JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[bob@las-AA]

		TWU	IAM	ML-AA	ML-US	Daily	20	25	30	35
ATL	146	88	58	8473	2939	31				146
AUS	90	90	0	8878	469	26			90	90
BDL	59	0	59	2099	833	8	59	59	59	59
BOS	367	174	193	20181	8984	80
BWI	90	0	90	4646	1898	18	90	90	90	90
CLT	1587	0	1587	50009	44373	259
DCA	501	128	373	20473	10157	84
DEN	90	0	90	7917	2329	28			90	90
DFW	3387	3224	163	146558	3082	410
EWR	86	0	86	6086	2071	22		86	86	86
FLL	110	0	110	5984	3125	25			110	110
JAX	61	0	61	2704	1364	11	61	61	61	61
JFK	787	766	21	17100	1422	51
LAS	216	93	123	12653	3024	43
LAX	959	824	135	36031	3688	109
LGA	390	212	178	20372	6432	73
MCI	40	0	40	4286	1204	15	40	40	40	40
MCO	212	110	102	14579	4686	53
MIA	2660	2568	92	52671	1794	149
MSP	81	0	81	6162	2086	23		81	81	81
ONT	21	0	21	2194	597	8	21	21	21	21
ORD	1344	1239	105	55852	3452	162
PBI	46	0	46	3299	1861	14	46	46	46	46
PDX	50	0	50	3084	1024	11	50	50	50	50
PHL	1626	0	1626	24866	20501	124
PHX	1101	0	1101	33302	27781	167
PIT	109	0	109	3832	2343	17	109	109	109	109
PVD	39	0	39	986	600	4	39	39	39	39
RDU	67	0	67	6141	1738	22		67	67	67
RNO	20	0	20	1837	571	7	20	20	20	20
SAN	46	0	46	7268	1722	25			46	46
SAT	65	65	0	5757	336	17	65	65	65	65
SEA	97	0	97	7053	1590	24		97	97	97
SFO	209	141	68	13654	2615	45
SJC	26	0	26	3229	790	11	26	26	26	26
SJU	114	114	0	5139	1037	17	114	114	114	114
SLC	37	0	37	3345	1258	13	37	37	37	37
SMF	29	0	29	2481	992	10	29	29	29	29
STL	153	153	0	6555	1085	21		153	153	153
TPA	133	59	74	9225	3553	35
							806	1290	1626	1772

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The list one more time.

 

[WeAAsles]

Ok so looking at your list with a 5 flight per day Station Staffing formula the only candidate for possible closure would be PVD.

Now see if you can find a list where neither IAM or TWU is staffed that is currently at over over the 5 per day threashold?

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW Bob if you look at paragraph E in that PSA agreement the company can't outsource a station that falls below the 5 flight per day threshold as long as at least 1 member remains active from the date of signing.

That's what our old Station Protection was basically.

 

[bob@las-AA]

To the right of the daily flights is scope 20, 25, 30 etc, that's scope is 20, 25 etc daily. The tally at the bottom reflects the impact to FSC.

 

[bob@las-AA]

BTW Bob if you look at paragraph E in that PSA agreement the company can't outsource a station that falls below the 5 flight per day threshold as long as at least 1 member remains active from the date of signing.

That's what our old Station Protection was basically.

Not talking about ticket agents, but FSC.

 

[WeAAsles]

To the right of the daily flights is scope 20, 25, 30 etc, that's scope is 20, 25 etc daily. The tally at the bottom reflects the impact to FSC.

Yes Bob I can read and comprehend.

 

[WeAAsles]

Not talking about ticket agents, but FSC.

Irrelevant. Both Ticket agents and FSC are very close in overall costs of Labor expenses to the company.

So I'm very curious why you are trying to sell a doomsday scenario for our group where the PSA would be treated with some type of preferential treatment?

Your comment about 35 (Daily) flights for us makes about as much sense to me as there really being Women from Venus invading Earth.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Yes Bob I can read and comprehend.

No insult intended weez, but I keep hearing "meet in the middle" mentality. The company wants scope, and in one of those town hall meetings, Parker said it point blank, "we want scope". Whatever provisions that are on paper now, can't possibly survive. Call me "dooms day Bob" for all care but, the reality of it is the TWA clerks came in at 2001 seniority, the LUS clerks are coming with FULL seniority. Top that sundae off with Parker looking for scope and redundancies, all the while Envoy, has doubled its passenger revenue since 2013.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Irrelevant. Both Ticket agents and FSC are very close in overall costs of Labor expenses to the company.

So I'm very curious why you are trying to sell a doomsday scenario for our group where the PSA would be treated with some type of preferential treatment?

Your comment about 35 (Daily) flights for us makes about as much sense to me as there really being Women from Venus invading Earth.

Are we on the same page weez? What is our current scope. Do you even know?

Time to head to work, TBC later.

 

[NYer]

When making comparisons like the Passenger Service language and Fleet, you'd also need to consider what flexibility does the Company have in order to agree with their Scope and if it is different than our language, would we be willing to accept the same flexibility.

Make a comprehensive comparison, not just the number of flights.

 

[WeAAsles]

When making comparisons like the Passenger Service language and Fleet, you'd also need to consider what flexibility does the Company have in order to agree with their Scope and if it is different than our language, would we be willing to accept the same flexibility.

Make a comprehensive comparison, not just the number of flights.

Well here's a link to their entire TA if you want to figure where they could find some areas that productivity could infringe on the staffing?

The only area where I saw them truly take a hit was in certain jobs being relegated over to a CARS function on the US side and they did lose the BSO jobs which I think accounted for around 350 or so jobs systemwide.

On the TWU side we've already given up much of our functions beyond CORE work anyway so I just doubt any more would be traded?

https://www.american-agents.org/american-airlines/our-contract

 

[WeAAsles]

No insult intended weez, but I keep hearing "meet in the middle" mentality. The company wants scope, and in one of those town hall meetings, Parker said it point blank, "we want scope". Whatever provisions that are on paper now, can't possibly survive. Call me "dooms day Bob" for all care but, the reality of it is the TWA clerks came in at 2001 seniority, the LUS clerks are coming with FULL seniority. Top that sundae off with Parker looking for scope and redundancies, all the while Envoy, has doubled its passenger revenue since 2013.

Why would the LUS clerks not come in with full seniority? And BTW the agreement for how to grant "occupational" seniority really didn't have much to do with management anyway.

And Bob of course the Company couldn't agree with language that sets them far apart from their competitors on cost but there's still no longer any need to continue to have a concessionary mindset.

At worst if there is any shrinking of our overall (17,000) ranks it's only going to come through attrition. Be those buyouts or through time naturally.

 

[WeAAsles]

Are we on the same page weez? What is our current scope. Do you even know?

Time to head to work, TBC later.

The current TWU Station Staffing formula is in the contract on the TWU webpage if you want to look it up?

I'm not concerning myself with it since I already have in my mind where I believe the new formula will drop and the Company will not make any movements on either side until that's finalized anyway.

 

[NYer]

Well here's a link to their entire TA if you want to figure where they could find some areas that productivity could infringe on the staffing?

The only area where I saw them truly take a hit was in certain jobs being relegated over to a CARS function on the US side and they did lose the BSO jobs which I think accounted for around 350 or so jobs systemwide.

On the TWU side we've already given up much of our functions beyond CORE work anyway so I just doubt any more would be traded?

https://www.american-agents.org/american-airlines/our-contract

There is, but you're the one making the comparisons. Go ahead and read the CBA's, then make your comprehensive comparisons and have a debate on what you believe we should or should not accept. It seems you have contacts and you want everyone to see how brilliant you are.

Show us how you can put things together rather than just critique something that has already been decided or agreed to.

Here is your chance. Go at it.

I will say, that there are significant flexibilities in the Passenger Service CBA, which I do not believe would be beneficial to the whole of the Association population. Good luck.

 

[WeAAsles]

There is, but you're the one making the comparisons. Go ahead and read the CBA's, then make your comprehensive comparisons and have a debate on what you believe we should or should not accept. It seems you have contacts and you want everyone to see how brilliant you are.

Show us how you can put things together rather than just critique something that has already been decided or agreed to.

Here is your chance. Go at it.

I will say, that there are significant flexibilities in the Passenger Service CBA, which I do not believe would be beneficial to the whole of the Association population. Good luck.

So you want me to look for and find areas that the Company can make changes to our agreements that would provide them more flexibility and then publish and debate it with those here on Forums?

Is this what you're really asking? Seriously?

Perhaps I should also go to the next Negotiating session and sit with Jerry Glass and give him some nice juicy personal ideas too while I'm at it?

And bravo to the Company for their gaining of "significant flexibilities" in the PSA workgroup. But I don't think we're being represented by the CWA/IBT and fully expect our IAM/TWU group will surpass their errors.