local 514 video

[paul1]

www.twu514.org has posted there own yes vote video. hewitt . How can that guy even look at the camera. says all early out to be honored, video pissed me off. raises what fricken raise 1.5% get real . profit sharing bs.

let them get rid of the contract, start over and get a consensual agreement 9yrs to long.

vote no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[paul1]

we shouldn't even be voting on these lbo. They should have got a consensual agreement to vote on!!

 

[TWU informer]

www.twu514.org has posted there own yes vote video. hewitt . How can that guy even look at the camera. says all early out to be honored, video pissed me off. raises what fricken raise 1.5% get real . profit sharing bs.

let them get rid of the contract, start over and get a consensual agreement 9yrs to long.

vote no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is really simple, Hewitt has a 1990 seniority and no A&P license. He stands to be bumped to OSM pay if this fails because he cannot bump to the line.

Him along with nearly 50% of the 514 E-Board will lose either pay or their job.

His counterpart Rick Mullings who is asking the questions is Title 2 also going to lose his job.

Talk about personal agendas, they both know about that very well. Was he speaking to the clock on the wall or to you the member?

This is why the FEAR and Cowardice Leadership.

Hewitt looks so stiff as if he is scared straight or about to crap in his pants.

 

[Tex-Mech]

He has to read a script. Tells you how much he has no clue what is in the offer. I wonder who wrote the script?

 

[Buster CRC]

Here is a question I asked on the local 514 website on the Q and A article Friday

This really seems biased toward voting yes. When I first read the March term sheet it published that there would be 1.5% raises but when we got the side by side in the mail the raises didn’t exist what happened? and secondly why haven’t we heard any thing from our local President? why is it always Hewitt on the new?
Al Ball
May 11 - 11:09 am Buster, This comes from Jason Best:

On both the February and March 22nd term sheet, profit sharing, gain sharing, pay raises, early out packages, and 401k match all had asterisks next to them. On the first page of the term sheet under objective it states the following, “Items marked with and asterisk (*) in this term sheet are contingent upon a consensual collective bargaining agreement, i.e. they will become effective as described only upon the effective date of a new collective bargaining agreement between American and the Transport Workers Union.
If the LBO is voted down (a NO vote), we do not have a consensual agreement, and the company is not obligated to give us any of the above as written in their terms. If the judge abrogates our contract, we no longer have a contract at all.
The only way to guarantee the above item under their terms is if the LBO is voted in (a YES vote).

 

[devil505]

I think he crapped his pants.


what a couple of cowards.

 

[paul1]

there is a reason the pilots and f/a are not even talking right now!! 9yrs plus 6yrs = 15 yrs of give back. I cann't even afford to buy my mom some mother days flowers for tomorrow. how sad is that

 

[Tex-Mech]

Nice how he completely leaves out the 1113c negotiations that have not even taken place yet. What an idiot..how the heck did he get elected? Completely clueless about the process.

 

[1AA]

I watched the video. He looks like a talking stiff at a funeral home. He keeps staring into space when he speaks. If this is the best he can do and guys believe him and vote YES then are we in a world of shiit!!!

Just read the full text at least whats left of it and watch the videos from the line presidents. This will enlighten you to the truth as to how we are getting royally screwed.

L.B.O.= Lets Bend Over

Lets NOT and vote NO!!

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Typical response

John is great to point out only what he wants out of the term sheets and not all of it! That is a disgrace in itself to mislead his people with only part of the story. How can your members make a decision if you don't explain it all to them. John was there in negotiations the whole time and does not share the intent of all the language only says read it. What a great leader to dump it on his members to figure it all out.

if what John says is true then why isn't it spelled out in the tem sheet, he says the company has committed to...........
promises again, how many promises has the company lived up to?
2003 we were promised early out and 1 person actually got it !
2003 we were promised to save jobs, we are 4000 less today
2005 we were assured section 6 full openers, ask for it all back
2003 MCI would not close

One final thing Mr. Hewit

explain on your video how giving away system protection saves jobs?

 

[Bob Owens]

From the term sheet

Modify Article 1 and all other applicable sections and Attachments to the Agreement and all other LOA’s related to this provision to permit outsourcing of up to 35% of aircraft-related maintenance work currently done in house.

From the full text proposal;

The Company may contract out up to 35% of the total aircraft-related maintenance work covered by this Agreement.

He said that the company can only contract out 35% of man hours. Thats incorrect. its 35% above current levels, and currently they outsource around 10%, plus the company said if Taesl goes away that would add another 10%. So the total man hours they could outsource would be 45% if the keep Taesl, 55% if they dont. Then there is this little clause they snuck in:

The percentage set forth in paragraph (e) above may be exceeded in the event: (i) the Company’s then-present employees do not have the normal time and/or skills to perform the work (provided that the manpower shortage is not a result of the Company’s failure to reasonably anticipate and address its headcount requirements); or (ii) the Company’s equipment or facilities are insufficient or are being fully utilized at the time the Company contracts out the work;

And this:

Man hours associated with rework will be included in the calculation, unless that rework involves work that is excluded from the calculation. Excluded from both the numerator and denominator shall be: (i) aircraft-related maintenance work that was contracted out within the 12-month period preceding the effective date of this Agreement; (ii) aircraft-related maintenance work customarily outsourced (e.g., warranty work); and (iii) the man-hours associated with the transitional expense of the disposition of engines, components and aircraft.

 

[Buck]

Could a few of you listen to the video and at 7:00+ did Hewitt say no AMT would be forced to OSM?

 

[aapitbull]

Could a few of you listen to the video and at 7:00+ did Hewitt say no AMT would be forced to OSM?

That is what he says but what he really means is if no one decides to bump OSM it is your choice bump OSM or go to the street you want be forced.

 

[Buck]

That is what he says but what he really means is if no one decides to bump OSM it is your choice bump OSM or go to the street you want be forced.

Thanks, even after all these years the TWU pulled a trick out of their hat.
With trickery like that I might change my vote to yes.

 

[Bob Owens]

Future work.
During the talks we tried to get the company to committ to whatever the APA flies for AMR we work on, they refused, only saying that we would work on planes that operate under the American Airlines Certificate.

For those who were here under the Crandall days he used to talk of a day where AA did primarily long haul flights, major hub to hub cities and International.

One of the reasons why we on the line feel we should not strike a deal untill the pilots do is what if the company plans to put the A-320s into the Eagle fleet and strikes a deal with the APA to do the flying? They could do the same with the FAs as well. For the Unions they gain members, the Eagle pilots would welcome the deal to be on track to getting that left seat in a 777. The TWU already has both AE and AA so while they may lose members at AA they would gain members at Eagle. But for us, we would not be entitled to the work. Not on the line, not in OH. With the widebodies outsourced we would basically only have a 737 fleet domestically. The language is already in place in the proposal to make DWH any location in DFW. With the pilot shortage increasing, competition from emerging nations and China for US Pilots, the end of the 5 year bump in supply they enjoyed by raising the mandatory retirement age, plummeting rates of licensing and the possiblity of increased regulation of pilot duty times by the FAA, the airlines are going to have to maximize their use of pilots towards revenue generating. Flying 737s to Tulsa may not be considered a good deal no matter how cheaply they get it if they can get a similar deal from DFW. In DFW they can use maintenance to drag a 737 from a revenue trip (that actually makes money) to the hangar for a heavy check. This would not only save fuel and landing fees it would maximize pilot usage towards revenue generating flying.

With the retirements of MD-80s and 757s,the 35% (55%) cap, No system protection, elimination of the CR Smith letter on contracting out and ASM cap on eagle flying, widebodies outsouced to Asia or South America (weren't we always criticizing AMFA for allowing aircraft to be outsourced overseas in exchange for higher pay rates? We are allowing it in exchange for the lowest pay rate!!) we could end up with a drastically reduced PIE from which that 55% number is calculated. We are giving the company the ability to reduce our numbers to less than Southwest. Some will say they can do that if they impose the term sheet as well, true but we could still fight it and they would have to do so within a short amount of time at a time where capacity is tight in the MRO world, wheras if we agree to this we are putting in place the language that would allow them to do it at their leisure over the next six years.


Nothing in this proposal saves jobs, there is the threat of 40% (60%) outsourcing vs 35%(55%) but the threat to jobs by eliminating the ASM language could be more devastating to AA mechanics than the outsourcing language and by eliminating system protection there is nothing in our agreement that would prevent AMR from transferring flying from American Airlines to Eagle. With the other two groups going forward whats to stop them from making a deal to do some of that Eagle flying? Why wouldnt they, after all we would have abandoned them by agreeing to this?

Crandall's dream of a much smaller AA that operates fewer aircraft, mainly on long haul flying, but sells a lot of tickets, may come to fruition. The Tulsa membership is like a herd of Buffalo being lead to the cliff. The lead Buffalo may believe they are leading the herd to safety by not confronting the threat but they are leading them over a cliff. Will they voluntarily jump off the cliff by voting yes, not realizing thats not the safe way until its too late, or vote no and stop, face and fight what they believe is threatening them? Do the Buffalo stand a better chance of fighting people in wolf-skins or that sudden stop at the bottom?