JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Tim Nelson]

Do the protests count for something to have maybe made the Company react to put that letter out?

Either way at this stage it's nice to see the gloves come off some.

The protest took the gloves off. The company doesnt like it. Tuffa lucka

 

[Kev3188]

I am scratching my head at the rest. I don't know why the company would think this could pass.

They likely don't. Letters like that are the Labor version of the shock doctrine.

It's like needing $20, asking your parents for $50, watching them freak out, and then "settling" for $25.

 

[WeAAsles]

They likely don't. Letters like that are the Labor version of the shock doctrine.

It's like need $20, asking your parents for $50, watching them freak out, and then "settling" for $25.

I'll settle on $40.

 

[737823]

They likely don't. Letters like that are the Labor version of the shock doctrine.

It's like need $20, asking your parents for $50, watching them freak out, and then "settling" for $25.

Like how NW wanted ESCs in only DTW, MEM, & MSP?

Josh

 

[NYer]

They likely don't. Letters like that are the Labor version of the shock doctrine.

It's like needing $20, asking your parents for $50, watching them freak out, and then "settling" for $25.

I think the key to the letter was the timing of their proposal and the reported timing of the counter proposal. As we protest and as they hear the frustration in the Town Halls over the "stalling," they want to put it out there they were not stalling and are actually waiting for the response to their initial comprehensive proposal.

They included the good and the bad from their proposal in order to prevent, in my opinion, the union from being able to shock everyone with the Company positions and take away their goal of exposing the perception of them dragging their feet.

We will see over the next few days and weeks if the frustration doesn't rise because of the long time between the initial comprehensive proposal and the Association's counter-proposal. I believe the Company is banking on the Members getting to the point where they ask, why does it take so long just to say no or put forth their official response.

To me, that seems to be the objective. At the moment, the focus is on the outline of their proposal shared in their letter but the calculation may be to see what the longer reaction may be.

 

[chilokie1]

Question pension(wize) is AA going to wind up putting more money towards the LAA indivual workers plans then towards each IAMPF account? Not counting the billions the company is already putting into LAA underfunded pensions.

Now you want the answer to the question I posted day one! Where were you guys then? NOW you are worried the LAA guys contract is going to be more lucrative than the LUS guys, was it because you thought there would be a new influx of new hires that would actually help delay a new C scale benefit level to the IAMPF that now looks unavoidable.

Let me try this again. If the USair guys keep their plan & the LAA guys keep their company match at a comparative level, then would not the LAA members contract actually have more value than the LUS guys because AA still needs to address the liability of the AA "FROZEN" plan that you know is added to the total bottom line the company will budget for a joint ASS contract?

To the best of my memory, that is how I asked that question, but nobody cared.

 

[WeAAsles]

I think the key to the letter was the timing of their proposal and the reported timing of the counter proposal. As we protest and as they hear the frustration in the Town Halls over the "stalling," they want to put it out there they were not stalling and are actually waiting for the response to their initial comprehensive proposal.

They included the good and the bad from their proposal in order to prevent, in my opinion, the union from being able to shock everyone with the Company positions and take away their goal of exposing the perception of them dragging their feet.

We will see over the next few days and weeks if the frustration doesn't rise because of the long time between the initial comprehensive proposal and the Association's counter-proposal. I believe the Company is banking on the Members getting to the point where they ask, why does it take so long just to say no or put forth their official response.

To me, that seems to be the objective. At the moment, the focus is on the outline of their proposal shared in their letter but the calculation may be to see what the longer reaction may be.

 

[gulfcoast1]

Now you want the answer to the question I posted day one! Where were you guys then? NOW you are worried the LAA guys contract is going to be more lucrative than the LUS guys, was it because you thought there would be a new influx of new hires that would actually help delay a new C scale benefit level to the IAMPF that now looks unavoidable.

Let me try this again. If the USair guys keep their plan & the LAA guys keep their company match at a comparative level, then would not the LAA members contract actually have more value than the LUS guys because AA still needs to address the liability of the AA "FROZEN" plan that you know is added to the total bottom line the company will budget for a joint ASS contract?

To the best of my memory, that is how I asked that question, but nobody cared.

The LAA pension money was already negotiated and is owed. I don't see how that plays into current negotiations. There will be no increases in it. I understand it may be underfunded but that liability is the company's imo.

Does LUS have a previous pension that was terminated? I thought they did. I guess if it was terminated that means that AA no longer has to make contributions, but I don't see how money that is already owed to LAA employees should affect current negotiations, and I don't think it did on the JCBA's for the other groups. Please correct me if I am wrong on the other groups part. I realize we have an Association and the other groups only one union, but the company was responsible for funding the LAA pension, and that amount was already settled before the Association was formed. If AA wants to discuss that again now, I would imagine the TWU negotiators will want to talk about the prefunding match.

 

[WeAAsles]

Now you want the answer to the question I posted day one! Where were you guys then? NOW you are worried the LAA guys contract is going to be more lucrative than the LUS guys, was it because you thought there would be a new influx of new hires that would actually help delay a new C scale benefit level to the IAMPF that now looks unavoidable.

Let me try this again. If the USair guys keep their plan & the LAA guys keep their company match at a comparative level, then would not the LAA members contract actually have more value than the LUS guys because AA still needs to address the liability of the AA "FROZEN" plan that you know is added to the total bottom line the company will budget for a joint ASS contract?

To the best of my memory, that is how I asked that question, but nobody cared.

The LAA Pension shortfall financials are not included in any values to whatever JCBA's we eventually have in place.

They're a separate debt needed to be shorn up.

 

[WeAAsles]

The LAA pension money was already negotiated and is owed. I don't see how that plays into current negotiations. There will be no increases in it. I understand it may be underfunded but that liability is the company's imo.

Does LUS have a previous pension that was terminated? I thought they did. I guess if it was terminated that means that AA no longer has to make contributions, but I don't see how money that is already owed to LAA employees should affect current negotiations, and I don't think it did on the JCBA's for the other groups. Please correct me if I am wrong on the other groups part. I realize we have an Association and the other groups only one union, but the company was responsible for funding the LAA pension, and that amount was already settled before the Association was formed. If AA wants to discuss that again now, I would imagine the TWU negotiators will want to talk about the prefunding match.

The Prefunding Match issue is not put to bed just yet either.

 

[gulfcoast1]

The Prefunding Match issue is not put to bed just yet either.

No it is not. I was just saying that if the company wants to bring up the frozen pension, the TWU will want to bring up the prefunding issue. I have heard that once the bankruptcy is finalized as in completely finished with no more Chapter 11-13, 11-14, etc., the TWU will go back to the Arbirtrator for resolution because that was what the Arbitrator said to do. Once it becomes certain that AA will not complete Chapter 11-14, it might change the decision. I think it is doubtful AA will try to file an 11-14 for the retirees, but they are waiting as long as they can to delay closure and the possible repayment of the match.

That came from Koziatek from what I heard. It makes sense to me.

 

[737823]

The LAA Pension shortfall financials are not included in any values to whatever JCBA's we eventually have in place.

They're a separate debt needed to be shorn up.

WeAA wouldn't you support NW proposal like scope with only hubs? You posted saying people in small stations need to adapt and when asked insisted it was a realist not IGM post, remember? Can we go to five LAA hubs plus BOS, LGA, SFO and let Envoy have the rest?

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

WeAA wouldn't you support NW proposal like scope with only hubs? You posted saying people in small stations need to adapt and when asked insisted it was a realist not IGM post, remember? Can we go to five LAA hubs plus BOS, LGA, SFO and let Envoy have the rest?

Josh

Ha Ha, No. What I probably said that you are a little confused on is that "I" wouldn't be comfortable in a small city always worrying if the chopping block might be coming. I would have (I did) moved to a hub.

I have lots of thoughts Josh. Doesn't mean everyone thinks like me though anyway.

 

[gulfcoast1]

WeAA wouldn't you support NW proposal like scope with only hubs? You posted saying people in small stations need to adapt and when asked insisted it was a realist not IGM post, remember? Can we go to five LAA hubs plus BOS, LGA, SFO and let Envoy have the rest?

Josh

I would vote no on that. I have too many friends who would suffer harm for the rest of their careers and there is simply no reason for such a huge concession when the company is making billions. Even if I were offered another 25% raise, an extra week of VC, 10 Holidays @2.5, and the 9% 401k, I would vote no. That is just me though.

 

[WeAAsles]

I would vote no on that. I have too many friends who would suffer harm for the rest of their careers and there is simply no reason for such a huge concession when the company is making billions. Even if I were offered another 25% raise, an extra week of VC, 10 Holidays @2.5, and the 9% 401k, I would vote no. That is just me though.

Uh that was a pretty precise list of the things you'd vote no for there gulfcoast?

How about 50% raise with Status and Station protection DOS?

Anyway sign a deal with the Devil and he may burn ya.