JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[gulfcoast1]

Huh??
I have no clue what your talking about. Current scope for all IAM stations is 7 flights a week. Plz explain a little more in detail what you are referring to. I want to make sure I am answering your question correctly. We will all have the same scope going forward. May not be 7 flights a week. But it won’t be the twu language either.

Please don't let it be current TWU SCOPE. Many are counting on it being much closer to current IAM SCOPE. I hope it stays at 7, but if it increases just a little, I would have to think about it. If it goes over 10 flights a day, I think it would be an automatic no for me. I very much want to keep it IAM SCOPE or better, but knowing that negotiations work both ways, I understand sometimes there is a little bad with the good. SCOPE really is the most important issue as some here have said. Without a job the pay rate and insurance are not really relevant. I don't want to give up any more jobs. Thank you again and Happy New Year to you, too.

 

[charlie Brown]

CB,

While I cannot speak for Bob (not that I am sure anyone would desire such an onerous task), he does raise an interesting point an LUS station with a few mainline flights would stay with a new JCBA, while a former LAA station with more mainline flights would continued to be contracted out. Off the top of my pointed head, I could think an example of RNO vs. DTW with the former prior to the AA merger only handled 4 daily flights from PHX with LUS with half of them being RJs whereas DTW handles far more, but not handled by either LAA or LUS ground agents.

I raised this same point with so-called "snap shot" as a possible proposal to a TA on a post I raised a few weeks ago. The snap shot locks the Association into the EXISTING stations while it would certainly include some minimum number of mainline flights for current stations. So we would still not get back places like DTW (or SNA, SJC, IAH, etc.), but we could still lose stations like RNO (or PDX, DEN, MSP, etc.) depending on the scope. Needless to say, reduction in stations will cause a great deal of displacement and hardship for those affected.

In terms of insurance costs between P/T and F/T, I continue to advocate that as the distinction between the two labels becomes blurred as there are P/T'ers working 60 hours a week and F/T'ers barely handling 20 hours a week, there needs to be a floating scale based upon average weekly hours worked calculated bi-annually. The Company will raise the issue of efficiency as to spreading out the fixed cost of insurance based upon number of hours worked. However, does the efficiency change if one works 35 hours as a P/T'er vs. 35 hours as a F/T'er? Of course, not... it is the same number.

Jester
Thanks for the clarification on bobs post. I can only tell you what our goal is in scope. And that is to first protect everything we are doing today in all the cities we are doing it in. And then to hopefully grow our number of stations that we are performing work in. As anyone that read the company’s proposal they put out knows, they want to take some of our current work we own and contract it out. So as of that proposal, the two sides have quite a bit of ground to make up to come to an agreement.
As for the insurance, I can’t say where we will end up on the cost. I can only state what i did earlier about what we are shooting for. Again, once scope gets agreed to, it’s gonna make all these other issues fall in place fairly quickly, because both sides will know how much is being spent on scope. We will push to get everything we can, and the company will push to stay within their magic number.

 

[charlie Brown]

Please don't let it be current TWU SCOPE. Many are counting on it being much closer to current IAM SCOPE. I hope it stays at 7, but if it increases just a little, I would have to think about it. If it goes over 10 flights a day, I think it would be an automatic no for me. I very much want to keep it IAM SCOPE or better, but knowing that negotiations work both ways, I understand sometimes there is a little bad with the good. SCOPE really is the most important issue as some here have said. Without a job the pay rate and insurance are not really relevant. I don't want to give up any more jobs. Thank you again and Happy New Year to you, too.

Gulfcoast
The negative part about the IAM current scope of 7 flights a week, is that the company doesn’t have to Insource any stations that are currently outsourced. It’s scope that was meant to protect what we currently have. In the jcba, we will want to do that, but also hopefully Insource some stations we lost. So we dont want the current IAM scope language if we are trying to bring back stations. There are things we are trying to do both. Keep our current work, and bring back stations.

 

[737823]

Maybe he trying to get kicked off with all his over top comments and personal attacks. That way he can claim on being the victim and blame others for being banned.

Any ideas where Thomas Paine has been? He also asked hard questions and raised topics about the IAM 700 didn't like and tried to diffuse.

Josh

 

[gulfcoast1]

True....they thought that back then....then they saw who they have NOW.

Gulfcoast
The negative part about the IAM current scope of 7 flights a week, is that the company doesn’t have to Insource any stations that are currently outsourced. It’s scope that was meant to protect what we currently have. In the jcba, we will want to do that, but also hopefully Insource some stations we lost. So we dont want the current IAM scope language if we are trying to bring back stations. There are things we are trying to do both. Keep our current work, and bring back stations.

I see your point but your SCOPE still beats our SCOPE.

 

[737823]

Gulfcoast
The negative part about the IAM current scope of 7 flights a week, is that the company doesn’t have to Insource any stations that are currently outsourced. It’s scope that was meant to protect what we currently have. In the jcba, we will want to do that, but also hopefully Insource some stations we lost. So we dont want the current IAM scope language if we are trying to bring back stations. There are things we are trying to do both. Keep our current work, and bring back stations.

With a TWA person at the table will they keep STL? Wonder what concessions nAAtives and LAA will have forced down to enable keeping that dying operation going.

Josh

 

[737823]

Care to elaborate on just what Dave does besides walk around with a camera around his neck and shake a few hands? As far as I know, he was an IAM hater that was given position in order to silence him, which worked like a charm. Now he's a lover, and travels the county following around the Big Boyz with camera in hand. Not having seen the ramp in nearly 10 years, and living large on our dues.

He also does videos for the GL, right?

Josh

 

[737823]

Does this picture look like I’m trying to make myself into a victim? Forums is dead.

If I get Cornfielded I 100% 100% 100% take FULL and COMPLETE responsibility. Please save this post for posterity and to shove up your posterior there NYer.

View attachment 12371

Weez I thought you were working D1 Airbus/737 bulk loading? You said you wanted to get the exercise instead of K loader. D21 is a 777 gate

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

There’s really no reason why the N.C. should back off the current Scope.

We (DL) staff FNT with Ramp, and they have 5 flights/day.

 

[charlie Brown]

I see your point but your SCOPE still beats our SCOPE.

Also keep in mind. The language and flight activity for the staffing of stations, is only one issue in the scope article. Many important issues make up the scope article. Also remember protecting our jobs isn’t necessarily protecting our work. Protecting our work, is how we want to protect our jobs.

 

[pjirish317]

That's what I thought, you dodge the question and carry on with a personal vendetta. I have no problem with your hate against me. But the question remains, how have I ever damaged the membership?

tim,
"I don't think you have all of the information but I guess nobody can stop you from sounding silly". That statement right there from you to me says it all. You sound silly when you say you "know" what will be in our T/A. When you say you "know for a fact" that the LUS insurance is history. Maybe you should take your own advice when speaking on what you think you know about our T/A. You say these things to drum up interest in your ticket for the upcoming election, and you know it is just a lie to further your political gains. So when you ask what you have done to "hurt" the membership, spreading all of your lies and misinformation does just that, it divides us. It also gets the membership mad at the entire NC because you make this crap up. And you are the king of dodging questions. You non answer and misdirect to aviod answering. That is why you have no business being in any sort of leadership role, PERIOD! And the hate comes because you bring it on yourself. It has to be tim's way or the highway. You do not and cannot play well with others, especially when they dissagree with you. So now that I have answered your question, answer mine. Show me irrefutable proof of what you claim to be true regarding the JCBA, and kindly share with us your runningmates. I bet you will not do either. With the first, you cannot and you know it. All you got is a facebook post you authored, and with the second, you simply will not. Why, I have no idea. So bring on the non answers, the spin and the misdirection. It's your forte'.

 

[NYer]

I can not address scope right now, as it is very much still being worked out. As far as the cs policy. Everyone at LAA is assuming Your current cs policy was staying the same. I can assure you through conversations with the company and since the cs policy was company policy it was going to change. Your current way of doing cs,s would no longer exist whether you got it in the contract or not. So that being the case, why not get something contractual that can’t be changed by the company. And I can’t aay too much about what is agreed upon, other to say, once you learn the process, and what counts as a cs and what doesn’t, then it’s not going to be as big a issue as people think imo. As NYer likes to point out. There is going to be some educating needing to be done before a vote. But again. People that state they want to keep their old company policy instead, are assuming that it wasn’t changing. They are assuming wrong. But it’s really not a bad policy imo. Biggest change would be for the people that want to give up a last minute hour or two and it not count as a cs.

I've if the biggest issues that will change with the CS's/Swaps being migrated into contractual language is the ability to make up your CS'd off hours in order to maintain your minimum hours.

As it stands, in LAA, we can CSO as much as we want as long as you maintain 50% of your scheduled hours. We have a certain slice of Members that work most of their hours in small windows. They do it because of another job, school, or they have a life event that keeps them away for long stretches. (Hurricane Maria in SJU is an example)

During the BK, the airline wanted to make our current 50% threshold into an 80% threshold.

If it wasn't for the JCBA negotiations, I wouldn't be surprised if the CS Policy wouldn't have been changed by now and reflect more of what we'll end up with rather than what we currently have.

 

[ograc]

Gulfcoast
The negative part about the IAM current scope of 7 flights a week, is that the company doesn’t have to Insource any stations that are currently outsourced. It’s scope that was meant to protect what we currently have. In the jcba, we will want to do that, but also hopefully Insource some stations we lost. So we dont want the current IAM scope language if we are trying to bring back stations. There are things we are trying to do both. Keep our current work, and bring back stations.

Protecting existing work, cities and jobs. Should be priority one for any labor organization in this cut throat industry. If taking a stand on this issue brings back some stations all the better. Glad to hear it remains the goal of the NC. Let's hope Sito understands this. There should be no retreat or concessions regarding the Scope article. Good luck in future negotiations.

 

[NYer]

Jester
Thanks for the clarification on bobs post. I can only tell you what our goal is in scope. And that is to first protect everything we are doing today in all the cities we are doing it in. And then to hopefully grow our number of stations that we are performing work in. As anyone that read the company’s proposal they put out knows, they want to take some of our current work we own and contract it out. So as of that proposal, the two sides have quite a bit of ground to make up to come to an agreement.
As for the insurance, I can’t say where we will end up on the cost. I can only state what i did earlier about what we are shooting for. Again, once scope gets agreed to, it’s gonna make all these other issues fall in place fairly quickly, because both sides will know how much is being spent on scope. We will push to get everything we can, and the company will push to stay within their magic number.

So the priority would be to keep the current positions they reportedly want to eliminate, like catering, then if that is successful move onto maintaining stations open and/or reopening others?

 

[NYer]

Any ideas where Thomas Paine has been? He also asked hard questions and raised topics about the IAM 700 didn't like and tried to diffuse.

Josh

This thread has unfortunately turned into a textbook definition of cyber bullying. It seems most have decided to remain silent in the shadows only to ingest the pertinent information that is shared and stay away from interacting with the children.