JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[NYer]

Doom and Gloom

You sound like a broken record already.

You think it’s all gonna suck even though TWO of the negotiators have stated on here most of the articles ARE IMPROVEMENTS!!!!!

Just because you keep posting the same crap doesn’t make it true.

It’s enough already.

I can’t wait to say I told you so when the JCBA comes out.

You aren’t in the room you can’t refute with facts what Gary, P Rez and Charlie Brown have stated.

Yes you constantly complain about the OT compromise.

Get over it.

Yes, two negotiators from the IAM side. The changes may be good in some places but they're not good in other places.

For the IAM, the final place for the CS and OT language seems closer to language they're familiar with but for the TWU it will be a dramatic change and will come as a shock to most.

To you, the "compromise" in the OT seems quite reasonable and I suspect that will be the feeling from TWU Members towards the "compromise" in the Medical and Scope agreements. I sure hope you'll be as accepting as you seem to be at the moment.

Of course, that's assuming you're a current IAM or TWU Member working in AA and not someone like 700 that liked to offer his opinion but didn't really have to live with the proposed changes. That type of perspective is really not as powerful as those from actual and active LAA and LUS workers.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

Every JCBA are compromises.

But you prefer to bully and impose your CBA, instead of being fair.

Did you not learn from the mistakes of the past?

And they stated it was an improvement for both sides.

 

[WeAAsles]

Yes, two negotiators from the IAM side. The changes may be good in some places but they're not good in other places.

For the IAM, the final place for the CS and OT language seems closer to language they're familiar with but for the TWU it will be a dramatic change and will come as a shock to most.

To you, the "compromise" in the OT seems quite reasonable and I suspect that will be the feeling from TWU Members towards the "compromise" in the Medical and Scope agreements. I sure hope you'll be as accepting as you seem to be at the moment.

Of course, that's assuming you're a current IAM or TWU Member working in AA and not someone like 700 that liked to offer his opinion but didn't really have to live with the proposed changes. That type of perspective is really not as powerful as those from actual and active LAA and LUS workers.

Well I don’t think you’re confused about who I am.

Now I’m very sure you’re not going to get any Shock and Awe out on the MIA field since a little birdie has been making sure to explain the “rumors” on the coming changes to Swap Shift and OT sign up language.

First you really should negate your conversation to argue about the Swap Shifts since we have ZERO language on it anyway. Either way thumbs up or down the Company is going to eventually implement it the way they want it to be. That one is inevitable.

Now the OT. Let’s see. “Some” FT guys aren’t going to care for it no. Just so you know everyone on my crew this bid, last bid and only one guy on the bid before that none do any OT. So that’s around 14 people and 3 Crew Chiefs. I don’t think as many people as you guess do OT, sorry.

PT being able to get 4 hours or less is not going to kill FT guys and it might make some PT guys happy. (DFW ain’t going to give a rats ass cause they don’t have many PT and they control votes as you know)

Now again to repeat over and over just like you do. You wholeheartedly supported the Association so what did you expect? What did you expect? The OT change was beautiful harmonious compromise between the TWU and IAM. Bravura. Good show.

Now let’s see will our guys vote Doom and Gloom? Oh HELL NO.

TOS about 70k with wages, shift dif and holidays. Add another 5k for 401k Match and 4K for a CC and YOU hit 80k (just about) with NO OT. Yep they’re going to HATE that DAMN TA!!!!!

Oh and remember Penalty Hours and Paid Lunches?

Happy Hollidays Ho Ho Ho.

 

[NYer]

Every JCBA are compromises.

But you prefer to bully and impose your CBA, instead of being fair.

Did you not learn from the mistakes of the past?

And they stated it was an improvement for both sides.

Welll, Tom, you seem to be putting words in my mouth because I don't believe I've taken that stance. That's are others on these pages that seem to have the mindset that we should get what we want simply because we're the larger group but I don't agree with that.

I've shared that it is inevitable that there needs to be compromise which is the main reason why I always thought the two sides should have spent more time together in reconciling the CBA's rather than sitting on the sidelines and squabbling.

Also have maintained that the Association should be communicating better and setting the proper expectations of the process. Not doing so could doom the TA ratification and that causes some gloom.

 

[NYer]

Every JCBA are compromises.

But you prefer to bully and impose your CBA, instead of being fair.

Did you not learn from the mistakes of the past?

And they stated it was an improvement for both sides.

The IAM negotiators can say there have been improvements for both sides, but with all due respect, they haven't lived in the TWU side to gauge what we would deem an improvement.
.
On the same token, don't believe a TWU negotiator can set a two week timetable for a TA when Scope and Medical are the biggest issues in the IAM world unless we believe the airline will live with the 1 flight scope and the IAM medical.

I don't and I'd expect they'd fight for it.

Do you?

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

The IAM negotiators can say there have been improvements for both sides, but with all due respect, they haven't lived in the TWU side to gauge what we would deem an improvement.
.
On the same token, don't believe a TWU negotiator can set a two week timetable for a TA when Scope and Medical are the biggest issues in the IAM world unless we believe the airline will live with the 1 flight scope and the IAM medical.

I don't and I'd expect they'd fight for it.

Do you?

First of all they can say that there are improvements to the TWU language as they are in the same room as their TWU counterparts.

Two, do you think they can’t read the language and understand it’s meaning, intent and application to see if it’s an improvement or not?

The IAM negotiators wouldn’t be there if they didn’t know what they are doing?

You are very condescending to people you don’t even know or even met.

And yes I believe their will be compromises on medical and scope.

I have 28 years at US in base and line maintenance, all three IAM represented groups were told that our 2014 agreements were bridge CBAs till we all got JCBAs.

At the meetings the ramp was told the scope was placeholder language.

 

[bob@las-AA]

First of all they can say that there are improvements to the TWU language as they are in the same room as their TWU counterparts.

Two, do you think they can’t read the language and understand it’s meaning, intent and application to see if it’s an improvement or not?

The IAM negotiators wouldn’t be there if they didn’t know what they are doing?

You are very condescending to people you don’t even know or even met.

And yes I believe their will be compromises on medical and scope.

I have 28 years at US in base and line maintenance, all three IAM represented groups were told that our 2014 agreements were bridge CBAs till we all got JCBAs.

At the meetings the ramp was told the scope was placeholder language.

Just like our shift differential.

 

[B737 driver]

First of all they can say that there are improvements to the TWU language as they are in the same room as their TWU counterparts.

Two, do you think they can’t read the language and understand it’s meaning, intent and application to see if it’s an improvement or not?

The IAM negotiators wouldn’t be there if they didn’t know what they are doing?

You are very condescending to people you don’t even know or even met.

And yes I believe their will be compromises on medical and scope.

I have 28 years at US in base and line maintenance, all three IAM represented groups were told that our 2014 agreements were bridge CBAs till we all got JCBAs.

At the meetings the ramp was told the scope was placeholder language.

Let me ask you guys this, what is acceptable to both Ramp and Maintenance to reach a JCBA and will pass to become a contract. Because if that can't be achieved then all back and forth just frustrates people and you guys just fight.

 

[NYer]

First of all they can say that there are improvements to the TWU language as they are in the same room as their TWU counterparts.

Two, do you think they can’t read the language and understand it’s meaning, intent and application to see if it’s an improvement or not?

The IAM negotiators wouldn’t be there if they didn’t know what they are doing?

You are very condescending to people you don’t even know or even met.

And yes I believe their will be compromises on medical and scope.

I have 28 years at US in base and line maintenance, all three IAM represented groups were told that our 2014 agreements were bridge CBAs till we all got JCBAs.

At the meetings the ramp was told the scope was placeholder language.

You put words in my mouth and I'm condescending. OK.

Everyone can read language but unless you live in our shoes then I believe it would be condescending to assume language is better. Case in point, in OT the language in the TWU CBA is very vague and most stations have extra agreements on how the OT would work in that station. The IAM negotiators don't know that language or the process in each station. That being the case they can't really make an accurate assessment of what may be good or better language.

Never said the IAM negotiators aren't competent, to the contrary, I'm one of the few that has preached patience because this is a complicated and involved process.

Read my comments since it seems you have a preconceived idea of who I may or may not be.

If you believe there will be compromises on Scope and Medical then I believe you'd also have to agree that if it's unlikely to have a TA in the next two weeks if those subjects are now to be broached in a negotiation session.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

See that’s your problem, OT should be consistent on how it’s applied per station.

Under the LUS CBA you can local OT rules if the members, the union and the company agree. But it can’t be in violation of the CBA.

And I’m pretty sure their TWU counterparts informed and educated the IAM side on how the TWU does overtime.

Your doom and gloom posts shows me your condescending.

You knock the Association and the Negotiating Committee all the time.

You speculate on the JCBA and yet you don’t know its language.

Also FYI, The IAM Constitution discourages the practice of working overtime.

And if people need OT to survive then they are living beyond their means.

So I see you still don’t believe the three negotiators.

From what Gary has said and my IAM reps, I’m optimistic things will get so strong, especially since the company approached the Association for more dates.

And if you are focused on OT and CS only then you really don’t have the priorities in order.

And I for one is very happy that they are taking their time to get it right.

Would you have preferred to be under the gun with binding arbitration like the APA and APFA did and were at Parker’s mercy begging for more money?

 

[NYer]

See that’s your problem, OT should be consistent on how it’s applied per station.

Under the LUS CBA you can local OT rules if the members, the union and the company agree. But it can’t be in violation of the CBA.

Your doom and gloom posts shows me your condescending.

You knock the Association and the Negotiating Committee all the time.

You speculate on the JCBA and yet you don’t know its language.

Also FYI, The IAM Constitution discourages the practice of working overtime.

And if people need OT to survive then they are living beyond their means.

So I see you still don’t believe the three negotiators.

From what Gary has said and my IAM reps, I’m optimistic things will get so strong, especially since the company approached the Assoofir more dates.

Wow. Not sure what you're reading, but I'm one of the few that has tried to share how the NC has their hands full and how difficult it is to combine two CBA's.

Yes, I've been critical of the Association and it's mostly because of the lack of substantive communications and the void that has created which Members fill with rumor. The lack of communication from the Association has made the process very frustrating and soured many of the process.

We've also seen the timelines shared by the negotiators come and go so they're not infallible.

I'm sure they're doing their best and working towards the best possible deal they can get. However, there is a void and it is being filled with rumor and speculation and if the Association doesn't get better at sharing then I'm afraid the frustrations will boil over and the TA won't get a fair assessment.

You've acknowledged there will be compromises and that being the case it would be beneficial if those points of compromise were explained as we go. We have two different CBA's and two different cultures and we can't expect to learn everything at one time.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

You keep saying the JCBA will go down in flames and send the committees back to the table.

What do you want them to tell you?

Every single detail of what is going on so you can piss off the members when they dont like some changes?

And negotiations are fluid, things change all the time, even if TA something, it is subject to change at anytime.

Once again, the LUS members know how JCBA talks go, it took almost three years for a JCBA in the HP/US Merger, and that was way easier than this process.

You talk out of both sides of you mouth, you bash the NC saying they should have met more before talks start, that wasnt their choice.

You say the JCBA is going down and the NC will be sent back to the table.

And I call BS, if the members dont read the TA, dont go to the road shows, then they are the ones who are the problem, as everyone should be informed on the JCBA as most as possible.

You say they need to be more information put out by them.

If people believe rumors, shame on them, all that does is hinder the process, and no one should believe any rumors, they should only believe the facts.

Things take time to happen, like I said would you have preferred to be in the APA and APFA shoes?

 

[WeAAsles]

You keep saying the JCBA will go down in flames and send the committees back to the table.

What do you want them to tell you?

Every single detail of what is going on so you can piss off the members when they dont like some changes?

And negotiations are fluid, things change all the time, even if TA something, it is subject to change at anytime.

Once again, the LUS members know how JCBA talks go, it took almost three years for a JCBA in the HP/US Merger, and that was way easier than this process.

You talk out of both sides of you mouth, you bash the NC saying they should have met more before talks start, that wasnt their choice.

You say the JCBA is going down and the NC will be sent back to the table.

And I call BS, if the members dont read the TA, dont go to the road shows, then they are the ones who are the problem, as everyone should be informed on the JCBA as most as possible.

You say they need to be more information put out by them.

If people believe rumors, shame on them, all that does is hinder the process, and no one should believe any rumors, they should only believe the facts.

Things take time to happen, like I said would you have preferred to be in the APA and APFA shoes?

Simple solutions you know so NYer and maybe a few of his followers vote yes.

Change the OT back to make sure it completely benefits only the FT Member at the combined AA which really cold clocks the IAM PT Fleet guys and get the Company to agree to modify the CS back to the way we have it on the TWU side. As a matter of fact tell the Company to leave it alone for our side period and we don’t want the name changed either.

CS (Change shift) no Swap Shifts.

And you need to get these guys to release all the information involved in what they’ve agreed to. Of course that’s not how Negotiations work and everything is subject to change but who cares.

NYer demands it be so. It is his decree.

 

[WeAAsles]

Let me ask you guys this, what is acceptable to both Ramp and Maintenance to reach a JCBA and will pass to become a contract. Because if that can't be achieved then all back and forth just frustrates people and you guys just fight.

Too many people with their own “self” needs/wants to answer that question.

Take NYer here. His main importance seems to be ways of making more money above the FT 40 per week. As an individual because that might be more future restrictive he’ll probably be a no vote.

As for me “individually” I could care less if the two are more restrictive. I rarely utilize either and both items are extremely low on my priorities list.

If for Fleet the “rumor” mill is correct and we at least match many industry standard items and surpass on wages without any job function detriments, I can’t see any reason why I would vote no myself. I honestly don’t want to send them back to the table to try and wring out just a little more knowing that yes it could take years. That would be economically idiotic to me.

 

[swamt]

To the contrary, I'm taking his words as spoken and his timeline includes the caveat of the Company fulfilling their "promise."

What are the chances of them taking back their comprehensive proposal, over then next two weeks, and giving the Association what they seek to constitute an industry leading contract?

Isn't that the same premise back in the early part of Summer and again in mid-Summer pushing the goal towards the Fall. I'll even remind everyone of the predictions of a quick resolution last December when the Executive Committee was announced as expediting the process.

I'm one of the few that has tried to express the fact that these negotiations would take time because of the complexities. It is a video by a President setting the expectation of this ending this month. It was other NC members that shared other timelines of reaching a TA during the Summer, then by Fall. Setting those expectations only raises the frustrations many feel when the time passes with no deal in sight.

The leadership haven't been effecifient in the communications of the updates or setting the proper expectations of how this process would go. The negativity the TA will receive will be because of that and not necessarily in the totality of the contents.

And some always seem to "overlook" the videos put out by GP in the past about how the company's offers are NOT industry leading. Sure there will be some improvements, hard not to have "some" improvements while making all time record numbers for several quarters now. The question is, will it be industry leading? I have my doubts as that would be a restore of all the takes for the last 30 years including the big one in 2003. GP has already lead on that they are not in the area of industry leading offers. With 2 weeks left, I just don't see it, and you are correct, why throw that date out as he has said several times now that they expect an agreement in principle (AIP) by end of Dec. just to knock the wind out of the sails of the membership once again. And now they are nego. the articles that, as GP has admitted himself, will take the longest and are the hardest to get through.