JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[pjirish317]

#1 ~ I feel much more confident in receiving all of my AA frozen pension than any of a possible IAM pension, and if you asked any financial manager to look at the numbers, they'd agree with me.

#2 ~ Betchya I'm more right about the collective membership on the IAMPF than you are, betchya...

Other than you and P.Rez, I literally have heard not a single other person, LAA or LUS advocate for the IAMPF. No one else.

I might add, you have started dancing on a pin's head with your support of a possible "option".

So where is this groundswell of support for the quickly failing IAMPF?

The NC knows full well, the IAMPF will not go over well with the membership.
That is the holdup.
Prove me wrong.

Traymark,

I would wager that the IAMNPF is not the only "hold-up" bogging down negotiations. The reason I asked if you were MTC or Fleet was, it says alot about your mindset regarding the Association. Most of Fleet, on the LUS anyway, could care less about the union or its activities. Apathy is rampant among the ranks, especially since we received our raise. They just don't care. They got their $$$$ and thats enough for them. Granted there are some that are concerned and involved, but they are few and far between. Myself, I was a supporter of the Association, along with the notion of the Association being certified without a vote. Because, from the way it was explained to me, and I could be remembering the conversation wrong, was, that if a vote occured, there would have been only 2 choices, the Association or no union. Personally I didn't want to have our representation be de-certified, so I was ok with not getting a vote. Being on the MTC side, especially at LAA, I can understand the anger of not getting a vote, with the AMFA card drive and possibly writing in AMFA on a vote. So I get the frustration. But Fleet and MTC are together insomuch as we have the same representation and we should collectively stand together to see this JCBA is industry leading, and that it will be good enough for years to come.

 

[WeAAsles]

#1 ~ I feel much more confident in receiving all of my AA frozen pension than any of a possible IAM pension, and if you asked any financial manager to look at the numbers, they'd agree with me.

#2 ~ Betchya I'm more right about the collective membership on the IAMPF than you are, betchya...

Other than you and P.Rez, I literally have heard not a single other person, LAA or LUS advocate for the IAMPF. No one else.

I might add, you have started dancing on a pin's head with your support of a possible "option".

So where is this groundswell of support for the quickly failing IAMPF?

The NC knows full well, the IAMPF will not go over well with the membership.
That is the holdup.
Prove me wrong.

#1 ~ Why are we even discussing anything having to do with our frozen Pension vs the IAMPF? There is no contest because they're two separate retirement existences and will remain separate period.

#2 ~ Unlike you I'm not claiming to speak for any collective membership and I also haven't made any claims what they might or might not want either.

I haven't advocated for any type of particular options that might be presented to me. And at least here on Forums I'm getting very tired of people trying to make presumptions about what "I" might or might not want or accept if offered to me.

Listen Dude on your last couple of comments I have zero clue WTF you're talking about? All I know is "I" don't want to sit around like a putz for 5 years waiting on a deal because I'm afraid of the Boogeyman or I want another .5 cents added to my shift differential. Too many schmucks out there want all this piddly little chit and get bogged down for years because of there own idiocy.

And yea I think all this IAMPF talk BS is stupid as chit. Sorry.

 

[MetalMover]

#1 ~ Why are we even discussing anything having to do with our frozen Pension vs the IAMPF? There is no contest because they're two separate retirement existences and will remain separate period.

#2 ~ Unlike you I'm not claiming to speak for any collective membership and I also haven't made any claims what they might or might not want either.

I haven't advocated for any type of particular options that might be presented to me. And at least here on Forums I'm getting very tired of people trying to make presumptions about what "I" might or might not want or accept if offered to me.

Listen Dude on your last couple of comments I have zero clue WTF you're talking about? All I know is "I" don't want to sit around like a putz for 5 years waiting on a deal because I'm afraid of the Boogeyman or I want another .5 cents added to my shift differential. Too many schmucks out there want all this piddly little chit and get bogged down for years because of there own idiocy.

And yea I think all this IAMPF talk BS is stupid as chit. Sorry.

WeAAz, Even though the pension is frozen it is still in our contract and provisions pertaining to it. Now I may be wrong, but since it IS still an article in our contract, it can be renegotiated or amended in some way, shape, or form. For instance, what if the company offered to restore it? Would the union say "No thanks, it's frozen?"
My concern about any shenanigans regarding the IAMNPF is that, HYPOTHETICALLY, what if the company offered really good contractual changes only if the TWU took over the pension so they would not have to fund it anymore? I'm just using this as an example. I am too skeptical on this issue especially after we were told we would have a vote on the association. Add this to the wage interim agreement which allowed cross utilization and extended pay scale progression without a vote and the mistrust is warranted

 

[NYer]

What's amazing about all this pension hysteria is that it's all being created in the atmosphere.

Aside from someone posting in this blog, there is zero evidence anyone is trying to force anyone into anything (an especially puzzling claim considering we get to vote on a JCBA)

Hysteria created by supposition.

 

[737823]

NYer,
Do you think using the LAA 15 (mainline) departures is a good baseline for scope? Fact is if LUS metal is included because of the scale and scope of the joint operation a significant number of stations would be protected. I also wonder if the IAM would entertain a churn and burn type low cost, no work rule outfit like McGee which they supported, facilitated and encouraged at AS. (A full 11 years after they stood by and allowed AS to outsource ground handling outside state of AK). They happily catered to ALK managements parameters on costs with agreement for voluntary recognition. Bottom line is Envoy (formerly American Eagle) isn't long for this world and US wholly owned subsidiaries are a cluster. I could see them concocting something similar here.

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

WeAAz, Even though the pension is frozen it is still in our contract and provisions pertaining to it. Now I may be wrong, but since it IS still an article in our contract, it can be renegotiated or amended in some way, shape, or form. For instance, what if the company offered to restore it? Would the union say "No thanks, it's frozen?"
My concern about any shenanigans regarding the IAMNPF is that, HYPOTHETICALLY, what if the company offered really good contractual changes only if the TWU took over the pension so they would not have to fund it anymore? I'm just using this as an example. I am too skeptical on this issue especially after we were told we would have a vote on the association. Add this to the wage interim agreement which allowed cross utilization and extended pay scale progression without a vote and the mistrust is warranted

Ok and here you are back to making the comment on the TWU being a living breathing entity and not a collection of people.

You know maybe we can point fingers at some of the past people for what they did in forming this Association in the first place? But do I think they were so greedy and evil that they would want to even try and put our Pensions back at risk after all they did to save them? NO I DON'T!!!!! And I don't believe the "people" in there now would consider it either.

Metal I think the entire conversation having any concern about the IAM or TWU Boogeymen touching our Frozen Pensions is completely ludicrous, ridiculous.

It just honestly doesn't make even a tiny ounce of sense to me at all. Sorry.

 

[WeAAsles]

And Metal the wage agreement to vote on would have been ridiculous. Even with the cross utilization language that vote would have been an overwhelming passage and you and I know it.

People were screaming like maniacs out there that they needed money. They wanted the raises and didn't give a damn about anything else.

And why it suddenly needed to come so fast BTW was because one particular workgroup (cough cough) was writing up all sorts of items in logbooks because they had enough with waiting.

So who do you know would have voted no for a 25% and more raise Metal?

 

[NYer]

NYer,
Do you think using the LAA 15 (mainline) departures is a good baseline for scope? Fact is if LUS metal is included because of the scale and scope of the joint operation a significant number of stations would be protected. I also wonder if the IAM would entertain a churn and burn type low cost, no work rule outfit like McGee which they supported, facilitated and encouraged at AS. (A full 11 years after they stood by and allowed AS to outsource ground handling outside state of AK). They happily catered to ALK managements parameters on costs with agreement for voluntary recognition. Bottom line is Envoy (formerly American Eagle) isn't long for this world and US wholly owned subsidiaries are a cluster. I could see them concocting something similar here.

Josh

(LAA Fleet perspective)

Obviously, the lower the number the better. The issue is not what we have but what is happening in the industry. Is 15 sustainable as compared to other airlines? Would the TWU have to accept 3 hour PTers, for example, and/or other advantages in scheduling the current IAM language affords the Company? (as compared to TWU language)

For example, I don't believe it would be popular to go lower than the 5475 annual threshold (15 flights a day) if it meant they could hold PTers before FTers in order to cover those smaller stations.

That would be great for the small stations if it meant they could stay open or even reopen, but that would create havoc in cities like MIA and NYC where there is a large PT population.

The part most people miss about asking for the positives from other contracts is that the Company has a similar wish list and is usually a bad thing for us.

These issues need to be considered as a whole contractual article and also how it may affect other items or articles in the negotiations.

 

[Traymark]

If you think scope is staying @ 15 = dreaming.

 

[WeAAsles]

If you think scope is staying @ 15 = dreaming.

Anything less than this should be considered unacceptable to the Association.

http://unionhall.cwalocals.org/system/files/ta_article_3_rev_10_30_15.pdf

 

[Traymark]

WeAAz, Even though the pension is frozen it is still in our contract and provisions pertaining to it. Now I may be wrong, but since it IS still an article in our contract, it can be renegotiated or amended in some way, shape, or form. For instance, what if the company offered to restore it? Would the union say "No thanks, it's frozen?"
My concern about any shenanigans regarding the IAMNPF is that, HYPOTHETICALLY, what if the company offered really good contractual changes only if the TWU took over the pension so they would not have to fund it anymore? I'm just using this as an example. I am too skeptical on this issue especially after we were told we would have a vote on the association. Add this to the wage interim agreement which allowed cross utilization and extended pay scale progression without a vote and the mistrust is warranted

Exactly Metal!
This has been my concern from day 1.
Wees can jump up and down and throw himself on the floor all day long saying it will never happen, but unless and until I see it writing, I won't stop believing that would and could happen because the company would be offloading a huge debt and could theoretically add in some pretty nice things to the right segment of the members, you know, to get the required 50% +1.

Wees, you might be sick of hearing about the boogie man, but I'm not going to stop bringing it up until the deed is done. Feel free to put me on ignore if you like.
I won't stop railing against the IAMPF and the Absolute Scam that it is.

 

[WeAAsles]

Exactly Metal!
This has been my concern from day 1.
Wees can jump up and down and throw himself on the floor all day long saying it will never happen, but unless and until I see it writing, I won't stop believing that would and could happen because the company would be offloading a huge debt and could theoretically add in some pretty nice things to the right segment of the members, you know, to get the required 50% +1.

Wees, you might be sick of hearing about the boogie man, but I'm not going to stop bringing it up until the deed is done. Feel free to put me on ignore if you like.
I won't stop railing against the IAMPF and the Absolute Scam that it is.

# 1 The ignore feature is ridiculous. It's not like the block feature on FB. And anyone who's pretending they don't read someone they ignored on here is FOS.

And Traymark I have no reason to block or ignore you anyway. And unlike the LOL privileged set some people think they are on the Maintenance thread, I am all for and supportive of my Mechanic Brothers and Sisters conversing in this house.

BTW I'll bet you my condo "In writing" what you're paranoid about is NOT going to happen.

 

[pjirish317]

(LAA Fleet perspective)

Obviously, the lower the number the better. The issue is not what we have but what is happening in the industry. Is 15 sustainable as compared to other airlines? Would the TWU have to accept 3 hour PTers, for example, and/or other advantages in scheduling the current IAM language affords the Company? (as compared to TWU language)

For example, I don't believe it would be popular to go lower than the 5475 annual threshold (15 flights a day) if it meant they could hold PTers before FTers in order to cover those smaller stations.

That would be great for the small stations if it meant they could stay open or even reopen, but that would create havoc in cities like MIA and NYC where there is a large PT population.

The part most people miss about asking for the positives from other contracts is that the Company has a similar wish list and is usually a bad thing for us.

These issues need to be considered as a whole contractual article and also how it may affect other items or articles in the negotiations.

NYer,

The problem I have is that you are talking about this through the TWU scope and agreement. This concerns EVERYBODY!, LUS and LAA. LUS has by far the best scope in the industry right now at 1 mainline flight a day, which includes LAA metal. You are talking about essentially gutting our scope to go up to 15 a day. That is just ridiculous. LAA should be SCREAMING to get to our scope, not just willing to accept a continuance of the 15 a day. Anything more than 1 flight a day is a concession in my eyes, and depending on where that number fell, it might just be a no vote from me.
Traymark, just curious, where do you think scope will go to? Since you are so very concerned with Fleet issues that is. Why do you think 15 flights a day is dreaming? What is LAA's MTC scope at for remaining at a station?

 

[MetalMover]

Ok and here you are back to making the comment on the TWU being a living breathing entity and not a collection of people.

You know maybe we can point fingers at some of the past people for what they did in forming this Association in the first place? But do I think they were so greedy and evil that they would want to even try and put our Pensions back at risk after all they did to save them? NO I DON'T!!!!! And I don't believe the "people" in there now would consider it either.

Metal I think the entire conversation having any concern about the IAM or TWU Boogeymen touching our Frozen Pensions is completely ludicrous, ridiculous.

It just honestly doesn't make even a tiny ounce of sense to me at all. Sorry.

WeAAZ, I, like many others, have been around through too many regime changes NOT to be skeptical. I have lived through too many "They can do that" defenses.
As for your comment about the TWU being a collection of people, if this is true, then the TWU needs to start listening to its collection of people and not simply decide what is best or worst for them.
You cannot tell any of us that in your entire tenure at AA you have never been angry or at the least disappointed at the TWU for a bad contract or letter of agreement or any decision that benefited the company.
If you haven't then I guess you are fortunate to have so much faith in them.

 

[Traymark]

And Traymark I have no reason to block or ignore you anyway. And unlike the LOL privileged set some people think they are on the Maintenance thread, I am all for and supportive of my Mechanic Brothers and Sisters conversing in this house.

BTW I'll bet you my condo "In writing" what you're paranoid about is NOT going to happen.

You can't point to any post I've made that disparages any work group. I have no problem with you posting as long as it's relevant to the thread, sometimes you stray from that and thats where it gets a bit unbearable.

As far as betting against something to happen that I wish would happen, Why on earth would I do that?
If my fears about the IAMPF come to pass and we end up with a much enhanced 401K, then my work here is done.
Peace