IAM Fleet Service topic

[P. REZ]

COC,

I said it once before now I will say it again. I believe that when Bloch ruled that US Airways stock was wiped out in bankruptcy, out went the possibility of ever winning COC in the future. If you read further the decision by Bloch, he states that each investor acted alone in the deals they made to finance this merger.

Now don't you think that the average lawyer could tell Tilton and Dougie how to work it again. Being a part of negotiations before I think the reason they want the language out is because it costs a lot of money to kick our a$$ on this issue again, and they would rather move on.

I will state again, this is a POS contract and I wish everyone luck whichever way this turns out.



Respectfully,

P. REZ

 

[necigrad]

I've been thinking about this whole COC thing. Let's just say that the COC is 100% guaranteed to kick in in the event of a merger. So what? It's actually not much more then what UA (and I assume AA) has already anyway. Sure it's more, but not THAT much more. Factor in inflation for the next several years and it's what we'd expect anyway. I'm not so sure the COC is much of a merger hangup.

 

[mike33]

COC,
I said it once before now I will say it again. I believe that when Bloch ruled that US Airways stock was wiped out in bankruptcy, out went the possibility of ever winning COC in the future. If you read further the decision by Bloch, he states that each investor acted alone in the deals they made to finance this merger.
Now don't you think that the average lawyer could tell Tilton and Dougie how to work it again. Being a part of negotiations before I think the reason they want the language out is because it costs a lot of money to kick our a$$ on this issue again, and they would rather move on.
I will state again, this is a POS contract and I wish everyone luck whichever way this turns out.
Respectfully,

P. REZ

P. REZ
You asked me a few moths ago when I visited Phx ( Down in the room ) what I thought of the TWU contract vs the Iam contract. If you remember I said I don't know I would have to read both side-by-side. Well I have since then formed an opinion for your question.
I believe the TWU contract that you guys negotiated was a little weak in pay scale and the fact that it supressed the employee from earning a decent living because of how the O.T. was awarded. By seniority only........The best was the scope language. So simple but yet so protective.
The best of the IAM contract I still believe ( even after the rendered opinion came down ) is the COC. This is not a BK situation. Those stock rules don't apply. These are airlines with stock value and huge assets ( now being out of BK ) that BLEND their stocks/assets in a way so the stock value of the
merger or mergee ( i think thats a correct term) is of more value. Simply put 2 for 1 or 1 for 2. no ZERO VALUE is ever the result.

Yes this is a POS, but they know it also. Thats the sad part.......

Mike

 

[mike33]

I've been thinking about this whole COC thing. Let's just say that the COC is 100% guaranteed to kick in in the event of a merger. So what? It's actually not much more then what UA (and I assume AA) has already anyway. Sure it's more, but not THAT much more. Factor in inflation for the next several years and it's what we'd expect anyway. I'm not so sure the COC is much of a merger hangup.

Thats what I mean....Have you read and understand the Pay Parity reflection of 2003 in it? or the 4.5% + 4.5% + 4.5% that applies at the union descretion by extending the contract for 3 yrs?

 

[P. REZ]

Mike33,

Yes, I do remember your visit and conversation. I agree with the TWU scope language being good but still am not sold on the COC after reading Bloch's decision. My concern is with Canale and whether he believes the TWU scope language is good. I have reason to believe the company down played the language and Canale bought it.


I think of time value of money when I look at this TA and my belief is that if voted down Canale and company will come back with the same offer 3 to 6 months later. Now if Canale loses his re-election bid then the New Direction team will be playing catch up in negotiations and it may be longer before we get another TA. Will that TA be any better?

I don't have faith in the IAM negotiators to this point to believe that waiting will save field stations or get me and my brothers and sisters a better offer to make up for losing out on these wages and the pension.

I wish everyone luck and hold no animosity towards anyone for voting for what they believe.

Good luck!!

Respectfully,

P. REZ

 

[mike33]

Mike33,
Yes, I do remember your visit and conversation. I agree with the TWU scope language being good but still am not sold on the COC after reading Bloch's decision. My concern is with Canale and whether he believes the TWU scope language is good. I have reason to believe the company down played the language and Canale bought it.
I think of time value of money when I look at this TA and my belief is that if voted down Canale and company will come back with the same offer 3 to 6 months later. Now if Canale loses his re-election bid then the New Direction team will be playing catch up in negotiations and it may be longer before we get another TA. Will that TA be any better?
I don't have faith in the IAM negotiators to this point to believe that waiting will save field stations or get me and my brothers and sisters a better offer to make up for losing out on these wages and the pension.
I wish everyone luck and hold no animosity towards anyone for voting for what they believe.
Good luck!!
Respectfully,

P. REZ

REZ

You know I respect your decision on this and hope all works out for you guys also.
But....I have to believe there's more than meets the eye.

Respectfully,

Mike

 

[Rook]

Rook....
Sorry to sound defensive. It's that no one has a crystal ball here and a lot of folks out there act like they do. Hey...if we vote no and they go right back back to the table, and come back with 20....you aren't gonna see a happier man than me. BUT.....the only thing I am going by is that both sides said they are NOT going back....so I don't think we should gamble on this. Just my opinion and I'm sticking with it!

Well Gf, i have quite a few yrs also but dont take it in content that i siad they were going back to the table just put it on the other side of the coin.
Look at it this way if it passes and we get the $1.62 raise 30 days after signing (around the first week of june) and the final phase arond Jan2009. Go look at how much insurance is going up POOF there goes your raise.

 

[perserverance]

Really? The government allowed it? :blink:

Yes, really. Look at Senator Bonds agenda he was the one who went after the intergration
seniority and repealed it after the union asked him to do so. As I posted on page 10 though
a new policy was voted in to protect the workers seniority in the event of a merger or takeover.

 

[roabilly]

OK... Boyz... This is what will happen if yahh vote it in !

A picture is worth ahh thousand words !


View attachment 7445

Under the BUS !

 

[Tim Nelson]

COC,

I said it once before now I will say it again. I believe that when Bloch ruled that US Airways stock was wiped out in bankruptcy, out went the possibility of ever winning COC in the future. If you read further the decision by Bloch, he states that each investor acted alone in the deals they made to finance this merger.

Now don't you think that the average lawyer could tell Tilton and Dougie how to work it again. Being a part of negotiations before I think the reason they want the language out is because it costs a lot of money to kick our a$$ on this issue again, and they would rather move on.

I will state again, this is a POS contract and I wish everyone luck whichever way this turns out.



Respectfully,

P. REZ

I think the high priced lawyer did talk to Hemenway and his answer was clear..."Take the COC out now". Last time he told him to leave it in. This is the truth and separate from opinion. If you think the COC doesn't have any teeth given the context of the company's latest action and the merger environment then so be it, but that opinion isn't backed up with the company's actions this time.

At any rate, the masses will decide this one in May.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[roabilly]

For all those who have determined that the COC has no validity …you should ask the IAM representatives who will be promoting this agreement in the near future two questions…

A If the COC is worthless to us (Fleet)…why did you guys (IAM) use this language as a bellwether for the Merger and Acquisition language in many Airline contracts for decades?

B Is there any past labor case history where this language was tested other than the bankruptcy scenario at LCC? If so… please provide the details of the outcome, and the carriers involved.

I call on the IAM trained knowledge and wisdom of 700UW…Distract Farce…

Put your training and education to positive use for a change… Answer the above questions for this dues paying Membership… without prejudice, and without bias.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

Yes, really. Look at Senator Bonds agenda he was the one who went after the intergration
seniority and repealed it after the union asked him to do so. As I posted on page 10 though
a new policy was voted in to protect the workers seniority in the event of a merger or takeover.

Actually it only requires binding arbitration if disputes arise,which the TWU did with the IAM.

 

[john john]

IAM fleet service negotiating team is seeing typical Glass negotiating. A page right out of the negotiations with ALPA. Every time you go back to the negotiating table the proposals get worst sighting the state of the airline industry. Seen it all before

 

[Old Guy]

For all those who have determined that the COC has no validity …you should ask the IAM representatives who will be promoting this agreement in the near future two questions…

A If the COC is worthless to us (Fleet)…why did you guys (IAM) use this language as a bellwether for the Merger and Acquisition language in many Airline contracts for decades?

B Is there any past labor case history where this language was tested other than the bankruptcy scenario at LCC? If so… please provide the details of the outcome, and the carriers involved.

I call on the IAM trained knowledge and wisdom of 700UW…Distract Farce…

Put your training and education to positive use for a change… Answer the above questions for this dues paying Membership… without prejudice, and without bias.

Roabilly,
This language was put in the M&R's during the Wolf/ Gangwall ,parity plus 1%. And the wages are based on wages at THAT time . So if left in the contract M&R could lose wages. The rest of the language has been in there since the Allegheny/ Mohawk merger. (The pilots had better language and let it go)

 

[605AW]

This is the way I see it:

The company "bean counters" give the union negotiators "x" amount of contract budget to work with. They in turn try to figure out what will bring the East and West to vote yes - 50% plus 1.

The no vote last September gave the company 8 months of budgeted money they didn't have to use to date. Money saved.

So the vote in May is a overwelming no...the company gets value on the money they figured in their budget because nobody get a payraise. The company says we won't to back to the table till the end of 2009. Another year and a half of budget value. Plus the customary two years of negotiations. Total of 3 and half years of money saved from 2008.

Next, The Union see's it got itself in a pickle because all along they should have been negotiating the West FSA's. So, I anticipate they give the West a chance to vote in the future if they (we) want to be put into the East contract. By doing this, they will claim "well, at least we tried". And the company sits back and watches Phx and Las pit their eventual Class 1 Hub status payraise - top out of $17.87 (not $19.00) verses the outsource of 18 stations. If it's a yes vote...the company gets even more value on their 2008 budget because of a minumum of 5 stations will be gone with a stroke of the pen. Shift some mainline flights to RJ's and 10 more go away. If it's a no vote, the company still get it 's value because the West pay will stay the same. Either way, the company gets what it wants.