JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Tim Nelson]

I'd like to know the perspective of those on this site, in relation to the following FB conversation me and a brother are having. To be sure, I don't believe there is anything right or wrong about a particular strategy insomuch that it is productive. None of us know or can really speak about management, but negotiations takes two. At any rate, consider the following conversation below
_____________






Tim Nelson The method and plan of negotiations may determine how long. If they attack every article and hardline the company on issues which some may think are better for normal section 6 negotiations then negotiations won't be done anytime soon. OTOH, if they focus more narrowly on only the core issues and leave secondary issues like temp agents alone until later, then time can be saved. Hard lining every issue will burn alot of daylight. What it may unfortunately do is burn up any huge wage gain as well, especially if the enviornment changes.

Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs

..




Frank Torino







Frank Torino That's what I'm afraid of....

Like · Reply · 19 hrs

..



Kevin Douglas







Kevin Douglas Tim Nelson they HAVE to address every issue since this is a merger of 2 cba's. Temp. Employees are not needed since we already have pt employees. To me, this is a no-brainer. Time to get the bs out of the way and move on to a TA.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

..



Tim Nelson







Tim Nelson I hear ya. But this is the 3rd update in a row where there seemed to be an extensive time burning talking about Temp employees. I'm not sure if we ever had temp employees at LUS, although we do have the language. It is an important issue but trying to abolish temp employees or expecting the company to abolish it altogether without tweaking it first, seems as if the NC is hard lining even the small issues, which isn't wrong if one wants to treat these Joint talks like normal section 6 talks. From my perspective, things are sorta misplaced if we hard line even secondary issues in joint talks. Misplaced because I don't personally believe hard lining the entire contract will be productive in the time frame of other Joint contracts and may compromise time spent to advance and enhance other core items.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

..



Kevin Douglas







Kevin Douglas Tim Nelson I believe the NC is hard lining every issue because they only have one shot at getting us an industry leading contract, so each issue and especially language is very important. We knew this process was going to take a long time but the part I'm having trouble with is the unresolved issues still lingering from Dec. Company negotiators have long been known to stall during negotiations and the way it's sounding we might need a 3rd party to come in eventually and help us out. I will say that I have never seen a greedier management team than the one now assembled at AA. How long will the BOD let the stock keep tanking before we get new blood at the top. Such a shame to see us go from the worst of times to the best of times and start another rapid decline in a handful of years. I'm also sick of mgmt. spewing that labor costs are hurting our performance while they are lining their pockets with record profits and hidden bonuses. After all, fleet service is just now getting back to 2003 pay but no where near our previous benefit levels.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

..



Tim Nelson







Tim Nelson Each issue is important but if you want to address each issue with a hard stance then you really ought not to be surprised that some very very small issues still aren't resolved since December. There is nothing wrong with addressing every issue hard but the risk is time. And these are not section 6 negotiations so there really is no reason for the company to come to an agreement, legally, except for its own interest. Remember, neither contract becomes ammendable for years to come. And, we have already seen that the industry forecast and gudance is downward, so the risk of addressing everything very hard is that could end up in an industry that has thunderstorms as opposed to the sunny and 70 environment now with oil down and terrorism mostly dormant. That's the risk. Do we dick around with temp employee language and fret over that with the company for months, or do we get in and get out of negotiations by addressing the core issues in this great environment and truncate the time needed to do so.? Trust me, if we play games with these small items, it's going to take a very very long time, i.e., years. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, given these are joint talks and supper is ready right now in this environment. Even the money may not be there a year from now. That's the risk.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

..



Tim Nelson







Tim Nelson BTW, the reason why the stock is dropping is because of the industry guidance pointing downward. Let's hope oil stays down otherwise we may lose our window of asking for very very big things.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

..



Kevin Douglas







Kevin Douglas Tim Nelson this is a very unique negotiations due to the fact that it is the first of a unified Association CBA. Not really sure if they can skip over articles at will. They've already stated that they would hammer out the "smaller" issues before taking on pay and compensation. It's a shame that we don't already have a joint CBA so we could just negotiate major issues like United did. Would be so much easier.

Like · Reply · 55 mins

..



Tim Nelson







Tim Nelson Nobody is suggesting to skip over issues entirely. You have to address each one in a joint contract. The style in how the negotiation team addresses them is the question. Since this isn't section 6 and the company is under no obligation to negotiate, the question becomes how hard do we stand on minor issues? The harder the stance, the more daylight will be burned. IMO, I think the vast majority of our members wouldn't mind if the union didn't fuss and took a less tedious stance against Temporary employees but instead spent the majority of the time focusing on just the core issues, i.e., wage, scope, job protection, health care, pension. You mention United, those negotiations were a disaster imo as they only negotiated 90 days and walked away without full time protections or no layoff clauses. So, I'm definately not saying that we should just skim over everything and only address one or 2 items, but I also don't think we should be tedious and hard line over minor issues. Remember, United, Southwest, etc were in section 6 negotiations, we are not. Attaining a fully exhaustive normal section 6 negotiaitons contract will take years but the membership, including me, want our NC to fit items within a much quicker timeframe. Supper is ready now. The longer we hiss at the minor issues, the more daylight we burn, and the greater risk that the company's position will get more restrictive in a changing environment.

 

[WeAAsles]

Here's my "personal" wish list.

Sick Time. It should be the same amount as the Agents period. 12 days per year that can be banked. As a matter of fact the company should replenish the bank since we went so long with only 5 per year that now we have plenty of people with zero hours. And a self manage system. Do away with all Lost Time departments and have ramp management address any issues if a member seems to be abusing. (It used to be that way actually)

IOD time. What we have now is pathetic. I want to see dramatic improvements in that area.

Retiree medical bridge. 60 to 65 subsidized at the employee rate. Individual can utilize sick bank (at FULL rate) until exhausted and then can pay for their medical (employee rate) out of pocket till they reach 65.

Improvements to retirement percentages. For the AA side the 5.5% that the company offers is less than all of their competitors. The 3% above (Demand that to be UAL now) the top rate is just a shell game. If it was put into the 401K match rather than the base wages it would be a 8.5% match instead. Now granted not everyone would match 8.5% to their 401K but let's stop letting Parker think he's really giving us a deal here. For someone like me who put's in 20% it equals out against my industry peers no matter which end you put it on. 

Improvement to Crew Chief (Lead) pay. The max rate is on the AA side which is $2.07. Here in MIA no one is taking the job anymore. And as a matter of fact it's only going to get much worse when those raises come. CC pay should be at least $3.50 per hour premium and then the company will only get the most senior people putting in for the positions. At the rates we have now I can see a future where the most Junior inexperienced people are going to go for the job.

SCOPE. As many jobs as possible brought back in house. I don't even want to see a subcontractor much less walk by one.

 

[WeAAsles]

ARTICLE 35
-
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
(a)
Temporary employees may be hired by the Company to accomplish and perform work of any temporary nature not to exceed forty - five (45) calendar days unless extended by mutual agreement between the Company and the Local Union, twice within a calendar year. If qualified employees laid off due to a reduction in force are available at the station or locality where the work is to be performed, they will be given the first opportunity of employment. A regular part time employee at the location will be proffered temporary full time opportunities prior to hiring a full time temporary employee.

http://twu.org/Portals/0/AirContracts/aa_FleetServiceAgreement.pdf

Ok it's pretty obvious to me where there might be a problem? If the company needs to temporarily upgrade a PT to an FT position then that means they would have draw from the transfer list if the language was scratched. For us that creates opportunities to be able to relocate to another city that we want to go to. (I like opportunities) Although when I hired on they extended my shift every day except Saturday without offering me an upgrade to FT. So I was getting 37 hours per week anyway.

For the company they wouldn't have an overage of people they feel they don't really need in the station during non peak seasons.

Using as an example one person. They need to bring in someone to work. A guy transfers in FT and is now in the mix. When the need is over for him they "could" (Wouldn't do it anyway but) downgrade one person which would then bump one person out. So now we're looking at costs. 

One person to come in has badging and training expenses. Plus he might be at the TOS rate so he's an added expense to the Station budget.
The guy eventually bumped out would receive unemployment insurance which becomes a cost to what the company has to pay for the insurance. 




 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Here's my "personal" wish list.Sick Time. It should be the same amount as the Agents period. 12 days per year that can be banked. As a matter of fact the company should replenish the bank since we went so long with only 5 per year that now we have plenty of people with zero hours. And a self manage system. Do away with all Lost Time departments and have ramp management address any issues if a member seems to be abusing. (It used to be that way actually)IOD time. What we have now is pathetic. I want to see dramatic improvements in that area.Retiree medical bridge. 60 to 65 subsidized at the employee rate. Individual can utilize sick bank (at FULL rate) until exhausted and then can pay for their medical (employee rate) out of pocket till they reach 65.Improvements to retirement percentages. For the AA side the 5.5% that the company offers is less than all of their competitors. The 3% above (Demand that to be UAL now) the top rate is just a shell game. If it was put into the 401K match rather than the base wages it would be a 8.5% match instead. Now granted not everyone would match 8.5% to their 401K but let's stop letting Parker think he's really giving us a deal here. For someone like me who put's in 20% it equals out against my industry peers no matter which end you put it on. Improvement to Crew Chief (Lead) pay. The max rate is on the AA side which is $2.07. Here in MIA no one is taking the job anymore. And as a matter of fact it's only going to get much worse when those raises come. CC pay should be at least $3.50 per hour premium and then the company will only get the most senior people putting in for the positions. At the rates we have now I can see a future where the most Junior inexperienced people are going to go for the job.SCOPE. As many jobs as possible brought back in house. I don't even want to see a subcontractor much less walk by one.

I agree. Im not sure this is the time to sweat over the small stuff. We are burning daylight. I agree about CC pay. it actually benefits the company to pay leads more. Your CC have alot more responsibility than our Leads.

regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

I agree. Im not sure this is the time to sweat over the small stuff. We are burning daylight. I agree about CC pay. it actually benefits the company to pay leads more. Your CC have alot more responsibility than our Leads.
regards,

I've always thought they should have even more responsibility. Like having to submit their own delay reports. That way the company could get rid of the redundancy of too many ramp CSM's who have to conduct a wasteful hearing for a delay.

A CC at the wages we see coming will go up to about $70,000 per year. Now let's say the CSM makes the same. We're talking $140,000 per year for the two individuals.

Raise the CC pay, throw in that added responsibility and it could be a decent cost savings for the company?

 

[WeAAsles]

Remember one other thing to keep in mind though Tim. This is probably the "only" chance they are going to have to get it right. These talks are about repairing the damage that we all went through in Bankruptcies and concessions. Partially this should be about leaving the future generation something to be proud of and look back on us with Thanks.

Hopefully the next time they go back in in 5 years the only thing they'll need to talk about is wage increases? I think it would be nice if we didn't have to open and discuss the entire agreement?

Don't you?

 

[ograc]

Remember one other thing to keep in mind though Tim. This is probably the "only" chance they are going to have to get it right. These talks are about repairing the damage that we all went through in Bankruptcies and concessions. Partially this should be about leaving the future generation something to be proud of and look back on us with Thanks.

Hopefully the next time they go back in in 5 years the only thing they'll need to talk about is wage increases? I think it would be nice if we didn't have to open and discuss the entire agreement?

Don't you?

 

Amendable dates, 5 years from now, in Section 6 negotiations. Amendable dates on two agreements reached under bankruptcy. Last time I checked, the average time it took to reach new agreements, under section 6 in this industry, was 2.5 years beyond the amendable date of any agreement. That's average folks. Which means it could take longer. That equals about 7.5 years from now. That means the terms of any JCBA could be in place for 5 or more years. Attention to detail now. Improvements, to every Article agreed to under bankruptcy, now. Let's get it right now. However long it may take. The new AA could be back in bankruptcy 5 - 7.5 years from now. This is not the time to go soft and kick the can down the road, to  section 6 negotiations, on any Article IMO. The company would love to kick the can down the road on as many articles as they can. What should that tell us? 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Remember one other thing to keep in mind though Tim. This is probably the "only" chance they are going to have to get it right. These talks are about repairing the damage that we all went through in Bankruptcies and concessions. Partially this should be about leaving the future generation something to be proud of and look back on us with Thanks.

Hopefully the next time they go back in in 5 years the only thing they'll need to talk about is wage increases? I think it would be nice if we didn't have to open and discuss the entire agreement?

Don't you?

I agree but blending the contracts means that every article has to be addressed. That said, i dont believe we should wager high stakes on every article but if we do so then the company will back off 100% if it thinks we are fretting about minor issues. We arent in section 6 like united and southwest were so im sure the company wants to model the negotiations for the cwa. Doesnt mean we have to but hardlining all secondary issues wont be constructive and may inhibit a time sensitive TA. The union reported that the first 17 articles were all enhancements. Jerry Glass isnt gonna allow them to have a no hitter. 
 
It is time to package the core issues. If we have impasses on minor issues that bites us in the ass as the industry changes then we may not get a contract for 7 years (see afa and ibt at UA).
 
regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

I agree but blending the contracts means that every article has to be addressed. That said, i dont believe we should wager high stakes on every article but if we do so then the company will back off 100% if it thinks we are fretting about minor issues. We arent in section 6 like united and southwest were so im sure the company wants to model the negotiations for the cwa. Doesnt mean we have to but hardlining all secondary issues wont be constructive and may inhibit a time sensitive TA. The union reported that the first 17 articles were all enhancements. Jerry Glass isnt gonna allow them to have a no hitter. 
 
It is time to package the core issues. If we have impasses on minor issues that bites us in the ass as the industry changes then we may not get a contract for 7 years (see afa and ibt at UA).
 
regards,

UAL ramp wasn't in Section 6 talks. That was limited issue negotiations agreed to by both the company and the union. But UAL did also get an extension on Labor Peace because of that agreement.

Something currently that AA does not have with the Association members. Lenders and creditors don't like not having Labor peace. That's why they added stipulations to approve the merger in the first place.

They learned from the original UAL debacle. (Have the AA negotiators learned this yet or are they falling back into a certain old fashioned pattern)

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
Amendable dates, 5 years from now, in Section 6 negotiations. Amendable dates on two agreements reached under bankruptcy. Last time I checked, the average time it took to reach new agreements, under section 6 in this industry, was 2.5 years beyond the amendable date of any agreement. That's average folks. Which means it could take longer. That equals about 7.5 years from now. That means the terms of any JCBA could be in place for 5 or more years. Attention to detail now. Improvements, to every Article agreed to under bankruptcy, now. Let's get it right now. However long it may take. The new AA could be back in bankruptcy 5 - 7.5 years from now. This is not the time to go soft and kick the can down the road, to  section 6 negotiations, on any Article IMO. The company would love to kick the can down the road on as many articles as they can. What should that tell us? 

i guess i finished my post as you wrote yours and im not surprised that you came up with 7 years as well. That said, I respect your position to open up every article and get every article right even if that takes 7 years, however I disagree.
 
I dont believe we would have any chance to get a Jcba without talking about years if we want to fix it all. And although i may be wrong I dont believe Delta wages will be sustainable with a downturn, nor do I believe there is any evidence that oil wont meet previous high levels a few years back. Locking down for a long time and going for an exhaustive section 6 contract, imo, will cause harm. Not saying im right. But ive never ever seen such an environment that should mean that he can gain alot if we reap the field within the next 3-6 months.
Specifically, what this means to me is to get the money, sign the profit sharing, secure scope, job protection, health care, paid days off,  pension. Those 6 issues. The other issues, while still important, can be worked on but nothing hardline.
 
For instance, I think our OT sucks but if we get $30, extra week vacation, keep and enhance scope, extra % in 401/iampf, reasonable healthcare, FT protections, then i doubt many of us will fret if we leave many of the minor things to get addressed later. Im simply uncomfortable risking time over the minor issues because I am convinced more storms are coming in this industry. 
 
Not saying your convictions dont have meaning, i just disagree and i think many of us will feel that any time delay past another 6 months is profane.
 
regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

for clarification, i dont believe our NC will hardline everything, and given the context, I support that.

 

[WeAAsles]

I wonder if AA has placed this man, Tim Ahern into our talks? Now this man sounds like a go getter. Someone that would know and understand the value behind drawing these talks to the most earliest conclusion possible.

If he's not in these talks, AA upper management really needs to get this man in there IMO.
 
NYCA:  One of the biggest fears with any merger, and it is not only in the airline industry, it happens when any companies merge, the potential is there for layoffs, for attrition due to retirements, how does that position hold for the new American Airlines?

 
TA:  I really think that if you look at what is going on, this is going to be a growth opportunity for us so as you look at the new airplanes coming in, the nice part of having that fleet order is that depending on what happens with demand, we certainly can take the supply and either throttle it up by keeping some of the airplanes that we currently have in the fleet flying or we can throttle back.  The intent of everything that we are looking at is not only to maintain but also to grow.  I know that when you tend to look at merger opportunities that there is some shrinkage, but I think with the new American, you will see we come out with expanded growth.  Now with that said, people will choose to retire from the company.  We have just finished with a town hall meeting with staff and employees and used different roles in the old company to the new company are examples and used that to show that it can be a great outcome and opportunities for everyone going forward.  We need to make sure that we do it right.  Both carriers have a history of mergers in the past and we also have looked at other recent mergers in the industry and we want to take the best out of all those experiences and do it right.  We have formed integration teams, there is an integration office that manages some 29 integration teams throughout the organization and they are looking at everything we do and we are really looking at the best of the best not only between the two carriers but looking at the best of the best in the industry and other industries as well.  This is an opportunity to do some lessons learned and grow upon those lessons learned to have the best team going forward.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/12/emerging-details-tim-ahern-talks-new-american-airlines/#.VzerxumJIec

 

[ograc]

i guess i finished my post as you wrote yours and im not surprised that you came up with 7 years as well. That said, I respect your position to open up every article and get every article right even if that takes 7 years, however I disagree.
 
I dont believe we would have any chance to get a Jcba without talking about years. And although i may be wrong I dont believe Delta wages will be sustainable with a downturn, nor do I believe there is any evidence that oil wont meet previous high levels a few years back. Locking down for a long time and going for an exhaustive section 6 contract, imo, will cause harm. Not saying im right. But ive never ever seen such an environment that should mean that he can gain alot if we reap the field within the next 3-6 months.
Specifically, what this means to me is to get the money, sign the profit sharing, secure scope, job protection, health care, paid days off,  pension. Those 6 issues. The other issues, while still important, can be worked on but nothing hardline.
 
For instance, I think our OT sucks but if we get $30, extra week vacation, keep and enhance scope, extra % in 401/iampf, reasonable healthcare, FT protections, then i doubt many of us will fret if we leave many of the minor things to get addressed later. Im simply uncomfortable risking time over the minor issues because I am convinced more storms are coming in this industry. 
 
Not saying your convictions dont have meaning, i just disagree and i think many of us will feel that any time delay past another 6 months is profane.
 
regards,

 
Tim. I believe we, in fact, agree. I never stated we should wait 7 years to get it right. There are, indeed, Articles that can wait till Section 6 negotiations. The NC should not be expected to take a hard line on every Article in JCBA talks. With that being said... there are many Articles that require immediate attention and improvement. Articles that we, as a collective group, should not agree to kick down the road. You have shed light on the Articles that need immediate attention and improvement. However, with every Article that gets signed off on with no improvement, there should be an equal and opposite outcome, on the Articles you mentioned. We don't want to be seen as a group that is willing to sacrifice long term gain for immediate gratification. Not a position the NC should be put in. Every Article needs diligent attention. Let the chips fall where they may.   
 

 

[Tim Nelson]

management already has cross utilization so it has breathing room and doesnt need a new contract so desperately. In ord, i can tell ya, without that cross utilization, the company would be more aggressive in wanting a TA.

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
Tim. I believe we, in fact, agree. I never stated we should wait 7 years to get it right. There are, indeed, Articles that can wait till Section 6 negotiations. The NC should not be expected to take a hard line on every Article in JCBA talks. With that being said... there are many Articles that require immediate attention and improvement. Articles that we, as a collective group, should not agree to kick down the road. You have shed light on the Articles that need immediate attention and improvement. However, with every Article that gets signed off on with no improvement, there should be an equal and opposite outcome, on the Articles you mentioned. We don't want to be seen as a group that is willing to sacrifice long term gain for immediate gratification. Not a position the NC should be put in. Every Article needs diligent attention. Let the chips fall where they may.   
 

+1