FCFS Handicapping System

[lax]

blue,
 
I disagree. It states we board for non-rev on line space available travel by D.O.H., and that we are afforded the EXACT same travel benefits as established by the company for EVERYBODY in the company. I guess we will find out.
 
jim,
 
do you honestly think that the company would eliminate the on-line travel for EVERYBODY, because that is what it would take to get rid of D.O.H. IMO anyway. As to the arbitration rulings going in the company's favor, we will see how this one shakes out. That is why strong contractual language is key. Hard to rule against it.
 
rat,
 
I never said I was willing to give up anything to eliminate D.O.H. boarding. What is the company willing to give us to get it removed, is what I am saying.

 
 
Still whining about a foregone conclusion lol, sad! By the way your contract language is not that strong, leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  Certainly doesn’t mention that the company can’t change their travel program or what happens in the event of a merger with a larger company that has a different policy.  The company is not going to allow a workgroup to hamstring their policies.  But keep clicking your heels and wishing on your star.  And by the slight chance that the gods answer your prayers its still not gonna matter because the company will just say “sue me!”  And that might cause more strife than the Alliance or the CWA is willing to risk with the lack of support from the majority of its members (AA employees).  I’d suggest you get used to FCFS because all the whining in the world is not gonna change it.

 

[ChrisUS]

Not if you are a crew member and flying...

Or coming in on a cruise.   Just LOVE getting up at 6:00am to check in the day before a flight. We are going on a cruise and I used frequent flyer mileage.  Screw non revving. 

 

[pjirish317]

lax,
 
Who is whining? I am defending our CBA is all. If we lose, we lose. It looks like you guys are afraid we are going to win. Whatever that would mean for the travel benefits we all enjoy. It good to see that you are for the company violating a CBA, and expect the people it affects to just roll over. No, no whining here just defending what is in our CBA. Sorry you can't understand that, as we didn't just bow down to big ole AA policies. Give you the "aw shucks" you win. Why is defending our contract so wrong here? Because you guys want FCFS so badly?

 

[jimntx]

Or coming in on a cruise.   Just LOVE getting up at 6:00am to check in the day before a flight. We are going on a cruise and I used frequent flyer mileage.  Screw non revving. 

Using non-rev privileges to try to get home from a cruise is just asking for getting left behind at the airport.  It's also the reason why I can't believe that the airlines overbook flights to/from FLL and MIA on certain days of the week.  Cruise passengers are going to make it to their flight--going and coming.  There is no refund if you miss the sailing unless it was totally beyond your control.  And, absent the ship sinking during the cruise, you are going to be on that flight back home when the ship returns to port.
 
You are doing what my wife and I did--pos space tickets either purchased through the cruise line/travel agency, or FF miles.

 

[Bogey]

Just speculation here, but if the company lost an arbitration on DOH for any work group, they could make every other employee a higher classification for travel. So while say Fleet is traveling DOH on a D1, every other employee is traveling on a C32 FCFS. Anything is possible at this company.

 

[pjirish317]

Bogey,
 
The company couldn't do that. Again our contract states we are afforded the EXACT same travel benefits as everybody else. So they couldn't separate us from the rest.
 
Article 7A, for the D.O.H. boarding, and Article 28D for the same travel benefits as everybody else.

 

[blue collar]

Pj- you keep equating people wanting to keep their FCFS with agreeing with the company violating your CBA. Those two =/=; they've never said they're glad that your CBA is supposedly being violated, but they also don't want to give up their way of travel. Do you think it would be good for your way to be forced on everyone, even though the majority is not for it? It's clear that you want to enforce your CBA, which no one is arguing; and that you want DOH non rev which is what people are arguing you about.

 

[pjirish317]

blue,
 
Then why the hostility from some here. We are being vilified for trying to enforce our CBA. Should we just say F it and move on? That's the issue here blue. Because it is in our CBA, and most of the LAA folks don't want D.O.H., it seems that they would like us to do just that, just to appease them. Because they want FCFS. That to me is not right. the CWA/IBT and the IAM, think that what the company did was a violation of our respective CBA's. Because some LAA folks want FCFS, we are all of a sudden the bad guys for grieving it? Why is that exactly? The policy changed because we are out numbered on the AA side, and the company knew this going in, with that ridiculous poll that they put out. They knew that FCFS would win, that was just a way for them to say, "hey we did a poll and this is what most people wanted". I will adapt if FCFS wins, just like everybody else at LUS that would prefer D.O.H., but can the same be said for the LAA folks if D.O.H. wins the day?

 

[cynic]

DOH will never "win". At best, you will get compensation for the contractual violation. Nothing wrong with getting compensated for the violation, just realize that you aren't going to reverse the direction of the organization. It would also help if you stopped trying to force DOH on everyone else. Focus on getting something tangible for the violation and you will have the other work groups on your side instead of against you. 

 

[pjirish317]

 

DOH will never "win". At best, you will get compensation for the contractual violation. Nothing wrong with getting compensated for the violation, just realize that you aren't going to reverse the direction of the organization. It would also help if you stopped trying to force DOH on everyone else. Focus on getting something tangible for the violation and you will have the other work groups on your side instead of against you.

 
cynic,

Who is trying to "force" D.O.H. on everybody else? We are trying to enforce our respective CBA's, is all we are doing. If that appears as we are trying to "force" D.O.H. then so be it. What you suggest is that we give in to the company on an item that is in our CBA because the company and the "majority" wants it? So long as we get some sort of "value" for it. Is that about right? We just negotiated and ratified a new agrement and that language stayed in it. You would think the company would have tried to get that language removed, but they did not. What happens next time our CBA is violated and the "majority" is ok with it? doesn't matter how big or small the violation, what then? Are we to roll over again? When does it end? There is as much, if not more blame on parker and company for not even making an attempt to get that language removed during negotiations, yet now we are supposed to negotiate with them for it? I seriously hope that doesnt happen. And I honestly don't care if the other workgroups are on my side or not, because frankly, the ones you speak of are all for the company getting their way, (and in the process, they do also). So because they get what they want it's ok? One way or the other it will be resolved. Until then, it will remain in our CBA, and we will try to enforce it. No matter who wants what. The way you make it sound, we should just roll over every time the "majority" wants something, no matter if it violates a CBA or not.

 

[jimntx]

PJ (may I call you PJ ;lol, is correct.  Whether the grievance has any chance of winning or not has nothing to do with it.  If the union feels that the contract has been violated, then it is their responsibility to grieve the violation.  There are precedents in contract case law where a court ruled an entire contract null and void (and I'm not just talking about labor contracts) because one party to the contract allowed repeated violations of the contract by another party to the contract.

 

[pjirish317]

 

PJ (may I call you PJ ;lol, is correct.  Whether the grievance has any chance of winning or not has nothing to do with it.  If the union feels that the contract has been violated, then it is their responsibility to grieve the violation.  There are precedents in contract case law where a court ruled an entire contract null and void (and I'm not just talking about labor contracts) because one party to the contract allowed repeated violations of the contract by another party to the contract.

 
Thank you jimntx. That is all I am trying to say here. What ever happens happens, and either side will adapt, of that I have no doubt. We are only trying to enforce our CBA.

 

[blue collar]

To your point of- why didn't they try to remove the language when negotiating this last agreement? I think it's because the company doesn't think it means what you think it does. They knew they were going to go FCFS, and they probably read your Art. 7 the same way I'm reading it.
Also, if you notice, Art. 28 states:
"Employees covered by this Agreement and their immediate families will be granted the same transportation privileges on the Company's system as may be established by Company regulations for all personnel."
Your CBA states that travel is dictated by Company regulations. The company chose FCFS, therefore Art. 7 won't pertain- all it is for is a description of what each seniority is/used for. The same as if- just for arguments sake, the company did away with vacation. No need to use seniority to bid it then, even though Art. 7 (seniority) would state that DOH is used for bidding vacation.

 

[lax]

To your point of- why didn't they try to remove the language when negotiating this last agreement? I think it's because the company doesn't think it means what you think it does. They knew they were going to go FCFS, and they probably read your Art. 7 the same way I'm reading it.
Also, if you notice, Art. 28 states:
"Employees covered by this Agreement and their immediate families will be granted the same transportation privileges on the Company's system as may be established by Company regulations for all personnel."
Your CBA states that travel is dictated by Company regulations. The company chose FCFS, therefore Art. 7 won't pertain- all it is for is a description of what each seniority is/used for. The same as if- just for arguments sake, the company did away with vacation. No need to use seniority to bid it then, even though Art. 7 (seniority) would state that DOH is used for bidding vacation.

you are trying to rationalize with an incessant whiner who only understands DOH or nothing. he's been told several times that there has been no contract violation but continues to think otherwise. his union filed a grievance due to excessive complaints from people like him. but in the end the union and the company knew there hadn't been a violation committed, hence why they didnt bother removing those 2 articles. but stay tuned, something else will be on the horizon to complain about soon. seems to be a pattern with these people.

 

[blue collar]

you are trying to rationalize with an incessant whiner who only understands DOH or nothing. he's been told several times that there has been no contract violation but continues to think otherwise. his union filed a grievance due to excessive complaints from people like him. but in the end the union and the company knew there hadn't been a violation committed, hence why they didnt bother removing those 2 articles. but stay tuned, something else will be on the horizon to complain about soon. seems to be a pattern with these people.

I don't fault them for grieving it, but I don't see how they are going to win it, (by win it I mean have DOH boarding) but they may be compensated for it. As FWAAA pointed out, how do you show damages when the lower seniority people are clearly benefitting? Not sure how to be made 'whole' if the arbitrator were to side with them, which IMHO doesn't have a chance.