June - IAM Fleet Service Discussion

[mike33]

As to IAH: I just looked up this year's flights for two weeks, one in June and one in Oct. Unless IAH goes mainline to stations besides the hubs the numbers are 102/wk in june and 84/wk in Oct. So If half the year is summer sced and the other halk is winter sced( as in Oct) the average is 97 flts/wk. So its very close. I dont know last years numbers( They are calculated, per contract, Apr 5 to Apr 5) So if last years are under we wait till Apr 5 2013.

Last years numbers were monitored. " Finger on the Pulse" says, 4489 ML avg 86.3 per week 4/5/11 thru 4/4/12........they are on it!

 

[The Bagfather]

I did a crude survey of AA flts out of IAH Its about 120 mainline and a few more American Eagle. Anyway the implications of a merger are huge for US FS. A few questions: How does the agreement TWU made with AMR affect thier scope in regards to outsourcing? Would Parkers agreement about protecting AA FS scope apply if they came into the IAM? The variations with a merger are really mind boggling. I hate to sound like a I'm making a campaign statement but we really do need a solid group of leaders coming into this.
Thanks BF

 

[700UW]

http://www.twubkfacts.org/Portals/39/usair/USAirFleetSheet.pdf

Scope. Article 1(c) of the Fleet Service CBA governing station staffing shall not be modified as set forth in Section 111.1 of the Fleet Service 1113 Proposal, but shall remain the same. This modification to the Fleet Service 1113 Proposal means that the following 30 stations that would be outsourced under the Fleet Service 1113 Proposal shall not be outsourced: (1) ABQ; (2) ATL; (3) BDL; (4) BNA; (5) BWI; (6) DEN; (7) DTW; (8) ELP; (9) EWR; (10) FLL; (11) HNL; (12) IAD; (13) IAH; (14) IND; (15) MCI; (16) MEM; (17) MSP; (18) MSY; (19) PHL; (20) PHX; (21) RDU; (22) SAN; (23) SAT; (24) SEA; (25) SJC; (26) SJU; (27) SNA; (28) TPA; (29) TUL; and (30) TUS. The parties estimate that this modification will prevent an employee headcount reduction of approximately 1,390 TWU-represented employees that would otherwise result from implementation of the Fleet Service 1113 Proposal. The parties agree and understand that, on the Closing Date, the number of stations and employees impacted by this modification could be different than as listed herein, and shall be determined by applying the same standard in Article l(c) of the Fleet Service CBA governing station staffing. The parties shall meet and confer to determine the exact number of stations and employees impacted at the Closing Date.

 

[mike33]

I did a crude survey of AA flts out of IAH Its about 120 mainline and a few more American Eagle. Anyway the implications of a merger are huge for US FS. A few questions: How does the agreement TWU made with AMR affect thier scope in regards to outsourcing? Would Parkers agreement about protecting AA FS scope apply if they came into the IAM? The variations with a merger are really mind boggling. I hate to sound like a I'm making a campaign statement but we really do need a solid group of leaders coming into this.
Thanks BF

Too many variables BF. You can be sure the current leadership is looking at everything. Hence the improvement in scope they are seeking. Both unions are AFL-CIO so we may split the workforce. Hence another negotiating problem to look at if there were some sort of TA agreement to implement. We are at a big turning point if this Merger were to occur. I will include the election this month as one of those turning points as this is the team that is in direct face to face negotiating with this company. Think About That !

 

[ograc]

Too many variables BF. You can be sure the current leadership is looking at everything. Hence the improvement in scope they are seeking. Both unions are AFL-CIO so we may split the workforce. Hence another negotiating problem to look at if there were some sort of TA agreement to implement. We are at a big turning point if this Merger were to occur. I will include the election this month as one of those turning points as this is the team that is in direct face to face negotiating with this company. Think About That !

mmike 33,
with all due respect the company is not sharing their agenda with the current negotiating team on the US side regarding their plans with the AA merger proposal. That is why the negotiating committee left negotiations last month. Imo... based on the posture of the company in current negotiations a change in leadership would be seamless. The company will not bargain in "good faith" until their agenda of a merger is either fullfilled or rejected. This posture of the company will not change, regardless of of the leadership in place. I do not doubt the current leadership team is attempting to negotiate in good faith, however, negotiations in good faith requires the participation of both parties. That is not the case with US Fleet contract negotiations.
ograc

 

[mike33]

mmike 33,
with all due respect the company is not sharing their agenda with the current negotiating team on the US side regarding their plans with the AA merger proposal. That is why the negotiating committee left negotiations last month. Imo... based on the posture of the company in current negotiations a change in leadership would be seamless. The company will not bargain in "good faith" until their agenda of a merger is either fullfilled or rejected. This posture of the company will not change, regardless of of the leadership in place. I do not doubt the current leadership team is attempting to negotiate in good faith, however, negotiations in good faith requires the participation of both parties. That is not the case with US Fleet contract negotiations.
ograc

Do you studder when you type my name?...it's 1 (m) and as far as sharing anything ? Hummm I don't see that in my post but since you mentioned it its call " Being prepared " and we will always disagree in a " seamless " transition of who we have compared to the other 2 slates in the election. I don't blame you for thinking it will be seamless. After all you have to believe in yourself to get Elected and Serve.

And BTW they left the table because the company wanted to talk about things other than the LOA re scope ! Is that not true?

 

[pjirish317]

mmike 33,
with all due respect the company is not sharing their agenda with the current negotiating team on the US side regarding their plans with the AA merger proposal. That is why the negotiating committee left negotiations last month. Imo... based on the posture of the company in current negotiations a change in leadership would be seamless. The company will not bargain in "good faith" until their agenda of a merger is either fullfilled or rejected. This posture of the company will not change, regardless of of the leadership in place. I do not doubt the current leadership team is attempting to negotiate in good faith, however, negotiations in good faith requires the participation of both parties. That is not the case with US Fleet contract negotiations.
ograc

So in essence you are saying two things here. 1, that you think the current negotiating team could do better, and your ticket could get the company to "sing" to you guys, and 2, that the LfP ticket would replace some if not all of the negotiators? IMO, of course,

 

[ograc]

Do you studder when you type my name?...it's 1 (m) and as far as sharing anything ? Hummm I don't see that in my post but since you mentioned it its call " Being prepared " and we will always disagree in a " seamless " transition of who we have compared to the other 2 slates in the election. I don't blame you for thinking it will be seamless. After all you have to believe in yourself to get Elected and Serve.

And BTW they left the table because the company wanted to talk about things other than the LOA re scope ! Is that not true?

mike33,
It is my understanding... from a reliable source they left the table for two reasons. One, the company was not interested in signing the LOA pertaining to scope. Two, the company refused to share, with the negotiating committee, the term sheet presented to the AA Twu members at AA. I don't blame them for walking... I would have done the same. My point is, regardless of what leadership team is in place, the company's posture will remain the same. To insinuate endorsing one team over another will change this posture or outcome is a misleading campaign statement. I'm not stuttering. Respectfully, you too have to believe in yourself to get elected and ultimately serve.
ograc

 

[ograc]

So in essence you are saying two things here. 1, that you think the current negotiating team could do better, and your ticket could get the company to "sing" to you guys, and 2, that the LfP ticket would replace some if not all of the negotiators? IMO, of course,

pj,
Wrong comprehension again. I invite you to re read my post without prejudice, political spinning and clouded judgement.
ograc

 

[mike33]

I would definitely urge each and everyone to log into wings and listen to DP's Overview and Update video. He makes some compelling points and kinda answers the Question of everyone sharing in the upside that is created in this merger if it happens.

 

[roabilly]

mmike 33,
with all due respect the company is not sharing their agenda with the current negotiating team on the US side regarding their plans with the AA merger proposal. That is why the negotiating committee left negotiations last month. Imo... based on the posture of the company in current negotiations a change in leadership would be seamless. The company will not bargain in "good faith" until their agenda of a merger is either fullfilled or rejected. This posture of the company will not change, regardless of of the leadership in place. I do not doubt the current leadership team is attempting to negotiate in good faith, however, negotiations in good faith requires the participation of both parties. That is not the case with US Fleet contract negotiations.
ograc

Cargo,

You are starting to sound a lot like Tim! Let’s review your perspective...

1) Your assertion that the current team is in a stalemate is wrong... I just received updates from the CLT G/C chair, and negotiations went very well this week! Negotiations are moving forward on a positive note, and seniority protection has... and WILL be addressed!

2) Your assertion that changing leadership in the middle of these talks would be “seamless” is preposterous at best... and an outright lie at worst! You know full well that professional rapport is established over time as each side feels the other out... this can take weeks... or months! That’s not to even mention getting your new team up to speed on strategy and progress! And of course... all of this would hinge on your team being prepared academically!

3) Our current team is well entrenched in negotiations, and they are fully aware of the potential for immediate developments regarding future business plans and strategies. I’m more than confident that they will stay on task regardless of what direction the future takes!

The 141/R team is our best choice for this job in terms of experience, determination, and respect!

I’ll say this again... now is NOT the time to play politics!

VOTE 141 RISING!

 

[The Bagfather]

I would definitely urge each and everyone to log into wings and listen to DP's Overview and Update video. He makes some compelling points and kinda answers the Question of everyone sharing in the upside that is created in this merger if it happens.

I think Doug Parker needs to learn to relax.

 

[john john]

.. I just received updates from the CLT G/C chair, and negotiations went very well this week!

do tell

 

[mike33]

I think Doug Parker needs to learn to relax.

Don't get me wrong, im not a CEO fan, but those who relax end up watching TV on the couch and get left behind. Did you watch it?........it answers some of your questions from earlier posts.

 

[pjirish317]

pj,
Wrong comprehension again. I invite you to re read my post without prejudice, political spinning and clouded judgement.
ograc

If you would post what you really mean, instead of insinuating, maybe you could get your point across. But hey, to each theor own right. Because in your mind, you could do better right?