JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

Getting a contract ratified immediately prior to an election is politics 101. There is no election right now. There is a reason why US AIRWAYS or United contracts get TA'd or ratified in April or May, since we have a June vote.Sito is trumping this though. There is going to be a dogfight in the International come this January, with the election in April. Politically, it makes no sense for Sito to work things out with Parker until a ratification in February or March. It's not a TWU thing, isn't even a District thing right now, but IAM international politics.What we didn't know, at least I didn't know, was that the International would be split. Otherwise, I figured a ratification no later than November 1. Now, with the knowledge that the IAM International is split in half and will be working to secure their votes against eachother [unless this is a game of chicken and one blinks], I would think that a ta at American will be ratified no earlier than January. I still think we will get a fair deal, I mean, c'mon our company is making $6 billion a year and projecting billions more, even though we missed the peak.

We got ourselves a Mexican jumping bean here. "I think we'll get a fair agreement"

Weren't you the same guy screaming in caps "THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY HAS CLOSED" just a few weeks ago?

Have you added a fourth personality into that head of yours? What should we call this you now?

 

[Tim Nelson]

We got ourselves a Mexican jumping bean here. "I think we'll get a fair agreement"

Weren't you the same guy screaming in caps "THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY HAS CLOSED" just a few weeks ago?

Have you added a fourth personality into that head of yours? What should we call this you now?

We did miss a great opportunity and could have secured a industry leading agreement. However, things have changed and we will NOT get an industry leading anymore. After pissing away 18 months, I think it is too hopeful to continue suggesting a leading industry agreement. I hope I'm wrong. But even your boy Lombardo agrees with me. The Association scaled back its terminology as well. Instead of maintaining "industry leading contract', they have textually conceded to only saying a 'fair agreement'. A fair agreement is still worth more than what we have now.

 

[NYer]

Obviously you haven't begun to realize yet that our negotiators are not interested in coming to the middle of two bankruptcy agreements.
They've stated that they've made improvements on both on about 20 articles.
If you were still in there is that what we would have to look forward to? The compromise on two bankruptcy agreements? "The middle"
And again you were in concessionary negotiations TWICE. This is not the same venue that your mind grew accustomed to.

Ah. You haven't been in any such venue but you're the expert (mouthpiece, rather). So we must rely on you expertise.

It's good to hear there will be no steps backwards and everything will be an upgrade from current language from each CBA.

 

[WeAAsles]

We did miss a great opportunity and could have secured a industry leading agreement. However, things have changed and we will NOT get an industry leading anymore. After pissing away 18 months, I think it is too hopeful to continue suggesting a leading industry agreement. I hope I'm wrong. But even your boy Lombardo agrees with me. The Association scaled back its terminology as well. Instead of maintaining "industry leading contract', they have textually conceded to only saying a 'fair agreement'. A fair agreement is still worth more than what we have now.

And you have a specific example in mind for the word "fair"? Maybe he thinks fair is "restore and more" and then more on top of that.

I always find it funny when people try to decipher the meaning of what was in someone's mind when they put pen to paper.

 

[WeAAsles]

Ah. You haven't been in any such venue but you're the expert (mouthpiece, rather). So we must rely on you expertise.
It's good to hear there will be no steps backwards and everything will be an upgrade from current language from each CBA.

I said that? Where did I say that? Did you snap a picture of me saying that?

Now I'm also a mouthpiece. Wow you've really bestowed some honor on me.

I hope this isn't some type of jealousy thing you have going on in your head? I'm not a personal psychiatrist either. Just a baggage handler man.

 

[NYer]

Begs the question NYer, when you say meet in the middle, AA wants Catering and ALL of the remaining Cargo. Conceding one or the other (concession) while keeping one of the two considered meeting in the middle?

 
Meeting in the middle is not a literal call to split everything 50/50.
 
For instance the positions announced by the Association are as follows,
 
Recognition and Scope:
• Incorporate Legacy US Purpose of Agreement into Recognition and Scope with modifications.
• Increase the number of stations to perform catering, cargo and fleet service work.
• Management shall not perform fleet service work.
• Adopt the Legacy US flight activity threshold per Letter of Agreement for all locations.
• Capture all work currently being performed by employees covered under this agreement, including express work.
• Employees covered under this agreement shall transfer all bags coming off mainline American Airlines flights.
• Other language related to Recognition and Scope will be discussed during the negotiations process.
 
Now. Let's suppose the Company takes the opposite view.
 
How do you get a deal? You can either hold your ground and not give an inch, which could cause the Company to do the same. Or each side meets the other in the middle...that middle ground is determined by the negotiators and what they believe they can achieve.
 
If we want to hold a hard line, which is an option, how long are we willing to wait them out? Time isn't on our side since the Members are already frustrated.
 
If we wait and the frustrations get worse, do we believe the Company will suddenly break from their hard line? Who blinks first?

 

[Worldport]

 
Meeting in the middle is not a literal call to split everything 50/50.
 
For instance the positions announced by the Association are as follows,
 
Recognition and Scope:
• Incorporate Legacy US Purpose of Agreement into Recognition and Scope with modifications.
• Increase the number of stations to perform catering, cargo and fleet service work.
• Management shall not perform fleet service work.
• Adopt the Legacy US flight activity threshold per Letter of Agreement for all locations.
• Capture all work currently being performed by employees covered under this agreement, including express work.
• Employees covered under this agreement shall transfer all bags coming off mainline American Airlines flights.
• Other language related to Recognition and Scope will be discussed during the negotiations process.
 
Now. Let's suppose the Company takes the opposite view.
 
How do you get a deal? You can either hold your ground and not give an inch, which could cause the Company to do the same. Or each side meets the other in the middle...that middle ground is determined by the negotiators and what they believe they can achieve.
 
If we want to hold a hard line, which is an option, how long are we willing to wait them out? Time isn't on our side since the Members are already frustrated.
 
If we wait and the frustrations get worse, do we believe the Company will suddenly break from their hard line? Who blinks first?

Actually I think it would be easy to find a "fair" ground to all those proposals . Fair ground that both sides would be okay with

 

[Other People]

Meeting in the middle is not a literal call to split everything 50/50.
 
For instance the positions announced by the Association are as follows,
 
Recognition and Scope:
• Incorporate Legacy US Purpose of Agreement into Recognition and Scope with modifications.
• Increase the number of stations to perform catering, cargo and fleet service work.
• Management shall not perform fleet service work.
• Adopt the Legacy US flight activity threshold per Letter of Agreement for all locations.
• Capture all work currently being performed by employees covered under this agreement, including express work.
• Employees covered under this agreement shall transfer all bags coming off mainline American Airlines flights.
• Other language related to Recognition and Scope will be discussed during the negotiations process.
 
Now. Let's suppose the Company takes the opposite view.
 
How do you get a deal? You can either hold your ground and not give an inch, which could cause the Company to do the same. Or each side meets the other in the middle...that middle ground is determined by the negotiators and what they believe they can achieve.
 
If we want to hold a hard line, which is an option, how long are we willing to wait them out? Time isn't on our side since the Members are already frustrated.
 
If we wait and the frustrations get worse, do we believe the Company will suddenly break from their hard line? Who blinks first?

Holding a hard line during record profits is fine as long as your membership is willing to drag things out for years and the economy doesn't go south prior to a tentative. But foregoing significant increases in a contract to draw the line in the sand on the lesser items is counter productive. I read somewhere where they spent another week of negotiations talking about temporary workers once again. Does American have temporary workers? And if so, I would guess your present contract regulates them.

At what point does the union blink? It seems like parker wants to keep the temporary worker language. So, does the union just keep on standing its ground on this issue at the expense of moving on to the bigger issues? That would be a standstill if parker really doesn't want to budge on some issues.

 

[WeAAsles]

Holding a hard line during record profits is fine as long as your membership is willing to drag things out for years and the economy doesn't go south prior to a tentative. But foregoing significant increases in a contract to draw the line in the sand on the lesser items is counter productive. I read somewhere where they spent another week of negotiations talking about temporary workers once again. Does American have temporary workers? And if so, I would guess your present contract regulates them.

Let's just continue to post those contracts and hope people eventually chose to read and learn them.

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

 

[AANOTOK]

To my point, I don't have a problem with the Association asking (as they should) for more Cargo and Catering to be done by our collective members. I also would not call it a deal breaker if AA said no, no increase. I guess my question to you was/is, in my scenario, that particular situation would be 50/50 middle if we gave one to keep one. In my eyes that IS a concession, would you be OK with that?

 

[Worldport]

Holding a hard line during record profits is fine as long as your membership is willing to drag things out for years and the economy doesn't go south prior to a tentative. But foregoing significant increases in a contract to draw the line in the sand on the lesser items is counter productive. I read somewhere where they spent another week of negotiations talking about temporary workers once again. Does American have temporary workers? And if so, I would guess your present contract regulates them.

Josh?

 

[NYer]

Holding a hard line during record profits is fine as long as your membership is willing to drag things out for years. But then, you better hope the overall economy doesn't go south. Passing on significant boost to a contract along with a significant pay raise seems short sighted if one is passing on the wage increases to take a hard line on smaller things that will never get you to the bigger items.

 
That's the point. When the TWU and IAM didn't get together in November 2014 to reconcile and go over the differences in the two CBA's, we lost valuable time. The TWU decided not to meet with the IAM because of Association related differences. To date, those differences have not been addressed causing a missed opportunity.
 
When the NMB certified the Association, in May 2015, we should have been ready to hit the floor running. It seems everyone was caught off guard and it took another 6 weeks to start the reconciliation process.
 
We waited until December to get the ball rolling and into January 2016 to actually sit and start the process we are currently in. 7 months.
 
So I ask you, OP, if we would have been ready in May or June 2015 and you count 7 months out we could have been in the position we are today on December or January. If that were the case, we may have been in a better position to hold a hard line on many issues.

 

[Worldport]

To my point, I don't have a problem with the Association asking (as they should) for more Cargo and Catering to be done by our collective members. I also would not call it a deal breaker if AA said no, no increase. I guess my question to you was/is, in my scenario, that particular situation would be 50/50 middle if we gave one to keep one. In my eyes that IS a concession, would you be OK with that?

Fair ground would be asking for more and getting status quo  on cargo and catering, Scope split the difference 8 flights or so this isn't section six

 

[Worldport]

 
That's the point. When the TWU and IAM didn't get together in November 2014 to reconcile and go over the differences in the two CBA's, we lost valuable time. The TWU decided not to meet with the IAM because of Association related differences. To date, those differences have not been addressed causing a missed opportunity.
 
When the NMB certified the Association, in May 2015, we should have been ready to hit the floor running. It seems everyone was caught off guard and it took another 6 weeks to start the reconciliation process.
 
We waited until December to get the ball rolling and into January 2016 to actually sit and start the process we are currently in. 7 months.
 
So I ask you, OP, if we would have been ready in May or June 2015 and you count 7 months out we could have been in the position we are today on December or January. If that were the case, we may have been in a better position to hold a hard line on many issues.

Glad to hear another opinion from MIA

 

[NYer]

To my point, I don't have a problem with the Association asking (as they should) for more Cargo and Catering to be done by our collective members. I also would not call it a deal breaker if AA said no, no increase. I guess my question to you was/is, in my scenario, that particular situation would be 50/50 middle if we gave one to keep one. In my eyes that IS a concession, would you be OK with that?

 
Not in the room so I can't say what is possible and what is not. It could be they would leave Cargo and Catering alone but would want the flights to be at the equivalent of 15 flights per day. At that point, the issues becomes much more difficult and it may mean that we would have to take a different stance on another subject.
 
Point being, if we are not willing to move and they are not willing to move we continue to lose more than they do and as pressure builds who do you believe blinks first.
 
So at that time, the issue could be whether they want Cargo/Catering AND they want the 15 flights. Do we continue with the hard line at that point?