JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

An excellent life lesson story. But so too is the story of Rip Van Winkle.

 

[NYer]

I don't have a beer belly and have only had molars pulled so far.

I think it will probably be the IAM's whiz kid Tommy Reagan who works on and tries to negotiate the Medical issue? He was the one who found the plan for the IAM guys in the first place and I've heard our guys like him and have faith in his abilities.

The argument could be made against the company that if he finds a more cost efficient plan covering all 30,000 Association members that we don't want what AA is offering under their plans? Of course how to administer the subsidy back becomes the next question since currently under the TWU contract we pay 21% of AA's "projected" costs?

Unlikely, the Company wants everyone in the same plans.

 

[WeAAsles]

Unlikely, the Company wants everyone in the same plans.

The IAM at US is currently under different plans then the rest of the airline and has been so since 2002.

Do you always capitulate so easily?

 

[NYer]

The IAM at US is currently under different plans then the rest of the airline and has been so since 2002.

Do you always capitulate so easily?

No. But the Company has had a goal to get everyone into the same plans for quite a few years. They are one step away from that, and I believe they will not capitulate.

Doing so would mean all the other work groups would want to do the same and seek an alternative, which is something this Company has been unwilling to accept. If we decide to hold the line on this matter, then we will be waiting for quite some time to get it resolved.

 

[WeAAsles]

Unlikely, the Company wants everyone in the same plans.

All the Negotiations that you were involved in I have to begin to wonder now with your comment "The COMPANY wants"?

What does that mean?

If the Company wants something are you ready or willing to sacrifice to achieve expediency?

If you had been there from day 1 what else would you have been willing to sacrifice? And WHY are you so seemingly willing to do so?

As a reminder to the readers it was YOU who were willing to give up our Cabin Service jobs before the Company held a BK gun in their hands to force us to give it up.

 

[WeAAsles]

No. But the Company has had a goal to get everyone into the same plans for quite a few years. They are one step away from that, and I believe they will not capitulate.

Doing so would mean all the other work groups would want to do the same and seek an alternative, which is something this Company has been unwilling to accept. If we decide to hold the line on this matter, then we will be waiting for quite some time to get it resolved.

This is your "belief" The management team at US back in 2002 had to deal with the same issue and it still went forward whether they liked it or not.

The Association does not negotiate for what any other group at AA wants or doesn't want. Their task is to negotiate for those of us who pay them to do so.

They should NEVER have on their minds anything less because other groups may have settled themselves for less. I only expect them to look at those groups and say they can strive for more.

When, where or on what they may capitulate is up to them?

 

[WeAAsles]

Remember again NYer that the Company is self insured. They only pay for an administrator to handle the Medical for us. That means that they obviously have a Medical bank to draw out of to pay claims against it.

You should have realized that when they came out with a letter a little over a year ago where they told us that "THEY" would not pay out claims that are over exaggerated and unreasonable.

So how much we pay into that Medical bank becomes the question?

Personally I'm going to trust that guy Tommy Reagan and both the Unions actuaries to handle that issue as I believe none of our current negotiators will have their hands in it anymore than just agreeing to the deal.

The TWU in the past never fought the Companies claims of Medical costs except for saying we would only pay a percentage of what "they" said it cost them. And neither did anyone else in the Company in the past either quite frankly.

This is a different ballgame if we have people who aren't just going along with how much they say they're paying.

 

[NYer]

All the Negotiations that you were involved in I have to begin to wonder now with your comment "The COMPANY wants"?

What does that mean?

If the Company wants something are you ready or willing to sacrifice to achieve expediency?

If you had been there from day 1 what else would you have been willing to sacrifice? And WHY are you so seemingly willing to do so?

As a reminder to the readers it was YOU who were willing to give up our Cabin Service jobs before the Company held a BK gun in their hands to force us to give it up.

This is why conversations with you don't really expand the subject since you're always adding to the conversation what is not really there. Trying too hard to get a "gotcha."

The question is whether we would give it to them, the question is whether we are willing to dig our heels on something that they've prioritized since the BK. If so, then give it a shot. However, it is unlikely to have a successful outcome for us because that is something they've gained in other negotiations. For them to turn back now, means they will forfeit their gains in other CBA's.

The question then becomes, are WE willing to make this a red line item and how long are we willing to stand firm. If the characterization of the negotiations moving forward is accurate, it seems "expedited" doesn't fit into that reality.

Having a conversation about the issues in the real sense of what the reality is, does not constitute being willing to sacrifice. To be able to overcome problems and how willing we are to fight for something means we need to understand the issues from all perspectives.

For the record, it was not. We voted, no, to the Cabin jobs everytime it came up. The longer those negotiations took, the more jobs they ended up adding to the cuts.

 

[NYer]

This is your "belief" The management team at US back in 2002 had to deal with the same issue and it still went forward whether they liked it or not.

The Association does not negotiate for what any other group at AA wants or doesn't want. Their task is to negotiate for those of us who pay them to do so.

They should NEVER have on their minds anything less because other groups may have settled themselves for less. I only expect them to look at those groups and say they can strive for more.

When, where or on what they may capitulate is up to them?

You can ask for the world, and the Association did. Asking and being able to reach a deal are two separate things. We've maintained the timeline of these talks taking a long time, while you've been modifying your expectations on a regular basis believe it would be easy and quick. Even now, with such a large issue as the Medical, you think the talks will be done by mid-April. That apparently means that you fundamentally don't understand the complexities and difficult choices which are ahead of the Negotiating Committee.

If they want a separate plan than what we currently have, then it will take quite some time to get it done. It seems unlikely to get such a complex item crossed off the list in our preferred fashion while also having an expedited schedule.

You seem to believe that as long we go in with the goal of getting the best of the best, we will succeed. That is certainly not the case. However, you do need to go in there knowing what will be your red-line issues and what you're willing to compromise on. No one goes into negotiations willing to accepting less, and doing so doesn't mean everyone didn't try to get the best. Negotiations, by definition, means that neither side gets everything they want. Therefore there needs to be some compromise. Where that comes from is only known to those in the room as they see the dynamics of what is and what is not possible.

 

[WeAAsles]

This is why conversations with you don't really expand the subject since you're always adding to the conversation what is not really there. Trying too hard to get a "gotcha."

The question is whether we would give it to them, the question is whether we are willing to dig our heels on something that they've prioritized since the BK. If so, then give it a shot. However, it is unlikely to have a successful outcome for us because that is something they've gained in other negotiations. For them to turn back now, means they will forfeit their gains in other CBA's.

The question then becomes, are WE willing to make this a red line item and how long are we willing to stand firm. If the characterization of the negotiations moving forward is accurate, it seems "expedited" doesn't fit into that reality.

Having a conversation about the issues in the real sense of what the reality is, does not constitute being willing to sacrifice. To be able to overcome problems and how willing we are to fight for something means we need to understand the issues from all perspectives.

For the record, it was not. We voted, no, to the Cabin jobs everytime it came up. The longer those negotiations took, the more jobs they ended up adding to the cuts.

NYer so far of course the Negotiators for the Company have held firm on certain items. That's what they are supposed to do. It's not their job and they're not being paid to make this easy on us. Expedite would never be a part of their lexicon.

But let's say that Doug himself will join those talks when our leaders step in. Do you think ANY of them are stepping in to sit around and continue on with the song and dance?

Of course our Negotiators should try to get us a better deal on Medical then we currently have. And the IAM side of course should not be willing to just walk in and throw down the sword on the issue either. If that issue hasn't already been decided behind the scenes anyway the time they're going to take to have those conversations is up to them?

But of course some time should be given to have those talks.

And for the record I'm well aware of what happened with all of you on those talks. In "hindsight" now I don't think you should have brought it back to us and why at the time I told you (shockingly to you) that I was going to vote no. I just didn't believe in sacrificing any more jobs for money even if yes I was well aware the company was in trouble. No more cost neutral agreements for me ever again.

 

[WeAAsles]

You can ask for the world, and the Association did. Asking and being able to reach a deal are two separate things. We've maintained the timeline of these talks taking a long time, while you've been modifying your expectations on a regular basis believe it would be easy and quick. Even now, with such a large issue as the Medical, you think the talks will be done by mid-April. That apparently means that you fundamentally don't understand the complexities and difficult choices which are ahead of the Negotiating Committee.

If they want a separate plan than what we currently have, then it will take quite some time to get it done. It seems unlikely to get such a complex item crossed off the list in our preferred fashion while also having an expedited schedule.

You seem to believe that as long we go in with the goal of getting the best of the best, we will succeed. That is certainly not the case. However, you do need to go in there knowing what will be your red-line issues and what you're willing to compromise on. No one goes into negotiations willing to accepting less, and doing so doesn't mean everyone didn't try to get the best. Negotiations, by definition, means that neither side gets everything they want. Therefore there needs to be some compromise. Where that comes from is only known to those in the room as they see the dynamics of what is and what is not possible.

You're chatting with the wrong guy when it comes to getting everything that some people out there seem to have expected from day one. I actually thought it would have been faster cause there would have been more compromise. But some in the room never wanted that and why we are where we are today. I'm personally not as much of the nickle and dime person myself.

But they have as stated made improvements on many articles and we even now have the majority of the money so?

And again even though this might not be a popular comment or opinion to make, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Medical, Retirement, Wages and maybe Signing Bonus or enticement has already been settled and all that's left is SCOPE?

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW NYer you can't tell me that some of those agreements that have been signed the last few years in the Industry haven't thrown you for a loop? There have certainly been some dramatic improvement that happened out there.

In Fleet the biggest being that UAL agreement which from where they stood prior to it was dramatically spectacular IMO.

Now with the fact that even Buffett has bought in to the industry maybe it really is time for us all to admit and realize that the World we knew and lived by really has come to an end?

Changing our own mindsets when we've become so accustomed to our own negative experiences may be the hardest part of all? (Why I also LOVE the new hires)

 

[NYer]

NYer so far of course the Negotiators for the Company have held firm on certain items. That's what they are supposed to do. It's not their job and they're not being paid to make this easy on us. Expedite would never be a part of their lexicon.

But let's say that Doug himself will join those talks when our leaders step in. Do you think ANY of them are stepping in to sit around and continue on with the song and dance?

Of course our Negotiators should try to get us a better deal on Medical then we currently have. And the IAM side of course should not be willing to just walk in and throw down the sword on the issue either. If that issue hasn't already been decided behind the scenes anyway the time they're going to take to have those conversations is up to them?

But of course some time should be given to have those talks.

And for the record I'm well aware of what happened with all of you on those talks. In "hindsight" now I don't think you should have brought it back to us and why at the time I told you (shockingly to you) that I was going to vote no. I just didn't believe in sacrificing any more jobs for money even if yes I was well aware the company was in trouble. No more cost neutral agreements for me ever again.

Good Lord, you love the Monday Morning Quarterback.

The TA was brought back because it was the best deal we were going to get under the circumstances. The NMB wanted a TA to be sent back to the Members and give them a voice. They also had stalled the process and "iced" us to make their point. We also were under the possibility of filing for a BK, which few believed possible until it happened.

 

[NYer]

Remember again NYer that the Company is self insured. They only pay for an administrator to handle the Medical for us. That means that they obviously have a Medical bank to draw out of to pay claims against it.

You should have realized that when they came out with a letter a little over a year ago where they told us that "THEY" would not pay out claims that are over exaggerated and unreasonable.

So how much we pay into that Medical bank becomes the question?

Personally I'm going to trust that guy Tommy Reagan and both the Unions actuaries to handle that issue as I believe none of our current negotiators will have their hands in it anymore than just agreeing to the deal.

The TWU in the past never fought the Companies claims of Medical costs except for saying we would only pay a percentage of what "they" said it cost them. And neither did anyone else in the Company in the past either quite frankly.

This is a different ballgame if we have people who aren't just going along with how much they say they're paying.

You are monumentally wrong about no one fought the medical piece or tried to get a different plan. The Company wanting to get everyone under the same insurance roof is a long-standing goal that would seem to be something they won't back away from. Negotiations have many moving parts and aren't as simple as you try to make it out to be. Those guys in the Committee now have to make tough decisions while trying to gauge what is and what is not possible.

 

[WeAAsles]

Good Lord, you love the Monday Morning Quarterback.

The TA was brought back because it was the best deal we were going to get under the circumstances. The NMB wanted a TA to be sent back to the Members and give them a voice. They also had stalled the process and "iced" us to make their point. We also were under the possibility of filing for a BK, which few believed possible until it happened.

I'm well aware of the position you were in. The problem I had was with those Presidents trying to both sell it and the ones trying to get us to blow it up.

You're role and duty was NEVER to sell it to us but to make us aware of what it all means.

When I informed you and Patty that I was voting no I recall you both becoming enraged by my decision. Neither of you had or have that right since I am more than educated enough to be my own man. And so to are your members.

And it was NOT a good deal since it was a deal designed for us to eat our own body parts if it had passed. Sharon Levine herself also informed all of us that it was wise that we didn't pass it as we would have lost more value in that BK.

I don't blame you for not knowing that and contend that it was the duty of your bosses to make you aware of that trap. On that one they abjectly failed.