District 141 Meets with United, Secures Wage Increases for Members Working Under Modified Contracts
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Kev3188
Veteran
You don't /have/ to do anything. I'm just curious what the DL got in return for giving it up.WeAAsles said:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,122
- Reaction score
- 5,269
The Station protections and raises I guess aren't good enough for you? Or the hundreds of Express jobs?Kev3188 said:
Are you thinking that because of this agreement that somehow UAL's total labor expense for the group went down? That would be some very fuzzy type math for me to figure out.
Kev3188
Veteran
I would simply like to know where that "ask" was reallocated to.
I think that this deal will pass.
I really don't see anything better right now. Once we are done, they will try to get the other two groups done.
I probably be voting in the affirmative now that many things have been explained. Both sides want this and move on to improving the operation.. As any contract goes, it could be better. But these are major improvements over what we have at present.
I really don't see anything better right now. Once we are done, they will try to get the other two groups done.
I probably be voting in the affirmative now that many things have been explained. Both sides want this and move on to improving the operation.. As any contract goes, it could be better. But these are major improvements over what we have at present.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,122
- Reaction score
- 5,269
Negotiations doesn't quite work that way Kev. Of course the company has an average cost associated with the piece but that cost would have been absorbed into the overall cost of the agreement.Kev3188 said:
It "could" have been given up for an improvement elsewhere if there was an item that the negotiators wanted and were already at the cost the company was willing to incur. But I doubt it?
Kev3188
Veteran
They used to. At 143, we would get a breakdown with the "ask" of each item.WeAAsles said:
Clearly, my expectations are too high...
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,122
- Reaction score
- 5,269
Perhaps DL 141 will do that but I get the sneaky suspicion that if they did you would still consider that information unsatisfactory?Kev3188 said:
Maybe the letters would be too small or you might complain if it was more than two pages long?
Kev3188
Veteran
Nope, one thing DL 141 isn't responsible for is my fading eyesight.
Transparency is always a good thing.
Transparency is always a good thing.
Kev3188
Veteran
Transparency is almost always a good thing...
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,122
- Reaction score
- 5,269
Kev I was wondering if you noticed this particular comment from T5 who is the only actual UAL Ramper who contributes on this thread and will get to vote? You never did chose to respond to him?
I'm going to highlight something he said
"I probably be voting in the affirmative now that many things have been explained. Both sides want this and move on to improving the operation.. As any contract goes, it could be better. But these are major improvements over what we have at present."
Alright Kev now as I was writing this I got a call from a friend that "might" answer your question? We'll see?
The Company wanted to take Longevity out and they were offering a raise of $29,12 per hour. The argument was given and accepted that if longevity was taken out that the monies should be applied to the base rates. The company agreed and applied that full amount across the board. Now remember I'm only talking about TOS here but anyone who was at TOS will get the full .75 that members otherwise would only get if they had 30 years with the company. So the value in it being absorbed into the base rates was and is more than leaving it standalone at least for those at TOS. Maybe going down the lower ends of the wage progression scale it equals out?
The other concession was an added year to top out. The company told the negotiators that they wanted to go with 12 years because that was industry standard. So yes members not topped out have one extra year added now, but all scales are going to get very decent increases.
On the 12 year progression since I look at and read every contract I can find. The only group I see that has less of a top out is us here at AA TWU which is currently 9 years. I 'think" because of the dramatic increases over the last year to the TOS rates, all airlines want to make the wait to get to that a little longer? It may wind up being a dual in our talks too since ramp US is also 12 years?
Does this hopefully fill in some of the blanks for you?
I'm going to highlight something he said
"I probably be voting in the affirmative now that many things have been explained. Both sides want this and move on to improving the operation.. As any contract goes, it could be better. But these are major improvements over what we have at present."
Alright Kev now as I was writing this I got a call from a friend that "might" answer your question? We'll see?
The Company wanted to take Longevity out and they were offering a raise of $29,12 per hour. The argument was given and accepted that if longevity was taken out that the monies should be applied to the base rates. The company agreed and applied that full amount across the board. Now remember I'm only talking about TOS here but anyone who was at TOS will get the full .75 that members otherwise would only get if they had 30 years with the company. So the value in it being absorbed into the base rates was and is more than leaving it standalone at least for those at TOS. Maybe going down the lower ends of the wage progression scale it equals out?
The other concession was an added year to top out. The company told the negotiators that they wanted to go with 12 years because that was industry standard. So yes members not topped out have one extra year added now, but all scales are going to get very decent increases.
On the 12 year progression since I look at and read every contract I can find. The only group I see that has less of a top out is us here at AA TWU which is currently 9 years. I 'think" because of the dramatic increases over the last year to the TOS rates, all airlines want to make the wait to get to that a little longer? It may wind up being a dual in our talks too since ramp US is also 12 years?
Does this hopefully fill in some of the blanks for you?
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,122
- Reaction score
- 5,269
And BTW the $29,12 discovery makes sense. Currently going 3% over your rates for us at AA equals $29.27. So with the fact that UAL IAM has a higher PS plan then we do now at AA, the $29.12 on a yearly basis would still more than likely have put UAL members above their AA counterparts when we get our JCBA.
But of course if the Parker 3 continues to stand we would have went to $29.99 so that (would) should make up for the shortfall. But now "IF" the UAL members pass this deal the Parker 3 comes up to $30.77.
I think Delta will stand down for now and let the rates lock in before adjusting you guys IMO?
And I also see why they aren't giving them the raises until November. That is when their next scheduled raises were due to take effect.
But of course if the Parker 3 continues to stand we would have went to $29.99 so that (would) should make up for the shortfall. But now "IF" the UAL members pass this deal the Parker 3 comes up to $30.77.
I think Delta will stand down for now and let the rates lock in before adjusting you guys IMO?
And I also see why they aren't giving them the raises until November. That is when their next scheduled raises were due to take effect.
Similar threads
- Locked
