JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

Why would it be anything other than DOH? What do you guys currently use?

We use Company hire seniority but as an example DFW was the only city to not let TWA guys have that citing some ancient ruling regarding Sky Chefs and pinned the 4/10/01 for Vacation bidding on them as well as job bid lines.

 

[NYer]

NYer, are you saying or maybe thinking that this is what the company is wanting to go to in the new JCBA? Are you thinking they want to get it put at 80% instead of the 50%?? That would be a big QOL issue, is it not???

That was their position during the BK. Their concern was having people working at AA as a measure to gain medical insurance while having a primary job or career outside the airline.

They believed having an 80% CS limit would allow them to safeguard their investment. They wanted to ensure their employees were earning more in wages (productivity) than what they were paying in other benefits.

Fortunately, we were able to get them off that goal, at that time, but I'm sure it would have been addressed at a future point.

It seems the current LUS language helps to address their concerns while also allowing Members to give away up to about 48% of scheduled hours.

That change will undoubtedly lead to some leaving the airline as the new CS/Swap will not fit their needs once that flexibility is taken away.

 

[737823]

Well if it goes to occupational over Company I’m just going to keep my head down and stay out of the line of fire.

Coin flip?

Funny you now have this attitude after the following post only a few months ago:

Yes. Most former TWA people bid vacation before me. Again though IGM. I can hold all weeks I'm interested in anyway.

Do you have a point here Sir?

Josh

 

[swamt]

The vacation article, while almost, is not completely done. The seniority is complete. But what date you use for the bidding of vacation is still subject to change since it’s not complete. Sorry, I know that’s a frustrating answer.

A point you have mentioned before. Some here (and yes, the two we spoke about before) keep screaming that scenoirity is done when it is not, so thank you for clearing that "rumor" up as well. Nothing is done or even close to an AIP until all groups involved have agreed AND signed on the dotted lines for it to be released as a T/A for a vote by the membership. When will they learn this??

 

[swamt]

That was their position during the BK. Their concern was having people working at AA as a measure to gain medical insurance while having a primary job or career outside the airline.

They believed having an 80% CS limit would allow them to safeguard their investment. They wanted to ensure their employees were earning more in wages (productivity) than what they were paying in other benefits.

Fortunately, we were able to get them off that goal, at that time, but I'm sure it would have been addressed at a future point.

It seems the current LUS language helps to address their concerns while also allowing Members to give away up to about 48% of scheduled hours.

That change will undoubtedly lead to some leaving the airline as the new CS/Swap will not fit their needs once that flexibility is taken away.

I see. Thx for the explanation.

 

[WeAAsles]

A point you have mentioned before. Some here (and yes, the two we spoke about before) keep screaming that scenoirity is done when it is not, so thank you for clearing that "rumor" up as well. Nothing is done or even close to an AIP until all groups involved have agreed AND signed on the dotted lines for it to be released as a T/A for a vote by the membership. When will they learn this??

Is this you?

 

[WeAAsles]

Funny you now have this attitude after the following post only a few months ago:



Josh

If former TWA people were to lose the ability to bid before me I obviously even more would still be an IGM. But we do have a lot of TWA peeps here in MIA who’d be mighty unhappy thus the comment I’ll keep my head down.

Again don’t see your point? I’m not Seniority obsessed.

 

[swamt]

Is this you?

Once again you just keep proving my points. You always resort to these post when proven wrong, always. Truth hurts huh? You get proven wrong by a negotiator at the table and you seek me out with your attacks, speaks volumes.

 

[WeAAsles]

Once again you just keep proving my points. You always resort to these post when proven wrong, always. Truth hurts huh? You get proven wrong by a negotiator at the table and you seek me out with your attacks, speaks volumes.

swamt all these things that you keep CLAIMING I’ve said would be buried right here in this thread.

Once and for all so we can end this nonsense I want you to FIND EXACTLY where it is I keep saying the things your mind is drumming up? Where the F are you coming up with these things?

THESE are the reasons SERIOUSLY that I think you and a few other posters on here might be Mentally ill? What other explanation do you have?

Peterson puts out a video saying the Company can finish this this month if they wanted and SOMEHOW I said SOMEWHERE that this will be over this month?????????

Look I know it’s my fault and that I pushed you over the psychological ledge. But Dude don’t you want me to move out of your head?

Or maybe it’s you in my head swamt and YOU WIN? Maybe you’re the reason I’m really still debating getting the F off this crap. Maybe I’m the one crying Uncle here swamt?

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW I don’t recall ever saying that how we would bid Vacations by Seniority was finished? But if I did specifically say that anywhere on Forums absolutely 100% my apologies for the confusion.

Of course I really do need someone to find for me where I said it? If I did say it it has to be here somewhere right?

Along with all my other “Absolute” statements of things being finished?

swamt can you help me out here on this there buddy? I’d really appreciate it.

 

[Jester]

Don’t want to start openly negotiating on a public forum. So I’ll say that our goal is to grow and improve our scope. This starts with not giving up anything.

I have seen you mention this before, but finally decided to question it now. Not sure I agree that the starting point is "not giving up anything" on scope when we should be aiming higher towards getting more instead of the status quo.

As I posted recently there are many previously staffed LUS and LAA stations which would not be re-opened should we agree to a "snap shot" mentality re-enforcing the status quo. Furthermore, if we start at a low point (for which I believe to be the current condition given the loss of stations on both sides), then the JCBA can go nowhere but even lower. I especially believe this to be true as those marginal stations will be closed should they have a minimum number of 10 daily mainline flights.

 

[737823]

If former TWA people were to lose the ability to bid before me I obviously even more would still be an IGM. But we do have a lot of TWA peeps here in MIA who’d be mighty unhappy thus the comment I’ll keep my head down.

Again don’t see your point? I’m not Seniority obsessed.

Who cares what 1000 TWA people think? Across M&R, fleet, etc it’s not like that will have drastic implications for the ratification of an eventual T/A so why is this even an issue?

TWA was going to go belly up anyway, they made out a lot better than Pan Am or Eastern. Sure NW people hit the lotto (yet are still bitter with real wage increases exceeding 50% since their transaction closed) but IMO PMDL should have had them stapled and absent MB being in place DL sure would have tried if nothing else to show how worthless IAM DL 143 and AFA-CWA truly are. It would have coddled the larger PMDL group, and again in 2008 DL was the better capitalized, more solvent, larger carrier with superior career expectations than a dinky little Midwest airline flying 35 year old DC-9s and a few token transpacific routes as spoils.

Josh

 

[Tim Nelson]

I have seen you mention this before, but finally decided to question it now. Not sure I agree that the starting point is "not giving up anything" on scope when we should be aiming higher towards getting more instead of the status quo.

As I posted recently there are many previously staffed LUS and LAA stations which would not be re-opened should we agree to a "snap shot" mentality re-enforcing the status quo. Furthermore, if we start at a low point (for which I believe to be the current condition given the loss of stations on both sides), then the JCBA can go nowhere but even lower. I especially believe this to be true as those marginal stations will be closed should they have a minimum number of 10 daily mainline flights.

I don't think that is what he meant. I read his comments to be fair comments. In other words, improving scope by bringing in the unborn (IAH, RSW, DTW, etc) without sacrificing the current dues paying members he represents. I agree with his philosophy on that, i.e., to expand the scope, i.e., X + Y, not X -Y. Even if X - Y is still a net gain.

Obviously, grandfathering the small stations is a concession but it doesn't involve tossing out the current dues paying members. So, by grandfathering, they ought to get additional stations as compensation for allowing grandfathering.

IMO, there really shouldn't be any loss of work. I really don't see the need to even grandfather but just keep the work. Period. Why lesson anything in scope?

 

[WeAAsles]

Who cares what 1000 TWA people think? Across M&R, fleet, etc it’s not like that will have drastic implications for the ratification of an eventual T/A so why is this even an issue?

TWA was going to go belly up anyway, they made out a lot better than Pan Am or Eastern. Sure NW people hit the lotto (yet are still bitter with real wage increases exceeding 50% since their transaction closed) but IMO PMDL should have had them stapled and absent MB being in place DL sure would have tried if nothing else to show how worthless IAM DL 143 and AFA-CWA truly are. It would have coddled the larger PMDL group, and again in 2008 DL was the better capitalized, more solvent, larger carrier with superior career expectations than a dinky little Midwest airline flying 35 year old DC-9s and a few token transpacific routes as spoils.

Josh

It’s like I have two cancerous growths on my ass and a few ugly boils of different shapes and sizes.

 

[charlie Brown]

I have seen you mention this before, but finally decided to question it now. Not sure I agree that the starting point is "not giving up anything" on scope when we should be aiming higher towards getting more instead of the status quo.

As I posted recently there are many previously staffed LUS and LAA stations which would not be re-opened should we agree to a "snap shot" mentality re-enforcing the status quo. Furthermore, if we start at a low point (for which I believe to be the current condition given the loss of stations on both sides), then the JCBA can go nowhere but even lower. I especially believe this to be true as those marginal stations will be closed should they have a minimum number of 10 daily mainline flights.

Not really sure when my post reads we want to grow and improve our scope, how you read that to mean start at where we are now, or status quo? In my earlier post I stated that the company in their proposal was trying to eliminate work that we currently own. So the two sides were pretty far apart.
Yea we do want to protect everything we do today. But we absolutely are trying again to grow and improve our scope. We are not happy with just status quo.