IAM Fleet Service topic

[GoldenRam94]

Just remember where you guys are getting your advice from. A lot of so called leaders on this board were touting the IBEW not so long ago. Well guess what? The leader of that illustrious organization is struggling to explain away all of his 'gifts' that he has received. And we are not talking about $100 gifts either! Here is the article about this great Union Man!

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_updat...enovations.html

Again this is a man that people wanted to represent Fleet!

I am sure that nobody will talk about Doc, since the IBEW is out, but I think it is important to know just who some people are lying down with!

 

[Tim Nelson]

District Force,
I understand your opinion that if fleet votes this down that the United merger won't happen and US AIRWAYS would have to go it alone, in which case you have been explicit that you believe US will file chapter 7 if this contract doesn't ratify [even though the Parker said he has no problem keeping the pilots separate if that's what they want].

Your opinion on the contract itself suggest that you think this contract sux like 100% of fleet service workers do. But your reason of supporting the contract is quite different from the others who have admitted that this contract is a rape job but still worthy of some yes votes.

So here's my question, If fleet service rejects this contract and it decided to protect the 22 west stations and keep the CIC merger protections, AND United still mergers with US AIRWAYS, does this contract have any merit at that point? Would you vote Yes or would you vote NO if you didn't think US would end up in bankruptcy? FWIW, I think I know who you are and you have always been a solid IAM leader and I know you'll support us if this contract goes down.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

Also,
If there was no merger, would you vote yes on this rag? It seems to me that your whole reason to vote for this centers 100% on a merger. Could it be that US AIRWAYS doesn't need this merger as bad as United and maybe the United Airline IAM guys are just pushing this through for the interest of United Airlines exclusively? If I'm being honest, it looks to me that United is in a world of baby doo doo, and NOT US AIRWAYS. And could you tell everyone that I am the Local Chairman, because Randy is going around lying to people, even though anyone can call my local and they would tell them I am, or anyone can go to my local's website which mentions me as the local chairman.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[roabilly]

Also,
If there was no merger, would you vote yes on this rag? It seems to me that your whole reason to vote for this centers 100% on a merger. Could it be that US AIRWAYS doesn't need this merger as bad as United and maybe the United Airline IAM guys are just pushing this through for the interest of United Airlines exclusively? If I'm being honest, it looks to me that United is in a world of baby doo doo, and NOT US AIRWAYS. And could you tell everyone that I am the Local Chairman, because Randy is going around lying to people, even though anyone can call my local and they would tell them I am, or anyone can go to my local's website which mentions me as the local chairman.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

http://www.iamlocal1487.org/Grievance.htm

To all who continue to question Mr. Nelson’s integrity, and claim he is not the Grievance Committee Chairman of the IAM 1487. Please click on the above link and scroll down to the bottom of the page, under US Airways…tell me what you see.

As far as Mr. Farce goes…I think it is time for him to represent this Membership the way we demand. We are his Boss! Union leadership can not accomplish anything without the full participation of the Membership! Mr. Farce is learning that the days of keeping the Membership in the dark and going about business as usual are over!

I can assure you, that Mr. Farce is well compensated for answering your/our questions.

Mr. Farce…you can no longer address this Fleet group in a condescending manner.
You may as well discontinue the “IAM knows best†overtures, as well as the “cloaked agendasâ€â€¦we can see through all of this, and communicate it world-wide very quickly!

Please kindly answer all of Mr. Nelson’s questions.

 

[roabilly]

Most likely UA/US combination scenario… UA purchases US
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who question whether COC is the primary reason we are at the table.

From the Charlotte Observer… Friday, May 2, 2008 (Excerpt)

“Shares in US Airways closed Thursday at $9.35, up nearly 30 percent from last Friday. At that price, the airline’s market value is less $1 billon, and one analyst said the purchase price could be as low as $700 million. That’s nothing said Roger King of CreditSights. That’s like buying ten planesâ€

UA stock, is currently trading in the $34.00 range, as opposed to the under ten dollar amount of US.

Now… who do you think will assume control of whom? Just apply general business logic, and the answer is undeniable!

Vote NO... BRO !

 

[orioleman]

Hey O man , knowing that the NEW TA takes away the 60 day rule , how do you still feel about it ? Joe , what say you ? Are you willing to let your boys go into the night ?

Freedom,
I am glad you are starting to understand about the 60 day . its worthless with the new wording added..

NO I will not will let my brothers/sisters go into the night . that is one of the many reasons I say NO. that language is

rendered useless after OEI . so there is NO protection for anyone that falls under it. Thats why You say NO ... it sux

 

[GoldenRam94]

Most likely UA/US combination scenario… UA purchases US
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who question whether COC is the primary reason we are at the table.

From the Charlotte Observer… Friday, May 2, 2008 (Excerpt)

“Shares in US Airways closed Thursday at $9.35, up nearly 30 percent from last Friday. At that price, the airline’s market value is less $1 billon, and one analyst said the purchase price could be as low as $700 million. That’s nothing said Roger King of CreditSights. That’s like buying ten planesâ€

UA stock, is currently trading in the $34.00 range, as opposed to the under ten dollar amount of US.

Now… who do you think will assume control of whom? Just apply general business logic, and the answer is undeniable!

Vote NO... BRO !

Actually United is trading at $15.93 a share. With outstanding shares United is worth 1.8 billion, about twice the value of US. Neither one is worth very much, the question becomes who has the cash fluid to make a move?????????

 

[wings396]

I have been quiet on this topic for a while now, and must chime in with a few questions. IF this T/A gets voted in paving the way for a UA takeover of US, why all the concern about how much this T/A sucks? Being that UA would be the surviving carrier, wouldn't their current CBA take the place of the new one at US? I can't see cramming this new T/A at US down the throats of a larger membership of UA employees with them being the ones taking over US. On the other hand I can see many here wanting to keep the CIC language for this very reason, BUT it could also kill the UA deal, and end up being worthless instead. Due to the fact that they are keeping a lid on a formal announcemet until after the vote on 5/8, should be a signal to all that they way this vote goes could have a direct outcome on wheather or not UA follows thru with any type of a merger or not. Just my thoughts here, please feel free to give me your thoughts on these issues.

 

[WTF_CLT]

I’m amazed at the level of self deception on this board … you all think you have some sort of super scope protection in your shitty BK contract????? WOW , no wonder you LOVE your BK contract , I wouldn’t want to give it up either ! 10 more years with it! Right brothers? Ten more years!!! (that’s called sarcasm )

Most of those with above room temperature IQ s can easily spot any feeble attempt at sarcasm.Although your statement is certainly unencumbered by any logical thought process.

Next Tim will be telling you that your 60 day rule is actually a GOOD thing! …. Yeah give me a break ..snap backs and change of controls and dignity and respect …. Yeah …. And sugar and sunshine and gold .….

Huh?

Sometimes I wonder if I should change my style … perhaps I’m too realistic , perhaps my outlook is too worldly …. Maybe if I gave you more hope and empty promises you’d come over to our side …

Mindless ranting is a style? Those who are truly "worldly" would find your limited perspective amusing if not outright laughable.

OR maybe not …. So once again , here we go with another dose of reality …POW……

Our company lost 250 in the first quarter

The us economy is doing poorly and it’s expected to get worse

LCC posted a loss in the weakest quarter of the fiscal year. How much cash on hand is there? How large is the loss in relation to the other majors? Oil prices rising only make mass transportation (i.e. airline travel ) more attractive due to economy of scale. Have Parker and his crew adjusted their compensation in preparation for the upcoming calamity? Perhaps most relevant is that most of us with well over two decades employment have heard this song TOO MANY times over the years. No more peeing in our face and telling us it's rain. Oh,and the economy is cyclic is it not?

Fleet service is fractured into three different groups , two of them are paid less than the first , as long as this fact exists there will be no “wining “ negotiations …

This TA was no negotiation. It is a gift wrapped f**king Canale presented to the company.
Oil is up up and away …

We are possibly about to merge with united , there will down sizing , no one can know where or how many of us will lose our jobs … but we do know if it happens you east guys will leave this company and never come back with the 60 day rule …

Your concern for our welfare is truly touching. (wipes a tear from his eyes)

I can’t keep remembering all of the negatives that we’re facing as a group , it’s like everyday there are more and more obstacles , yet nothing seems to phase you folks out there …. I’m sorry that times are bad , that things are getting worse , I really am …. There’s nothing I nor any of your brothers and sisters can do to change the world around us ….. We can only take that course of action that is the most logical , the most prudent …

Why do you refer to yourself as freedom? If your defeatist (Not worldly. Not realistic, but basically loser) mentality had been prevalent in the 1700s we'd still be drinking overpriced tea and flying the Union Jack!!

It’s your decision , you can throw away this contract for the unknown …..

Umm, lets see. How about, "nothing ventured nothing gained" Let's also try, "those who stand for nothing will fall for anything".

 

[cltrat]

WTF CLT beautiful

 

[WTF_CLT]

I have been quiet on this topic for a while now, and must chime in with a few questions. IF this T/A gets voted in paving the way for a UA takeover of US, why all the concern about how much this T/A sucks? Being that UA would be the surviving carrier, wouldn't their current CBA take the place of the new one at US? I can't see cramming this new T/A at US down the throats of a larger membership of UA employees with them being the ones taking over US. On the other hand I can see many here wanting to keep the CIC language for this very reason, BUT it could also kill the UA deal, and end up being worthless instead. Due to the fact that they are keeping a lid on a formal announcemet until after the vote on 5/8, should be a signal to all that they way this vote goes could have a direct outcome on wheather or not UA follows thru with any type of a merger or not. Just my thoughts here, please feel free to give me your thoughts on these issues.

What if UA isn't the surviving carrier? If it's a potential "deal killer" then the TA should have had enhancements that would justify giving up CIC .The TA as it sits is a "steaming pile". So, please don't suggest we "take one for the team" to enhance merger possibilities.

 

[pjirish317]

I'll second that.

It seems that some people are always trying to ice skate UPHILL!

refering to WTF CLT's post 473

 

[The Bagfather]

I have been quiet on this topic for a while now, and must chime in with a few questions. IF this T/A gets voted in paving the way for a UA takeover of US, why all the concern about how much this T/A sucks? Being that UA would be the surviving carrier, wouldn't their current CBA take the place of the new one at US? I can't see cramming this new T/A at US down the throats of a larger membership of UA employees with them being the ones taking over US. On the other hand I can see many here wanting to keep the CIC language for this very reason, BUT it could also kill the UA deal, and end up being worthless instead. Due to the fact that they are keeping a lid on a formal announcemet until after the vote on 5/8, should be a signal to all that they way this vote goes could have a direct outcome on wheather or not UA follows thru with any type of a merger or not. Just my thoughts here, please feel free to give me your thoughts on these issues.

I think to some extent the reason that any decision would be withheld
until after the vote is that such and action could be construed as an undue
influence on the vote. So any implications we may come up with are
subject to scrutiny. This logic however says nothing about the practical effect the
different parties may want.

I don't think that the vote would nix any deal, but it may alter the transaction.
One scenario might be with a yes vote UA goes ahead and lock stock and barrel
buys US with a No vote producing a more covert type of deal with the same
outcome. Any kind of deal of this sort could be open to a COC challenge.

The big problem here is as far as I can see there would be no reason why we
wouldn't be stuck with this TA for a long time. The complications of this
are really mind boggling but to make a long story short I think there would
be no motivation to bring us together with UA for a long time.

 

[bagchucker]

Voting May 8:

Seems with 5 airports in the So. Cal area with Fleet Employees, there is some issue as to who can and will monitor the votes in the stations. If there are no takers, voters may have to make the drive to LAX to cast their vote... that is a 35 mile drive for some, over 50 miles for others! Gas is averaging $3.90 a gallon in So. Cal...

 

[Districtforce]

District Force,
I understand your opinion that if fleet votes this down that the United merger won't happen and US AIRWAYS would have to go it alone, in which case you have been explicit that you believe US will file chapter 7 if this contract doesn't ratify [even though the Parker said he has no problem keeping the pilots separate if that's what they want].

Your opinion on the contract itself suggest that you think this contract sux like 100% of fleet service workers do. But your reason of supporting the contract is quite different from the others who have admitted that this contract is a rape job but still worthy of some yes votes.

So here's my question, If fleet service rejects this contract and it decided to protect the 22 west stations and keep the CIC merger protections, AND United still mergers with US AIRWAYS, does this contract have any merit at that point? Would you vote Yes or would you vote NO if you didn't think US would end up in bankruptcy? FWIW, I think I know who you are and you have always been a solid IAM leader and I know you'll support us if this contract goes down.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

Tim, I have been painfully honest with fleet service over the past 6 months and I will continue to do so in this post. I will try to incorporate both of your post under this post. I appreciate the fact that you know I would support a rejection if that was the way the membership chose to go. I would actually admire it if fleet service made it through the risk associated with possibly causing your airline to lose its merger partner. But this whole vote is a direct result of the United merger. Your company had no intentions of negotiating if not for the M & A environment that is being forced on this industry.

Before I answer your questions, I will clarify my position. This tentative is not something to be proud of and it will be used as leverage against our United Airline brothers and sisters when they come to the table in 2009. That's not a proud thing to say but it is what it is because the alternative might be no merger and both airlines in chapter 7.

I have been in this business a long time and I believe that United airlines is not in position to pay fleet service the wages that your merger protections spell out. I also doubt United airlines would want to staff the small west stations or even keep PHX and LAS as hubs. So without a contract ratification, United may think twice about investing in US AIRWAYS. I also believe your company is not a stand alone company and a rejection of this contract will seriously impact 8,000 housholds who may be out of a job. Then where does that leave everyone, at the Lowes unemployment line?

Only a merger makes sense for preserving the jobs of most of our members. We also have a responsibility to make sure those employers who employ our members stay in business. Mergers are never friendly to labor and we realize the ramifications that United may seriously scale back the west side of US AIRWAYS and that a reduced capacity may mean job cuts everywhere, but, the alternative to a merger may mean that neither PHX, LAS, PHL, or CLT are hubs since chapter 7 may very well be around the corner with oil at record highs, stock very low, and other airlines going bankrupt. Does a yes vote make sense yet under these very real circumstances? It makes perfect sense to me to preserve 6,000 households instead of throwing all 8,000 under the Nelson vote no bus.

Now, hypothetically, if I were as smart as you and knew that the United merger and its announcement wasn't being held up by the outcome of this vote, then I'd answer that I would vote no if I could vote.
I'm being fair to your question Tim so don't take this out of context when you know I do not believe a United merger will take place with a rejection. That's all I can say on this matter.

The reason I would vote no is that it would allow fleet service to keep things open where fleet can continue to be a participant at the table during the merger. A ratification will lock fleet service in and silence fleet service for the immediate future. Your ratified contract would then present itself as an annoyance as it will no doubt be used by United as leverage against us when we open up traditional bargaining in 2009 for our United members. However, not in any case do I agree with you that United will shelve US AIRWAYS fleet service until 2016. It's all about M & A activity Tim, you must recognize this. None of us are saying we are thrilled with this tentative but the risks to 8,000 households if United walks away is very real. You don't seem to indicate this as a very real possibility and I think that is unwise.

Again, my positon is that a rejection of this contract may force United to rethink a merger. I think that is a very real possibility that our members must give serious thought to when they chose on May 8th.

 

[cltrat]

if thats the case bagchucker that's a shame though if you are a station thought to be likely to vote NO nothing surprises me. your co workers may need to undertake the expense (which suxs) but their future is at stake here