JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA AMTS

[Deleted member 14439]

Guess we are going to see a little extra cash in December . The "true up" check for any extra hours worked August 5 thru November 4 will be issued nlt 12-31-16 per company email.

 

[DallasConehead]

This is a new thing in Tulsa.... AA management is now using the base shutdown to screw people out of pay. Since Christmas and New Years are on Sunday this year they are forcing guys to take 5 days vacation for the shutdown week (Dec 26 - 30) and rolling Christmas and New Years to Jan 2 and 3rd. HIstorically guys have saved 4 days of vacation for that week and take the holiday as the 5th day. In some places they are not allowing that and forcing guys who have 4 days vacation left to take a day without pay! I looked all over the contract and could not find anything to support this travesty but a call to the TWU grievance office got a "They can do that brother." Is anyone else tired of this crap?

I'm a little late on this one, but, in Dallas we can only use our vc on 40 hour increments since PVs were abolished. So I guess I'm curious as to how a guy ends up with 4 days of vc left over?

 

[FLYNFISH]

I'm a little late on this one, but, in Dallas we can only use our vc on 40 hour increments since PVs were abolished. So I guess I'm curious as to how a guy ends up with 4 days of vc left over?

Tulsa can still do single vacation days.At least for the time being. We are not allowed to CS. Thats the trade off. I would gladly trade the single vc day for a liberal cs policy that mirrors the lines ability to trade and give away days. I should say we can trade a shift. But no giving away hours or picking up additional hours.

 

[Traymark]

I would gladly trade the single vc day for a liberal cs policy that mirrors the lines ability to trade and give away days. I should say we can trade a shift. But no giving away hours or picking up additional hours.

Someone tell me why we shouldn't be able to do BOTH?!

 

[Vortilon]

Came across a 4 year old post from Chuck. Not much has changed for the LAA AMTs aside from the mercy raise we received in August. Well, add 4 years to that 9.


Chuck Schalk, Dec 26, 2012 Here is Alaska Airlines holiday pay rate. I got this info from their current contract.
See attachment.

10 holidays. A 20 year AMT on afts makes $84.59 per hour on holidays.
Base pay: $31.87 + .15 longevity +.51 shift diff. +$4.25 license.
Base pay +1.5 times plus other premiums listed.
If a AMT works O/T on a holiday he gets TRIPLE time.

Which union represents Alaska Airlines? Not the TWU or the IAM or the Teamsters.
Who is left? AMFA.




Below is a Merry Christmas from the TWU.

Holiday Pay rates on Christmas Day.

UAL mechs IBT $76 an hour ( under AMFA contract)
Delta mechs non-union $76 an hour
SWA mechs AMFA $90 an hour
USair mechs IAM after 2 BK $64 an hour
AA mechs TWU $45 for the past 9 years


Rough numbers, but you get the point.

 

[Matt1200]

IAM and TWU need to stop looking out for themselves and get a leading industry contract for all. I hear there is a lot of bickering in BOS and LGA.

 

[ATD]

ua results

 

[swamt]

The only time you would continue to accrue that seniority would be if you were bumped or laid off from that position and failed to exercise your seniority in that classification to its fullest extent.

If you chose to go from Lead to mechanic just to stop from going from days to mids, you would lose all the seniority in the lead classification.

For instance, a layoff of 5 lead positions was announced at the station. There are 10 leads. You are the number 5 lead in lead seniority. If you stay as a lead, the one spot left is Tue/Wed RDO on the mid shift and you may be there for 10 years so you chose to bump down to a mechanic position. You could then bump using your mechanic seniority to the shift and days off your choice, bumping the junior mechanic in that slot. You would then lose any accrued lead time and would have to start again with zero lead time if you ever chose to bid one. You would also not have any recall to any lead position since you no longer hold seniority in the classification.

This is what we had under IAM at NWA and at AMFA. It worked well and was generally liked. You also had the classification of Inspector and Lead Inspector. They each had there own seniority list. Although in order to bid a lead inspector, you had to hold inspector seniority. Just like to bid a lead mechanic, you had to hold mechanic seniority.

Vacation was always bid using classification due to the needs of the service. A lead would not bid with his crew and could not stop a mechanic from taking a spot of vacation based on date of hire. Overtime was the same way.

I could see if I can find an old contract, but the IAM has used that system forever. AMFA adopted it as well.

Glenn, You know I pipe up when someone might get something wrong or twisted or maybe purely just an oops. AMFA never adopted the IAM's way of doing their seniority with leads, inspectors ect... AMFA actually "inherited" it. It was the IAM that always did their seniority different from everybody else out there. I now this will get ugly but the IAM's way does in fact take seniority away-period. AMFA at NWA was not about to change this method at NWA as it would have caused huge division amounst the ranks plus not to mention alot of bumping going on and movement.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Glenn, You know I pipe up when someone might get something wrong or twisted or maybe purely just an oops. AMFA never adopted the IAM's way of doing their seniority with leads, inspectors ect... AMFA actually "inherited" it. It was the IAM that always did their seniority different from everybody else out there. I now this will get ugly but the IAM's way does in fact take seniority away-period. AMFA at NWA was not about to change this method at NWA as it would have caused huge division amounst the ranks plus not to mention alot of bumping going on and movement.

Yes, we did inherit the IAM language, then during our first contract, we chose to continue to use it because most liked the system (and had been used to it).

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Oldguy. You should not accept the old adage of "They can do that brother". The current Local 514 board when taking office in July 2016 was afforded a handsome raise by a motion supported by the previous board which was approved by a vote of the membership at a regular membership meeting.

The current Local 514 board after the fact, believed that was not enough for their representation and voted themselves in "another raise" for their representation. Hold them accountable Oldguy! Force the answer you are entitled! Don't walk away with the old adage, "They can do that BROTHER" !!!!!

The way it was explained to me was that the shut down is considered "Days off" as in not work days so they push the holiday into 2017. Makes no sense still to me but not much does anymore. Oh well. They can do that brother. Also don't ask any questions. Our new eboard doesn't know any answers. But that's what the majority wanted right? Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[WeAAsles]

I think this might be what you guys were looking for?

https://teamster.filecamp.com/0/teamster/binary/25mt-m97sj6gt.pdf

 

[High Speed Steel]

The way it was explained to me was that the shut down is considered "Days off" as in not work days so they push the holiday into 2017. Makes no sense still to me but not much does anymore. Oh well. They can do that brother. Also don't ask any questions. Our new eboard doesn't know any answers. But that's what the majority wanted right? Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oldguy. I started to give you a more detailed explanation but decided not to. Base Closure is a headache every year for both the company and the union since it became part of our agreement in 1995 but it is no longer my headache if you get my drift. What aggravated me was that you said you got the "They can do that brother" response from a group whom we are paying now for elite representation. You should have been given a much better explanation than what you got. Like I said, not my headache and not my job any longer but I will still help my friends if I can. Perhaps we will encounter each other over the next few days and we can talk about it. Short of that, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year....HSS

 

[Real tired]

I don't see how you come to the conclusion an AA crew chief would have an advantage if the arbitrator rules to keep the LAA CC seniority policy. It's simple, your AMT time is all their is to it. I wouldn't want to be bidding behind some guy with less AMT seniority than me just because I decided to become a CC later in my career. It's not as if most of us haven't filled in as a crew chief - getting pre-qualified etc.

Ok, I agree on that one point. "Your AMT time is all their is to it." Right !! But only in that "classification."

In the classification and premium position as Lead (CC), well then your Lead time is all there is to it.

I know both groups have always done it that way but I wouldn't want to be behind a guy with one day Lead time and 40 years Mechanic time, when I might have 39 1/2 years Mechanic time and 39 year as a Lead, and get displaced by that guy. See our side of this tug of rope ?

 

[Real tired]

Real, is it true that a LUS Lead keeps accruing his LEAD seniority even if he steps down from that position?
If this is the case, I don't see how that is fair. First you have a mechanic start his /her Lead seniority anew in the first place, but when he/she decides to step down, they keep accruing? Doesn't seem fair when a voluntary self demotion is involved.

Yes it's true. Plus, it's also true if a Mechanic were to down grade to Utility or Stock Clerk, he or she would continue to accrue as a Mechanic, plus after making your probation period in the down graded position, you would continue to accrue seniority in that position if you upgraded back to Mechanic.

 

[Real tired]

The only time you would continue to accrue that seniority would be if you were bumped or laid off from that position and failed to exercise your seniority in that classification to its fullest extent.

If you chose to go from Lead to mechanic just to stop from going from days to mids, you would lose all the seniority in the lead classification.

For instance, a layoff of 5 lead positions was announced at the station. There are 10 leads. You are the number 5 lead in lead seniority. If you stay as a lead, the one spot left is Tue/Wed RDO on the mid shift and you may be there for 10 years so you chose to bump down to a mechanic position. You could then bump using your mechanic seniority to the shift and days off your choice, bumping the junior mechanic in that slot. You would then lose any accrued lead time and would have to start again with zero lead time if you ever chose to bid one. You would also not have any recall to any lead position since you no longer hold seniority in the classification.

This is what we had under IAM at NWA and at AMFA. It worked well and was generally liked. You also had the classification of Inspector and Lead Inspector. They each had there own seniority list. Although in order to bid a lead inspector, you had to hold inspector seniority. Just like to bid a lead mechanic, you had to hold mechanic seniority.

Vacation was always bid using classification due to the needs of the service. A lead would not bid with his crew and could not stop a mechanic from taking a spot of vacation based on date of hire. Overtime was the same way.

I could see if I can find an old contract, but the IAM has used that system forever. AMFA adopted it as well.

This issue is a big one. That's why an arbitrator is deciding, but I like the fact that people from other companies give their opinions. After hearing from NWA and SWA, I'd like to hear from people from UAL and even DAL on how they decide their seniority issues.

In reference to your post, our methodology is nearly the same. Except in our case, you can't bump down to a Mechanic position just because you end up junior Lead with midnight and Tues. and Wens. off.

You can only BID down. If there is no bid, you're stuck. Even if you are bumped as a Lead, you have to exercise your seniority in that position, or bid another job in a position you hold seniority in.

But I don't see how SWAMT thinks that takes seniority away as stated in his post.