Feb / Mar 2013 IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[ograc]

If we could get a joint contract faster than this company could adjust the flight schedules then we could possibly get stations back ...

Remeber that part of this merger is poltical , I doubt the company could shead jobs for at least the next two Years .

If a joint contract mirrors the language agreed to by DL 141 at UA... a station's flight schedule may not have anything to do with it. Based on the highlight sheet of the UA TA it doesn't appear a station's current flight schedule factors into the equation. It appears 23 stations have been put on a three year countdown and who knows how many are unprotected from day one (the 10%) they speak of but conveniently don't list. Hopefully... I'm wrong. Remember... our contract is being negotiated by the same district. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling right now.

 

[wings396]

Okay, currently AA staffed stations are:

ATL AUS BOS DCA
DFW JFK LAS LGA
LAX MCO MIA ORD
SAT SFO SJU STL
TPA

The outsourced are:

ABQ BDL BNA BWI DEN
DTW ELP EWR FLL
HNL IAD IAH IND
MCI MEM MSP MSY
PHL PHX RDU SAN
SAT SEA SJC TUL
TUS

Under the current agreement restaffing or opening of a new city is triggered at 7300 annual departures.21 a day basically.

They speak of "Harmonization" of operations after the single carrier determination, I'm just curious as to how many stations under that scenario would hit the opening/staffing trigger number.EWR alone has 18 daily mainline AA flights.

I will have to check the current sked, but I think that US has in the area of 12 M/L flights per day at EWR, and they serve CLT & PHX.
I remember what a presence AA had at EWR in the 70's and 80's, and can't believe that it has dwindled down to only 18.

 

[T5towbar]

+1

We've grown complacent, allowed ourselves to be messaged into submission ("you're just lucky to have a job"), and tolerated our leaders spending their time empire building instead of fostering an engaged membership.

Until that changes, don't expect any respect from capital; they laugh all the way to the bank every day...

So true......

See above...

If a joint contract mirrors the language agreed to by DL 141 at UA... a station's flight schedule may not have anything to do with it. Based on the highlight sheet of the UA TA it doesn't appear a station's current flight schedule factors into the equation. It appears 23 stations have been put on a three year countdown and who knows how many are unprotected from day one (the 10%) they speak of but conveniently don't list. Hopefully... I'm wrong. Remember... our contract is being negotiated by the same district. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling right now.

I forgot how many stations that had mainline employees, but IIRC, the old IAM Contract had 29 cities protected. When we joined the IBT, the company retaliated by wanting to close 7 smaller stations. But ever though we weren't dues paying members, they stopped the company from closing those stations. At least they put up a fight. Now they want to put those listed stations on a three year clock. I know that those are well over the flight threshold. Now even though CLE is considered a hub, there was a consent decree not to immediately close the hub. CLE handle a lot of express work with mainline employees (so did EWR) now CLE is one of the cities on the clock. The company figured they can "harmonize" things by closing cargo. Since cargo was lost on one side, we knew it would have been a fight to keep it on our side. The IAM didn't even fight for it at all. The members from IAH had to do picketing (without the IAM's support or endorsement - and I heard that Delaney signed a LOA against further informational picketing - but I can't confirm the truth to that LOA) and IAH just had another informational picket last week. At least the cargo members were placed doing express work at IAH with minimal job loss. No we don't know how many will be lost at EWR or how many can bump in and out of the ramp.

Bottom line is that people don't know what to make of this union. If you are bringing back a contract with no raises and not a lot of improvements and rag on our rushed IBT contract, at least have job protection for ALL. Not 1999. Not 2006. EVERYBODY!!!

The 10% I was referring to is the employees that is not covered by this TA.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I would like to add this disclaimer... " the US represented stations are based on AGC represented stations as listed on the DL 141 website. Based on the fact the information on the website could be "stale" and therefore inaccurate the number of represented stations could be less than 35." The stations being outsourced and subsequent job loss is difficult to keep up with.

As we see often in megers, a waste of money. For instance, why would AMR close PHL and PHX and lay those people off when they will almost assuredly get recalled once the processes of transition take place? Let's hope US AIRWAYS doesn't follow the same mentality and whack ORD, DFW, and MIA. Yikes! regards,

 

[T5towbar]

Let me clarify: Anyone after 4/1/06 has no job protection. We on the sCO side hired a lot between 06 and 08. I'm trying to figure out how they came up with these dates? To protect sUA in some form or fashion?

Also the seniority situation is a big concern. Delaney punted it over to an arbitrator and will be decided AFTER the election. This does not sit well with sCO.

Another reason to vote NO.

 

[ograc]

I forgot how many stations that had mainline employees, but IIRC, the old IAM Contract had 29 cities protected. When we joined the IBT, the company retaliated by wanting to close 7 smaller stations. But ever though we weren't dues paying members, they stopped the company from closing those stations. At least they put up a fight. Now they want to put those listed stations on a three year clock. I know that those are well over the flight threshold. Now even though CLE is considered a hub, there was a consent decree not to immediately close the hub. CLE handle a lot of express work with mainline employees (so did EWR) now CLE is one of the cities on the clock. The company figured they can "harmonize" things by closing cargo. Since cargo was lost on one side, we knew it would have been a fight to keep it on our side. The IAM didn't even fight for it at all. The members from IAH had to do picketing (without the IAM's support or endorsement - and I heard that Delaney signed a LOA against further informational picketing - but I can't confirm the truth to that LOA) and IAH just had another informational picket last week. At least the cargo members were placed doing express work at IAH with minimal job loss. No we don't know how many will be lost at EWR or how many can bump in and out of the ramp.

Bottom line is that people don't know what to make of this union. If you are bringing back a contract with no raises and not a lot of improvements and rag on our rushed IBT contract, at least have job protection for ALL. Not 1999. Not 2006. EVERYBODY!!!

The 10% I was referring to is the employees that is not covered by this TA.

Speaking of bumping... exactly what is the bumping rights/procedure afforded UA employees in the event of downsizing or outsourcing a station. On the US side it is very limited. Additionally, is it true there is no longer a cap on part time with this new TA? If this is true it could have a disastrous impact on one's bumping options.

 

[ograc]

Let me clarify: Anyone after 4/1/06 has no job protection. We on the sCO side hired a lot between 06 and 08. I'm trying to figure out how they came up with these dates? To protect sUA in some form or fashion?

Also the seniority situation is a big concern. Delaney punted it over to an arbitrator and will be decided AFTER the election. This does not sit well with sCO.

Another reason to vote NO.

I believe the last time seniority integration was punted to an arbitrator by the IAM the ruling was not a pure "dovetailing" integration. Something the IAM has historically promoted and fought for up until now. I'm not sure if this TA is sitting well with either sCO or sUA.

 

[john john]

Someone is being awful quiet

 

[Kev3188]

- and I heard that Delaney signed a LOA against further informational picketing - but I can't confirm the truth to that LOA)

I would be very happy to have this proven to be merely a rumor...

I believe the last time seniority integration was punted to an arbitrator by the IAM the ruling was not a pure "dovetailing" integration.

Which one was that?

 

[ograc]

I would be very happy to have this proven to be merely a rumor...




Which one was that?

SWA/Air Tran ramp.

 

[T5towbar]

I would be very happy to have this proven to be merely a rumor...


That's what I heard. So it's only conjecture and accusations. But the IAM did not endorse or support the first nformational picket at iAH. But the second one was supported by the local lodge. Not sure if the District 141 did. Bottom line was IAH was pissed and decided to do something.

 

[T5towbar]

Speaking of bumping... exactly what is the bumping rights/procedure afforded UA employees in the event of downsizing or outsourcing a station. On the US side it is very limited. Additionally, is it true there is no longer a cap on part time with this new TA? If this is true it could have a disastrous impact on one's bumping options.

I know that under our old IBT contract, you could bump into a sCO station if they have any openings. We've had some people transferring out of the hub to stations that the just opened up (they were previously outsourced). We still have an unresolved situation at EWR since cargo is closing. They had to enhance the buyouts and hopefully some of the older people who won't or can't cut it on the ramp leave. But some can exercise their rights and come to the ramp, bumping a junior employee out of a job or displace to another location their seniority could hold. They sent out 803 layoff notices: all of cargo and about 300 or so ramp. That includes cargo office and sales workers. All won't make it on the ramp. The notices were rescinded and new ones will be sent out in April (hopefully less letters) right around the time of ratification. If we vote this contract in, everybody after 4/1/06 can be furloughed. That's one quarter or more of he hub. At least IAH cargo got absorbed to the ramp (whoever could make it) Here, they said we would be overstaffed and can't absorb everyone. That's the problem here. But truth be told we are working short here. That's important why the larger line stations not be outsourced. More people would love to go to IAH. EWR is the armpit of the system, but makes the most money in the new UA.

If the to by the sCO staffing model, sUA will be in for a shock. Doing a LIM to LAX turn with a lead and two agents. No carpet or nest system on our 752 or 800's. or doing. 30 minute Express turn with 50 bags and 40 gate checks with a lead and agent. Work rules are gonna change. That's for sure.

 

[T5towbar]

Oh, and according to what I heard, no part time caps. That's a major problem. In our old IBT contract, there is a clause that says that no can lose their "status" during a merger or downsizing. I know Art. 1, (not sure of the paragraph). In other words, if you are full time, you can't be forced to part time. Or a lead can't be forced down to a agent. But that's another big issue between sUA and sCO. Once or this is ratified. These protections will be null and void.

 

[ograc]

Speaking of bumping... exactly what is the bumping rights/procedure afforded UA employees in the event of downsizing or outsourcing a station. On the US side it is very limited. Additionally, is it true there is no longer a cap on part time with this new TA? If this is true it could have a disastrous impact on one's bumping options.

I know that under our old IBT contract, you could bump into a sCO station if they have any openings. We've had some people transferring out of the hub to stations that the just opened up (they were previously outsourced). We still have an unresolved situation at EWR since cargo is closing. They had to enhance the buyouts and hopefully some of the older people who won't or can't cut it on the ramp leave. But some can exercise their rights and come to the ramp, bumping a junior employee out of a job or displace to another location their seniority could hold. They sent out 803 layoff notices: all of cargo and about 300 or so ramp. That includes cargo office and sales workers. All won't make it on the ramp. The notices were rescinded and new ones will be sent out in April (hopefully less letters) right around the time of ratification. If we vote this contract in, everybody after 4/1/06 can be furloughed. That's one quarter or more of he hub. At least IAH cargo got absorbed to the ramp (whoever could make it) Here, they said we would be overstaffed and can't absorb everyone. That's the problem here. But truth be told we are working short here. That's important why the larger line stations not be outsourced. More people would love to go to IAH. EWR is the armpit of the system, but makes the most money in the new UA.

If the to by the sCO staffing model, sUA will be in for a shock. Doing a LIM to LAX turn with a lead and two agents. No carpet or nest system on our 752 or 800's. or doing. 30 minute Express turn with 50 bags and 40 gate checks with a lead and agent. Work rules are gonna change. That's for sure.

Bumping to openings or junior agent in the system will create hardship for many. Many will end up being displaced to another station, furloughed to the street or forced to be reduced to part time. Especially if the TA includes no cap on the percentage of part timers. Much uncertainty and eventual hardship ahead for countless members.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

If a joint contract mirrors the language agreed to by DL 141 at UA... a station's flight schedule may not have anything to do with it. Based on the highlight sheet of the UA TA it doesn't appear a station's current flight schedule factors into the equation. It appears 23 stations have been put on a three year countdown and who knows how many are unprotected from day one (the 10%) they speak of but conveniently don't list. Hopefully... I'm wrong. Remember... our contract is being negotiated by the same district. I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling right now.

I really hate even chiming in here anymore-----but, I still can't figure out why anyone-(Union/Negotiating Team) would in their right mind agree to the amount of outsourcing of jobs while getting nothing in return that the IAM has, and it seems they just did it yet again at UA----It's so overwhelmingly obvious what this company exploited from the US/AWA transition Agreement over the last several years in terms of job losses--- what good is making any kind of $$$$ if none of us have jobs in the end!!!!
I'm with you Ograc----and have felt this way for a long time-----there are no good feelings with the IAM and or the merger here !!!!