August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
cltrat
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 3,051
That doesn;t mean we don't want to know whats in it.
mike33
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 1,128
The Days of keeping the membership blinded as to what could happen in the future are over. It is important down the road to know what can be transcribed in negotiations at integration. Everything matters.
charlie Brown
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,251
- Reaction score
- 1,107
The issue about what AA,s scope was, was brought up because of a earlier post talking about US, s drop dead dates, but not mentioning AA,s. I just wanted people to know the whole truth, that AA also has dates where their scope is basically gone. Mike33 is right, the days of people not knowing are gone. But we also have to make sure the people know everything, and not just one side,
cltrat
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 3,051
thanks for the link
cltrat
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 3,051
Charlie you guys may have done this and with my swap/double schedule I may not have been there, if so my apolgies but it would be nice if you could come and have an informational briefing on night shift in the area I work.
I have a suggestion for those Brothers/Sisters on AForum/ 2013 Fleet Discussion who want to talk IAM Leadership Elections,Politics, and Old Scores to start a new topic. Because 99% of US F/S don't care. Your rants , legal threats , fact checking of who said what /who did what in the past only weekends our hand at the CBA table with LCC. Contracts NOW ! Politics LATER !
ograc
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,868
- Reaction score
- 1,624
In the event of a potential merger I respectfully disagree.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I agree. Too much focus seems to be on the bankrupt AMR contract. The union already indicated to our members that it intends to stick with standalone negotiations even after the merger may be approved.
Only after a ratification by LCC members will anyone, or should anyone, be focusing on enhancing the bankrupt AMR contract.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
This is where you lose me CB, and it concerns me since you are on the negotiation team and your comments are public, and imo, not entirely correct.
I read the AMR bankrupt contract and I don't see anywhere where their scope is, as you say, 'basically gone'. WTH?
I did read where their scope says that AMR has to keep any current station that has at least 15 flights a day [better than LCC's yes?], and that any new station or previous TWU station that has been contracted out has to be insourced if it goes over 20 flights a day [better than LCC again, yes?].
Are you referring to a loa that gives further protections through 2018 for a couple stations?
In any case, the AMR scope isn't 'basically gone' and to say so does serious harm to correct information.
And, FWIW: I think the AMR scope sucks but having stations protected with 15 flights is better than the LCC"s protection only covering stations with 20 flights.
AMR also protects 5 cargo centers within scope.
Moving forward, the negotiation environment should lend quite an improvement. In fact, I can't think of any negotiation environment that would be greater. Clearly, it is better today than the contract in 1999 that could only protect stations with 12 flights a day and brought in 21.43 wage.
I'm sure AH wants catering and tower, and the 69 seat aircraft out of our scope. Yet there is simply no reason to not only keep that but bring in the sorta scope that protects and grandfathers all members without the drop dead dates. Drop dead dates are a cop out.
- Status
Similar threads
