IAM Fleet Service topic

[RAPUNZEL]

Regarding a possible US/UA merger and it's affects on fleet...UA put out this press release today along with posting $537 Million 1st Quarter Loss

http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,6862,59167,00.html

The company will permanently remove 30 narrowbody aircraft from its operations, 10 -15 more aircraft than initially announced last month. The aircraft being retired are some of the oldest and least fuel efficient in the company's fleet.

The company is also expanding the scope of its 2008 cost reduction program. The company is now targeting $200 million in non-fuel cost savings, in addition to the $200 million announced earlier this year, for a total of $400 million. The company is also streamlining its operations and corporate functions in order to match the size of its workforce to the size of its business. The company expects to reduce its salaried and management workforce by 500 employees and its represented workforce by approximately 600 employees by year-end.

 

[P. REZ]

The alternative is to only listen to one side of the argument in which case ignorance would dominate, lies would run rampant. Once the masses rightly review what the union puts out and what I put out, they will at least have enough information to make an intelligent decision. For instance, PRez is a respected person and he's voting Yes. I don't have a problem with that. The membership will decide one way or the other and regardless of which way it votes, it will have nothing to do with our solidarity which is strong systemwide.
PHX is a strong Yes vote. Big deal, i have many friends in PHX and will count them as friends if this gets shot down or if this gets ratified. PHL and CLT are sure No's, is it enough, who knows? Time will tell.

Non-Union Continental wages with just announced 2% pay increase for July 1st
remember non-union Continental isn't close to the industry average but they have better benefits also: 5 weeks vacation, paid holiday pay, 100% sick time, 3xprofit sharing, and much more.

Comparison of this contract with the one we voted down in September

Comparison of this contract with our bankrupt contracts of 2002 & 2003

West side only: The lies your Canale loyalist are spreading to you

Contract information main page

And I'm working on a piece now that compares the company's balance sheet, 30% mechanic raise, 200% company exec bonus plan, and this bankrupt contract.

None of these comparisons support justice or a fair and equitable shake.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
email: [email protected]


--------------------

I am speaking as an IAM member to IAM members and am not necessarily a US AIRWAYS employee


Tim Nelson






Thanks Tim, trying to win my vote?

 

[700UW]

Is it any wonder that US Airways has been in and out of bankruptcy??? Just read the brilliance of the no posters here. You are all lucky that AWA stepped in and saved your jobs......and you all wouldn't even have the opportunity to be making more money with this TA till your BK contract expires....

educate yourself, US approached HP and US raised the money for the merger, not Doug and HP.

Merger Money

 

[P. REZ]

Is it verifiable that the company called the union for this round of negotiations?

 

[Tim Nelson]

SO... folks at the station I work at seem to be split over this T.A.... the ones you'd expect to vote yes are doing so, and the ones you'd expect to vote no are doing so. However, there is one burning question that remains a mystery to all and nobody (IAM or Company) seems to be able to provide an honest answer, or one at all for that matter.

Q: Why is it that the Company or the IAM have the arbitrary authority to simply merge/integrate West into East's current BK contract? If this is the case, than why didn't it happen a couple years ago? You can't tell me that the company/IAM wanted to "give us the opportunity to hash out a decent T.A." and are now frustrated they can't so they are going to just make a push to integrate. No one is clear on this authority, and thus, many feel it is simply a scare tactic! What is the legality on this? Sorry I am not more versed in this area, but there seems to be an avoidance of protocol here, no? Somewhere along this process, there would need to be at least one vote if not more (one from each side, IAM and ex-TWU members, no?). All very mind-boggling... something the Company/IAM are probably counting on to get people to vote yes out of being naive, but not surprising seeing who we are dealing with.

Any feedback that is genuine (not speculation) may help sway a few more votes the NO direction....

Thanks!

BC,
Nobody can arbitrarily throw the west in the east contract. PERIOD. That is a lie that those in the $100,000 club are spreading. The bylaws are clear. Kindly read www.joeypage.com/westside to get your answer.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[Save708AW]

Sorry, but I have to interject again. Not to beat a dead horse, but can someone please provide a factually based argument as to what exactly industry average is. Not just continental and swa. I would like to see a table of salaries of the majors. In my opinion, industry average should be an average payscale derived from a collection of all the majors and dividing it by the number surveyed. That would equal, industry average. Tim, I like you buddy but you keep on comparing us to co. I have a sneaky suspicion that the scale for the ta is right about in the middle. Which doesn't equal: lowest in the industry. I know swissport and serviceair countrywide have more employees than us, get less benefits, are paid substantionally less than us, and yet they are still a major part of OUR industry. I kinda agree about some of the other arguments but to say we will be lowest paid in the industry is misleading. I will happily appollogize if I am ultmately proven wrong, but I want to see a comparison first. Not just to a few select carriers but the industry as a whole. If I am right, lets drop this pay part and move along to other issues in this ta. Sound fair?

This is for anyone to comment on.

 

[Save708AW]

Tim,

The scales and bennies would be a great item to add to your website.

 

[roabilly]

educate yourself, US approached HP and US raised the money for the merger, not Doug and HP.

Merger Money

Interesting “seed of doubt†concept sir…

I think we’ve seen this movie before… Let’s see… if that is in fact Mr. Parker’s intention, we could safely assume that COC would not be triggered under these conditions.

However, yet another Transition Agreement would be triggered… only this time between UA and US.

Now let’s see… do you think the much larger…better compensated United Fleet group would actually vote to have themselves brought down to our standards?
(Please go into the United, thread and run this scenario by their Fleet Group.)

In addition… under these circumstances, there would absolutely be no need in having this language removed from our current or future agreements.

We should begin to explore the current United Agreement at this time… use your resources for the better of this Fleet Group…

Mr. 700…does United Fleet currently have COC… or any language similar in their current agreement?

My message to the Company is to simply leave our COC language intact, if you are confident that it is worthless, and unenforceable.

 

[rat tales]

And yes, this is another instance of this offer being inferior to the first tentative. And if this TA is voted down, if there were to be a third TA, double time will probably be off the board altogether.

Hope everyone elwe gets the point.....1st TA was better......2nd TA offer not as good.......3rd, if at all, well you get the point.

You make the best argument for why this agreement should be voted down. The precedent that would be set by voting it in out of fear that the next would be worse demonstrates the lack of confidence that Canale can bring back improvements "ever" to our group.
This can affect EVERY Negotiation from this day on. Canale by bringing a TA that is less than the last demonstrates that he is a total idiot when it comes to negotiation strategy's or he is setting up the workers of US and UA for a fall.

Could this be CANALE'S REVENGE? Could he be so mean spirited that he exacts punishment on the membership both US and UA that are rising up and trying to vote him out. He literally lost every major nomination from all the major UA and US hubs. The sheer numbers during the Officer election he has to know he can not overcome. If Canale, Tilton, and Parker have found a way to take the US and AW contracts apart in such a way as to set up for the UA merger, we are in trouble. If they can in the merger show that US is the surviving company and keep the UA brand, they can state that our contract should be the surviving contract. Effectively he can burn down our house on the way out laughing all the way to the bank. His deals were all made in sidebar you know!

There could be many layers to this onion we have not seen yet!

 

[GoldenRam94]

You make the best argument for why this agreement should be voted down. The precedent that would be set by voting it in out of fear that the next would be worse demonstrates the lack of confidence that Canale can bring back improvements "ever" to our group.
This can affect EVERY Negotiation from this day on. Canale by bringing a TA that is less than the last demonstrates that he is a total idiot when it comes to negotiation strategy's or he is setting up the workers of US and UA for a fall.

Could this be CANALE'S REVENGE? Could he be so mean spirited that he exacts punishment on the membership both US and UA that are rising up and trying to vote him out. He literally lost every major nomination from all the major UA and US hubs. The sheer numbers during the Officer election he has to know he can not overcome. If Canale, Tilton, and Parker have found a way to take the US and AW contracts apart in such a way as to set up for the UA merger, we are in trouble. If they can in the merger show that US is the surviving company and keep the UA brand, they can state that our contract should be the surviving contract. Effectively he can burn down our house on the way out laughing all the way to the bank. His deals were all made in sidebar you know!

There could be many layers to this onion we have not seen yet!

Yup, and I have some land in South Florida to sell you!

To think that Canale has some grand plan to screw Fleet over for voting him out is the funniest thing I have read on this board in a long while!

 

[freedom]

A merger has occurred at US AIRWAYS , it was between AWA and US AIR … we here today are the final product of that merger . The text in italics is from the arbiters decision .

FACTS :

in August of 2002, US Airways filed for bankruptcy. Subsequently, in
negotiations with the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and the
Company’s other unions, the parties reached various “restructuring agreementsâ€
by which the unions granted substantial labor concessions. The parties also negotiated a variety of so-called Change in Control provisions (CIC) that would,
in the appropriate circumstances, reinstate -- “snap-backâ€-- many of the benefits
conceded by the unions through bargaining. The question of whether those
provisions in the IAM agreements have been triggered is at the heart of these
grievances.


NOTE here is an important part of text

The bankruptcy exit and merger with America West Airlines
occurred on September 27, 2005.

We now can conclude that there has in FACT been one merger already , albeit tinged by BK … Below are requirements from the arbitrator that are necessary for our union to win ANY change of control grievance .

if the transaction does not comply in all respects with the contractual
framework, the Association’s claim must fail .

Below is the contractual language agreed on by both the union and company .


The parties agree a “change in controlâ€, as that term is defined in the
Labor Agreement, requires a specific set of elements, including (1) the sale of all
or substantially all the assets or the common stock of the Company (2) in a single
transaction (or in multi-step related transactions) (3) to a single purchaser (or a
group of purchasers acting in concert).

Please pay attention to this , the union and company did not really DISCUSS just what these terms meant .


The parties agree there was no discussion, during bargaining, of the contract language set forth above. Both parties direct the Board to, among other things, a range of statutory and common law interpretations they say serve to provide perspective as to the intended impact of the language in question


The arbiters first reasoning in denying the change of control is in my mind the most damaging to the effectiveness of the change of control .

One begins with the observation that this was a sale of stock, not assets.
The bargained language requires the sale of common stock, which is further
specified4 as “then outstanding common stock†issued and in the hands of
shareholders. In this case, however, all “then outstanding stock†of the US
Airways Group that had existed prior to the Company’s emergence from
bankruptcy was cancelled. What was issued and sold was new common stock.

At first when I read through this a few times I didn’t quite get it , but if you look at the PDF file , you’ll see that the word OUTSTANDING has been bolded by the court to add special meaning . Notice how the court defines the “stock “ as “then outstanding common stock “ . … it could be that the change of control has forever been altered by the loss of the “then outstanding common stock “ which it might have been permanently LINKED too .the “Stock “ option as written in the Change of control provision could be useless but the change of control could still apply to assets , so for example , strike stock from the change of control provision and here you have .

The parties agree a “change in controlâ€, as that term is defined in the
Labor Agreement, requires a specific set of elements, including (1) the sale of all
or substantially all the assets of the Company (2) in a single
transaction (or in multi-step related transactions) (3) to a single purchaser (or a
group of purchasers acting in concert).


You see brothers and sisters , if our union and the company didn’t bother to discuss the legal terms within the provision ,that means that any future arbitration is going to go off of common law definitions , and seeing as our union has already agreed to the terminology from this first case , those same definitions will be used in any other future cases .

These are the arbiters words , see them here in more detail


the bargained language requires the sale of common stock, which is further
Specified as “then outstanding common stockâ€

Ok let it sink in …..

In this case, however, all “then outstanding stock†of the US
Airways Group that had existed prior to the Company’s emergence from
bankruptcy was cancelled.

What was issued and sold was new common stock. .

At this point your probably scratching your head like I was .. Ok outstanding stock , common stock , big deal right ? RIGHT , otherwise why would the arbiter have even mentioned the “past or present†form of the stock , UNLESS it made a very big deal in triggering the COC… The arbiter was telling us that the change of control dealt with the old stock and not the NEW stock .

So in conclusion , the change of control would in my opinion only be triggered by

the sale of all
or substantially all the assets

That is why I feel the change of control is not nearly as valuable as many believe it to be .


.

 

[rat tales]

Yup, and I have some land in South Florida to sell you!

To think that Canale has some grand plan to screw Fleet over for voting him out is the funniest thing I have read on this board in a long while!

Just thinking outside the box. Maybe way outside, but who knows. We are not among the players in the grand scheme of the industry. There is alot to be lost at the International level. NW and DL merger will be contentious for the IAM. DL is non union and District 143 could lose membership if they ousted the IAM. While this is not a concern of Randy's, Buffenbarger may be putting tremendous pressure on Randy to solidify a deal by whatever means possible with IAM Represented carriers. CO(unrepresented) and UA would end up in another fight. Pairing with anyone else would end up in another representational battle(enter Teansters/TWU). We are but pawns in this game. They are not worried about losing total membership with our pairing. Getting 50% + 1 is the only way that Randy can expedite this process and still keep Tilton and Parker happy.
Randy being voted out in June only hurts his pride and his legacy. Parker, Tilton, or Buffenbarger will definitely take care of their boy one way or the other.

Laugh it up. We will definitely have a front row seat as this show unfolds, we will just not be in a position to do anything about it.

 

[WTF_CLT]

A merger has occurred at US AIRWAYS , it was between AWA and US AIR … we here today are the final product of that merger . The text in italics is from the arbiters decision .

<snipped for tediousness>

That is why I feel the change of control is not nearly as valuable as many believe it to be .


.

Basic response= Why then is the company so adamant that any COC language be removed?

 

[mike33]

Freedom, thank you.You've just clarified what I've been saying all the time. Oustanding stock and value of the stock are on in the same. That last opinion of

Blochs had the value of $0. The stock now cannot be $0 because they're not in BK. You've made my argument. There will be oustanding stock in this next

transaction.

 

[Henderfuzz]

The Big Gamble.
For those of you still think a no vote is the only way to go I want to point out what you will be giving up.
Lets assume that Canale is not lieing when he says this is the final agreement.
We now will have to wait 2 maybe 3 years for a new deal and even longer if there is a merger.
So can you live with giving up a 2 percent raise over the next 4 years, never seeing doubltime for 3 to 4 more years, only 5 holidays , and most important the 60 day rule hanging over us as more layoffs come, which I beleive they will as long as we continue to see fuel prices rise.
Now of course we all know that only affects the east.
I dont think anyone here has a crystal ball than can predict what the IAM or company will do if this is voted down. I know many here think they will be back. I agree they will be back in 2 years.
So that means we all will get by on what we make now, and hope that the layoffs dont come to our station.
I think it was 700 who said that if a merger happens USAirways could be the buyer and some here said that would never happen. Well Im not sure I would gamble on that either becasue if the reason for the company comming back was to remove the COC than I beleive that is exactly how a deal will be made, if this vote is a no. Which of course means the COC has no effect.
So once again we find ourselves in a new merger with no agreement just waiting to come to some agreement, years down the road.
I for one do not beleive from all I can find out that the IAM will just fold the west into the east contract, I do plan on asking the IAM rep when he comes to my station about that.
However if this deal is voted down the west will most likley suffer the most in any layoffs becasue of just how the industry is going.
I know and understand there are many issues that need to be resolved, and that this agreement is not great, I however dont see how at this time, with gas continuing to rise as well as many other things that you can feel good about leaving it all on the table.
We all know no matter how we vote they have a plan to merge, our yes vote would prob make it eaiser, bit we have seen how they can overcome any obstical that is thrown at them.
They will find a way and there prob will be layoffs, if and when it comes.
So remember there is much at stake here either way we vote, Its an Big gamble.