IBT No Show Forum
- Thread starter swamt
- Start date
xUT
Veteran
Thank you!
http://www.amfa11.com/file_cabinet/SWA_Drawer/CN/20110329_SWA_Station_Protection_LOA.pdf
Take Care,
B) xUT
-- edited by me --
BTW, good website!
I find it very interesting that the AMFA mechanics have very recently moderated their position and opinions of what would be a fair and equitable SLI. The group has come all the way from staple AT to the bottom of the list with a fence to a more reasonable expectation and no fences. This is a good thing and I am very encouraged that it just may be possible to get this done. Now the hurdles may turn out to be the Transition agreements between SWA/AMFA and SWA/IBT. I am very curious to see what response AT/IBT comes back with at the next meeting. Today seemed more positive than all previous meetings.Hey MadMan, I told you so.
I couldn't help myself.
The company needs to understand we don't want them to renig on their agreement to start a fourth line of heavy Maint. ON TIME. They shouldn't clutter up this transition agreement with that. The way it's written it looks like they plan to do what they want anyway, regardless of what the contract says.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #545
I'll take a stab at it. I would bet they heard a large number of the membership. Plus as we were told, the company was practically begging for a resolution. So AMFA put their best offer on the table in order to get this done and over with. Very simple, easy, and fair. Glad to hear about the progress.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #546
We were told the same as you posted, 4 yrs boost in SWA senority, no fences, no LOA's. We too were told no slot protections, but was told there will be protection for head count at MCO and BWI, but the duration of said protection was to be dertermaned with further talks with the company. He also said all 3 party's ended the day with good intentions as well as great hope. Nice to see the big move by AMFA in yrs and the LOA removal. That was a major good faith move AMFA. Look forward to hearing back from the AT guys or IBT.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #548
The 4 years has nothing to do with AT's top out. I might be not understanding your post. AT has said from the get-go that they will not take a cut in senority, so AMFA offered a boost to the SWA senority to solve that prob. They in fact came down from 70% boost (as well as a 12 yr boost) and a minimum of 4 yrs., to a solid 4 yr boost across the board. They are also "willing to give up" the March 29 2011 LOA. Which is now in tact and will remain, and an arbitrader cannot remove. The LOA for the AT guys is gone with the past "NO" vote.
You have got to be kidding me that 4 yrs is alot! AMFA made huge movement here. Matter fact, maybe too much, in my opinion. AMFA was asked to make an offer that can get this done, they have it, what they do with it is completely up to them. Once your committee brings this infomation to you and the members at AT, I would strongly recomend you take the time to digest it and see the light at the end of the tunnel. Otherwise my friend, we will, more than likely be going stead fast straight into arbitration. The company has also sent the packages to both unions to start the arbitration process. They will, in fact, file and start the arbitration if they see any hessitation from "either" side from coming to a resolution. Sir, this is not a threat, it is fact. Take the information and realy think about it. AMFA did not move this far to play games. We are serious, as well as the company is, this needs to get done soon or I'm afraid it's off to arbitration and out of our control.
You know what, if 4 is too much, then AMFA should have played the game and came in at a higher number of years, so you all would offer something different, then meet in the middle. Not the case here. Get the info from your committee, digest it, think about it, weigh it out, then make your decision. Don't shotgun it out here on the internet and say, gee, 4 yrs is too much. I'm telling you, this is the offer coming.
I'm not trying to insults you guys I'm just saying that a good amount of our guys are in the 5-8 year range and 4 years would be 50% or more. I do appreciate the movement on you guys part. But if its more on a percentage based then the hit can be more evenly spread among members. Our side and your side would have to get some guaranteed from the company (4 LINE) then it might work.
AvTech04
Senior
I gotta say, I'll still be a no vote... Like I said from the get go, a percentage is what I wanted, not solid years. I could of lived with the 70%... My main reasons for voting no the first time was the 4 yr minimum and the LOA and protected slots... Let give you an example why.
SWA senority w/ 4 yr boost:
1 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 5 years or 400% boost
2 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 6 years or 200% boost
3 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 7 years or 133% boost
4 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 8 years or 100% boost
5 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 9 years or 80% boost
6 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 10 years or 66% boost
7 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 11 years or 57% boost
8 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 12 years or 50% boost
9 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 13 years or 44% boost
10 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 14 years or 40% boost
11 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 15 years or 36% boost
12 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 16 years or 33% boost
I'm not going to go any futher because I know you get the picture and AT most senior mechs are about 16 years. The point I'm trying to make is that those are some pretty outrageous percentages, especially for the lower seniority mechs.. Now, I understand AMFA's standpoint with that 4 yr boost concept because it staples over 30% of the AT seniority list to the bottom and puts our average seniority in MCO and BWI almost 80% lower than every SWA mech at those stations.
C'mon guys, solid years don't work. To make it unilaterally fair for all, it has to be a percentage!! I thought we'd gotten that concept by now. We've already conceded in a split seniority, either loss for AT or gain for SWA, but this isn't going to work without a fence and I'm 100% against a fence. Like I've said from the get go, I want this to be done and over with and fair for all, I gave my rational why I believe 30% is the fairest number, and I thought you'd guys agreed. I guess I was being prowled like an idiot to believe that you agreed.... Well, sorry to say, I'm still a no vote because of the solid years.... Turn it into a percentage, and I'll be a yes vote but only to a max of 30% loss on AT side.
And I thought you guys kept calling the seniority boost an IBT 'smoke and mirror' trick? What, was that a lie as well? All of you hammered that so hard and now seem to support it all the sudden, what happened there?
SWA senority w/ 4 yr boost:
1 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 5 years or 400% boost
2 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 6 years or 200% boost
3 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 7 years or 133% boost
4 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 8 years or 100% boost
5 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 9 years or 80% boost
6 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 10 years or 66% boost
7 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 11 years or 57% boost
8 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 12 years or 50% boost
9 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 13 years or 44% boost
10 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 14 years or 40% boost
11 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 15 years or 36% boost
12 yr mech + 4 yr boost = 16 years or 33% boost
I'm not going to go any futher because I know you get the picture and AT most senior mechs are about 16 years. The point I'm trying to make is that those are some pretty outrageous percentages, especially for the lower seniority mechs.. Now, I understand AMFA's standpoint with that 4 yr boost concept because it staples over 30% of the AT seniority list to the bottom and puts our average seniority in MCO and BWI almost 80% lower than every SWA mech at those stations.
C'mon guys, solid years don't work. To make it unilaterally fair for all, it has to be a percentage!! I thought we'd gotten that concept by now. We've already conceded in a split seniority, either loss for AT or gain for SWA, but this isn't going to work without a fence and I'm 100% against a fence. Like I've said from the get go, I want this to be done and over with and fair for all, I gave my rational why I believe 30% is the fairest number, and I thought you'd guys agreed. I guess I was being prowled like an idiot to believe that you agreed.... Well, sorry to say, I'm still a no vote because of the solid years.... Turn it into a percentage, and I'll be a yes vote but only to a max of 30% loss on AT side.
And I thought you guys kept calling the seniority boost an IBT 'smoke and mirror' trick? What, was that a lie as well? All of you hammered that so hard and now seem to support it all the sudden, what happened there?
swaboeingonly
Member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 80
- 230
S
Swadl
Guest
Well I don't like the deal, I'd rather see a percentage cut in AT DOC. The reason why they went with a boost in our seniority is because AT Comte would not entertain a cut in DOH in the past and the years boost in seniority helps our junior mechanics better. Even tho I don't really like the seniority boost and would prefer a 30% cut in AT, I would be a yes vote on this deal as the way I see it read at this point. For the simple fact is really really helps out the junior guys!
grmach1
Advanced
- Oct 11, 2010
- 112
- 171
Obviously our own committee is not listening to us.....again. No boost!
AvTech04
Senior
I can't say for certain, but I was told that the AT committee said thanks but no thanks to the offer and the IBT is going ahead with filing for arbitration. But, the meeting was supposedly left with a positive atmosphere between AT committee and AMFA with a good, positive outlook towards a resolution prior to arbitration.... I honestly don't see that happening with the continuous solid year offers, but who knows, maybe the company will come up with a better proposal and stake the claim for making this work if/when it passes.
Similar threads
