JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet. **New and improved 2.0 version**

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #406
So the Company “claims” that the average IAM member will see a cost increase on their Medical of $1600.00 per year.

That comes out to .77 Cents per hour.

I have to admit I just love how they write that the Medical costs are “In line” with other large Corporations. Uh who gives a chit?

What kind of “immediate” wage increases are being offfered to offset some of that additional expense Mr Johnsen?

“””””Competitive medical plans consistent with the industry”””””

Association members would participate in the American medical plans as all other team members do. These are highly competitive plans that provide cost sharing that is in line with or better than other large companies. Average annual out-of-pocket costs (what you pay at the doctor + what’s deducted from your paycheck each pay period) for legacy US team members would increase by $1,600/year. All plans have yearly out-of-pocket maximums that cap what team members pay in the event of a catastrophic illness. Moving from the legacy US plans to the American plans, as all other team members have done, provides more contemporary coverage for things like free preventative care/screenings, infertility treatment, behavioral therapy treatment for autistic children (ABA therapy), family/marriage counseling and hearing aids.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #407
Oh and as far as that 2% per year raise again Management is being kind enough to bless us with. UAL is getting a 3% raise this year and next year.

Yea it’s just not really passing my personal sniff test I must say.
 
Hate to say it but there was more information in that one page summary from the Company than what I have seen from the Association in the past 3 years. Not to say that I will give it a blanket support, but there are some good things, so-so things, and unknown things with the Devil in the details.

I would like to see an actual list of stations to be kept and a list of stations which "potentially" (yeah, right) could be outsourced, along with numbers for eliminating or adding future stations.

I would agree with Tim in saying that if offered to the Membership (assuming no bombshells in the details), it would pass by a sizable majority. I think Management knows this and releasing this information would be a tactic to put pressure on the Association to close the deal.
 
Hate to say it but there was more information in that one page summary from the Company than what I have seen from the Association in the past 3 years. Not to say that I will give it a blanket support, but there are some good things, so-so things, and unknown things with the Devil in the details.

I would like to see an actual list of stations to be kept and a list of stations which "potentially" (yeah, right) could be outsourced, along with numbers for eliminating or adding future stations.

I would agree with Tim in saying that if offered to the Membership (assuming no bombshells in the details), it would pass by a sizable majority. I think Management knows this and releasing this information would be a tactic to put pressure on the Association to close the deal.

I was probably released to counter the Johnson story.

They did the same thing last summer when the Association vilified the LAA comprehensive proposal.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #415
Hate to say it but there was more information in that one page summary from the Company than what I have seen from the Association in the past 3 years. Not to say that I will give it a blanket support, but there are some good things, so-so things, and unknown things with the Devil in the details.

I would like to see an actual list of stations to be kept and a list of stations which "potentially" (yeah, right) could be outsourced, along with numbers for eliminating or adding future stations.

I would agree with Tim in saying that if offered to the Membership (assuming no bombshells in the details), it would pass by a sizable majority. I think Management knows this and releasing this information would be a tactic to put pressure on the Association to close the deal.


Ok I can fly with this.

First you did read the “original” proposal that the Association presented to the Company right? That one was pretty full with info I think.

The 40 stations are the ones we have combined now. That would mean NONE of the lost TWU Stations from our Bankruptcy that don’t have IAM currently in them (No)

I agree even though the full details are allusive there are a few good things there. (Mostly for me TWU though)

So it would pass? With the pathetic 3 Grand sucker worm maybe yea. Now let’s pretend that sucker worm isn’t there.

The Company doesn’t mention wages. So I feel they no longer want to offer much. They also make a very dramatic point of mentioning the raises we already got so you know they count that as part of this offer. My “guess” is maybe the offer is 1% above the UAL rate coming in December $31.23? That comes to .32 for us or $31.55. That’s .74 cents from where we are right now.

And all of that is with you losing your Pension, Higher Medical and your Catering Jobs. (Seems to me mostly concessionary on the IAM side)

On our TWU side we lose deicing and get that CS (swap shift) change that isn’t going to be super popular.

I’m glad that we have (SENIOR) guys Negotiating for us that are NOT going to take the deal for the sucker worms (The buyout also) the Company wants to stick on the hook.
 
Last edited:
This is why neither side usually puts out their proposals.
Yea but when the association decided to fire away at management, it had to expect management to set it straight. Unfortunately, sito has misled parties and thats what has pissed off parties. If negotiations breakdown then i wouldnt be surprised if management announces that its putting up iam work in clt and phl for vender bidding. Remember, phl has one whole concourse of work we do that is not in our scope, and clt has a couple gates working those 75 seaters.
 
Update

Regarding the 9% into the 401k, 5% auto and 4% if you put 4% in, I must show some math. First, let me say, I personally have a problem with letting the company stuff money back in their pockets and charging us for doing so. As for math. Employee A makes $80,000 and puts in 4% to get 4% company match and gets auto 5% match. In 10 years earning 7% per year, they would add $153749 to their 401k. Employee B continues to get 5.5% of their top out pay into the pension, and makes $80,000 and adds 4% into their 401k, gets no match, doesn't get 5% auto either. Their 401k in 10 years would be $47307 and their pension would have added $750 per month at retirement.

Employee A's $153749 taken out at a 4% clip would get them $512 per month.
Employee B's $47307 taken out at a 4% clip would get them $157 per month plus the $750 per month for the pension. In other words, Employee B would take home $395 per month more than Employee A. Note: Employee A had 13% of their total wages going into their 401k, whereas Employee B only had 5.5% of their wages up to 40 hours per week for the pension and 4% of their total wages into their 401k. The Company put no money back in their pocket for employee B.

P. Rez
 
So the Company “claims” that the average IAM member will see a cost increase on their Medical of $1600.00 per year.

That comes out to .77 Cents per hour.

I have to admit I just love how they write that the Medical costs are “In line” with other large Corporations. Uh who gives a chit?


What kind of “immediate” wage increases are being offfered to offset some of that additional expense Mr Johnsen?.

No way... Trump killed Obama Care, and we were told EVERYONE would have healthcare at ridiculously low costs...
>SPIT<
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top