intl services to help jfk in that regards and clt i think is also ripe for more added flights may be s america dca well is dca and their slot controlled and normally they cant go beyond the perimeter except with congressional approval and theyre about slower than a snail but only time will tell

 

[rockit2]

Lots of whispers and some fear spreading in the phx breakrooms lately after seeing the company newsletter with vice presidents of the combined aa/us. Apparently Tim Ahern will be the vp of Lax, Jfk, Dca, and Phx. Meanwhile other hubs get their own dedicated individual vp. Signs of things to come with phx being a focus city? Could mean nothing or could mean something....

Pittsburgh was once down graded to a FOCUS city, call those guy's and see how it turned out...................OUCH

 

[ChockJockey]

Pittsburgh was once down graded to a FOCUS city, call those guy's and see how it turned out...................OUCH

That could have had something to do with PIT's lack of profitability and rather low O&D. Highly unlikely that PHX will be reduced to the status of a mere destination, as much as I think many would be pleased to see it.

 

[Jester]

Signs of things to come with phx being a focus city? Could mean nothing or could mean something....

We could ask the former LAS agents located now in PHX as LAS future when it was downgraded into a so-called "focus city". Management tried to "right size" LAS operations, but like the Cheshire Cat the station continued to shrink to little more than a smile. Unless there is some compelling reason for a city to be an O&D market with point-to-point service (DCA?), the idea of a focus city is little more than the first step to becoming a spoke.