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

[CremaDiLimone]

I think sito hoodwinked the twu but it worked out for our seniority.

thank you

 

[gulfcoast1]

Just going by what I can see and understand I would have to vote no. I do not expect a TA with no concessions, but this seems like a job killer for the longterm and I agree with Weez there should be some stations reopened even if just a few. I also think $1600 more in insurance for the average IAM employee is too much.

The TWU people I hear are saying a lot like it so it might pass if we vote. I don't think we will though.

What I do think is it sounds like the company wants to get this done and this could move both sides closer to a deal. The Association letter said it sounded like they were getting close. That is the main positive I see in this. The members are restless. They company is restless. Maybe that is what we need to get this done finally.

What I think will be difficult is resolving the IAM medical. I cannot believe the company mentions $1600 like it is a small amount. I would not find it to be a small amount. I would not know how to recommend a resolution and how to sell it to IAM members. That will be difficult.

Opening up more stations and keeping more jobs might change my no to a yes. I can understand that why an IAM member would feel differently. Of course I will want to see what their final wage offer is. If it is only .74 cents then 2% a year then that would be a no also because DL and UA profit sharing would put them ahead of us on compensation and that is not industry leading.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Even when Johnsen comes in and stirs things up it is always sunny and glorious in the IAM’s world.

Johnson came in and broke it off just as in tried to tell these idiots. I dont believe it will end there. Weez can guarantee those 5 twu stations stay open past september but superfly said today that at least 2 of those stations will close if no deal by summer.
However, according to superfly, his "gut feeling" is that the last offer from management will be to extend lus healthcare an additional year, and give clt and phl cargo. Top $ will be $33 according to superfly who seems to be really really good at guessing. That may happen very very very soon. In fact he claims to expect a deal over those tweaks. Take it or leave it. Otherwise, see everyone in section 6. All of the above should be taken as hearsay.

 

[Tim Nelson]

And btw, alex garcia can keep claiming he will not water down the part time restrictions, but he is full of it. Listen to me now, believe me later. Thats already been worked out according to superfly and it was very disappointing to me to hear that. All should be taken as hearsay and entertainment value.

 

[bob@las-AA]

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

I haven't "run your numbers yet", but the one thing that strikes me as odd, your terms for contribution, match, and auto, all of hold a certain weight as far as importance and dollar value, so this is a RFI "request for information". What pray tell is a 5% auto?. Also please list them as such, e.g. 4% employee contribution, employee match of 100% up to 5.5% of every dollar of yearly earnings, and 5% auto, auto what?, this needs to be defined, it is not clear.

 

[bob@las-AA]

And btw, alex garcia can keep claiming he will not water down the part time restrictions, but he is full of it. Listen to me now, believe me later. Thats already been worked out according to superfly and it was very disappointing to me to hear that. All should be taken as hearsay and entertainment value.

Deleted

 

[Racer X]

Just going by what I can see and understand I would have to vote no. I do not expect a TA with no concessions, but this seems like a job killer for the longterm and I agree with Weez there should be some stations reopened even if just a few. I also think $1600 more in insurance for the average IAM employee is too much.

The TWU people I hear are saying a lot like it so it might pass if we vote. I don't think we will though.

What I do think is it sounds like the company wants to get this done and this could move both sides closer to a deal. The Association letter said it sounded like they were getting close. That is the main positive I see in this. The members are restless. They company is restless. Maybe that is what we need to get this done finally.

What I think will be difficult is resolving the IAM medical. I cannot believe the company mentions $1600 like it is a small amount. I would not find it to be a small amount. I would not know how to recommend a resolution and how to sell it to IAM members. That will be difficult.

Opening up more stations and keeping more jobs might change my no to a yes. I can understand that why an IAM member would feel differently. Of course I will want to see what their final wage offer is. If it is only .74 cents then 2% a year then that would be a no also because DL and UA profit sharing would put them ahead of us on compensation and that is not industry leading.

$1,600???? Not sure what plans this is referring to but I believe the AA 80% plan VS the 80% plan the IAM currently has for full family coverage is approx $540 a month MORE. That is over $6,400 more a year out of pocket JUST IN PREMIUMS!!! That is a 10% paycut for full time top of scale LUS employees. The percentage is much much greater as you go throughout the pay scale.
I hope everyone reads and Asks questions of what this letter actually says. But know one thing as you read....this is a company PROPOSAL. It’s NOT a Tentative Agreement.
Contract out catering.....no increase to cargo....keeping cargo in HUBS.....( what about non hub cities where we currently do cargo?). Lose jobs through ATTRITION.....that means...when you leave so does the job or work you were doing. When you leave, a vendor replaces you. They can sub it all out little by little. Piece by piece until All Current employees are gone....then it is entirely done by vendors. No mention of part time cap. Deicing would be gone.
Retirement.....get educated on it. Then decide what you think is best. Ask questions!! And not just from one person. AND THE HEALTHCARE!!!!!
According to what I heard... The Assoc proposed to protect and OWN ALL WORK currently being performed in the cities where we are doing it now...(40) Their “ snapshot theory”. That’s Keeping catering..and cargo. add cargo to stations, Own regional work, Own deicing,Own Lavs and Water, Own turn and overnight cleaning Etc etc Have language for profit share,sign on bonus, buyout, annual pay inceases, top of scale pay, more vacation, more sick, more holidays etc. AND KEEP THE LUS HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ASSOC MEMBERS!!!
Many of this was in the proposal to the company (I believe in bullet point format, with no specifics) that was made in DEC 2015.

 

[AANOTOK]

$1,600???? Not sure what plans this is referring to but I believe the AA 80% plan VS the 80% plan the IAM currently has for full family coverage is approx $540 a month MORE. That is over $6,400 more a year out of pocket JUST IN PREMIUMS!!! That is a 10% paycut for full time top of scale LUS employees. The percentage is much much greater as you go throughout the pay scale.
I hope everyone reads and Asks questions of what this letter actually says. But know one thing as you read....this is a company PROPOSAL. It’s NOT a Tentative Agreement.
Contract out catering.....no increase to cargo....keeping cargo in HUBS.....( what about non hub cities where we currently do cargo?). Lose jobs through ATTRITION.....that means...when you leave so does the job or work you were doing. When you leave, a vendor replaces you. They can sub it all out little by little. Piece by piece until All Current employees are gone....then it is entirely done by vendors. No mention of part time cap. Deicing would be gone.
Retirement.....get educated on it. Then decide what you think is best. Ask questions!! And not just from one person. AND THE HEALTHCARE!!!!!
According to what I heard... The Assoc proposed to protect and OWN ALL WORK currently being performed in the cities where we are doing it now...(40) Their “ snapshot theory”. That’s Keeping catering..and cargo. add cargo to stations, Own regional work, Own deicing,Own Lavs and Water, Own turn and overnight cleaning Etc etc Have language for profit share,sign on bonus, buyout, annual pay inceases, top of scale pay, more vacation, more sick, more holidays etc. AND KEEP THE LUS HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ASSOC MEMBERS!!!
Many of this was in the proposal to the company (I believe in bullet point format, with no specifics) that was made in DEC 2015.

Iv'e been told the NC is meeting in DC next Wednesday and Thursday. Not sure if it's with the company or not.

 

[gulfcoast1]

$1,600???? Not sure what plans this is referring to but I believe the AA 80% plan VS the 80% plan the IAM currently has for full family coverage is approx $540 a month MORE. That is over $6,400 more a year out of pocket JUST IN PREMIUMS!!! That is a 10% paycut for full time top of scale LUS employees. The percentage is much much greater as you go throughout the pay scale.
I hope everyone reads and Asks questions of what this letter actually says. But know one thing as you read....this is a company PROPOSAL. It’s NOT a Tentative Agreement.
Contract out catering.....no increase to cargo....keeping cargo in HUBS.....( what about non hub cities where we currently do cargo?). Lose jobs through ATTRITION.....that means...when you leave so does the job or work you were doing. When you leave, a vendor replaces you. They can sub it all out little by little. Piece by piece until All Current employees are gone....then it is entirely done by vendors. No mention of part time cap. Deicing would be gone.
Retirement.....get educated on it. Then decide what you think is best. Ask questions!! And not just from one person. AND THE HEALTHCARE!!!!!
According to what I heard... The Assoc proposed to protect and OWN ALL WORK currently being performed in the cities where we are doing it now...(40) Their “ snapshot theory”. That’s Keeping catering..and cargo. add cargo to stations, Own regional work, Own deicing,Own Lavs and Water, Own turn and overnight cleaning Etc etc Have language for profit share,sign on bonus, buyout, annual pay inceases, top of scale pay, more vacation, more sick, more holidays etc. AND KEEP THE LUS HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ASSOC MEMBERS!!!
Many of this was in the proposal to the company (I believe in bullet point format, with no specifics) that was made in DEC 2015

Did you miss the part where I said I would vote no in the current form? I did not say this would be the final TA and I did say I doubted the Association would even send this out for a vote in the current form. I also said I did not see why an IAM member would vote yes to a $1600 increase. Did you miss that part? I don't know how much extra it actually is, as with my other points, I was quoting the information the company put out.

You don't have to convince me. As it stands again, I am a no vote. There are a lot of TWU who say they like it though. And again, the main thing I think is good is that I think this could move the company closer to a better agreement.

 

[Tim Nelson]

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

First off, the 401k and the pension are based off of two entirely separate units. The pension is based on a set dollar figure. Currently, it is $1.30 for Full time, .65 for part time. Only the 401k is based off of total compensation.

Regarding the IAM Pension, it doesn't matter if one works overtime, or anything more than 33 hours a week because the pension gives NO MORE CREDIT. Period. It only credits up to 1,600 hours a year...for full credit (Full credit is something I will come back to in regards to part time or injuries, etc.).
The IAM Pension will NOT credit anything for Chief Lead premium pay, shift differ, overtime, NOTHING. ZERO. Just a straight 5.5% or $1.30 hour up to 1,600 hours a year. Sad.

But it gets worse. For the normal 1,250 hour a year part timer (5 hour shifts), the pension reduces credit by only giving 70% credit. For LUS it's a double whammy because it not only whacks their credit by 30% but the company contribution is already about half or only .65 cents. Dude, a part timer working normal hours only gets 7 years credit after ten years or about $235 month. That doesn't even buy but one modest cart of groceries.

Now let's look at the 401k which is NOT based on a set dollar figure that is capped at 1,600 hours. But includes the appropriate % on Total compensation, including shift differ, Chief Lead pay, overtime, etc. Just from the get go, it is an automatic greater company contribution regardless of the match.

The only thing I can agree with you on is that it its sad that the company will not have to put money into the match of several members who will not utilize the 4% match. However, if you are uncomfortable with that, as well as I, we must both be very comfortable with those who exploit it and work the extra shift swaps and overtime and rack in tons more company contribution. So, it's not a total savings from the company.

For instance, this year alone, I should make about $130,000 due to overtime and shift trades I pick up. While the IAM Pension is only a max company contribution for me of $2,700, if I gave the IAM Pension the boot and replaced it with a 401k on my total compensation, I'd rake in about $12,000 or close to $10,000 more bucks. That's a no brainer Pat. $2,700 simply can't compete with $12,000.

None of this figures in risk of 401k investing or IAM pension cutting. But the IAM figures get less based on if someone is married and is forced with the spousal offset. If I were married, I'd want my wife to continue receiving a portion as the spousal offset provides but it is an additional cost that lowers the total benefit. Again, without any benefit cuts by the IAM pension peeps.

That said, I don't think we can deny that multi employer pension plans are a thing of the past and in SERIOUS poo poo. Warning Will Robinson! Mr Martinez himself is begging the US congress to step in and help out but I'm not thinking Trump will be too cooperative.

At any rate, I think your 7% number is fairly low as 10% is the better barometer on the average return. Most use 8.5% assumptions. But it doesn't matter regarding the pension since the benefit is fixed. If the fund rakes in 20%, it goes to the house. That extra return doesn't increase any benefit.

But, yea, if you assume the lowest retrun, and that the person isn't a lead or works no overtime whatsoever, and doesn't put in the 4% then you can even things out and make the pension compare favorably.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Iv'e been told the NC is meeting in DC next Wednesday and Thursday. Not sure if it's with the company or not.

Makes sense. Superfly said the "Take it or leave it" offer will extend LUS health care one more year, and compensate catering by opening up PHL and CLT cargo.
Not that I agree. CLT and PHL cargo would only be about 150 jobs, whereas catering is 500. The IAM can toss in fake numbers and say it is a wash and that those 2 cargo centers will equal catering but it clearly would be about half the work. But catering is gone as the company pulled that off the table just recently.
And extending LUS health care one more year is basically just a $1,600 bonus check, right? But it appears that management believes a deal is likely and that there is nothing more to give. You wouldn't get that by reading the Associations blistering letter. This should all be considered hearsay and for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Iv'e been told the NC is meeting in DC next Wednesday and Thursday. Not sure if it's with the company or not.

AANOTOK, we were told its a strategy session to respond to the company sending in Mr. Johnson and their ridiculous position.

 

[Racer X]

Did you miss the part where I said I would vote no in the current form? I did not say this would be the final TA and I did say I doubted the Association would even send this out for a vote in the current form. I also said I did not see why an IAM member would vote yes to a $1600 increase. Did you miss that part? I don't know how much extra it actually is, as with my other points, I was quoting the information the company put out.

You don't have to convince me. As it stands again, I am a no vote. There are a lot of TWU who say they like it though. And again, the main thing I think is good is that I think this could move the company closer to a better agreement.

I didn’t miss it. Don’t misunderstand my post I was not directing any of that to you directly. My apologies if it came across that way. I was just responding with some info I had heard so that while people can see an offer from the company that may look appealing they should hear what the company really has intended for us and what wasnt offered in their proposal.

 

[bob@las-AA]

First off, the 401k and the pension are based off of two entirely separate units. The pension is based on a set dollar figure. Currently, it is $1.30 for Full time, .65 for part time. Only the 401k is based off of total compensation.

Regarding the IAM Pension, it doesn't matter if one works overtime, or anything more than 33 hours a week because the pension gives NO MORE CREDIT. Period. It only credits up to 1,600 hours a year...for full credit (Full credit is something I will come back to in regards to part time or injuries, etc.).
The IAM Pension will NOT credit anything for Chief Lead premium pay, shift differ, overtime, NOTHING. ZERO. Just a straight 5.5% or $1.30 hour up to 1,600 hours a year. Sad.

But it gets worse. For the normal 1,250 hour a year part timer (5 hour shifts), the pension reduces credit by only giving 70% credit. For LUS it's a double whammy because it not only whacks their credit by 30% but the company contribution is already about half or only .65 cents. Dude, a part timer working normal hours only gets 7 years credit after ten years or about $235 month. That doesn't even buy but one modest cart of groceries.

Now let's look at the 401k which is NOT based on a set dollar figure that is capped at 1,600 hours. But includes the appropriate % on Total compensation, including shift differ, Chief Lead pay, overtime, etc. Just from the get go, it is an automatic greater company contribution regardless of the match.

The only thing I can agree with you on is that it its sad that the company will not have to put money into the match of several members who will not utilize the 4% match. However, if you are uncomfortable with that, as well as I, we must both be very comfortable with those who exploit it and work the extra shift swaps and overtime and rack in tons more company contribution. So, it's not a total savings from the company.

For instance, this year alone, I should make about $130,000 due to overtime and shift trades I pick up. While the IAM Pension is only a max company contribution for me of $2,700, if I gave the IAM Pension the boot and replaced it with a 401k on my total compensation, I'd rake in about $12,000 or close to $10,000 more bucks. That's a no brainer Pat. $2,700 simply can't compete with $12,000.

None of this figures in risk of 401k investing or IAM pension cutting. But the IAM figures get less based on if someone is married and is forced with the spousal offset. If I were married, I'd want my wife to continue receiving a portion as the spousal offset provides but it is an additional cost that lowers the total benefit. Again, without any benefit cuts by the IAM pension peeps.

That said, I don't think we can deny that multi employer pension plans are a thing of the past and in SERIOUS poo poo. Warning Will Robinson! Mr Martinez himself is begging the US congress to step in and help out but I'm not thinking Trump will be too cooperative.

At any rate, I think your 7% number is fairly low as 10% is the better barometer on the average return. Most use 8.5% assumptions. But it doesn't matter regarding the pension since the benefit is fixed. If the fund rakes in 20%, it goes to the house. That extra return doesn't increase any benefit.

But, yea, if you assume the lowest retrun, and that the person isn't a lead or works no overtime whatsoever, and doesn't put in the 4% then you can even things out and make the pension compare favorably.

I find your annual income projection for this year highly exaggerated and inflated. Unless your status has changed, I can recall you are a part-timer, even a full-timer working 6 days a week can only work around 64 hours a week under the current policy, and frankly, I just don't see you having the motivation to put in that kind of hours.

 

[B737 driver]

I find your annual income projection for this year highly exaggerated and inflated. Unless your status has changed, I can recall you are a part-timer, even a full-timer working 6 days a week can only work around 64 hours a week under the current policy, and frankly, I just don't see you having the motivation to put in that kind of hours.

That sounds like a SWA mechanic, I am a lead, worked 400 hours of overtime last year, some of that was double and triple time, and I grossed $136,000.