JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[AANOTOK]

While it's a negotiated item, there are LAA Clerks who fear they are about to lose their company seniority.
In other words, some started out in catering, building cleaning or went into maintenance and came back.
They may have '94 seniority for VC bidding purposes but 1998 seniority for occupational bidding. The talk is they will now be straight 1998 seniority with the new merged airline.

 

[NYer]

While it's a negotiated item, there are LAA Clerks who fear they are about to lose their company seniority.
In other words, some started out in catering, building cleaning or went into maintenance and came back.
They may have '94 seniority for VC bidding purposes but 1998 seniority for occupational bidding. The talk is they will now be straight 1998 seniority with the new merged airline.

How did they reach that conclusion?

 

[anotherdelay]

The iamnpf assumed rate of interest is 7.5%. The actual, according to the plan was 3.5% which was a loss of millions.
The average age of active participants is 50 years old according to the report. Not good.
Additionally, the 2009 relief (hundreds of millions in losses) will be amortized over 10 years at 10% a year until 2020. Remember, those deep losses werent behind us.
What this means is all bad. Toss in $30 million to the fund manager and management of funds and the iamnpf is in serious need of a severe cut.

The fund manager was a buddy of the iam prez and charged us the highest cost. The fund manager was 33% into stocks when the market tanked in 08-09. Last year with a booming stock market, the nimwit was only 12% in stocks. Bad management.

If 4th he fund can nab 16,000 twu peeps then it might buy another year before the benefits dont collapse.

The fund manager was a buddy of the iam prez and charged us the highest cost. wouldn't surprise if family friends all had jobs too around the fund getting coffee.

just wait until the scope gets squeezed/outsourcing m/r, fleet on all sides. part time numbers/ready reserve go up to 50 percent to save the officers retirement. The fund is full of good intentions, but talk about destroying workers and compromising everything. Anyway, if we can go 3 more years status quo, without a contract, ramp, better for all.

and yes, if guys like ny'er are even being suckered by it, the unreal sell of accredited years, ramp won't dispute it. I can't see how m/r ever settle on a contract. there aren't any iam m/r guys or ramp guys anywhere except for you, explaining the pitfall of iampf. the skipper brought his little buddy gilligan to discuss irr for goodness sakes.

 

[robbedagain]

given the high profits this airline has been making there is absolutely no excuse to have scope hammered at all whether its MTR or FS

 

[anotherdelay]

given the high profits this airline has been making there is absolutely no excuse to have scope hammered at all whether its MTR or FS

well if i'm the company I exploit the soft belly of the iampf all negotiations long. Iam is strictly focused on it, everything else is secondary to them. and don't think for a second they are not both comp and iam. This is supposed to be one contract.

 

[AANOTOK]

How did they reach that conclusion?

It's not what they concluded, it's what they fear. I'm not sure if it's true, but some are saying that is how the IAM does it (one date for all) and it would only make since to have one uniform policy. I personally only have one seniority, but I honestly think it's nonsense. But hey, no telling what Lombardo agreed to before he was forced out. Again, I have no facts to back any of this up, and I'm not sure those that are worried have any facts either.

 

[robbedagain]

I agree with you that this will become 1 contract but I believe an offer for either IAMPF or 401K with match should be made available without touching scope that's just me

 

[CremaDiLimone]

While it's a negotiated item, there are LAA Clerks who fear they are about to lose their company seniority.
In other words, some started out in catering, building cleaning or went into maintenance and came back.
They may have '94 seniority for VC bidding purposes but 1998 seniority for occupational bidding. The talk is they will now be straight 1998 seniority with the new merged airline.

like i said months ago...we have current fscs who were fuelers in 1985-86. they paid dues to the twu - were in the same local...they wore shirts that said 'aa' on them.

one guy i know was a fueler from 1986-89 and came to fleet in april of 1989. he will now have less seniority than someone hired at piedmont in march 1989. reverse engineer the 'new aa' flowchart and tell me how the piedmont guy has more to do with today's aa than the former aa fueler. so, his 'auxiliary' seniority is honored and the former aa fueler's isn't?

i told him to return his 30 year plaque because he is confused about how much time he has at 'aa' and mr. javits decided that he really has 28 years. i hope he doesn't get fired for stealing..his fake 30 year plaque.

this whole thing isn't on lombardo, it's on little. the twu failed to look out for it's members prior to forming the association. this issue had to get hammered out prior to forming an association and getting a seniority arbitrator involved.

i also have heard that a twu big-shooter (i can't say any names, as i heard it second hand) isn't too thrilled with the fsc company seniority 'whiners' and 'moaners', but the twu is 'investigating' seniority grievances/discrepancies. the twu may have errored on denying company seniority in placing fscs in new classes in favor of age for fsc classes through the decades.

really, really bad. my biggest disappointment with the twu.

 

[NYer]

like i said months ago...we have current fscs who were fuelers in 1985-86. they paid dues to the twu - were in the same local...they wore shirts that said 'aa' on them.

one guy i know was a fueler from 1986-89 and came to fleet in april of 1989. he will now have less seniority than someone hired at piedmont in march 1989. reverse engineer the 'new aa' flowchart and tell me how the piedmont guy has more to do with today's aa than the former aa fueler. so, his 'auxiliary' seniority is honored and the former aa fueler's isn't?

i told him to return his 30 year plaque because he is confused about how much time he has at 'aa' and mr. javits decided that he really has 28 years. i hope he doesn't get fired for stealing..his fake 30 year plaque.

this whole thing isn't on lombardo, it's on little. the twu failed to look out for it's members prior to forming the association. this issue had to get hammered out prior to forming an association and getting a seniority arbitrator involved.

i also have heard that a twu big-shooter (i can't say any names, as i heard it second hand) isn't too thrilled with the fsc company seniority 'whiners' and 'moaners', but the twu is 'investigating' seniority grievances/discrepancies. the twu may have errored on denying company seniority in placing fscs in new classes in favor of age for fsc classes through the decades.

really, really bad. my biggest disappointment with the twu.

You probably don't want to hear it because your mind is usually made up when you post, but the gist of this process is to maintain the integrity of the current LAA occupational seniority order.

Occ. seniority is the basis used within our current CBA. To change that now would distort the current list with LAA and would reshuffle the deck. It would suddenly have LAA Members going ahead or behind others in LAA and go against our current language which has given everyone their current Occupational Seniority. That is not the intent of this process.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

what is there to hear?

in relation to laa? of course. everyone understood. they lumped it. intra-aa..that's how it was and is.

that was/is intra-aa.

ok, about inter-airlines?? it's a different world now. laa and lus are merging. blending, integrating seniority lists.

not when they will blend with another airline. sorry, that does not fly with me. the twu should have reached out to the iam and told them we need to take care of this issue before the association is formed.

- of course i'm assuming the twu was/is on the ball and looking out for 30-35-40 year dues-payers.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

You probably don't want to hear it because your mind is usually made up when you post, but the gist of this process is to maintain the integrity of the current LAA occupational seniority order.

Occ. seniority is the basis used within our current CBA. To change that now would distort the current list with LAA and would reshuffle the deck. It would suddenly have LAA Members going ahead or behind others in LAA and go against our current language which has given everyone their current Occupational Seniority. That is not the intent of this process.

do you think the 1986 fueler should return his 30 year commendation with a letter of apology and regret?? i think the 1989 piedmont guy should throw a party.

 

[NYer]

what is there to hear?

in relation to laa? of course. everyone understood. they lumped it. intra-aa..that's how it was and is.

that was/is intra-aa.

ok, about inter-airlines?? it's a different world now. laa and lus are merging. blending, integrating seniority lists.

not when they will blend with another airline. sorry, that does not fly with me. the twu should have reached out to the iam and told them we need to take care of this issue before the association is formed.

- of course i'm assuming the twu was/is on the ball and looking out for 30-35-40 year dues-payers.

And how would you suggest they blend the two workforces while also complying with both CBA's and the process which gave each Member their current seniority?

 

[NYer]

do you think the 1986 fueler should return his 30 year commendation with a letter of apology and regret?? i think the 1989 piedmont guy should throw a party.

The '89 fueler will carry his occupational seniority as he's been doing for many years.

 

[gulfcoast1]

And how would you suggest they blend the two workforces while also complying with both CBA's and the process which gave each Member their current seniority?

I don't understand why the COSEN policy has to change for VC bidding. Your statement makes it sound like only AA has to change. Why can't LAA Legacy Employees be grandfathered in with COSEN for VC purposes only? Doing it that way is in accordance with our current CBA yes?

 

[CremaDiLimone]

And how would you suggest they blend the two workforces while also complying with both CBA's and the process which gave each Member their current seniority?

i didn't move my office from ny to dc while working at the top level of the twu. you're asking me? the twu will tell you that they look out for us..an injustice to one is an injustice to all...etc. this is their duty and obligation. they are in the know, i'm not. by the time i found all this out...it was too late, the association was already formed. i'm just a fsc, how can i know what they are doing at the highest level??

for me personally...i would have told the iam that we will form an association once you agree that all employees from both airlines use a date of hire/company time at laa. let's hammer this out, then have a seniority arbitrator OK it, and then it would go into effect once a contract is ratified. let's see..we may have some precedence with the ticket agents...laa ticket agents did not have a union until the cwa won. can you tell me what happened with the ticket agents? did the opposite happen there? i don't know.

i'll be GD'ed if i'm a top level twu exec. and i am ok with lus employees using methods of acquiring seniority in ways my twu flock could not....with the consequence of all laa guys falling behind some lus guys. BS.

it's an issue of fairness. it's also an issue of either the twu being asleep at the wheel or outrageously complacent.