JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[ChockJockey]

You refuse to "comp-ro-mise" when it comes to sticking up for Neilson too.

 
Tim often brings up good points and possibilities worth considering.  So do you.  I don't take anything from either of you though without a hefty grain of salt.  It's nothing personal, but talk is cheap, and you guys talk a lot.
 

you give yourself a little too much credit, I could care less  who you are,For the record I could care less about Nelson  one way or the other. It does seem funny you only show up when it seems like Nelson is being a burr under the union establishments  saddle . I think that's what you said with that dribble anyway

 

He's not arguing with anyone.

And even if that's the case, why reappear out of the ether after so long?

 
Is it because 700's gone and the valuable (lol) work he was so effectively (lol) doing goes untended?  They should take note though it's hard to follow the party line when nobody can hardly read it.

 

[cltrat]

quality post Chock Jockey

 

[Kev3188]

+1 to that...

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

This board is fast becoming useless for any meaningful exchange of ideas or information.The same urination contests ad infinitum,it's F'ing great.

 

[WeAAsles]

This board is fast becoming useless for any meaningful exchange of ideas or information.The same urination contests ad infinitum,it's F'ing great.

I agree. So let's see if we can change that direction? I just read a Presidents update from TWU Local 512 Preaident Tim Murphy that he has been newly appointed to join the Fleet Negotiating committee.

Assumably because TWU President Mike Mays has been elevated to the Airline Division directors chair.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I agree. So let's see if we can change that direction? I just read a Presidents update from TWU Local 512 Preaident Tim Murphy that he has been newly appointed to join the Fleet Negotiating committee.

Assumably because TWU President Mike Mays has been elevated to the Airline Division directors chair.

So there was an opening? I think we need ORD and MIA in there for sure, although negotiation committees are pretty much just shills for the real players, i.e., Sito or Lombardo.

 

[WeAAsles]

So there was an opening? I think we need ORD and MIA in there for sure, although negotiation committees are pretty much just shills for the real players, i.e., Sito or Lombardo.

Ok I'm just going to "try" to share information here. I heard about and read Tim Murphys update on Saturday that was posted to their FB.

There was no mention of either the President of NY or MIA mentioned. Again with Mike Mays elevation that opened up (1) spot. Apparently Tim Murphy was the choice to fill that (1) spot.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

This board is fast becoming useless for any meaningful exchange of ideas or information.The same urination contests ad infinitum,it's F'ing great.

I agree. So let's see if we can change that direction?

Agreed.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

-----EDITED-----

I don't agree with much of what you said but in the interest of returning the board to it's topic I am going to pass on an itemized response.
 
I will say it's nice to talk with a UNION supporter that is not trying to push a political agenda.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Ok I'm just going to "try" to share information here. I heard about and read Tim Murphys update on Saturday that was posted to their FB.

There was no mention of either the President of NY or MIA mentioned. Again with Mike Mays elevation that opened up (1) spot. Apparently Tim Murphy was the choice to fill that (1) spot.

On the LUS side, the 6 guys have been a core negotiation committee for 6 years now. The Association has been a slam dunk for LUS and Sito has ended up making all the right decisions with Lombardo's support as Vice.

 

[AANOTOK]

Tim, too funny, you were so critical of the Association, the pace and how we were being screwed. Now, cash has shut you up and everything is just peachy...

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, too funny, you were so critical of the Association, the pace and how we were being screwed. Now, cash has shut you up and everything is just peachy...

I have always supported the Association insomuch that I didn't think it was ever a good idea to try to remove it prior to attaining a JCBA. Kindly review my post. I amended my thoughts to clarify that I thought it would be permissible to attempt to remove it, if the two Labor groups couldn't figure things out prior to January. I amended that when it was learned by me that the Association had divisions over the IAMPF and other items that would necessarily mean extended delays in any real negotiation progress. The situation had become tense.
The company determined this after a sidebar revealed some big gaffes between the two Labor groups, so the company canceled at least one negotiation session and actually encouraged the two Labor groups to be more unified. Thus, Parker wanted to try a different path by extracting wage/cross utilization out of the normal negotiation model. Parker needed the cross utilization prior to the October cutoff when all other groups will not be recognizing metal. Thankfully, both of the Association Labor groups submitted to it.

Thus, the situation has changed, and in this new context, I must give credit to the process. It doesn't matter to me who gets the credit as I have no problem saying that, at this time, the Association has delivered for the LUS members, thus, for that reason, I must recognize that and give my 100% for this new agreement and to take our time with negotiations to do it right.

From a LUS perspective, I'm not sure how anyone could presently be against the Association and its fruits to this point unless one has dogmatic beliefs that will not change when the situation changes.

As far as the future, the situation and actions will dictate my support. If this was just a qui pro quo and the Association mindlessly hands over LUS health care and scope, and LUS gets a cost negative JCBA when compared to the current agreement, then my support could change. I don't blindly support and I don't blindly oppose.

Over the last several months from May, there hasn't been one TA other than this wage reopener. Based on what I know, I don't expect much movement at all that would lead to any JCBA anytime soon. In fact, I'd be surprised if a JCBA gets signed in the next 18 months unless there is a qui pro quo from the IAM arm of this.

 

[Talos]

I have always supported the Association insomuch that I didn't think it was ever a good idea to try to remove it prior to attaining a JCBA. Kindly review my post. I amended my thoughts to clarify that I thought it would be permissible to attempt to remove it, if the two Labor groups couldn't figure things out prior to January. I amended that when it was learned by me that the Association had divisions over the IAMPF and other items that would necessarily mean extended delays in any real negotiation progress. The situation had become tense.
The company determined this after a sidebar revealed some big gaffes between the two Labor groups, so the company canceled at least one negotiation session and actually encouraged the two Labor groups to be more unified. Thus, Parker wanted to try a different path by extracting wage/cross utilization out of the normal negotiation model. Parker needed the cross utilization prior to the October cutoff when all other groups will not be recognizing metal. Thankfully, both of the Association Labor groups submitted to it.

Thus, the situation has changed, and in this new context, I must give credit to the process. It doesn't matter to me who gets the credit as I have no problem saying that, at this time, the Association has delivered for the LUS members, thus, for that reason, I must recognize that and give my 100% for this new agreement and to take our time with negotiations to do it right.

From a LUS perspective, I'm not sure how anyone could presently be against the Association and its fruits to this point unless one has dogmatic beliefs that will not change when the situation changes.

As far as the future, the situation and actions will dictate my support. If this was just a qui pro quo and the Association mindlessly hands over LUS health care and scope, and LUS gets a cost negative JCBA when compared to the current agreement, then my support could change. I don't blindly support and I don't blindly oppose.

Over the last several months from May, there hasn't been one TA other than this wage reopener. Based on what I know, I don't expect much movement at all that would lead to any JCBA anytime soon. In fact, I'd be surprised if a JCBA gets signed in the next 18 months unless there is a qui pro quo from the IAM arm of this.

Can't blame the LUS guys for not being in a hurry now. It's just business. I think the money has put a lid on the Association complaints, but I was never for it without a vote. I suspect future difficulties will arise soon enough. You can't blame the IAM people for trying the best for their guys and likewise for the TWU. It could take quite awhile to resolve. Wouldn't surprise me to see the whole thing blow up in the 2 unions faces.

 

[AANOTOK]

Can't blame the LUS guys for not being in a hurry now. It's just business. I think the money has put a lid on the Association complaints, but I was never for it without a vote. I suspect future difficulties will arise soon enough. You can't blame the IAM people for trying the best for their guys and likewise for the TWU. It could take quite awhile to resolve. Wouldn't surprise me to see the whole thing blow up in the 2 unions faces.

...and that complaint goes back to the first day the Association was announced. It is coming to fruition!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Can't blame the LUS guys for not being in a hurry now. It's just business. I think the money has put a lid on the Association complaints, but I was never for it without a vote. I suspect future difficulties will arise soon enough. You can't blame the IAM people for trying the best for their guys and likewise for the TWU. It could take quite awhile to resolve. Wouldn't surprise me to see the whole thing blow up in the 2 unions faces.

Anyone can be a critic but no matter how unorthodox LUS got this raise, it came. And it came as a direct result of the Association, and without one single benefit loss, while at the same time we are still at the table.

Thus far, the Association has been responsible for the following:

1. 2014 LUS stand alone contract- Huge when considering how a different approach hammered United Airline workers. We increased wages, scope, vacation, double time, and a few other things and I can't really remember at this moment if we gave anything up.

2. 2016 Wage Re-opener
LUS Gains:
1. Wages
2. Wage scale reduced 1 year
3. Modest pension increase

After both contracts, LUS has seen a 50% increase in wages, going back to 2014, stabilization of core benefits. Modest increase in pension, paid days off, overtime.

What we now lack is:
1. Shift Differ
2. A average retirement. Sorry but $1.30 still is lacking when compared
3. More paid days off. Another vacation week, 3 more holidays, 4 more sick days.
4. Better grievance system
5. Better overtime
6. Crew Chief Pay
7. wage increases in 2018 and beyond.
8. Signing Bonus
9. Buyout

Thus, it seems to me that management will want our scope and health care. If health care cost increase $200 a month, and the price on scope is subsidized at $400 a month (assuming we keep catering and freight as well) , then a contract doesn't become cost positive unless it's a gain of at least $6,000+ a year. 12 more paid days off a year only equals $2,900, Shift differ equals about $900. Chief Lead equals about: $1100. A better retirement contribution of an additional .50 hour would be another $1,000.

So we if get several of the additional things we need, it still won't add up to what we may assume that the company wants from us, i.e., scope, health care.

I didn't do the math FTE [we aren't all FT or Leads] and it doesn't apply to all of us. For instance, if we go to LAA health care, my increase would be absolutely minimal as I have no dependents on my plan.