JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[AANOTOK]

So where is the argument that even Ed K stated along other union reps that the money is each individuals name, their trust account if you will and it could not be used to subsidize the current retirees medical. Again, in his comments, that's exactly what Parker said would be used to keep paying them. Obviously by law AA cannot use the money for anything else, but again per our TWU, the money is in my name.

 

[NYer]

So where is the argument that even Ed K stated along other union reps that the money is each individuals name, their trust account if you will and it could not be used to subsidize the current retirees medical. Again, in his comments, that's exactly what Parker said would be used to keep paying them. Obviously by law AA cannot use the money for anything else, but again per our TWU, the money is in my name.

If you read the actual Trust language, included in the 2003 CBA, it states the Trust is to be used exclusively for the benefit of the participants.

That language is what doesn't allow the Company to distribute those funds even if they wanted to. The arbitration didn't seem to be about that but rather they made an argument to allow those that retired after the ratification to be allowed to draw from the Trust in order to have medical coverage before turning to Medicare at 65.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Here in MIA I have a cushion of almost 1000 FT below me and around 800 (almost all) PT.

Those are people, not a cushion for your benefit.

It's ALL about numbers to these companies, not people.

You just called those people a cushion........ and summed them up as a number relevant to your personal security.

language agreed to in their contract that wasn't even easy for me to understand. And I'm pretty smart.

............... OK.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

If there are Members in a certain status contributing less to their medical than another group under a different status, it may give the Company the advantage and it could create a situation in which there is an incentive created to create a certain amount of Members in a certain status since it would be financially beneficial to have some contribute more, which allows the Company to contribute less.

Also, if some are allowed to opt out completely, especially the younger crowd, the rates for the rest us will most assuredly go up and it could create a situation where there is more being paid out of the insurance than there is coming back in.

Therefore, it is beneficial for everyone to have as many of us pay into the system at the same rates than it is to have a different rates and optional participation.

The company already pushes part time work. You agreeing to take home less every payday to subsidize PT medical is not going to change that.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't agree, very few full timers will back them. They might tell you they will but they won't. And taking a poll will leave you the same results as Hillary

If you raise the cap to 40% of the total amount of FSC of course many current FT will vote no. Under that scenario they can make two whole Hubs into PT and still not have hit the 40% ratio.

They could even make all of LGA into PT just to make the High COL cities suffer some if they wanted.

There would be no limitations to where they would decide they want more FT over PT. MIA as an example could take more of a hit since we already on the TWU side have the most PT in the system due to scattered flight activities.

If senior guys think they run the risk of being knocked back to PT on any TA coming to our desk, you absolutely will get a no vote.

You're used to penalizing your PTers where we just don't have the same philosophy even if you think we do. A few little trinkets or iceing on our cake is just not going to make us risk our own throats.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Dose anyone else hear that?
Sounds like someone playing the tuba through their backside.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Between Al and Lu Lu they'll unfortunately just hijack the conversations for their own personal chits and giggles.

No, YOU hijacked the thread when you tried to use the UNION as a vehicle to push your socialist political beliefs.

I just shut you down.

And obviously I'm a lightning rod for these two.

You ever ask yourself why you are a lightning rod?

Let me give you a hint. The UNION is not your personal pulpit to push your political ideology. Every time I see you trying to manipulate people under the facade of UNIONism you can bet I am going to shut you down again, and again, and again, and again.

If you don't want to be a lightning rod then quit trying to manipulate people.

But at least Al works with us while the other guy will NEVER come back like I'm sure he'd like.

I have news for you WeAAsles I could have already been back. Several people with less seniority than me from my old shop have already returned to the base in a new job capacity. Some have transferred to other stations.

Getting past that fact who are you to say I will NEVER come back?

Never say never.

 

[bob@las-AA]

If you raise the cap to 40% of the total amount of FSC of course many current FT will vote no. Under that scenario they can make two whole Hubs into PT and still not have hit the 40% ratio.

They could even make all of LGA into PT just to make the High COL cities suffer some if they wanted.

There would be no limitations to where they would decide they want more FT over PT. MIA as an example could take more of a hit since we already on the TWU side have the most PT in the system due to scattered flight activities.

If senior guys think they run the risk of being knocked back to PT on any TA coming to our desk, you absolutely will get a no vote.

You're used to penalizing your PTers where we just don't have the same philosophy even if you think we do. A few little trinkets or iceing on our cake is just not going to make us risk our own throats.

As of now the part-time ratio is 31.66%

 

[WeAAsles]

Now "maybe" if the FT and PT protection was but back in the mix you might have a better shot? But without the $12,500 special moving allowance being put back, the company can make all sorts of maneuvers to try and shake some apples out of the trees.

That's why we had the $12,500 in the first place. To prevent the company from playing games when it came to moving us around at their whim unless it was an operational necessity.

 

[WeAAsles]

As of now the part-time ratio is 31.66%

And it's limited by a Station formula that prevents the company from just arbitrarily making everyone PT if they chose to.

And why is that retard still responding to me? Mental problem you think?

 

[Albert]

If you raise the cap to 40% of the total amount of FSC of course many current FT will vote no. Under that scenario they can make two whole Hubs into PT and still not have hit the 40% ratio.

They could even make all of LGA into PT just to make the High COL cities suffer some if they wanted.

There would be no limitations to where they would decide they want more FT over PT. MIA as an example could take more of a hit since we already on the TWU side have the most PT in the system due to scattered flight activities.

If senior guys think they run the risk of being knocked back to PT on any TA coming to our desk, you absolutely will get a no vote.

You're used to penalizing your PTers where we just don't have the same philosophy even if you think we do. A few little trinkets or iceing on our cake is just not going to make us risk our own throats.

You of all people know they won't come back with anything close to what you imagining. Bob will be full time as long as he wants to be, that is unless his electrician work comes back criminally negligent and he faces jail time

 

[Albert]

Now "maybe" if the FT and PT protection was but back in the mix you might have a better shot? But without the $12,500 special moving allowance being put back, the company can make all sorts of maneuvers to try and shake some apples out of the trees.

That's why we had the $12,500 in the first place. To prevent the company from playing games when it came to moving us around at their whim unless it was an operational necessity.

The sky is falling Weez

 

[Albert]

And it's limited by a Station formula that prevents the company from just arbitrarily making everyone PT if they chose to.

And why is that retard still responding to me? Mental problem you think?

He did get a couple of good shots in,the old Weez would have welcomed such a battle. This last girl of yours really mellowed you

 

[WeAAsles]

You of all people know they won't come back with anything close to what you imagining. Bob will be full time as long as he wants to be, that is unless his electrician work comes back criminally negligent and he faces jail time

Sorry Al but your contract has only 1 paragraph for PT so that makes me just a little nervous. To be honest I don't know anything anymore and nothing surprises me either.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

If you insist and are successful at keeping your medical plans with it's ridiculous injustice of having PT members pay double to subsidize FT (Me) members you are creating your own issues as to why the Company will want as many PT members as they can fill into the bucket. You've created the motivation for management to always want to be at the max cap even if the operation would be better served with FT members.

I think the US IAM group is the only one that does that.

US IAM 141 Part Timer
Double the rate for insurance
Half the contributor for IAMPF
Same dues expense for everyone
Can't bump a FT out on layoff

And I've heard there are IAM guys that have the balls to say the TWU treats their PT like crap.

Yea right. LMFAO. Please let me hear this explanation?

Page 115 Bob. 40% of the total amount of FSC. And that's also why I can't stand how the IAM contract penalizes people for being PT. It's like these people subsidize everyone. The Company, The Union and the FT member. This language better not be weaker than our language even if our language isn't good enough either.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Al still not saying that I don't think it would be unfair for PT to pay double for medical against a FT. Just don't think a blanket solution that might penalize the thousands of PT we have on the TWU side would be the best or wisest option.

You immediately throw all these people under the bus with a contract like you guys have right now in that area and guaranteed the TA won't pass. The PT staff would be overwhelming in their resistance and you'd have enough FT people join them to guarantee a dismal disappointment to the guys who brought that back. (If they do)

I think you made your stance pretty clear before WeAAsles.