FCFS Handicapping System

[blue collar]

blue,

My apologies then. Maybe I used the wrong terminology. I just don't get all the hate for us grieving the issue.

I don't think it's hate for you grieving it, but I'm sure AA doesn't want to have your DOH system for travel. It's obviously a heated situation, and I think it will all end up FCFS. When will it be more lucrative to the IAM members? I think it would be right now with the arbitration, than waiting for JCBA.

 

[pjirish317]

It very well may end up as FCFS. Who knows. And more lucrative how exactly for IAM and CWA/IBT members?

 

[blue collar]

Getting a LOA with something of value to you guys. In JCBA talks, it's worth nothing because the majority of the members (AA) is FCFS, so the company won't have to 'give' you anything to get rid of it. It has more value right now than it will when you go into JCBA negotiations.

 

[pjirish317]

In JCBA talks there will be an equal number of AA to US negotiators. So to say that because LAA wants FCFS doesnt mean they will automatically get it. And to say that LUS people will get what US wants is the same, it will have to be agreed upon by the entire negotiating team, not one side or the other. I am not saying it will not change, but it will have to be negotiated, not just removed because some group wants it removed. And I don't believe that there is anything the company can dangle in front of us that will get a L.O.A. eliminating that language right now.

 

[blue collar]

In JCBA talks there will be an equal number of AA to US negotiators. So to say that because LAA wants FCFS doesnt mean they will automatically get it. And to say that LUS people will get what US wants is the same, it will have to be agreed upon by the entire negotiating team, not one side or the other. I am not saying it will not change, but it will have to be negotiated, not just removed because some group wants it removed. And I don't believe that there is anything the company can dangle in front of us that will get a L.O.A. eliminating that language right now.

That's up to you guys. JMHO, the company knows it won't have any value in JCBA, and I would think you would want some value out of it. I wish you guys the best with whatever shakes out.

 

[FWAAA]

blue,

Our CBA does not contradict itself. It states we get the same priveleges as established for ALL company personnel. That means that one group can't get more than another. For example, the company can't say that Customer Service agents can get 4 Space Positive passes a year, leaving us not getting them. That is what that section is for. So you are saying it is ok for people to side with the company as long as it benefits them, while being a represented employee? That is the issue. What about the folks that do not want FCFS shoved down their throats? In essence, you are saying it is ok for them to side with the company because they don't agree with it. When you bid your shifts/days off, or vacations, how do you do it? By seniority? What happens if the company wants to do that by a FCFS basis? And a majority of people agree but in your CBA it states they can't? Are you just supposed to accept that because the majority want it? And who should be more understanding here, us or them?

Your post demonstrates why it was beyond stupid for your employer, US, to ever sign a CBA with that language in it.  NRSA flight privileges are granted by the employer and can be taken away by the employer, even with your CBA language.   Of course, the employer would have to terminate ALL NRSA flight privileges to avoid running afoul of the language in your agreement.  
 
Whether or not DOH or FCFS is more "fair" (that's not the primary issue here), the language in your CBA hamstrings the company and all other workgroups, and that results in a minor version of "tyranny by the minority."   AA has about twice as many employees as US, and it doesn't seem like anybody at AA is mad or upset at the FCFS rule.  Apparently, it's worked out ok for them.   Sometimes you get on your first choice of flights and sometimes you don't.   Not a whole hell of a lot different from the DOH priority at US.   
 
NRSA flight privileges are used only when you're off-the-clock.  As in, not working.   Being able to push your weight around and push your way to the front of the line is accepted by most employees when you're talking about bidding or vacation preferences or who gets offered OT before the others, and so on.   Those are all things that have to do with work, not "free" travel on empty seats on your own time (I realize it's not completely free travel).   More importantly, your seniority date in all those other areas doesn't spill over to other workgroups.   If you're a mechanic, then your seniority date doesn't put you ahead of fleet service or pilots or agents or flight attendants - it really only matters within your workgroup.
 
I don't think anyone "hates" those who grieve the issue, but understand that if you "lose" the grievance, it doesn't mean you'll actually lose anything.   You won't lose any money or anything that can be quantified into a dollar amount.   You'll check in at the 24 hour mark or as close to it as you can and then takes your chances.   
 
Isn't it enough that people hired after you were hired generally get paid less per hour, get less vacation and get less-desirable shifts than those with more seniority?   On top of all that, your inability to throw your weight around (when you're off the clock) and bump a less-senior fellow employee off a flight constitutes impermissible harm?    The only people I could see being in favor of such a system are those who are so old and so senior that they've never been bumped by anyone more senior than they are.   That's gotta be a small group.   If you're in the middle of the pack in seniority, then you probably get bumped from flights when more senior employees show up, and thus FCFS probably won't place you any worse off.

 

[pjirish317]

FWAAA,

The only workgroup it is getting hamstrung are those at LAA. Just about every workgroup has or had that language in their CBA at one time here at LUS. What you suggest is that we should just accept that those at LAA are happy with FCFS and we will be also in time, so just drop our grievance and move on? What makes that right? I've been "junior" my whole career, and with 25 years I am still junior. FCFS is no better than D.O.H. with regards to that for me. Spare me the advantages of FCFS with this, I get your point already, I just do not agree with it. So please don't fault me for fighting for my contractual right. Time will tell what the system will ultimately be, and either side will have to adapt. But right now, an arbitrator will decide on whether or not what parker and company did was a violation or not.

On a different note, blue, in your view what value does this have and what should we try to get for it?

 

[blue collar]

On a different note, blue, in your view what value does this have and what should we try to get for it?

I don't know what the value is, but I would think that it's value is greater right now. Maybe worth a couple of D1s? I wouldn't know...
As FWAAA stated, they have the right to pull the whole thing out from under you. Not that they would, but it only gives you so much leverage/pushback from the new policy. Like they sometimes say, 'be careful what you wish for'...

 

[traderjake]

Isn't it enough that people hired after you were hired generally get paid less per hour, get less vacation and get less-desirable shifts than those with more seniority?   On top of all that, your inability to throw your weight around (when you're off the clock) and bump a less-senior fellow employee off a flight constitutes impermissible harm?    The only people I could see being in favor of such a system are those who are so old and so senior that they've never been bumped by anyone more senior than they are.  

 
That's the bottom line.
 
They thinks they're entittled to first choice of anything on the table including benefits and the rest of us should be happy with their leftovers. 

 

[pjirish317]

 

That's the bottom line.
 
They thinks they're entittled to first choice of anything on the table including benefits and the rest of us should be happy with their leftovers.

 
jake,

Please tell me who thinks this way. The only thing I am saying is that, it is a contractual item that, IMO, parker and company had no business changing just to appease the LAA folks, because they are the clear majority and prefer the FCFS system. No offense to the LAA folks, it's just the way it is. Thus the grievance. Who knows how this will play out, I do not believe either side will be happy in the end.

 

[pjirish317]

 

I don't know what the value is, but I would think that it's value is greater right now. Maybe worth a couple of D1s? I wouldn't know...
As FWAAA stated, they have the right to pull the whole thing out from under you. Not that they would, but it only gives you so much leverage/pushback from the new policy. Like they sometimes say, 'be careful what you wish for'...

 
They could certainly revoke the non-rev flying. But to do so, that would encompass the entier company, not just us.

 

[john john]

I did not have the opportunity to vote on your contract that allows you to bump me off a flight because of your contract. Why in the world would I need to honor a contract that does not even pertain to me. To be honest, if it were to be settled right, you guys/gals who once worked for US should honor your contracts among yourselves. Board by seniority if that is what your contract calls for. But in no way, shape or form should I have to honor your contract when I had no say in it. Where I worked and still work, AA, it has been a non contractual privilege and continues to be one. Again, to be fair, if it were done right, you and I show up for a flight, we board by FCFS because your contract means nothing to me. If you and another former US employee show up, go by your contract and board by seniority.
 
And I would almost bet the farm that you will never see that DOH boarding scenario in use ever again.

Your contract doesn’t address travel benefits. You believe your employee group should take whatever management gives you. You believe your travel with the company is a privilege without a say from your union. Did I get this right ?????

 

[blue collar]

 
 
They could certainly revoke the non-rev flying. But to do so, that would encompass the entier company, not just us.

Well, it would certainly encompass most of the company. It wouldn't affect executives, and flight crews would still be able to jumpseat. But would that all be worth it in the end?

 

[traderjake]

Please tell me who thinks this way.

 
Every Captain who told me "You'll be senior someday".

 

[im back..!!]

That's the bottom line.
 
They thinks they're entittled to first choice of anything on the table including benefits and the rest of us should be happy with their leftovers.

You must have older siblings.......LOL