JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

The F/A's have a sliding scale by age (under 40 years old, they get 5.5%...40-49 years old get 6.75%...50 years old and over get 9.9%) that would revert back 5.5% in 2018.

It reverts back to the 5.5% for all on January 1, 2019 and their contract does not become amendable till the end of 2019.

Mechanics on their thread have been told this 100 times but they never want to actually read that language I guess.

 

[WeAAsles]

WeAAsles.... that answer sounds so canned and pre scripted it's not even funny.

If you can be civil with me I'll try to do the same? Why does it sound scripted? I know people don't look at that but I said they "should"

A Baggage Handlers (average) yearly salary according to BLS (don't think I'm publishing something AA isn't fully aware of) is $24,000 per year. Now if a person chose to "live" his daily expenses within that guidance he would have almost $40,000 a year in wiggle room. (Tough though to live comfortably on $24,000 IMO)

Mechanics on the other hand (if they chose) could easily live on the average $60,000 BLS figure and also have the same almost $40,000 wiggle room.

People get pissed though because they always want to live up to and beyond their means and that's how they dig their own holes.

 

[WeAAsles]

Well, lets just take a look at precedent within our own company.
The Pilots get a 12%(I think) contribution, not a match.
The FA's get a 9.9%contribution, not a match.
Why is it so "crazy town" to expect our match to go up to at least what the FA's got?

Last I checked , we are in the midst of record profits, profits never seen before at any level.
Americans management team at the top is wealthier than they ever dreamed they could be and getting wealthier by the day, just reference the stock sales by Parker and friends.
So why is it crazy for us to expect an improvement?
Why are we the stepchildren of the company?

Edit to add:
We've already paid for ANY improvements we get from here by going over the last 4 years with zero improvement while everyone else got theirs.

Can Pilots be outsourced? Isn't there an ongoing concern about Pilot shortages in the USA driving up their earnings potential and the demand for skilled aviators?

The reality is VERY simple. Pilots have more pricing power than WE do.

 

[NYer]

Ok, I get what you're trying to say. Yes if our wages go up, more goes towards our 401k because of the free 5.5% match, right now LUS the contribution to the IAMNPF would have to be $1.66 to place them equal with LAA. It would be nice to see a increase in the match, but let's be real, if we see a modest increase to 7.5% match, it would be incredible. FYI a 7.5% match for LAA is the same as $2.26 for the LUS team.

Right.

So they would have to go from $1.30 to $2.26, according to your calculations. Would they be in a position to want that?

Seems like a no-brainer. Right? Until you consider they are also fighting to keep their medical and scope language. Where do you believe they will try to hold the line and be more adamant to fight over? I don't believe it will be with the pension contribution as they stand to gain in that bucket only because we're slightly ahead of them.

It is possible for the IAM to make a substantial push in their retirement if it meant they will agree to modify the other items on their priority list, but is it likely?

 

[anotherdelay]

Right.

So they would have to go from $1.30 to $2.26, according to your calculations. Would they be in a position to want that?

Seems like a no-brainer. Right? Until you consider they are also fighting to keep their medical and scope language. Where do you believe they will try to hold the line and be more adamant to fight over? I don't believe it will be with the pension contribution as they stand to gain in that bucket only because we're slightly ahead of them.

It is possible for the IAM to make a substantial push in their retirement if it meant they will agree to modify the other items on their priority list, but is it likely?

Offer us the sliding scale. Offer the match 401k to iam. Why is it we are supposedly being offered the choice, but none of the iam guys are offered the choice to get out of their b/s pension? the sliding scale, direct contribution, makes sense for a lot of reason. the mid term guy 45-55, with only 20-30 years were hit the hardest with the frozen pensions and medical.

It's also time members were also offered the choice between iam and twu. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, cuts are coming again to their pension.

And will someone explain how this ASS got by the spirit of bond mcckasgill, language, let alone fed law.

 

[NYer]

Offer us the sliding scale. Offer the match 401k to iam. Why is it we are supposedly being offered the choice, but none of the iam guys are offered the choice? the sliding scale, direct contribution, makes sense for a lot of reason. the mid term guy 45-55, with only 20-30 years were hit the hardest with the frozen pensions and medical.

It's also time members were also offered the choice between iam and twu. what total b/s this association. Trunka is a fascist.

Who's to say there won't be a choice? There are a few people making some assumptions and getting upset from those assumptions when the reality is that we haven't seen what this part of the JCBA would look like.

The sliding scale was offered to the F/A's as part of the bankruptcy and will sunset in 2018.

 

[anotherdelay]

If you can be civil with me I'll try to do the same? Why does it sound scripted? I know people don't look at that but I said they "should"

A Baggage Handlers (average) yearly salary according to BLS (don't think I'm publishing something AA isn't fully aware of) is $24,000 per year. Now if a person chose to "live" his daily expenses within that guidance he would have almost $40,000 a year in wiggle room. (Tough though to live comfortably on $24,000 IMO)

Mechanics on the other hand (if they chose) could easily live on the average $60,000 BLS figure and also have the same almost $40,000 wiggle room.

People get pissed though because they always want to live up to and beyond their means and that's how they dig their own holes.

Look up the arbritrator decision from 20 years ago. It was a great opinion/language on comparing apples to apples.

Who's to say there won't be a choice? There are a few people making some assumptions and getting upset from those assumptions when the reality is that we haven't seen what this part of the JCBA would look like.

The sliding scale was offered to the F/A's as part of the bankruptcy and will sunset in 2018.

There's a lot to be upset about, the Ass mostly. TWU mostly feels like we're making the sammiches, and guys like you and other leadership guys all look like,rhymes with witches.

 

[anotherdelay]

If you can be civil with me I'll try to do the same? Why does it sound scripted? I know people don't look at that but I said they "should"

A Baggage Handlers (average) yearly salary according to BLS (don't think I'm publishing something AA isn't fully aware of) is $24,000 per year. Now if a person chose to "live" his daily expenses within that guidance he would have almost $40,000 a year in wiggle room. (Tough though to live comfortably on $24,000 IMO)

Mechanics on the other hand (if they chose) could easily live on the average $60,000 BLS figure and also have the same almost $40,000 wiggle room.

People get pissed though because they always want to live up to and beyond their means and that's how they dig their own holes.

Look up the arbitraitor's decision from 20+ years ago. It was beautifully written, and why the LCC guy's are now making 30 dollars an hour.

 

[NYer]

There's a lot to be upset about, the Ass mostly. TWU mostly feels like we're making the sammiches, and guys like you and other leadership guys all look like,rhymes with witches.

You may not have noticed but I have been critical of the JCBA negotiations as far as how long it took to get the process started, the lack of information and urgency to get things done.

The comment about people being upset is specifically with the subject of the pension/401K. Don't draw more out of it than there is.

Others on these pages are the blind defenders of the leadership, but it is not I.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Right.

So they would have to go from $1.30 to $2.26, according to your calculations. Would they be in a position to want that?

Seems like a no-brainer. Right? Until you consider they are also fighting to keep their medical and scope language. Where do you believe they will try to hold the line and be more adamant to fight over? I don't believe it will be with the pension contribution as they stand to gain in that bucket only because we're slightly ahead of them.

It is possible for the IAM to make a substantial push in their retirement if it meant they will agree to modify the other items on their priority list, but is it likely?

Any rational person considering fighting for scope that is 5 and medical that is sooo good that only a small population can benefit from, should calculate the over all probability of wining that fight. The odds are better fraught for the pension. Just saying.

 

[NYer]

Any rational person considering fighting for scope that is 5 and medical that is sooo good that only a small population can benefit from, should calculate the over all probability of wining that fight. The odds are better fraught for the pension. Just saying.

That's the point, Bob. They stand to get an increase in the pension before lifting a finger to fight ust because of where we are and where the United IAM contribution is. In the event, they can try to save other parts of their CBA it is wiser to draw attention to other items. In the event they see themselves with no other alternative, then they can try to get a higher amount into the pension, but that may be as a last resort.

 

[WeAAsles]

You may not have noticed but I have been critical of the JCBA negotiations as far as how long it took to get the process started, the lack of information and urgency to get things done.

The comment about people being upset is specifically with the subject of the pension/401K. Don't draw more out of it than there is.

Others on these pages are the blind defenders of the leadership, but it is not I.

 

[bob@las-AA]

That's the point, Bob. They stand to get an increase in the pension before lifting a finger to fight ust because of where we are and where the United IAM contribution is. In the event, they can try to save other parts of their CBA it is wiser to draw attention to other items. In the event they see themselves with no other alternative, then they can try to get a higher amount into the pension, but that may be as a last resort.

A increase only up the level of LAA. That I have no problem with, but all thing being equal, keep me out of the IAMNPF.

 

[Tim Nelson]

That's the challenge of comparing contracts or airlines because while we focus on what we like, the Company will do the same. Now that there is a Mediator to facilitate the talks we can be sure they will be drilling that reality onto the Association. They will not allow for the comparisons that only benefit what we want and that is another reason why this may go into the later rounds.

In the LGA Town Hall, Isom said we can get what the best of what the industry has to offer in pay rates, holidays, vacation, ect., ect. There is a flip side to that, however, and the Negotiating Committee will have to grapple with that fact.

If they come back fairly quickly it will be because there was a movement towards what the Company wants or they laid down a full package with the Mediator suggesting it be sent out to a vote. What will be unlikely is getting everything on our wish list while the Company continues to carry what they believe are uncompetitive costs, as mentioned in the LGA Town Hall video.

I agree. Whatever we ratify will last for a while, so members need to read carefully.

 

[NYer]

A increase only up the level of LAA. That I have no problem with, but all thing being equal, keep me out of the IAMNPF.

I suspect the IAMNPP will be a choice for those of us on the property but it may be the default plan for any new hires.

Forcing people into that Plan will only increase the likelihood of a "no" vote and they will need to stay away from issues that would cause large numbers to vote against ratification.