JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[NYer]

I go to the IAM 141 not IAM 142 site. Tim H hasn't been up in the terminal for ages so I wasn't able to ask.

Point still stands, why is the IAM still around on the AA property PERIOD? Why did the IAM run away from the mess of TWA and ended the careers of thousands of their own "brothers and sisters" leaving AA/TWU with the mess of TWA? The TWU ultimately manned up and stepped aside after HP/US why can't the IAM do the same? Bob has asked this repeatedly. In 2001 the IAM was in a much stronger position both as a union and within the airline industry. They've continued on a downward spiral ever since.

If the TWU had any balls they would have laughed off this lame desperation move to remain on the property collecting dues and the LUS membership would be integrated under the AA TWU agreement absent sufficient showing of interest and a subsequent representational election.

Which btw as other workgroups are three going on four years into their new agreement you guys still don't have a JCBA. You realize a year from today the standalone AA TWU agreement would be amendable? Sure you got the interim wage adjustment and a few more work for LUS flying (and vice versa) but after the ink dries on this agreement and it gets implemented the other groups will be about to exchange openers on new agreements. Pretty pathetic any way you look at it.

No merger, no IAM absent the wage adjustment you would be at the same place. The LUS membership has been the primary beneficiary here no question about it.

Josh

Different situations.

The premise that we'd have a JCBA if it was simply the TWU in negotiations is just flawed.

The Association has done a horrendous job in setting the proper expectation when these negotiations began and have not kept the Members up to date with the challenges that are being faced within the negotiations and in trying to reconcile two CBA's with very different language. The length of these negotiations is mostly due to the complexities which the negotiators needed to analyze and debate.

The error in this process was that the two sides didn't get together to reconcile and debate their positions before the Association was certified by the NMB. That is where time was wasted, at the moment, the last thing any of us should want is a quick resolution for the sake of having a resolution.

I have a feeling once the JCBA comes back, these pages will be filled with calls and chants of sending it back to the table.

 

[psa8979]

Different situations.

The premise that we'd have a JCBA if it was simply the TWU in negotiations is just flawed.

The Association has done a horrendous job in setting the proper expectation when these negotiations began and have not kept the Members up to date with the challenges that are being faced within the negotiations and in trying to reconcile two CBA's with very different language. The length of these negotiations is mostly due to the complexities which the negotiators needed to analyze and debate.

The error in this process was that the two sides didn't get together to reconcile and debate their positions before the Association was certified by the NMB. That is where time was wasted, at the moment, the last thing any of us should want is a quick resolution for the sake of having a resolution.

I have a feeling once the JCBA comes back, these pages will be filled with calls and chants of sending it back to the table.

NYer you are correct . My ??? is to the TWU evangelists. Do you really believe that the TWU has FS Members in their best interests or M/R ? Do you believe that if there was an NMB election and TWU won something would have changed ? Do you believe that the TWU is in better financial shape then the IAMAW ? Do you believe that with less then 6% of private sector Workers in America having CBA's that the TWU won't need to amalgamate with another AFL-CIO Union ?
COVFEFE On !

 

[cltrat]

I go to the IAM 141 not IAM 142 site. Tim H hasn't been up in the terminal for ages so I wasn't able to ask.

Point still stands, why is the IAM still around on the AA property PERIOD? Why did the IAM run away from the mess of TWA and ended the careers of thousands of their own "brothers and sisters" leaving AA/TWU with the mess of TWA? The TWU ultimately manned up and stepped aside after HP/US why can't the IAM do the same? Bob has asked this repeatedly. In 2001 the IAM was in a much stronger position both as a union and within the airline industry. They've continued on a downward spiral ever since.

If the TWU had any balls they would have laughed off this lame desperation move to remain on the property collecting dues and the LUS membership would be integrated under the AA TWU agreement absent sufficient showing of interest and a subsequent representational election.

Which btw as other workgroups are three going on four years into their new agreement you guys still don't have a JCBA. You realize a year from today the standalone AA TWU agreement would be amendable? Sure you got the interim wage adjustment and a few more work for LUS flying (and vice versa) but after the ink dries on this agreement and it gets implemented the other groups will be about to exchange openers on new agreements. Pretty pathetic any way you look at it.

No merger, no IAM absent the wage adjustment you would be at the same place. The LUS membership has been the primary beneficiary here no question about it.

Josh

why do you even give a chit considering you don't even work here? Did your parents get screwed in your mind in the TWA deal? I doubt anyone here gives two chits about your personal vendetta against the IAM.
I'm no fan boy of either IAM or TWU but then I,m not on here like a petulant child who got his video games taken from him, just go away

 

[737823]

Different situations.

The premise that we'd have a JCBA if it was simply the TWU in negotiations is just flawed.

The Association has done a horrendous job in setting the proper expectation when these negotiations began and have not kept the Members up to date with the challenges that are being faced within the negotiations and in trying to reconcile two CBA's with very different language. The length of these negotiations is mostly due to the complexities which the negotiators needed to analyze and debate.

The error in this process was that the two sides didn't get together to reconcile and debate their positions before the Association was certified by the NMB. That is where time was wasted, at the moment, the last thing any of us should want is a quick resolution for the sake of having a resolution.

I have a feeling once the JCBA comes back, these pages will be filled with calls and chants of sending it back to the table.

Why can't the IAM man up, grow a set, and step aside? The TWU did the honorable thing in 2006 at USAIR, now it should be the IAM's turn.

Besides the IAM can go organize more United Ground Service and McGee low cost low wage outfits to whipsaw their members at the parent airlines.

Josh

 

[NYer]

NYer you are correct . My ??? is to the TWU evangelists. Do you really believe that the TWU has FS Members in their best interests or M/R ? Do you believe that if there was an NMB election and TWU won something would have changed ? Do you believe that the TWU is in better financial shape then the IAMAW ? Do you believe that with less then 6% of private sector Workers in America having CBA's that the TWU won't need to amalgamate with another AFL-CIO Union ?
COVFEFE On !

Do you really believe that the TWU has FS Members in their best interests or M/R ? Yes

Do you believe that if there was an NMB election and TWU won something would have changed? Yes, I believe we'd be in worse position.

Do you believe that the TWU is in better financial shape then the IAMAW ? If you mean as an organization, no I do not.

Do you believe that with less then 6% of private sector Workers in America having CBA's that the TWU won't need to amalgamate with another AFL-CIO Union ? The more that unions work together and pool their resources, especially in the same industries, the better position we'd be to combat corporate america. That doesn't seem to be a popular idea though.

 

[NYer]

Why can't the IAM man up, grow a set, and step aside? The TWU did the honorable thing in 2006 at USAIR, now it should be the IAM's turn.

Besides the IAM can go organize more United Ground Service and McGee low cost low wage outfits to whipsaw their members at the parent airlines.

Josh

Don't believe the members of the IAM feels the same as they could lose their medical and pension if they came under the TWU. I don't believe if the shoe was on the other foot that TWU Members would have the same sentiments as they do since they are the bigger group.

 

[Albert]

I go to the IAM 141 not IAM 142 site. Tim H hasn't been up in the terminal for ages so I wasn't able to ask.

Point still stands, why is the IAM still around on the AA property PERIOD? Why did the IAM run away from the mess of TWA and ended the careers of thousands of their own "brothers and sisters" leaving AA/TWU with the mess of TWA? The TWU ultimately manned up and stepped aside after HP/US why can't the IAM do the same? Bob has asked this repeatedly. In 2001 the IAM was in a much stronger position both as a union and within the airline industry. They've continued on a downward spiral ever since.

If the TWU had any balls they would have laughed off this lame desperation move to remain on the property collecting dues and the LUS membership would be integrated under the AA TWU agreement absent sufficient showing of interest and a subsequent representational election.

Which btw as other workgroups are three going on four years into their new agreement you guys still don't have a JCBA. You realize a year from today the standalone AA TWU agreement would be amendable? Sure you got the
interim wage adjustment and a few more work for LUS flying (and vice versa) but after the ink dries on this agreement and it gets implemented the other groups will be about to exchange openers on new agreements. Pretty pathetic any way you look at it.

No merger, no IAM absent the wage adjustment you would be at the same place. The LUS membership has been the primary beneficiary here no question about it.

Josh

Many agree with you it might be pathetic and a zillion other adjectives but its all water under the bridge. It is what it is, now we must deal with it

 

[bob@las-AA]

The latest flight threshold for LAA has come out.

Currently, the number of annual departures needed to keep a station open is 5475.

SAT = 4341
SJU = 4361
TPA = 5138
ATL = 5274
STL = 5532

These stations are being protected today by an LOA that holds to 2555 annual departures until September 12, 2018.

Checking the numbers, and just as I suspected, non of it fits.

From the first two quarters in 2017 and the last two quarters in 2016, I get the following.


..........2017....2016.....Total Yearly
SAT.....2896....2612.....5508
SJU....3204....2934.....6138
TPA....5948....5895...11844
ATL.....6354....6502...12856
STL....3955.....4142....8097

You or the TWU have some explaining to do, none of the station listed looks in jeopardy of falling below scope. What gives?

 

[WeAAsles]

Many agree with you it might be pathetic and a zillion other adjectives but its all water under the bridge. It is what it is, now we must deal with it

Some people on Forums beat the horse to death too many times to count, ran it over until even the stain of its body could barely be seen, and pound the newly laid asphalt on top of where it once lied.

 

[Jester]

Checking the numbers, and just as I suspected, non of it fits.

From the first two quarters in 2017 and the last two quarters in 2016, I get the following.


..........2017....2016.....Total Yearly
SAT.....2896....2612.....5508
SJU....3204....2934.....6138
TPA....5948....5895...11844
ATL.....6354....6502...12856
STL....3955.....4142....8097

You or the TWU have some explaining to do, none of the station listed looks in jeopardy of falling below scope. What gives?

I wish I knew how to get your information, but just looking at ATL with a Total Yearly of 12856/365 = 35.22 daily main line flights? As the TWU agreement covers only AA mainline metal, that strikes me as extremely high number of flights.

I am just wondering if you are including US metal and some regional flying.

 

[Albert]

Checking the numbers, and just as I suspected, non of it fits.

From the first two quarters in 2017 and the last two quarters in 2016, I get the following.


..........2017....2016.....Total Yearly
SAT.....2896....2612.....5508
SJU....3204....2934.....6138
TPA....5948....5895...11844
ATL.....6354....6502...12856
STL....3955.....4142....8097

You or the TWU have some explaining to do, none of the station listed looks in jeopardy of falling below scope. What gives?

Bob don't pull your hair out doubt they will close any Stations.Do you think they would layoff LAA people pay them severance or maybe even moving expenses only to turn around and hire for LUS off the street?

 

[Jester]

Bob don't pull your hair out doubt they will close any Stations.Do you think they would layoff LAA people pay them severance or maybe even moving expenses only to turn around and hire for LUS off the street?

I could see something like that happening... I am hearing there are some serious efficiency problems where a station has both TWU and IAM and the work groups cannot work together. So simple solution would be just have one group handle the station by either furloughing one or having one being handled as a preferential hire in a "temporary" position until a JCBA has been approved.

 

[bob@las-AA]

I wish I knew how to get your information, but just looking at ATL with a Total Yearly of 12856/365 = 35.22 daily main line flights? As the TWU agreement covers only AA mainline metal, that strikes me as extremely high number of flights.

I am just wondering if you are including US metal and some regional flying.

I get it from the DOT

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ONTIME/Index.aspx

All numbers are from mainline only, through the x-utilize agreement, your ships are ours and ours is yours, you don't think just because a particular station staffed with LAA that has mostly LUS planes can only remain staffed if they only receive LAA planes? As of today I heard of no such agreement.

 

[Albert]

I could see something like that happening... I am hearing there are some serious efficiency problems where a station has both TWU and IAM and the work groups cannot work together. So simple solution would be just have one group handle the station by either furloughing one or having one being handled as a preferential hire in a "temporary" position until a JCBA has been approved.

I think there might be something in that interim agreement that prevents that Of course I'm too lazy to look

 

[bob@las-AA]

I could see something like that happening... I am hearing there are some serious efficiency problems where a station has both TWU and IAM and the work groups cannot work together. So simple solution would be just have one group handle the station by either furloughing one or having one being handled as a preferential hire in a "temporary" position until a JCBA has been approved.

Did I just read this!, So how would you divide the station booty up in a fair and equitable manner, LAS has more TWU clerks than LUS, are you going to ask LUS to vacate? These "serious efficiency problems" you speak of, please enlighten me.