JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[NYer]

There are a few things that have showed signs of shifting within the industry regarding medical insurance. The 40% excise tax was the main culprit of what caused the other unions to have to give up their medical. It was a cultural thing where the company simply wasn't wanting to absorb millions of dollars from a 2020 excise tax. And it isn't going to absorb that with ours since our contract has a letter that allows the company that space. What has changed, and I think it is significant in this context, is that it's likely that Obamacare will morph or change prior to 2020. What we have seen from Uncle Donnie is that he appears to be very unwilling to tax companies. With Trumpcare, he rolled back the 40% excise tax, as introduced in the House. Not sure what version of the Trumpcare will pass, but the company can't keep stomping its feet about the excise tax because, now, it isn't necessarily immanent. Leverage to the union. And there is nothing wrong with a cultural event shifting a health care paradigm for union people and for us being positioned in a timely way because negotiations have been delayed. Other unions will follow the pattern in the next round of their negotiations. It makes no sense for us to follow the pattern set by the excise tax when the excise tax isn't necessarily immanent. Cultural events shift negotiations. Happens a lot. Not just 911 but federal laws. In this case, a delay in negotiations seems to have benefited all of us. I mean, I would think that the LAA health insurance will be tweaked better as opposed to LUS being tossed into your current cost version. And I base that on the possible elimination of the excise tax. I think that is reasonable. What would be unfounded is if LUS gave up health insurance cost when the excise tax isn't immanent. To say that all other unions and all other groups took on more cost, so we do to, is also unfounded, since that great shift was due almost exclusively to the excise tax. Unions negotiated ahead of it and they did so with less leverage, due to the 2020 drop dead date. That's my opinion on the matter and I hope AGC's stand up against any action by Sito which TA's more cost for us on health care. Our AGC's are personally responsible for this. And we also need some TWU southwest protections on that power stow. I got a bad feeling about that belt loader. It's great and saves backs and knees but after a JCBA all hell may break loose on jobs. In ORD, the company told our TWU here that it didn't believe more than 1 person was needed in the bin with the power stow [according to TWU local update]. I was disappointed in the union's response. It compromised already and said that it agreed with the company that only one person was needed if the person could be clearly seen (in front of the bin I guess). That's a slippery slope it just yielded to. I work with the power stow and things get caught in that belt and there should always be manning to make sure 2 persons are allowed in the bin.

Lots of words there, Tim.

Simply, the Company went to BK to eliminate many of the costs they had. The subject here is the medical. It is unlikely the Company will walk away from implementing the same medical for all groups now that they're dealing with the last one. It would be great if they kept it because then we'd have a chance to get into it.

However, that seems unlikely since it would also open the door for the CWA, APA and APFA to get the same consideration. Don't believe the Company would want to open that box now that those larger groups are pretty resigned in having what they have.

Is it more likely they hold the line, especially with the help of a Mediator, or do they cede on this and create more problems for themselves elsewhere?

 

[NYer]

And we also need some TWU southwest protections on that power stow. I got a bad feeling about that belt loader. It's great and saves backs and knees but after a JCBA all hell may break loose on jobs. In ORD, the company told our TWU here that it didn't believe more than 1 person was needed in the bin with the power stow [according to TWU local update]. I was disappointed in the union's response. It compromised already and said that it agreed with the company that only one person was needed if the person could be clearly seen (in front of the bin I guess). That's a slippery slope it just yielded to. I work with the power stow and things get caught in that belt and there should always be manning to make sure 2 persons are allowed in the bin.

The PowerStow was the idea and was championed by the TWU. When it was tested they advised us there would be no loss of personnel.

When it was brought to MIA, our Local leaders told us they received assurances there would be no cuts to personnel. After a testing period they made some enhancements to the belts, like adding a stop button at the end of the belt. After that happened, they cut a member of the crew and those with PowerStow's had one less crew member than the gates without it.

Today, every MIA has a PowerStow and each crew lost a head. The expectation is also to have one person in the belly, although some crews still try to use 2. However, it isn't written anywhere that they need 2 for safety reasons.

It seems ORD has two and it may be their crews are down to the minimum where they can't cut anyone. In MIA, we had 5 man crews, but now they're all 4.

 

[bob@las-AA]

bob,

How would we enter into mediation with the company if a TA is voted down? Neither side is in section 6 negotiations, the NMB has no authority in these JCBA talks. The mediator that is present was requested by the company, but can be asked to leave by either side at any time. She is there to offer her opinion and suggestions, that is all. The Association could have said no to JCBA talks, let each sides CBA become ammendable, and the enter section 6 talks for bothe sides seperately. These talks were voluntary on the Associations side to get a JCBA, so mediation is not even a possibility. You do understand this right? How do you make this stuff up? Are you really that ignorant? And just out of my own morbid curioaity, what SCOPE will LUS be giving up? Anything that is more flights per week than we have now is a concession, so what is your piont here exactly? As far as the insurance goes, we will see when we have a JCBA to look at and actually vote on, until then, its just rumor and speculation on everybody's part. Nobody knows for certain what we will end up with as far as that subject goes.

I couldn't care less about this section 6 bull chit, that must be a IAM thing.

 

[WeAAsles]

I couldn't care less about this section 6 bull chit, that must be a IAM thing.

That must be an IAM thing????? LMFAO.

 

[bob@las-AA]

bob,

How would we enter into mediation with the company if a TA is voted down? Neither side is in section 6 negotiations, the NMB has no authority in these JCBA talks. The mediator that is present was requested by the company, but can be asked to leave by either side at any time. She is there to offer her opinion and suggestions, that is all. The Association could have said no to JCBA talks, let each sides CBA become ammendable, and the enter section 6 talks for bothe sides seperately. These talks were voluntary on the Associations side to get a JCBA, so mediation is not even a possibility. You do understand this right? How do you make this stuff up? Are you really that ignorant? And just out of my own morbid curioaity, what SCOPE will LUS be giving up? Anything that is more flights per week than we have now is a concession, so what is your piont here exactly? As far as the insurance goes, we will see when we have a JCBA to look at and actually vote on, until then, its just rumor and speculation on everybody's part. Nobody knows for certain what we will end up with as far as that subject goes.

I'm had to read the last part 3 times in order to fully gage on just how much your are in the dark. You will not vote on health insurance, this is a given, no two ways about it. Your scope will be raised to 35 flight daily to maintain IAM staffing at a station. One contract, one set of rules, for the LAA side, all the perks and goodies that were taken away in 2003 will be given back and then some, the cheap healthcare and smaller stations at the LUS will disappear, and then the company will reduce the total fleet headcount to match all the other airlines.

 

[WeAAsles]

I'm had to read the last part 3 times in order to fully gage on just how much your are in the dark. You will not vote on health insurance, this is a given, no two ways about it. Your scope will be raised to 35 flight daily to maintain IAM staffing at a station. One contract, one set of rules, for the LAA side, all the perks and goodies that were taken away in 2003 will be given back and then some, the cheap healthcare and smaller stations at the LUS will disappear, and then the company will reduce the total fleet headcount to match all the other airlines.

And there will be a massive future Layoff with the closure of not 1, not 2 but 3 hubs bringing a tsunami influx of senior people into DFW which will bump you out having no position left in the system for you to go to and your applications to area Walmarts to mange their electrical systems will be rejected and tossed as your reputation for causing multiple electrical house fires in the area is well documented.

I see your future being driving an Ice Cream truck and handing out popsickles to chubby kids.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Lots of words there, Tim.

Simply, the Company went to BK to eliminate many of the costs they had. The subject here is the medical. It is unlikely the Company will walk away from implementing the same medical for all groups now that they're dealing with the last one. It would be great if they kept it because then we'd have a chance to get into it.

However, that seems unlikely since it would also open the door for the CWA, APA and APFA to get the same consideration. Don't believe the Company would want to open that box now that those larger groups are pretty resigned in having what they have.

Is it more likely they hold the line, especially with the help of a Mediator, or do they cede on this and create more problems for themselves elsewhere?

I think you may be correct about the company position. The IAM position is that we simply don't have to give it up. Period. So, the question may become, how much does the company want to pony up to get it and how much does Sito think it is worth? Because even if the company wants it, we have a contract with future pay raises and a medical cost that we could drag on for 5-7 more years. But I don't think anyone ought to be interested in cost neutral, i.e., increased medical cost for additional benefits on something else. With billions in profits, we need a lot more than cost neutral.

And as far as the power stow, that Joe Rod down in MIA seems like he is pretty smart on safety stuff and made some good points on some FB groups. Obviously, nobody should take management's word for it and non written guarantees. I think we need some protections if we assume the Associaiton will waive no-displacement protections. Gonna be a risk of layoffs, especially with a merger. And we need some serious protections against back to back part time because our IAM AGC's allow dozens of shifts that are back to back and claim they can't do much. The original language was written by Tom Miklavic and I won a back to back case, so I know they are just ignorant on the language.

 

[Talos]

I agree with PRez on everything except the last sentence. I think we have a really good shot at getting it done this summer. But just like Prez, that's just my opinion. On the IAM side, insurance is a huge issue. We can't expect our members to go down to the LAA insurance. Things would have to be pretty awesome in all the rest of the contract to get us to agree to that crappy insurance.

I'm sure insurance is a big issue for the IAM guys. Don't blame them for not wanting to have to pay more. Other items are also quite different from LAA such as station staffing. I blame the TWU for getting us in this situation which should have been thought about in those months that led to the Association. It would be great to get the best of both but I don't think that's very realistic. The issues are pretty difficult and I don't see any kind of deal for a long time.

 

[WeAAsles]

I'm sure insurance is a big issue for the IAM guys. Don't blame them for not wanting to have to pay more. Other items are also quite different from LAA such as station staffing. I blame the TWU for getting us in this situation which should have been thought about in those months that led to the Association. It would be great to get the best of both but I don't think that's very realistic. The issues are pretty difficult and I don't see any kind of deal for a long time.

I think they were still dealing with issues involving uh Bankruptcy as I recall? And the IAM was still involved in trying to gain their own Section 6 contract from US too I also recall.

There wasn't much interest in moving anything forward in our written partnership until they got their deals. (Not bashing either side for past decisions here)

 

[NYer]

I think you may be correct about the company position. The IAM position is that we simply don't have to give it up. Period. So, the question may become, how much does the company want to pony up to get it and how much does Sito think it is worth?

That may be the case and the Mediator may be there to voice the chances of future talks, in Section 6, not going the IAM way in relation to the medical piece.

That being the case and in the spirit of expediency it may be the IAM is being transitioned from hard line to deal making, although they wouldn't admit to it.

We'll find out soon enough.

 

[swamt]

And why haven't they (asso) released the outcome of the third party arbitrator over the seniority issues between the sides for (CC's) leads, inspectors and other inside groups? Where is this info?

 

[NYer]

I'm sure insurance is a big issue for the IAM guys. Don't blame them for not wanting to have to pay more. Other items are also quite different from LAA such as station staffing. I blame the TWU for getting us in this situation which should have been thought about in those months that led to the Association. It would be great to get the best of both but I don't think that's very realistic. The issues are pretty difficult and I don't see any kind of deal for a long time.

Quite right, Talos, there was little work done to get prepared for these negotiations until after the Association was certified by the NMB in May 2015.

There was at least 6 months wasted before the the certification, then it took about 6 months start the negotiations process.

 

[NYer]

And why haven't they (asso) released the outcome of the third party arbitrator over the seniority issues between the sides for (CC's) leads, inspectors and other inside groups? Where is this info?

Last we heard, the Neutral Javits, was still going over all the protests he received. We were also advised we needed to have patience because the folks, on the TWU side, dealing with this were also busy with the JCBA negotiations.

 

[cltrat]

delete

 

[cltrat]

I'm had to read the last part 3 times in order to fully gage on just how much your are in the dark. You will not vote on health insurance, this is a given, no two ways about it. Your scope will be raised to 35 flight daily to maintain IAM staffing at a station. One contract, one set of rules, for the LAA side, all the perks and goodies that were taken away in 2003 will be given back and then some, the cheap healthcare and smaller stations at the LUS will disappear, and then the company will reduce the total fleet headcount to match all the other airlines.

he's in the dark?? lmao this coming from a guy who wanted to know the tough issues remaining but yet he knows exactly what will happen.lol Bob you're entertaining but you're as full of chit as a xmas goose