JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Albert]

On the LAA side, the OT language would have the FTers getting OT before a PTer can be extended even if covering a PT vacancy.

Gottcha

 

[WeAAsles]

 

[Albert]

View attachment 12076

November and December ha, at least now we can ask for 3% above UA

 

[AANOTOK]

View attachment 12076

What could the discussions about Seniority be. I thought those were settled.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Bob I'm beginning to think to think you get a little too wrapped up in your numbers?

Are you forgetting that some people have retired and died since the Lawsuit was first filed? They and their designated beneficiaries are still entitled to funds.

In the letter it said 23000, the numbers from the distribution years ago, 202324, that’s a significant jump don’t you think.

 

[WeAAsles]

In the letter it said 23000, the numbers from the distribution years ago, 202324, that’s a significant jump don’t you think.

Bob he probably wrote the letter off the top of his head.

Holy Moly. Jeez Louise. Oy Vea. Etc.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Bob he probably wrote the letter off the top of his head.

Holy Moly. Jeez Louise. Oy Vea. Etc.

Just the same I think I will author a e-mail, this is real money we’re talking about weez, not Monopoly money.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

What could the discussions about Seniority be. I thought those were settled.

could be bidding vacation...still a handful of laa with more company than occupational time.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

Just the same I think I will author a e-mail, this is real money we’re talking about weez, not Monopoly money.

i realize that the money and those eligible are fluid (money grows/those eligible may die)...but they know enough to put out an apprx. number to sate everyone's curiosity.

how can they not know? their lawyers didn't tell them what they were getting paid for and what they were fighting for??

 

[WeAAsles]

Just the same I think I will author a e-mail, this is real money we’re talking about weez, not Monopoly money.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Talos]

I just do not understand the LAA folks and their Stockholm Syndrome with the LAA insurance? Bob posted the numbers. And if all you guys have is an 80/20 plan, either standard or value, you could get the LUS 90/10 plan and still get a little money in your check with better coverage. Why wouldn't the LAA people want that? Thanks Bob for posting a comparison.

Everyone would like cheaper insurance. A lot has been said about how the LUS people have kept their insurance and gotten the raises. Good for them and I'll leave it at that. This mgmt group has not handled the LAA people in a similar manner. Leaving us with 5 holidays and lower holiday pay stinks. I understand they had no obligation but it shows where they are coming from. I doubt very much this mgmt team wants to keep LUS medical and has shown they don't with the other work groups. The NC would of course know much better than I. A friend here told me that an elected union rep told him the company asked for over 1000 PTimers in DFW and the union told them to take a hike with that. Getting an industry leading deal is a rough enough with the 2 different groups, but this mgmt team who talks about never losing money come off as greedy misers make it worse. Glad the LUS people have a nice deal, but it's not the LAA people who don't want a better health deal, it's the mgmt wanting it.

I just do not understand the LAA folks and their Stockholm Syndrome with the LAA insurance? Bob posted the numbers. And if all you guys have is an 80/20 plan, either standard or value, you could get the LUS 90/10 plan and still get a little money in your check with better coverage. Why wouldn't the LAA people want that? Thanks Bob for posting a comparison.

 

[pjirish317]

Everyone would like cheaper insurance. A lot has been said about how the LUS people have kept their insurance and gotten the raises. Good for them and I'll leave it at that. This mgmt group has not handled the LAA people in a similar manner. Leaving us with 5 holidays and lower holiday pay stinks. I understand they had no obligation but it shows where they are coming from. I doubt very much this mgmt team wants to keep LUS medical and has shown they don't with the other work groups. The NC would of course know much better than I. A friend here told me that an elected union rep told him the company asked for over 1000 PTimers in DFW and the union told them to take a hike with that. Getting an industry leading deal is a rough enough with the 2 different groups, but this mgmt team who talks about never losing money come off as greedy misers make it worse. Glad the LUS people have a nice deal, but it's not the LAA people who don't want a better health deal, it's the mgmt wanting it.

Talos,

You hit the nail square on the head here. This management group still has the low cost America West mentality. Take from the workers, and give to the top execs and shareholders. They could have at least brought you guys up to our holidays, at 7, and our holiday pay, like they gave the pilots and f/a's huge raises and other incentives outside of collective bargaining, but they did not. Why is that? Just because management wants it doesn't mean they will or should get it. With LAA folks like the Weez and even NYer conceding that we will (most likely) have the LAA insurance because everybody else has it, and management wants us to give it up, it just boggles my mind as to why that is. The LUS insurance plans are absolutely better plans.

 

[WeAAsles]

Talos,

You hit the nail square on the head here. This management group still has the low cost America West mentality. Take from the workers, and give to the top execs and shareholders. They could have at least brought you guys up to our holidays, at 7, and our holiday pay, like they gave the pilots and f/a's huge raises and other incentives outside of collective bargaining, but they did not. Why is that? Just because management wants it doesn't mean they will or should get it. With LAA folks like the Weez and even NYer conceding that we will (most likely) have the LAA insurance because everybody else has it, and management wants us to give it up, it just boggles my mind as to why that is. The LUS insurance plans are absolutely better plans.

First of all when did I say what you will most likely (PAY) when it comes to Medical Insurance? I did just say that I get the feeling that it's already a done deal now though?

I think frankly many of you guys are obsessed on the issue though. With your Holidays if you're topped out you're going to go up to around $70,000 per year (Without working any extra hours) I'm not so sure in that area at least it's the Company I can call greedy?

And your "better plans" want me to FCK people I know and work with to either get or you to keep. Sorry Irish, you need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a better solution if you want my vote or support.

 

[Albert]

First of all when did I say what you will most likely (PAY) when it comes to Medical Insurance? I did just say that I get the feeling that it's already a done deal now though?

I think frankly many of you guys are obsessed on the issue though. With your Holidays if you're topped out you're going to go up to around $70,000 per year (Without working any extra hours) I'm not so sure in that area at least it's the Company I can call greedy?

And your "better plans" want me to FCK people I know and work with to either get or you to keep. Sorry Irish, you need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a better solution if you want my vote or support.

???????? 30.81x40 = x52 =$64,084 holiday 30.81x8=x7=$1,725 $64,084 + $1,725 =65,809 taint no wheres near 70G, let Bob do the math from now on

 

[Jester]

That integrated Seniority list is searchable on the Association website.

Edit: http://www.usaamerger.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fleet-1.pdf

I had a hard time opening the pdf on my mobile device; however, I found a hard copy at work. The 11-year point when AA topped-out in pay was at the 2/3's mark on the combined list, which is far below the 80% I suspected, but clearly a majority. The AA list from 5 years ago reflected the aftermath of bankruptcy low seniority furloughs and did not include the lower seniority of a combined US agents, not to mention, the recent surge of new hires.

The point I was making would still be valid insofar that having everyone at full-time and completely eliminate part-time would be an expensive proposition for the Company as a sizable number would be around the $30/hour mark. Even at "just" $20/hour average it would still be expensive. Also consider that if everyone was placed as full-time, that would eliminate the very bottom of low cost part-timers.