JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

first off we didn't get 11 an hour so you don't know what you're talking and if you think w got it because of you you're talking out your backside

We ALL benefitted from the Merger and more so from the final piece of the puzzle being put together for industry consolidation.

 

[WeAAsles]

True, however the TWU did not expect the members to drill down on the IAMPF and discover it was an abject disaster and the top level of the TWU now understands, the IAMPF cannot be forced on the membership because the TWU side has a weighted portion of the vote on an TA, it won't pass if the LAA TWU side doesn't want it.



Totally Agree.



I get what you are saying, but there is a better way to say it. Delivery is everything.



Tim,
Did anyone at any time think that a JCBA was going to have a different set of holidays, vacation, double time and healthcare of each of the groups?
Of course they are all going to be the same at the end of the day.

Let's be intellectually honest about your health insurance that you kept through 27 BK's.
You kept it because you were the lowest paid among among any of the major airlines, and it wasn't even close.
In other words, your extremely low pay was used to pay for your own benefit of a lower cost health insurance. Now your pay was brought back up to where everyone else is.
Do you think that would have happened if there was no merger? It's debatable, not a certainty.

WeAAs has started to drill down on the real numbers of the insurance and again, if we are intellectually honest with ourselves, I don't think the number is as big as folks are making it out to be and quite frankly, you've all probably been made more than whole with the $11 per hr raise to far more than make up any short comings with LAA health insurance.
I pay about $130 per month and it covers me and my two kids, I just don't see what everyone is jumping up and down and throwing themselves on the floor about.

"Let's be intellectually honest about your health insurance that you kept through 27 BK's.
You kept it because

******YOU WERE THE LOWEST PAID******

among among any of the major airlines, and it wasn't even close.
In other words, your extremely low pay was used to pay for your own benefit of a lower cost health insurance. Now your pay was brought back up to where everyone else is."

^^^^
This (Reality check) Roughly $2.00 less in wages per hour is what they were paying for it.

 

[Tim Nelson]

We got the $11 raise for the same reasons LAA did, i.e., cross utilization AND because Parker was......

Tim says you did...argue the truth with him

We were at $20.57. Technically, about $10.30 after this September. I wasn't being technical, I was giving your comment some space. Your math was mostly true but how we got there was fake news. LAA didn't have anything to do with it otherwise how did you get the big raise? And FWIW, we all got another .75 cents more due to a corporate campaign at United. I had to say that just to stir up Weas.

 

[Tim Nelson]

True, however the TWU did not expect the members to drill down on the IAMPF and discover it was an abject disaster and the top level of the TWU now understands, the IAMPF cannot be forced on the membership because the TWU side has a weighted portion of the vote on an TA, it won't pass if the LAA TWU side doesn't want it.



Totally Agree.



I get what you are saying, but there is a better way to say it. Delivery is everything.



Tim,
Did anyone at any time think that a JCBA was going to have a different set of holidays, vacation, double time and healthcare of each of the groups?
Of course they are all going to be the same at the end of the day.

Let's be intellectually honest about your health insurance that you kept through 27 BK's.
You kept it because you were the lowest paid among among any of the major airlines, and it wasn't even close.
In other words, your extremely low pay was used to pay for your own benefit of a lower cost health insurance. Now your pay was brought back up to where everyone else is.
Do you think that would have happened if there was no merger? It's debatable, not a certainty.

WeAAs has started to drill down on the real numbers of the insurance and again, if we are intellectually honest with ourselves, I don't think the number is as big as folks are making it out to be and quite frankly, you've all probably been made more than whole with the $11 per hr raise to far more than make up any short comings with LAA health insurance.
I pay about $130 per month and it covers me and my two kids, I just don't see what everyone is jumping up and down and throwing themselves on the floor about.

Item 1: Our health care cost and plans have stayed real and are living in a current contract that isn't even amendable yet. I only brought out the 2 bankruptcy contracts to make you aware of how important it is. Believe me, the company wanted to rip our health care right out of our contract twice before but we held our ground on that item AND will again. If the TWU wants to underestimate that then they can say hello to the Easter Bunny for me.

Item 2: If our health care is just a bit better than yours then what's the fuss? Come along for the ride!
I mean if it is just a tweak better than what's the company fuss? It makes the IAM position all the stronger that we all ought to be up to LUS health care levels. The TWU may discount this, but the company isn't because the company knows it hosed the hell out of the TWU and your leaders allowed it.

Item 3: The question remains, why should LUS be taking a concession only to watch LAA get holiday, double time, and other gains? In America, we say "What's in it for us?" We are human and do have families.

Certainly, I can tell you 100% that no LUS person is going to 'have a heart' and hand our health care to the company so they can refashion it into double time for you. Not happening. But if a 16% 401k is "In it for us" then I'm sure people will listen. So far, nobody has "Showed us the money, sorta speak."

The Association has some straightening out to do but no matter the size of each union, there isn't any strong arming with veto power. And then there is Sito power. He is really really upset about how the TWU did his TWA peeps. As a former TWA person do you think he gives a F about the TWU? Don't blame me, blame your union for cutting the deal to give veto power to the IAM.

The question remains, why should LUS give concessions to its healthcare for LAA to see gains in double time, holidays, etc. The members wanna know.

 

[WeAAsles]

We were at $20.57. Technically, about $10.30 after this September. I wasn't being technical, I was giving your comment some space. Your math was mostly true but how we got there was fake news. LAA didn't have anything to do with it otherwise how did you get the big raise? And FWIW, we all got another .75 cents more due to a corporate campaign at United. I had to say that just to stir up Weas.

Well let's take out all the coins then shall we. You have received since the merger so far a $10.00 per hour increase.

$10.00 x 40 = $400.00
$400.00 x 4 = $1600.00
$1600.00 x 12 = $19,200.00

Now what you are talking about as the MAX possible cost expenditure that a FT Member such as yourself could have to bear (IF) you were to come all the way up to the LAA cost, you HAVE to be chitting me you greedy little bugger. LMFAO.

And Tim Nelson YOU and your greedy breathren ARE standing on the heads of your Part Time Brothers and Sisters. You GREEDY little Hypocrites you.

 

[WeAAsles]

Item 1: Our health care cost and plans have stayed real and are living in a current contract that isn't even amendable yet. I only brought out the 2 bankruptcy contracts to make you aware of how important it is. Believe me, the company wanted to rip our health care right out of our contract twice before but we held our ground on that item AND will again. If the TWU wants to underestimate that then they can say hello to the Easter Bunny for me.

Item 2: If our health care is just a bit better than yours then what's the fuss? Come along for the ride!
I mean if it is just a tweak better than what's the company fuss? It makes the IAM position all the stronger that we all ought to be up to LUS health care levels. The TWU may discount this, but the company isn't because the company knows it hosed the hell out of the TWU and your leaders allowed it.

Item 3: The question remains, why should LUS be taking a concession only to watch LAA get holiday, double time, and other gains? In America, we say "What's in it for us?" We are human and do have families.

Certainly, I can tell you 100% that no LUS person is going to 'have a heart' and hand our health care to the company so they can refashion it into double time for you. Not happening. But if a 16% 401k is "In it for us" then I'm sure people will listen. So far, nobody has "Showed us the money, sorta speak."

The Association has some straightening out to do but no matter the size of each union, there isn't any strong arming with veto power. And then there is Sito power. He is really really upset about how the TWU did his TWA peeps. As a former TWA person do you think he gives a F about the TWU? Don't blame me, blame your union for cutting the deal to give veto power to the IAM.

The question remains, why should LUS give concessions to its healthcare for LAA to see gains in double time, holidays, etc. The members wanna know.

FULL TIME LUS IAM members stand on top of the heads with muddy shoes of their PART TIME LUS IAM (so called) Brothers and Sisters.

That's the FACT JACK!!!!!!

 

[Tim Nelson]

it's ok for lus to ride laa coat tails but not the other way around? ok got it! lus has received over an $11 raise because of laa. if you think that was only for cross utilization you're kidding yourself!

another thing is that one of the things boggling down talks is the fact that you guys brought clear and present damage from your deeply underfunded pension that management still has to fund. Where do you think they plan on getting the money? So, we have to deal with your pension baggage. Let's be fair.

The reality is that your pension is the 4th most underfunded pension in this country. You don't think that is affecting negotiations? Should we ask management to just terminate your plan? I'll tell you a better idea, how about we all stick together and you support my health care and I'll support your pension from termination. Deal?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-20/here-are-americas-most-underfunded-corporate-pensions

 

[AANOTOK]

I would venture to guess that the debates that are going on here are similar to what is happening between our negotiators. LAA (NC) would settle for 14-15% and the LUS (NC) will not move. Therefore we have a problem. One question I would have for the US folks, if AA management was offering 10-14% on medical (which I doubt) if that's industry leading, isn't that what Parker promised...

 

[Tim Nelson]

I would venture to guess that the debates that are going on here are similar to what is happening between our negotiators. LAA (NC) would settle for 14-15% and the LUS (NC) will not move. Therefore we have a problem. One question I would have for the US folks, if AA management was offering 10-14% on medical (which I doubt) if that's industry leading, isn't that what Parker promised...

Parker has imputed the health care in other items with talks involving our other Labor unions on the property. He insisted with the arbitrator that he didn't want to be burdened with the political winds and excise taxes. The arbitrator for the pilots imputed big league gains in the 401k up to 16%. So, if the question goes from "Why do I have to give up LUS health care for LAA gains", but becomes "I got 16% 401k for my health care chip." then I would think a lot of people would look at that.

Until something gives.....So what!

 

[WeAAsles]

Parker has imputed the health care in other items with talks involving our other Labor unions on the property. He insisted with the arbitrator that he didn't want to be burdened with the political winds and excise taxes. The arbitrator for the pilots imputed big league gains in the 401k up to 16%. So, if the question goes from "Why do I have to give up LUS health care for LAA gains", but becomes "I got 16% 401k for my health care chip." then I would think a lot of people would look at that.

Until something gives.....So what!

FULL TIME LUS IAM members stand on top of the heads with muddy shoes of their PART TIME LUS IAM (so called) Brothers and Sisters.

That's the FACT JACK!!!!!!!

 

[WeAAsles]

I would venture to guess that the debates that are going on here are similar to what is happening between our negotiators. LAA (NC) would settle for 14-15% and the LUS (NC) will not move. Therefore we have a problem. One question I would have for the US folks, if AA management was offering 10-14% on medical (which I doubt) if that's industry leading, isn't that what Parker promised...

Would Politics prevent an IAM AGC from accepting this type of compromise IF it were offered?

IF their (Full Time) members told them that they had better hold firm or else, does that "perhaps, maybe, might, possibly" influence that thought in the back of minds? Hmm?

Would "WE or I" also not want to put that "position " to any risk?????

 

[wings396]

FULL TIME LUS IAM members stand on top of the heads with muddy shoes of their PART TIME LUS IAM (so called) Brothers and Sisters.

That's the FACT JACK!!!!!!!

Since the FT vs PT medical costs appear to be an issue here, I'm going to toss in my thoughts on the subject. As far back as I can recall, the PT have paid more for their benefits. This goes back to the pre IAM days as well. I worked PT at another company around 10 years ago, and it was the same there. I've been told that its based on the lesser amount of scheduled hours that they work, just like the pensions, 401k, etc. I recall the last contract payout was based on the same theory. I can't speak for your station, but in mine most of the PT have other jobs, and end up giving away half of their shifts. Why should the FT subsidize medical plan costs for a PT person working 20 hours a week who may have benefits at their real day job? I have to say that just about every PT agent at my location has had numerous chances of going FT, but passed it up. Many choose to stay as senior PT in order to get better days off, and scoop up hours. Please keep in mind that there are many employers that don't even offer medical benefits to PT employees.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

we were at $24.whatever...so, the obvious conclusion is that lus have benefited more, wage-wise, from the merger. is there any shame in anybody admitting that?

as far as laa pension..yes, it is underfunded. no secret. the company has discussed this publicly during each quarterly earnings. as of 2q17, the obligations were $15 billion and it's assets are apprx. $10 billion.

the company put nearly $300 million into the pension last quarter and will put $1+ billion into the fund next year. the days of airline 'pension relief' from the govt. are over. i'm not ashamed at all of my pension. aa used it to tempt us to come work for aa, aa funded that pension while aa did well during the 80s & 90s.

time is on laa's side as in 30 years, the obligations may be $1 billion. they know, they have the same actuary tables the insurance companies have. they can whine and moan, but they know the company will be home free in time.

since the new aa went public, we are also battling with shareholders for money and in today's usa, we know who comes out on top.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Since the FT vs PT medical costs appear to be an issue here, I'm going to toss in my thoughts on the subject. As far back as I can recall, the PT have paid more for their benefits. This goes back to the pre IAM days as well. I worked PT at another company around 10 years ago, and it was the same there. I've been told that its based on the lesser amount of scheduled hours that they work, just like the pensions, 401k, etc. I recall the last contract payout was based on the same theory. I can't speak for your station, but in mine most of the PT have other jobs, and end up giving away half of their shifts. Why should the FT subsidize medical plan costs for a PT person working 20 hours a week who may have benefits at their real day job? I have to say that just about every PT agent at my location has had numerous chances of going FT, but passed it up. Many choose to stay as senior PT in order to get better days off, and scoop up hours. Please keep in mind that there are many employers that don't even offer medical benefits to PT employees.

To be sure, it's not right that part time has to subsidize. I was part time prior to the IAM contract and I didn't pay twice. As far as the pension, I understand the part time hours can't expect full credit, and that is reflected in the IAMNPF plan, i.e., must work a minimum of 1600 hours (33 per week) for full 12 months credit. However, WeAAsle is right in that the part time do subsidize our pension as well because there should be NO difference in the company contribution. Presently the difference is $1.30 or .85. Shouldn't matter but it does. It should be equal. Equal work, equal pay.

And I'm uncomfortable suggesting that part timers are less than full time because they "Have another job". The TWU doesn't do this and neither should we. We have wronged alot with some sad contracts along the way but our part time is treated like Delta's ready reserve, i.e., lesser than full time. Same dues, half health care, half pension. Really? BTW, 40% of us are part time so this is a big league number and they have families and I disagree with your characteristic of them. Maybe in BWI they have multiple jobs but I happen to know tons of part timers in CLT who have more seniority than me and expect the same as full time, even if they chose to be part time.

I understand your point wings but I don't want to give an inch on this one. WeAAsles is right about this one.

 

[Tim Nelson]

we were at $24.whatever...so, the obvious conclusion is that lus have benefited more, wage-wise, from the merger. is there any shame in anybody admitting that?

as far as laa pension..yes, it is underfunded. no secret. the company has discussed this publicly during each quarterly earnings. as of 2q17, the obligations were $15 billion and it's assets are apprx. $10 billion.

the company put nearly $300 million into the pension last quarter and will put $1+ billion into the fund next year. the days of airline 'pension relief' from the govt. are over. i'm not ashamed at all of my pension. aa used it to tempt us to come work for aa, aa funded that pension while aa did well during the 80s & 90s.

time is on laa's side as in 30 years, the obligations may be $1 billion. they know, they have the same actuary tables the insurance companies have. they can whine and moan, but they know the company will be home free in time.

since the new aa went public, we are also battling with shareholders for money and in today's usa, we know who comes out on top.

point is that the huge American pension obligations means less money to otherwise go around. I'm not complaining but it is in error to say that LUS may be weighing down talks when LAA pensions are a weight as well. Again, no biggie.

But from the view of LUS, my peeps are calling LAA greedy. Greedy because they want LUS to take a huge concession to lose the healthcare, yet they are always bitching about the holidays, vacation and double time. Just looks greedy as hell. Again, this isn't about any previous agreement. The TWU fully agreed to everything everyone has today. And our Healthcare isn't some back scratching sorta thing, i.e., "Ill scratch your back and you can get a stand alone, and you scratch my back and toss your health care away so I can get double time." Really?

Dude, only in the movies. Sorry.