JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[pjirish317]

Traymark,

I'll respond to your points;
1- Until I see it in a JCBA, I will hope that doesn't happen, It may, but as of right now it is not a foregone conclusion.
2- there were only 2 unions with 3 seniority lists. And I may be wrong, but didn't both unions agree to the money even before a combined seniority list, along with a tentative JCBA prior to the merger being completed? And I am not familiar with the pilots JCBA, but what was given up for the $$$$$?
3- There is more to a CBA than just the dollar per hour. You focus on that way to much IMO. Just out of curiousity, how did you get the "worst benefits in the industry"? Were they voted on collectively by the membership?
4- See answer 3.
5- How fast would you like negotiations to go and miss important issues that may not get resolved for 8-12 more years?

My take,
The company didn't care which union was on the property, because there was still going to be a union on the property. Had there been a chance of losing representation,, you know the company would have disputed it just to see if they could finally rid themselves of the "pesky" unions. So I fail to see why you are so upset that you didn't get to vote. Both unions survived and are working together. Is it perfect, no, but it's better than nothing at all. Or are you a supporter of a different union all together? Is that why you are so upset?

I also believe there will be concessions, just not the ones you see. I see the health insurance as a concession, just depends on how much of one, Scope, yes also a concession, but I don't think it will be a catastrophic as you think. I would venture a guess of maybe 5-7 mainline flights a day for fleet. That is still a huge concession for LUS folks. But you are correct only 50% +1 of those that vote, is needed to ratify a JCBA so IAMNPF or not, if that number is going to decide our fate for the forseeable future. I will save my rock throwing for the final product. I am just one person that thinks that we may all just be suprised at what come out for a vote. And I do mean it will be a good JCBA. That is just my opinion though.

 

[Traymark]

5- How fast would you like negotiations to go and miss important issues that may not get resolved for 8-12 more years?

How about somewhere between the 56 days it took to rob us and the now going on year 3 as they continue to delay.
If they miss important issues, they shouldn't be on the NC.

 

[robbedagain]

Traymark. I hope ur wrong on the insurance and scope. If it went to the LAA scope a helluva lot cities wld close up shop n furloughed folks given the history of this mgmt team. Given the airline is making billions there is no excuse to have LAA scope.

 

[P. REZ]

1. Good luck. Every other work group was moved to AA insurance, the IAM and TWU are basically married to playing ball with the company. I'll explain later...

2. I'm also remembering the 3 different pilots unions, East, West and AA.
4 months later, they were all one and making a whole lot more money. Somebody is going to have to come with a compelling case that the pilots contract is not as complicated as ours before I'll believe it.

3. Might not be totally happy, but the pilots and F/A's got their money very quickly and recently got even more outside of the contract language, while we still remain with the absolute worst benefits in the industry. My heart bleeds for them, NOT.

4. They got the union to put it up for a vote, enough voters wanted the money, thats how it works and stay tuned on your #1, and #6 points, the exact same strategery is coming to a JCBA near you soon.

5. Welcome to the club.
You know what I don't see? International union leaders calling out the company for lack of negotiations and pi$$ poor pace.
Does anybody else ask themselves why not? Or are you good with the "it's complicated" line, which has basically been blown up.

My take:
Both of these unions are beholden to the company for even being on the property.
The company only had to dispute the forming of the "Association" to the NMB and there would have been a vote triggered for representation rights.
It was well within the companies right , they didn't need to give a reason.
Instead, there was no objection to the "Association" and the NMB slid it in without any of us getting to vote on our cool new representation. Awesome ,isn't it?

If you don't think that little maneuver by the company didn't come at a cost, you're not being intellectually honest with yourself.

There WILL be concessions.
You WILL be put on AA health insurance.
Your scope WILL be the LAA scope or worse for fleet and the LUS scope for M&R which is worse than LAA.
And, I believe, until I see otherwise, we will all be forced into the IAMPF if the JCBA is voted in, because they will try and make it fly, after a nice and lengthy delay.

Oh yes indeed, the "Association" is going to have to "pay up" in order enjoy the benefit of being on the property.
You see, both unions knew a representation vote was going to go very badly for at least one of them and most likely both of them in M&R so they made a deal with the devil.

They need 50% +1, that's the way the world works.

Final point.
Prove me wrong Association. Show me a JCBA that is truly industry leading in every facet and lets every single LAA member stay out of the IAMPF regardless of where they are in the system, be it TWU station or IAM station.
Don't forget, there are stations that will go all IAM after the JCBA and some that will go all TWU.
~ Will any current LAA TWU members in those stations be forced into the IAMPF simply because they will be in the IAM because of location, never getting to vote on that representation change?
~Will any current LUS IAM members in those stations that are TWU get to exit the IAMPF as they will no longer be IAM because of location, again, never getting to vote on that representation change?
Does anybody think this should be discussed with our negotiators before they put any IAMPF language in the contract for anybody?

I'd love to hear P.Rez's musings on my last point.
The silence from our NC on the IAMPF issue is deafening.
Actually, I only hear Rez say how much better a Pension is than a 401K, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Traymark,

My vote is for both, I am one of around 24 votes in that room. The math shows the pension to be better in many if not all of the scenarios I've run. In the scenario I showed a week and a half ago, you could cut the pension 50% and still be ahead of just having a 401k. I understand concerns that anybody may have but without a crystal ball, I have to go with both. If the majority of the NC wants something different, I'm fine with that.

P. Rez

 

[anotherdelay]

Traymark,

My vote is for both, I am one of around 24 votes in that room. The math shows the pension to be better in many if not all of the scenarios I've run. In the scenario I showed a week and a half ago, you could cut the pension 50% and still be ahead of just having a 401k. I understand concerns that anybody may have but without a crystal ball, I have to go with both. If the majority of the NC wants something different, I'm fine with that.

P. Rez

sounds great. I look foreward to what due diligence Dave Rosen does on the iampf, and qualifed auditors does on the fund.

 

[Traymark]

My vote is for both, I am one of around 24 votes in that room. The math shows the pension to be better in many if not all of the scenarios I've run. In the scenario I showed a week and a half ago, you could cut the pension 50% and still be ahead of just having a 401k. I understand concerns that anybody may have but without a crystal ball, I have to go with both. If the majority of the NC wants something different, I'm fine with that.

P. Rez

P.Rez,
First of all, I have to say, thank you for at least engaging here for conversation. That's a far cry from what most others in your position would do, I appreciate it even if my language and slant comes across a bit gruff. I am frustrated on many levels, but I know whats best for me, and it is not the IAMPF.

Lets revisit your scenario you showed last week. Someone with nothing in their 401K and just 3 years till retirement.
The problem is you forgot to mention what else they might have towards retirement.
If they are LUS, they've been in the IAMPF for several years already, so how much did that add up to?
If they are LAA, and they are 3 years from retirement, they've got a pretty healthy frozen pension that will be anywhere from 20k per yr to 40k+ per year depending on how long they've been working.
I don't recall you including any of those monies in your scenario.
I aptly pointed out, you used the absolute lowest common denominator, the only scenario that makes the IAMPF seem palatable, if you assume it will remain as solvent as it is , which isn't very btw.
Your scenario was weak and there are exactly Zero individuals at LAA that fit the scenario that you used.

Run your numbers again.
This time run them for someone that has 20k, 30k, and 40k per yr in their frozen AA pension, and has 100k, 200k, 300k, 400k and 500k in their 401's .
And say they are retiring in 5, 7, 10 yrs.
And instead of 5.5% match, use a 9.9% contribution for 5 years , just like the FA's.

Then you will be reaching the majority of the voting ranks among LAA.
The scenario you used reached exactly, Zero among LAA.
You don't have to sell LUS, you already have them roped in.

Also, please answer one more thing.
Explain in as much detail as you can why you and the rest of the NC cannot pack your bags for DFW, there are plenty of meeting rooms there , if not at HQ, there are plenty of hotels that will rent you meeting space, and negotiate 7 days a week, 6 days a week, helll , I'll take a M-F with SS off and back at it the next M-F, UNTIL THIS IS DONE???
Because that is what they did in 2003, 56 days later, they were done.
You say there's a lot to do, it's not just money, great. Stay at the table and hammer it out.

Please explain that.

 

[P. REZ]

P.Rez,
First of all, I have to say, thank you for at least engaging here for conversation. That's a far cry from what most others in your position would do, I appreciate it even if my language and slant comes across a bit gruff. I am frustrated on many levels, but I know whats best for me, and it is not the IAMPF.

Lets revisit your scenario you showed last week. Someone with nothing in their 401K and just 3 years till retirement.
The problem is you forgot to mention what else they might have towards retirement.
If they are LUS, they've been in the IAMPF for several years already, so how much did that add up to?
If they are LAA, and they are 3 years from retirement, they've got a pretty healthy frozen pension that will be anywhere from 20k per yr to 40k+ per year depending on how long they've been working.
I don't recall you including any of those monies in your scenario.
I aptly point out, you used the absolute lowest common denominator, the only scenario that makes the IAMPF seem palatable, if you assume it will remain as solvent as it is , which isn't very btw.
Your scenario was weak and there are exactly Zero individuals at LAA that fit the scenario that you used.

Run your numbers again.
This time run them for someone that has 20k, 30k, and 40k per yr in their frozen AA pension, and has 100k, 200k, 300k, 400k and 500k in their 401's .
And say they are retiring in 5, 7, 10 yrs.
And instead of 5.5% match, use a 9.9% contribution for 5 years , just like the FA's.

Then you will be reaching the majority of the voting ranks among LAA.
The scenario you used reached exactly, Zero among LAA.
You don't have to sell LUS, you already have them roped in.

Also, please answer one more thing.
Explain in as much detail as you can why you and the rest of the NC cannot pack your bags for DFW, there are plenty of meeting rooms there , if not at HQ, there are plenty of hotels that will rent you meeting space, and negotiate 7 days a week, 6 days a week, helll , I'll take a M-F with SS off and back at it the next M-F, UNTIL THIS IS DONE???
Because that is what they did in 2003, 56 days later, they were done.
You say there's a lot to do, it's not just money, great. Stay at the table and hammer it out.

Please explain that.

Traymark,

Thanks. Ok, here is the scenario, Employee A and Employee B work until December 31st, 2025, then retire. They both have $400,000 in their 401k's. For sake of rounding, both make $40 per hour, both make $80,000 for the year. They get a choice on January 1st, 2018 to either take 10% match for 401k or $4.00 per hour towards pension ($40x10%=$4). Employee A takes 401k and invests $8,000 and gets $8000 match. Employee B takes pension, invests $8000 into their 401k, doesn't get match because they took pension.

Employee A would have $860,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3583/mo.

Employee B would have $770,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3208/mo. Also, $150.41x8 years for pension would equal $1203/mo. That would total $4411/mo.

Employee B would make $828/mo. more than Employee A. If both outlived their 401k, Employee B would still receive $1203/mo. until death.

As for sitting in a room until this is done, not against that, not my call.

P. Rez

 

[Traymark]

As for sitting in a room until this is done, not against that, not my call.

My question was,
Why aren't you?

Obviously, I was correct.
The delay is strategic,
Sito does not want a contract until he gets what he wants in it,
LAA in the IAMPF.


Again, your scenario sucks.
What about the Frozen Pension Monies of employee A ,
( you know, the LAA guy you are trying to sell to)???

Now add in another 20k per year of Frozen pension and Employee A has $5249 per month and your argument is now DEAD.

I don't know why you don't grasp that all of LAA has frozen pensions,
We Don't Need the IAMPF.
Thank you for playing.

 

[P. REZ]

My question was,
Why aren't you?

Obviously, I was correct.
The delay is strategic,
Sito does not want a contract until he gets what he wants in it,
LAA in the IAMPF.


Again, your scenario sucks.
What about the Frozen Pension Monies of employee A ,
( you know, the LAA guy you are trying to sell to)???

Now add in another 20k per year of Frozen pension and Employee A has $5249 per month and your argument is now DEAD.

I don't know why you don't grasp that all of LAA has frozen pensions,
We Don't Need the IAMPF.
Thank you for playing.

Traymark,

Both employees were LAA. One decided to take pension, one took 401k. I'm not selling anything, I'm doing the math. Both employees have the same frozen pension.

P. Rez

 

[Traymark]

I've got news, there are no LAA that will choose the IAMPF.
Your sunshine scenario that the pension fund will remain solvent is pie in the sky.
There is zero employee control of the IAMPF monies.
It simply does not work for LAA , the enhanced 401K is far far better.

 

[P. REZ]

I've got news, there are no LAA that will choose the IAMPF.
Your sunshine scenario that the pension fund will remain solvent is pie in the sky.
There is zero employee control of the IAMPF monies.
It simply does not work for LAA , the enhanced 401K is far far better.

Traymark,

Ok, cut pension by 50%, $3809 to $3583=$226 more for employee who took pension. Cut it 60%, still $106 more per month for employee who took pension. Can you admit math favors pension? You would be right if you got pension cut about 70% or more. Oh, BTW, the pension keeps paying if you outlive your 401k.

P. Rez

 

[WeAAsles]

I've got news, there are no LAA that will choose the IAMPF.
.

You DO NOT speak for me and you DO NOT speak for the other around 20,000 TWU members who just might be at least interested in hearing what they have to say about the IAMPF before they make a choice!!!!!

 

[pjirish317]

How about somewhere between the 56 days it took to rob us and the now going on year 3 as they continue to delay.
If they miss important issues, they shouldn't be on the NC.

Traymark,
What was the driving force behind the cuts you speak about. Did this happen in 2003? Because I am not familiar with what happened. Do you think those cuts would have been worse had AA entered BK at that time. You see, there had to be a reason the company NEEDED that done then, and a reason that they really DON"T need it done as quickly now. It's one thing to cut a CBA, it's entirely another to enhance 2 CBA's and jojn them into a single one. I, for one, appreciate the time in ensuring the language isn't going to bite us in the keister later on after we may have voted it in. I do not want any buyers remorse. But, like you said, if 50% +1 of those eligable voters that actually vote, are a yes vote, them we have to accept the decision of the majority. Correct?

 

[Traymark]

What was the driving force behind the cuts you speak about. Did this happen in 2003? Because I am not familiar with what happened. Do you think those cuts would have been worse had AA entered BK at that time. You see, there had to be a reason the company NEEDED that done then, and a reason that they really DON"T need it done as quickly now. It's one thing to cut a CBA, it's entirely another to enhance 2 CBA's and jojn them into a single one. I, for one, appreciate the time in ensuring the language isn't going to bite us in the keister later on after we may have voted it in. I do not want any buyers remorse. But, like you said, if 50% +1 of those eligable voters that actually vote, are a yes vote, them we have to accept the decision of the majority. Correct?

The company was threatening BK if we didn't re-do our contracts. The vote on all those reductions were very close for the TWU and FA's. It was less than 100 votes difference for TWU, the FA's actually voted it down the first time and re voted after a small tweak. The pilots passed theirs by a little more, they had much more to lose with their pension funds so they were going to save those if they could.
In fact, a bunch of pilots were jumping out at the last minute into retirement and grabbing a lump sum(which they could do because , you know, they're pilots) before the contracts were redone.
The company was putting out communications about how fast we were losing money = $5million a day, and they needed us to essentially save their jobs by giving back massive amounts of compensation, btw, jobs were still lost too, not theirs though.
In fact, after we did all that, we were back in the black in the next few years and started "negotiating" a new contract in 2006 after a few years of management slapping themselves on the back with bonuses while we remained in our BK re-written contracts.
In 2010 (not a typo) yes, thats 4 years later, they come up with a TA that was again concessionary although it had small raises from where we were, it was no where close to what we were at in 2003 ~ 7 years later.
Throughout those 4 years of "negotiating" management enjoyed raises, bonuses while we were getting 1.5% raises after we took a 17.5% pay cut in 2003.
We voted the TA down, overwhelmingly.
"Negotiations" continued into 2011, because , you know, it's all very nuanced and complicated.
On November 29, 2011, AA filed for BK with $5 billion in cash , the most ever by anyone filing bk, but pay no attention to that, management jobs needed to be saved.

So you see, when the contracts really really needed to be rewritten, there no hiccups, no problems finding meeting rooms , there no "dates" announced monthly for "negotiations", they only had a place the rewrites were going to take place~ DFW, they all went there and stayed there until it was done, in very short order.

We are now in year 14 of our BK era deal, save for the pay bump we only very recently got, the rest of our contract sucks.
The company is currently making money at 5 times the rate it was losing it in 2003, but the restoration of our contract language is all very nuanced and complicated, and they can only meet a couple times each month,...
Jesus, H Christ, I'll stop there before I vomit on my computer, I think you get the point.
If they really wanted this contract done, it would have been done long ago.

The association was blessed by the NMB on May 20, 2015.
We didn't get to the table until December of 2015 and essentially only really started negotiations in January 2016.
No one else sees a problem with that?
Parker and Isom were running around at every town hall saying they were ready to give us an industry leading contract as soon as we had a union.
So why didn't they slap the industry leading contract on the table on day 1 of negotiations on May 21, 2015?


One last thing.
Yes, 50% +1 to approve.
You know what, that should be changed to 70%, it really should.
That would prevent the company from colluding with a corrupted union and passing a sub par agreement based on certain demographics of the membership.
The contract would have to be overwhelmingly very good for most members,
Isn't that what the union is for?

 

[Traymark]

Ok, cut pension by 50%, $3809 to $3583=$226 more for employee who took pension. Cut it 60%, still $106 more per month for employee who took pension. Can you admit math favors pension? You would be right if you got pension cut about 70% or more. Oh, BTW, the pension keeps paying if you outlive your 401k.

BTW, the frozen AA pensions keep paying us if we outlive our 401K too.
We don't need a failed pension that gives you zero control, in fact it has many strings attached to it.
It ties you to the IAM for life, even if you don't like how they are representing you.
It limits what you can do after you retire from AA, I want zero limits.
The fund is poorly run by unqualified individuals and is on a failing vector.

No P.Rez, that math does NOT work for me, not now, not ever.
My 401K gives me total portability, I can invest as much or as little as I want to , in what funds I want to, when I want to.
I can move that money into something else if I want to when I retire, unlike the pension fund.

This is not even close. The fact that you continue to try and sell it, yes, you are selling it, to a work group that already has a pension that won't change one penny, tells me all I need to know about whats coming.