JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Steve Walegir]

Maybe I having watched the pilots bicker for several years before the eventual merger with AA, but I could easily see us without a JCBA a year from now and maybe even 5 years from now!

In terms of "pushing out" the TWU guys from a station, it would make perfect sense for Management as they would have only one contract to operate under, wouldn't need to argue about who is doing what flights, wouldn't need to concern itself by violating a CBA with mixing work groups together and wouldn't need to have duplicate positions with lav service and connect runners. There will be a loss by not having the economies of scale by the splintering two different work groups as it increases the likelihood of non-productive down time as one side could not work the other's flight. And maybe have a few high seniority people to retire early vs. relocating? Strictly from a Management/financial point-of-view, it makes a lot of sense!

How many stations would there be both work groups operating separately and how many AA stations would be at risk, as US only has a requirement of 1 daily mainline flight on average which pretty guarantees no IAM station closures. Obviously, AA stations would be more at risk with the requirement of 5,475(?) annual mainline flights (15 daily average). I know PHX, LAS, LAX, SFO, ORD, BOS, ATL, DFW, JFK and MIA have both work groups and obviously, LAA hubs aren't going anywhere, but not as sure about the others.

Great Post Jester. I'm sure some will say no that seneraio would never happen, but it actually makes perfect sense. And I'm pretty sure the Awe Shucks attitude Parker has at town hall meetings will disappear soon, thus making your seneraio all the more possible

 

[WeAAsles]

So some think they’ve come all this way now, so many meetings and so many articles negotiated and agreed to that they’re all soon just going to go home and wait till September?

Maybe throw everything out the window and start back from scratch?

Yes the Executive Union Negotiators stepped in knowing full well that eventually there would be a stalemate?

 

[737823]

Maybe I having watched the pilots bicker for several years before the eventual merger with AA, but I could easily see us without a JCBA a year from now and maybe even 5 years from now!

In terms of "pushing out" the TWU guys from a station, it would make perfect sense for Management as they would have only one contract to operate under, wouldn't need to argue about who is doing what flights, wouldn't need to concern itself by violating a CBA with mixing work groups together and wouldn't need to have duplicate positions with lav service and connect runners. There will be a loss by not having the economies of scale by the splintering two different work groups as it increases the likelihood of non-productive down time as one side could not work the other's flight. And maybe have a few high seniority people to retire early vs. relocating? Strictly from a Management/financial point-of-view, it makes a lot of sense!

How many stations would there be both work groups operating separately and how many AA stations would be at risk, as US only has a requirement of 1 daily mainline flight on average which pretty guarantees no IAM station closures. Obviously, AA stations would be more at risk with the requirement of 5,475(?) annual mainline flights (15 daily average). I know PHX, LAS, LAX, SFO, ORD, BOS, ATL, DFW, JFK and MIA have both work groups and obviously, LAA hubs aren't going anywhere, but not as sure about the others.

LAA PHX fleet got contracted out in BK

Josh

 

[737823]

we're not talking about that we're talkin about you
so if your boss emails you and you need to toss the guy in the office beside you under the bus to get ahead you'll do it in a second

Wouldn’t that be insubordination if I didn’t follow orders?

700 used the insubordination justification to IAM scabbing AMFA at NWA in 2005.

Josh

 

[Steve Walegir]

So some think they’ve come all this way now, so many meetings and so many articles negotiated and agreed to that they’re all soon just going to go home and wait till September?

Maybe throw everything out the window and start back from scratch?

Yes the Executive Union Negotiators stepped in knowing full well that eventually there would be a stalemate?

I don't think they will say like we use to hear last day in school "See you in September ", they will continue working hard as they have been doing. But at least on the IAM side if they give in on medical, even though the writing may be on the wall, those negotiating will have to face a membership that says Why, why now. It's lasted through bk filings and 2 mergers, why now when we were told industry-leading contract. I'm sure there is a mindset on the IAM side membership that says yeah section 6 might clear everything that has been done already but we can drag section 6 for a few years and keep the medical along with other contract items they feel could be modified. What is the determination factor over there, are they hell bent to fight no matter what until they figure out pi to the final decimal or are they willing to accept there is no absolute answer and accept what is given.

Long rant but as I mentioned, it's just been one of those days.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't think they will say like we use to hear last day in school "See you in September ", they will continue working hard as they have been doing. But at least on the IAM side if they give in on medical, even though the writing may be on the wall, those negotiating will have to face a membership that says Why, why now. It's lasted through bk filings and 2 mergers, why now when we were told industry-leading contract. I'm sure there is a mindset on the IAM side membership that says yeah section 6 might clear everything that has been done already but we can drag section 6 for a few years and keep the medical along with other contract items they feel could be modified. What is the determination factor over there, are they hell bent to fight no matter what until they figure out pi to the final decimal or are they willing to accept there is no absolute answer and accept what is given.

Long rant but as I mentioned, it's just been one of those days.

Why would WE not want to negotiate with them to pay a bit lower percentage of the cost than we do now?

Why do some of our members feel that the IAM side has to take a hit to come up to some of the GARBAGE we have now that only happened because of a Bankruptcy Court gavel. If the IAM kept better Medical through so much why, seriously why should they lay down now? F that Steve.

SCOPE. Didn’t Parker at one time agree to a whole bunch of cities to keep them open if there had to be a forced merger? I seem to recall a whole chit load of cities in that agreement.

So again it’s asinine for us to even think about that BK crap language surviving. Worse for ANYONE to think IAM should have to suffer through it when right now by far TWU AA Fleet has the worst language in the industry. (Operative word language, F Delta and their non Union problems)

 

[CremaDiLimone]

If the Association can leverage keeping other items as they are or enhanced, I believe the IAM can see the writing is on the wall with their medical and it will be a question of what they can get for it.

Despite what others have said, there seems little chance we don't all end up with the same medical we currently have in LAA. There would need to be a value attached to that and the IAM would try to maximize that amount.

i have already reached that level months ago. instead of going forward - talking about what fleet service could get 'in lieu' of lus medical, we'll get posts about selling out or no concessions..etc, and we're back to square one and 150 pages of the same stuff, rehashed.

all that is understandable and i do sympathize, but it is not realistic. fleet service does not have the same tools a union had in 1953 to show anger and financially harm a company that doesn't negotiate in a timely manner and/or constantly low-balls on compensation. no one here has told us how a 2017 union can compel a fortune 500 company to sit down and hammer something out in 3 weeks. quite simply, if we don't have any arrows in our quiver, the company will get a higher percentage of it's 'wish-list' during any negotiation.

when you say the association needs to do a better job of communicating to it's members, here is one example. at the same time, it's a loser for any iam big shooter to steer the discussion this way.

my take as a laa fsc on meat & potatoes issues: i'd be happy maxing out at $35.50-$36.00/hr (compensating for paltry profit sharing compared to others)..no outsourcing and keeping lus scope.

the union can argue a few things:

- the company will always have time on it's side. we are older workers, the next generation of fscs will come in droves in the 2020s-2030s earning half of our current wages.

- the company will get all on laa medical.
- the company will get iam lead/cc language. no more laa c/cs as we know and knew them.

these are vital issues for the company. they will get them, for a price that gets cheaper as the years roll on.

 

[Talos]

I don't think they will say like we use to hear last day in school "See you in September ", they will continue working hard as they have been doing. But at least on the IAM side if they give in on medical, even though the writing may be on the wall, those negotiating will have to face a membership that says Why, why now. It's lasted through bk filings and 2 mergers, why now when we were told industry-leading contract. I'm sure there is a mindset on the IAM side membership that says yeah section 6 might clear everything that has been done already but we can drag section 6 for a few years and keep the medical along with other contract items they feel could be modified. What is the determination factor over there, are they hell bent to fight no matter what until they figure out pi to the final decimal or are they willing to accept there is no absolute answer and accept what is given.

Long rant but as I mentioned, it's just been one of those days.

You can just hope they bring back an industry leading deal. I would think even an industry best deal will still have things people don't like, but it's not a perfect world. I wonder if mgmt even wants to do a deal, as things seem pretty rosey for them as it stands. All these situations with the 2 unions have played into their hands, and has made the unions Association look like a disaster. Wish it wasn't so.

 

[NYer]

i have already reached that level months ago. instead of going forward - talking about what fleet service could get 'in lieu' of lus medical, we'll get posts about selling out or no concessions..etc, and we're back to square one and 150 pages of the same stuff, rehashed.

all that is understandable and i do sympathize, but it is not realistic. fleet service does not have the same tools a union had in 1953 to show anger and financially harm a company that doesn't negotiate in a timely manner and/or constantly low-balls on compensation. no one here has told us how a 2017 union can compel a fortune 500 company to sit down and hammer something out in 3 weeks. quite simply, if we don't have any arrows in our quiver, the company will get a higher percentage of it's 'wish-list' during any negotiation.

when you say the association needs to do a better job of communicating to it's members, here is one example. at the same time, it's a loser for any iam big shooter to steer the discussion this way.

my take as a laa fsc on meat & potatoes issues: i'd be happy maxing out at $35.50-$36.00/hr (compensating for paltry profit sharing compared to others)..no outsourcing and keeping lus scope.

the union can argue a few things:

- the company will always have time on it's side. we are older workers, the next generation of fscs will come in droves in the 2020s-2030s earning half of our current wages.

- the company will get all on laa medical.
- the company will get iam lead/cc language. no more laa c/cs as we know and knew them.

these are vital issues for the company. they will get them, for a price that gets cheaper as the years roll on.

In seeing what may be attainable and what will prolong negotiations we need to compare what has happened within the industry. In doing so, if we see a move by most towards a certain threshold we can anticipate our Company will try to move towards that same finish line. In the case of Scope, the industry has moved further from the TWU language, which is miles from the IAM language. Is it feasible to keep the language the IAM or even the TWU has? Maybe, but then it would be improbable we could also get a favorable outcome in the Medical area with the probability being the LAA medical becoming universal to all LAA employees.

However, for the Company to get that language, it may allow us to get a more favorable agreement on Scope. Highly improbable to get both and that being the case, this is the time to play one against the other. In mediation, that prospect becomes more difficult because of the inclusion of the Mediator in the process.

Knowing this, would we try to get the best we can now or move into a process that is not favorable and takes a little control away from us. We will see what the choice will be.

 

[Steve Walegir]

Why would WE not want to negotiate with them to pay a bit lower percentage of the cost than we do now?

Why do some of our members feel that the IAM side has to take a hit to come up to some of the GARBAGE we have now that only happened because of a Bankruptcy Court gavel. If the IAM kept better Medical through so much why, seriously why should they lay down now? F that Steve.

SCOPE. Didn’t Parker at one time agree to a whole bunch of cities to keep them open if there had to be a forced merger? I seem to recall a whole chit load of cities in that agreement.

So again it’s asinine for us to even think about that BK crap language surviving. Worse for ANYONE to think IAM should have to suffer through it when right now by far TWU AA Fleet has the worst language in the industry. (Operative word language, F Delta and their non Union problems)

Don't misunderstand me, I'd fight for their medical and I wish our negotiators would too. I'd like to see a public stance by the association saying we collectively want the IAM medical and won't settle for less. Then I'd rally and be willing to wait it out for however long. But they won't come out and say as an association they want the IAM plan, so people on the TWU side say well you're eventually gonna lose it so might as well be now and people on the IAM side saying we've heard that before and still have it so why give in now. There has never been a clear picture of what was/is being asked for, just catchy phrases like Industry-leading and Delta +7 or 4 or whatever,

 

[WeAAsles]

Don't misunderstand me, I'd fight for their medical and I wish our negotiators would too. I'd like to see a public stance by the association saying we collectively want the IAM medical and won't settle for less. Then I'd rally and be willing to wait it out for however long. But they won't come out and say as an association they want the IAM plan, so people on the TWU side say well you're eventually gonna lose it so might as well be now and people on the IAM side saying we've heard that before and still have it so why give in now. There has never been a clear picture of what was/is being asked for, just catchy phrases like Industry-leading and Delta +7 or 4 or whatever,

Everyone seems to forget this item. Page 6 for Fleet Service. We Humans have short term memory.

So yes they did say publicly they want the IAM Medical.

http://www.usaamerger.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Association-Positions-Proposal-Document.pdf

 

[CremaDiLimone]

In seeing what may be attainable and what will prolong negotiations we need to compare what has happened within the industry. In doing so, if we see a move by most towards a certain threshold we can anticipate our Company will try to move towards that same finish line. In the case of Scope, the industry has moved further from the TWU language, which is miles from the IAM language. Is it feasible to keep the language the IAM or even the TWU has? Maybe, but then it would be improbable we could also get a favorable outcome in the Medical area with the probability being the LAA medical becoming universal to all LAA employees.

However, for the Company to get that language, it may allow us to get a more favorable agreement on Scope. Highly improbable to get both and that being the case, this is the time to play one against the other. In mediation, that prospect becomes more difficult because of the inclusion of the Mediator in the process.

Knowing this, would we try to get the best we can now or move into a process that is not favorable and takes a little control away from us. We will see what the choice will be.

absolutely.

the keyword here is threshold. in my opinion, that word is outdated and needs to be eliminated. post 9-11/BK as a business tool for airlines/shale oil revolution, that word behooves the company, not the worker.

years ago, a former union president here told me that asking for and getting, 3% more than the highest paid FSCs was the norm. protocol. no one out of line.

that was when we had PHs and a nice pension awaiting us at the end. not anymore.

given the fact that ua will max $33+, along with DLs profit sharing program...asking and getting $36.00/hr max rate is not out of line, considering what the company will likely get back (medical, lead language) in an era of unprecedented airline profits.

in europe, the norm is using a maximalist strategy to acquire compensation. europe allows labor some power. this is not the case in the usa...the onus is on parker to follow through.

 

[NYer]

absolutely.

the keyword here is threshold. in my opinion, that word is outdated and needs to be eliminated. post 9-11/BK as a business tool for airlines/shale oil revolution, that word behooves the company, not the worker.

years ago, a former union president here told me that asking for and getting, 3% more than the highest paid FSCs was the norm. protocol. no one out of line.

that was when we had PHs and a nice pension awaiting us at the end. not anymore.

given the fact that ua will max $33+, along with DLs profit sharing program...asking and getting $36.00/hr max rate is not out of line, considering what the company will likely get back (medical, lead language) in an era of unprecedented airline profits.

in europe, the norm is using a maximalist strategy to acquire compensation. europe allows labor some power. this is not the case in the usa...the onus is on parker to follow through.

Well, here's the point most don't want to acknowledge. We can make the comparison you did and ask for exactly what you proposed, but in turn, the Company will want and expect to have some of the items that benefit them which are included in other CBA's. For instance, the UAL CBA has scope and medical advantages while the DL policies allow for more flexibility and the ability to spread their Labor expenses across non-union workers that do not have the same pay and benefits as other legacy airline employees.

So, yes, we can have some of the items you ask for but in exchange for what? Surely, the Company would want some of the advantages other airlines have within the Labor Agreements.

Then the argument goes towards, well they're making billions. Yes, they are, but the driver of what we may or may not get goes beyond profits. It is more directly tied to the stock price. This part quarter the Company made a billion dollars in profit, and the stock price dropped by double-digit percentage points. Why? Mostly because they didn't make as much as they could have and lagged behind other airlines in expenses while not sufficiently growing their revenues.

To see what challenges we face, we need to look at other airlines CBA's, and not just the parts we like but also the parts we don't like because that may be the proposed exchange.

The airline industry is a copycat industry as they try to maintain a close comparator in expenses while finding ways to maximize revenue. They usually all go up together and they all come down together.

 

[WeAAsles]

absolutely.

the keyword here is threshold. in my opinion, that word is outdated and needs to be eliminated. post 9-11/BK as a business tool for airlines/shale oil revolution, that word behooves the company, not the worker.

years ago, a former union president here told me that asking for and getting, 3% more than the highest paid FSCs was the norm. protocol. no one out of line.

that was when we had PHs and a nice pension awaiting us at the end. not anymore.

given the fact that ua will max $33+, along with DLs profit sharing program...asking and getting $36.00/hr max rate is not out of line, considering what the company will likely get back (medical, lead language) in an era of unprecedented airline profits.

in europe, the norm is using a maximalist strategy to acquire compensation. europe allows labor some power. this is not the case in the usa...the onus is on parker to follow through.

Crema check out average salary and benefits in 2016 for “all other non pilot” at AA and then compare to peers at UAL and Delta.

We are currently dramatically below our counterparts in both metrics. (Admittedly with higher employment numbers though)

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/default.html

 

[Albert]

Crema check out average salary and benefits in 2016 for “all other non pilot” at AA and then compare to peers at UAL and Delta.

We are currently dramatically below our counterparts in both metrics. (Admittedly with higher employment numbers though)

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/default.html

As an outsider I was blown away to see how many people you have compared to us given we actually had more (granted lighter)
flights not only that you have ridiculous amount of vendors also.Now the manager spree