JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

Your position on Scope and Medical is "Duly Noted" Brother.


Your position is duly noted.

Not all TWU members and certainly not the ones that matter (The Negotiators) share their position.

That needs to start getting through to you guys.

 

[AANOTOK]

Your position on Scope and Medical is "Duly Noted" Brother.


Your position is duly noted.

What's my position ograc, do tell. I can promise you, you don't know it.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim although this is a UAL issue or conversation just because I’m sick of you/Josh badgering this nonsense here in this thread, let’s see if we can put a lid on it once and for all (here)

Note the last sentence in LOA 9 and then note the actual language of Stations. Please inform if you are still confused?

View attachment 12163 View attachment 12164

Not confused.

As far as LOA #9, it is an understanding of the commitment for all work in article 2. Period. And that commitment only last till 2024. Period.

However, article 2 has provisions for how management is suppose to contract out work, if it desires. First, it has to allow the IAM to bid on work. The reality is that the IAM will be bidding against the IAM and racing to the bottom between mainline or UGE.

Those Article 2 provisions also offer protections for no layoff of members with 2006 or earlier seniority insomuch that they will be offered a job somewhere else in the system.

Not sure what you don't understand as LOA 9 is pretty clear that Aricle 2 is an understanding that such committment, of not contracting out, is good until 2024.

I think you are losing it bro. Maybe pick up an Alaska Airline contract which had similar provisions. Can't compete against Menzies or UGE, so we can almost certainly say they will all be gone unless they race to the bottom and beat UGE.

This reminds me of your stupid interpretation of the "Full Time commitment" letter at United. I took alot of heat for that one but correctly understood language and told people that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Now, thousands of part timers later..... But of course, people would rather believe a convieneint lie where those stand in a very long line.

At any rate, I can't stop you from your stupid interepretations but the conversation is exhausted since it's a matter of academics.

 

[swamt]

Not confused.

As far as LOA #9, it is an understanding of the commitment for all work in article 2. Period. And that commitment only last till 2024. Period.

However, article 2 has provisions for how management is suppose to contract out work, if it desires. First, it has to allow the IAM to bid on work. The reality is that the IAM will be bidding against the IAM and racing to the bottom between mainline or UGE.

Those Article 2 provisions also offer protections for no layoff of members with 2006 or earlier seniority insomuch that they will be offered a job somewhere else in the system.

Not sure what you don't understand as LOA 9 is pretty clear that Aricle 2 is an understanding that such committment, of not contracting out, is good until 2024.

I think you are losing it bro. Maybe pick up an Alaska Airline contract which had similar provisions. Can't compete against Menzies or UGE, so we can almost certainly say they will all be gone unless they race to the bottom and beat UGE.

This reminds me of your stupid interpretation of the "Full Time commitment" letter at United. I took alot of heat for that one but correctly understood language and told people that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Now, thousands of part timers later..... But of course, people would rather believe a convieneint lie where those stand in a very long line.

At any rate, I can't stop you from your stupid interepretations but the conversation is exhausted since it's a matter of academics.

That's just sad that a union has to bid against another union in order to win a bid. C"mon man...

 

[anotherdelay]

That's just sad that a union has to bid against another union in order to win a bid. C"mon man...[

and nelson runs interference with the iam medical smokescreen. i don't know, going to be interesting what happens with the face to face between sito and peterson this month. yes the association needs to be ended. f you trunka.

 

[WeAAsles]

Not confused.

As far as LOA #9, it is an understanding of the commitment for all work in article 2. Period. And that commitment only last till 2024. Period.

However, article 2 has provisions for how management is suppose to contract out work, if it desires. First, it has to allow the IAM to bid on work. The reality is that the IAM will be bidding against the IAM and racing to the bottom between mainline or UGE.

Those Article 2 provisions also offer protections for no layoff of members with 2006 or earlier seniority insomuch that they will be offered a job somewhere else in the system.

Not sure what you don't understand as LOA 9 is pretty clear that Aricle 2 is an understanding that such committment, of not contracting out, is good until 2024.

I think you are losing it bro. Maybe pick up an Alaska Airline contract which had similar provisions. Can't compete against Menzies or UGE, so we can almost certainly say they will all be gone unless they race to the bottom and beat UGE.

This reminds me of your stupid interpretation of the "Full Time commitment" letter at United. I took alot of heat for that one but correctly understood language and told people that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Now, thousands of part timers later..... But of course, people would rather believe a convieneint lie where those stand in a very long line.

At any rate, I can't stop you from your stupid interepretations but the conversation is exhausted since it's a matter of academics.

Nice try at spin Tim.

There simply IS NOT language in that Contract that provides ammunition for UAL Management to contract out ALL Ramp work in ALL locations as you’ve stated.

Of the Stations that could be on the chopping block if UAL gets that far in 2024, those Stations were originally doomed this year 2017 instead and were salvaged by the incoming Munoz over the slimebag Smisek.

And the conversation was exhausted as you say because you were simply WRONG!!!!

 

[737823]

Nice try at spin Tim.

There simply IS NOT language in that Contract that provides ammunition for UAL Management to contract out ALL Ramp work in ALL locations as you’ve stated.

Of the Stations that could be on the chopping block if UAL gets that far in 2024, those Stations were originally doomed this year 2017 instead and were salvaged by the incoming Munoz over the slimebag Smisek.

And the conversation was exhausted as you say because you were simply WRONG!!!!

Weez you are a very astute guy, but have you ever been a union rep in any capacity?

Tim has on multiple occasions, worked directly for DL 141, spent many years at ORD and is far more familiar with the UA agreements and their history than you are.

You say you aren’t a people person so why did you try running for office?

You also say you don’t want to discuss Unites but keep engaging in this discussion.

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

Weez you are a very astute guy, but have you ever been a union rep in any capacity?

Tim has on multiple occasions, worked directly for DL 141, spent many years at ORD and is far more familiar with the UA agreements and their history than you are.

You say you aren’t a people person so why did you try running for office?

You also say you don’t want to discuss Unites but keep engaging in this discussion.

Josh

He never refuted the actual interpretation of the language as provided.

And the language in the LOA was actually child play simplistic to understand.

Spinning words doesn’t negate fact. And the rest of what you wrote is inconsequential.

 

[737823]

And the rest of what you wrote is inconsequential.

Nice way of saying you’re backed into a corner and don’t want to answer and acknowledge.

Josh

 

[psa8979]

Nice way of saying you’re backed into a corner and don’t want to answer and acknowledge.

Josh

 

[psa8979]

AA FS Forum has become a 3 Stooge discussion . CHEERS !

 

[B737 driver]

Weez you are a very astute guy, but have you ever been a union rep in any capacity?

Tim has on multiple occasions, worked directly for DL 141, spent many years at ORD and is far more familiar with the UA agreements and their history than you are.

You say you aren’t a people person so why did you try running for office?

You also say you don’t want to discuss Unites but keep engaging in this discussion.

Josh

So what protections are in place at United for these stations, and Weezz do you guys have the same language at American?

 

[WeAAsles]

AA FS Forum has become a 3 Stooge discussion . CHEERS !

Agree 100%. So “who” should be the stooge to back off then?

I’d much much much more prefer to talk about the language of Contracts and actual happenings rather than all the Bull Chit personally.

How can I do that?

 

[WeAAsles]

So what protections are in place at United for these stations, and Weezz do you guys have the same language at American?

Thank you driver. The man wants to talk LANGUAGE.

At UAL they have no protection for the unlisted Stations that were not specifically written in Article 2 of their CBA. On Stations not mentioned yes they are on the chopping block if an agreement to save them is not done prior to 2024. But they could have been chopped this year anyway without the extension.

Right now there are two sets of language for Fleet staffing. One is on the IAM side which is one mainline flight per day until a JCBA is reached and the TWU has BK language for closure on annual flight departures.

 

[WeAAsles]

Nice way of saying you’re backed into a corner and don’t want to answer and acknowledge.

Josh

It’s NOT about Me, You, Tim or any other reject that comes here to this platform.

“Don’t let the facts get in your way”

Or hit you over the head. Stop being a Stooge.