Solidarity
Advanced
- Aug 26, 2005
- 182
- 105
Sent you IM
August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
Negotiations resume with IAM DL142 US Airways Maintenance & Related in October. Fleet should know, based on the progress at these negotiations, what we are in for. Will the company finally agree to negotiate in good faith or are we on the path of labor unrest, job action, the IAM's continual non support of the merger. Are we in for an eventual release from the NMB for the bargining unit to take legal action (STRIKE) against the company? Time will tell. In the meantime Brothers and Sisters "LOCK AND LOAD"! The future of contract negotiations and the IAM's relations with the company is in the company's court. IMO... existing labor unrest at US further diminishes the chances of a successful merger in the eyes of the DOJ. The IAM's stance is simple and justified; CONTRACTS NOW. MERGER RELATED TRANSITION AGREEMENTS LATER.
mike33
Veteran
- Nov 7, 2007
- 2,252
- 1,128
My hope is that we get released!!....its been al long time since i've felt that we may hold some " Cards" . May not be " Aces" but the anticipation of whether and when we will strike, speaks volumns..........."Lock and Load "
Tim Nelson
Veteran
strictly as a matter of clarification. I saw the article on the street where CB says AMR has worse scope. How is that? AMR has more cargo centers protected, US AIRWAYS has tower and catering. The scope in the AMR contract has a less flight threshold than the US AIRWAYS one, correct? The US AIRWAYS scope only protects 10 stations, currently, yes? I know there are 33 but even ORD can get contracted out.
Scope is or should be our biggest focus moving forward. I'm very uncomfortable with only 10 stations currently protected under scope. We need to expand this dramatically, and never compromise a company commitment on a conditional 'drop dead' date. 2 and 3 year drop dead dates only work if the end of the world comes or someone dies. Otherwise, most of us hope to be around more than a drop dead date on our jobs.
regards,
Scope is or should be our biggest focus moving forward. I'm very uncomfortable with only 10 stations currently protected under scope. We need to expand this dramatically, and never compromise a company commitment on a conditional 'drop dead' date. 2 and 3 year drop dead dates only work if the end of the world comes or someone dies. Otherwise, most of us hope to be around more than a drop dead date on our jobs.
regards,
cltrat
Veteran
- Aug 29, 2007
- 5,481
- 3,051
if he is it should have already happen, I have a friend at MSP with less time than I believe Tim has who was offered CLT.
charlie Brown
Veteran
- Nov 18, 2008
- 1,251
- 1,107
Tim
As I have always said, you are excellent of not actually lying, but twisting the story to make yourself sound credible. You talk about drop dead dates on US contract, but when you talk about AA contract, you don't apply the same thing. AA also has a drop dead date on their contract in which their numbers drop worse than ours. Just wondering why you mention our drop dead dates, but don't apply that to AA, s contract as well??
Please for the sake of our membership. You do a good job of informing the members, but inform them clearly and not just spin it to make your point look better. IMO people that do that, have a hidden agenda, and aren't really caring about informing the membership.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Huh? I didnt have any point other than to clarify. Geez, calm down.
My understanding of the amr contract is that the level of flight activity for scope inclusion is less than the lcc flight activity.
If that isnt true then my apologies. I havent kept up with flight activity of late but are there more than ten stations at lcc that can be designated class one in 2014 based on current numbers?
At any rate, both contracts lack scope due to bankruptcy.
A few things that i do like about lcc scope, and this is very significant, is the language regarding 69 seat aircraft. If im AHi want that along with unlimited part time to make things more seamless for the amr contract . And he wants catering and tower work.
If im a union man, no way i give up the part time, catering, tower, or the 69 seat aircraft from scope. Never mind needing more scope. This is a great negotiating environment and it couldnt be much better.
My understanding of the amr contract is that the level of flight activity for scope inclusion is less than the lcc flight activity.
If that isnt true then my apologies. I havent kept up with flight activity of late but are there more than ten stations at lcc that can be designated class one in 2014 based on current numbers?
At any rate, both contracts lack scope due to bankruptcy.
A few things that i do like about lcc scope, and this is very significant, is the language regarding 69 seat aircraft. If im AHi want that along with unlimited part time to make things more seamless for the amr contract . And he wants catering and tower work.
If im a union man, no way i give up the part time, catering, tower, or the 69 seat aircraft from scope. Never mind needing more scope. This is a great negotiating environment and it couldnt be much better.
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
CB,
Exactly when is AA's drop dead date? Is this the ammendable date of their current agreement? Specifically, what flight activity is required for scope protection on this ammendable date? They may have better scope currently... but what about 2-4 years down the road? This issue needs to be brought to the light and given serious consideration with facts; not spin. Going forward; I believe scope language should be priority number one by the collective group. The union can negotiate all the improvements they want; but in the end does it really matter if the union fails to protect existing work and subsequent membership? We need to PROTECT THE EXISTING WORK first IMO.
charlie Brown
Veteran
- Nov 18, 2008
- 1,251
- 1,107
Alright, my apologies.
But the point I was trying to make, is AA has a drop dead date also, after their contract becomes ammendable, they're scope numbers basically get cut in half which then is worse than ours.
But your right, scope does need to be the biggest issue. I want to use this site to educate people, and not to spin things. They're a lot of people out there, especially hub people that have transferred in from already contracted out stations, that say just get me the money, forget about scope. I had to get to a hub, let them get to a hub. People need to understand that scope cost something!!
charlie Brown
Veteran
- Nov 18, 2008
- 1,251
- 1,107
Ograc
Sorry I have their contract at work and not on me right now, but at the ammendable date I think they will have to maintain no less than 14 main line flights a day to keep from being contracted out. Right now I think it's only 7 they have to maintain. So it basically doubles at the ammendable. If I'm wrong on those numbers, they're very close. I can check for sure tomorrow.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
In this environment, our members will definately gain millions. How the union decides to divide up that extra dollar, imo, should be to build upon scope and recognize wage. But in no case should AH get his cost neutral contract of "you want thi, so what you gonna give up?".
CB i know thats not what you were talking about, but if the union negotiates x amount of dollars where x is fair and reasonable then securing scope ought to be number one, and an educational campaign towards the members should follow.
I like everything said but then again at united delaney said all the right things as well.
At any rate, i cant see any real negotiations taking place till AH knows the verdict of the judge around dec 1
CB i know thats not what you were talking about, but if the union negotiates x amount of dollars where x is fair and reasonable then securing scope ought to be number one, and an educational campaign towards the members should follow.
I like everything said but then again at united delaney said all the right things as well.
At any rate, i cant see any real negotiations taking place till AH knows the verdict of the judge around dec 1
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I would think most hub employees would apprehend that since many of them are out of towners, plus the local guys always have their seniority tweaked down. Dunno
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
"I had to get to a hub, let them get to a hub." That mentality has to change. That mentality is exactly what the company wants. The only represented fleet employees are in the hubs. In the end; the number of represented employees has been diminished; which translates into less leverage in future contract negotiations. A slow and deliberate decline in fleet's compensation, benefits and worth. This selfish attitude must change. It's time for all of fleet to advance the interests of the common good for all existing members. This is the challenge of the NC, the District Leadership and membership. When senior employees from sub contracted stations have "to get to a hub" to preserve their employment; they will not be the only ones adversly impacted. 33 + years I'll be taking a nice daylight shift from somebody when I have "to get to a hub."
- Status
Similar threads
