JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[NYer]

Tim can you leave all your personal Political rants off the table when you converse with me please?

Tim...Do as he says, not as he does.

 

[NYer]

Unless of course American Airlines and the Association were collaborating to offload pension obligations to the IAMNPF. Then everyone wins..... except the legacy AA employees.

Then slow rolling the negotiations and creating desperation for settlement seems like a sound tactic.

I don't believe that to be the case but it seems to be a concern a lot of people have.

The issue with this conspiracy theory is that it makes no sense for the IAM to consider such a move.

If their pension is in trouble or will some day be in trouble, why would they want to take on a larger liability than they already may have?

Forget about the legal issues of such a move, but it makes little financial sense in the short-term and even less sense in the long term.

 

[WeAAsles]

Tim...Do as he says, not as he does.

I knew you'd jump right on that bait as soon as I threw it in the water. It only took you 11 minutes.

You're so predictable.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim...Do as he says, not as he does.

lol. He may have a point with his different perspective. But my perspective tells me that elections hold union officers more accountable. Believe me, these LUS AGC"s understand and won't be so quick to sign something that won't be well received by LUS members. Obviously, one can say that they would have tried to do a good job anyways, regardless of an election for their offices, and I can't refute it, I just don't agree with it.

 

[NYer]

lol. He may have a point with his different perspective. But my perspective tells me that elections hold union officers more accountable. Believe me, these LUS AGC"s understand and won't be so quick to sign something that won't be well received by LUS members. Obviously, one can say that they would have tried to do a good job anyways, regardless of an election for their offices, and I can't refute it, I just don't agree with it.

They have a tough job and most ways you slice this pie, it seems the IAM will be more disgruntled that the TWU side.

We're looking to enhance certain items while the IAM is hoping to maintain others things. There are pro and cons to being elected or being appointed while in negotiations.

We can look at the IAM side as being more stable as compared to all the changes on the TWU side. That fact in itself may give the IAM an advantage since for the TWU side most will be voting on the addition to the holidays, vacations, sick days, double time pay and things of that sort. In the meantime, the IAM could be in a better position to be bought out with their preferred language or financially in exchange for a change in the Scope and Medical articles.

Since this thing started we've had 5 different people head the Negotiating Committee and we've had 3 members in the committee change plus this is our third International President since the Association was born.

 

[Tim Nelson]

They have a tough job and most ways you slice this pie, it seems the IAM will be more disgruntled that the TWU side.

We're looking to enhance certain items while the IAM is hoping to maintain others things. There are pro and cons to being elected or being appointed while in negotiations.

We can look at the IAM side as being more stable as compared to all the changes on the TWU side. That fact in itself may give the IAM an advantage since for the TWU side most will be voting on the addition to the holidays, vacations, sick days, double time pay and things of that sort. In the meantime, the IAM could be in a better position to be bought out with their preferred language or financially in exchange for a change in the Scope and Medical articles.

Since this thing started we've had 5 different people head the Negotiating Committee and we've had 3 members in the committee change plus this is our third International President since the Association was born.

I hear ya. And at lus we would like some things that the laa contract has. Im just hoping its alot more than cost neutral. The company will want to exchange these cross utilization protections and we need to make sure we get a good deal if we give something up.
And, as much as I can wait, it would be nice to vote on a fair contract sooner as opposed to later.

 

[NYer]

I hear ya. And at lus we would like some things that the laa contract has. Im just hoping its alot more than cost neutral. The company will want to exchange these cross utilization protections and we need to make sure we get a good deal if we give something up.
And, as much as I can wait, it would be nice to vote on a fair contract sooner as opposed to later.

It's already "later," isn't it?

 

[NYer]

I hear ya. And at lus we would like some things that the laa contract has. Im just hoping its alot more than cost neutral. The company will want to exchange these cross utilization protections and we need to make sure we get a good deal if we give something up.
And, as much as I can wait, it would be nice to vote on a fair contract sooner as opposed to later.

Change is inevitable and because of that the perception of concessions will also be prevalent, but hopefully, the communication gets much better as it has been abysmal so far.

For a Tentative Agreement to survive, they will need to have much better communication than they have shown up to this point.

 

[Albert]

And the only reason why I think PHX is still a hub is because of that no-displacement language. The company paid a high price to get cross utilization by giving us no-displacement, but they want it back. The union will want something out of things, and may get its nugget from the company if it hands over the no-displacement for no-layoff. If it's going to be handed back, and it is, then it ought to come with some Big League million $ items.
And imo the company may be thinking that we don't need both PHL and JFK. Or CLT and MIA. The city of charlotte has been very proactive though but I still won't be surprised if we start to scale back CLT after a JCBA.

I doubt very strongly Fleets contract language has anything to do with any hub being a hub or not.I also doubt any future marketing or business plan will be contingent on "Fleet's " contract language

 

[Tim Nelson]

It's already "later," isn't it?

Yes it is. Even as the pilots and flight attendants continually get more money without anything in return.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Sucks to say this to people but Airlines are a mobile business.

Truth.

And No Layoff (System Protection) is not worthless as long as you're willing to move to keep your job. I used it twice myself in my career. (Would like to see some Special Moving Money allowance make a return appearance)

It's worthless as long as we have the Juniority system and no moving allowance.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The issue with this conspiracy theory is that it makes no sense for the IAM to consider such a move.

If their pension is in trouble or will some day be in trouble, why would they want to take on a larger liability than they already may have?

Forget about the legal issues of such a move, but it makes little financial sense in the short-term and even less sense in the long term.

Well first I would like to respond with a quote from the post I made.

I don't believe that to be the case but it seems to be a concern a lot of people have.

NYer I disagree with you on this matter. The IAMNPF is a Ponzi scheme and the only way to keep a Ponzi scheme going is to inject new capital. In time the IAMNPF will self destruct. That is an inevitability.

The IAM has used the IAMNPF as a form of control and membership retention.

That is why it makes perfect sense.

I am only presenting the logic behind the concern not presenting the condition as plausible (see quote).

 

[robbedagain]

Tim. Even if they say keep catering particularly in smaller stations the company cld effectively get around it by taking airbuses out replacing them w 738. Here 2 of our clt turns are now 738s.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim. Even if they say keep catering particularly in smaller stations the company cld effectively get around it by taking airbuses out replacing them w 738. Here 2 of our clt turns are now 738s.

It is easier to get around it in smaller stations. But if a flight needs catered under our contract then its our work in covered stations.

 

[NYer]

Well first I would like to respond with a quote from the post I made.



NYer I disagree with you on this matter. The IAMNPF is a Ponzi scheme and the only way to keep a Ponzi scheme going is to inject new capital. In time the IAMNPF will self destruct. That is an inevitability.

The IAM has used the IAMNPF as a form of control and membership retention.

That is why it makes perfect sense.

I am only presenting the logic behind the concern not presenting the condition as plausible (see quote).

OK. But a Ponzi scheme is an illegal or nefarious financial vehicle. A multi-employer pension can be many things, but it isn't illegal. It is overseen by the Federal government and has to comply with many rules on disclosure.

That as a backdrop, it makes little sense to try and get an infusion of money when that injection also comes with a liability. In the case of a multi-employer pension that liability will have to be immediately dealt with and not something that can be deferred into the future.

In other words, a multi-employer pension plan that takes over our pension and any other pension that is underwater will only make their current situation worse; it doesn't help in the slightest.