LUS/AA Below wing issues

[700UW]

Doesn't work that will, never was and never will.

No airline would ever agree to that.

 

[blue collar]

Ramp service seniority should start accruing from the very first day that you start working on the ramp. It doesn't matter what airline that you merged from. And that date should be used for all seniority purposes.

Agree. It should be that way with every classification. No full time/part time seniority, no lead (or inspector, etc.) seniority. It should be based on your first day in that occupation, that's it.

 

[Albert]

Agree. It should be that way with every classification. No full time/part time seniority, no lead (or inspector, etc.) seniority. It should be based on your first day in that occupation, that's it.

A p/t working 20 hours a week for 10 years jumping ahead of a f/t working  40 hours a week for nine I wouldn't have a problem with it but I could see how someone would.  Here is a debate a p/t paying double for insurance. I dont know how many p/t jobs pay 24.39 have medical and retirement and flight benefits

 

[WeAAsles]

Here is a debate a p/t paying double for insurance. I dont know how many p/t jobs pay 24.39 have medical and retirement and flight benefits

I don't personally know any PT jobs that compensate that well but what's the debate? Should they continue to pay double the medical and get half the retirement contributions like in the US contract for the collective group? Should they subsidize better pay and benefits for us who are FT with time?

Is this the debate?

 

[blue collar]

A p/t working 20 hours a week for 10 years jumping ahead of a f/t working  40 hours a week for nine I wouldn't have a problem with it but I could see how someone would.  Here is a debate a p/t paying double for insurance. I dont know how many p/t jobs pay 24.39 have medical and retirement and flight benefits

The argument of having a different seniority based on the hours worked is foolish. How about full timers who don't work their 40 but give 1/2 their shifts to part timers? Or part timers who work 60+ hours/week? I don't understand what your debate question is, but it doesn't seem right to me that part timers should be paying double for insurance. I know most companies do it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Albert]

I don't personally know any PT jobs that compensate that well but what's the debate? Should they continue to pay double the medical and get half the retirement contributions like in the US contract for the collective group? Should they subsidize better pay and benefits for us who are FT with time?

Is this the debate?

The LUS retirement is based on hours vested  so that seems fair. It is probably a moot point because the company and union will decide to go with the LAA medical  where PT pays the same.Maybe that is why the LAA plan is inferior,who knows? I guess im a dinosaur  when i hear P/T I think just that part time job not your bread winner. Like when I hear mininum wage I think 10 dollars an hour for some school kid. Here In NY they are raising the minimum to $15 for fast food workers that means a kid wiping down a table in the food court is making more than a guy out deicing a plane in 10 below

 

[Albert]

The argument of having a different seniority based on the hours worked is foolish. How about full timers who don't work their 40 but give 1/2 their shifts to part timers? Or part timers who work 60+ hours/week? I don't understand what your debate question is, but it doesn't seem right to me that part timers should be paying double for insurance. I know most companies do it, but that doesn't make it right.

You make a valid point but you also said "I know most companies do it" what a lot on the board forget is that AA is a comany too and must be competitive. Like asking for top wages of a competitor but not agreeing to the same work rules. If you owned a business would you agree with those terms?

 

[blue collar]

You make a valid point but you also said "I know most companies do it" what a lot on the board forget is that AA is a comany too and must be competitive. Like asking for top wages of a competitor but not agreeing to the same work rules. If you owned a business would you agree with those terms?

If I owned my own company I would set the terms that I felt were fair to myself and my employees, and it would include equal benefits to all, not based on part/full time.
I don't see how you advocate for your brothers/sisters who are part time should have to shoulder more healthcare, all while only being scheduled 20-30 hours/week.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't like the PT individual who will tell you "I'm only here for the benefits" On the other hand I don't like people who are stuck in a PT status and have to hustle to earn a living as this is their only job.

Hard to really have this debate because you can't seperate the individuals from the ideology of the PT job.

That debate is going to be up to our negotiators and when whatever it is, is sitting on my desk I'll make my decision from there?

(20 year FT AA who left LGA 2 years into my career to secure FT and a new life.)

 

[Albert]

I don't like the PT individual who will tell you "I'm only here for the benefits" On the other hand I don't like people who are stuck in a PT status and have to hustle to earn a living as this is their only job.

Hard to really have this debate because you can't seperate the individuals from the ideology of the PT job.

That debate is going to be up to our negotiators and when whatever it is, is sitting on my desk I'll make my decision from there?

(20 year FT AA who left LGA 2 years into my career to secure FT and a new life.)

 Quite Noble of you. You could say I transferred to get full time so let everyone else

 

[blue collar]

I don't think there's any argument that people might have to transfer to get FT, but does that warrant setting a new 'seniority' date? The people who are part time will be so until they bid an opening to FT, and only then will they be able to bid on FT shifts; but shouldn't they carry their full seniority when they make that leap? Just like those of you who made it earlier, you should have your full seniority.

 

[Albert]

If I owned my own company I would set the terms that I felt were fair to myself and my employees, and it would include equal benefits to all, not based on part/full time.
I don't see how you advocate for your brothers/sisters who are part time should have to shoulder more healthcare, all while only being scheduled 20-30 hours/week.

 Because it is a part time job. So  if you owned a pizzeria  you would offer  a delivery boy who works only Friday and Saturday the same benefits a pizza maker who works 12 hour days and has been with you for twenty years ? Generous but I doubt you would stay in business very long. You and I simply have a different idea what part time is

 

[blue collar]

Because it is a part time job. So  if you owned a pizzeria  you would offer  a delivery boy who works only Friday and Saturday the same benefits a pizza maker who works 12 hour days and has been with you for twenty years ? Generous but I doubt you would stay in business very long. You and I simply have a different idea what part time is

First, those are two different jobs. Second, 12 hour days are more than full time. To answer your question, if I had a business, then yes I would offer healthcare to each employee at the same cost. The delivery boy who works 2 days may not be able to afford it, but it would be offered at the same rate as the pizza maker. Using your argument of 2 different job types, how mad would you be if the company offered medical to mechanics for less that fleet? The way to combat the idea of 'I'm only here for benefits' is to limit CSs/give aways.

 

[Albert]

First, those are two different jobs. Second, 12 hour days are more than full time. To answer your question, if I had a business, then yes I would offer healthcare to each employee at the same cost. The delivery boy who works 2 days may not be able to afford it, but it would be offered at the same rate as the pizza maker. Using your argument of 2 different job types, how mad would you be if the company offered medical to mechanics for less that fleet? The way to combat the idea of 'I'm only here for benefits' is to limit CSs/give aways.

 Over the years the mechanics and utility did have better benefits  (maybe not medical) but other things . I knew what I was signing onto  when I took the job. If  I wanted  their benefits  I would have gone to school and got my license you know delivery boy  to pizza maker

 

[Albert]

First, those are two different jobs. Second, 12 hour days are more than full time. To answer your question, if I had a business, then yes I would offer healthcare to each employee at the same cost. The delivery boy who works 2 days may not be able to afford it, but it would be offered at the same rate as the pizza maker. Using your argument of 2 different job types, how mad would you be if the company offered medical to mechanics for less that fleet? The way to combat the idea of 'I'm only here for benefits' is to limit CSs/give aways.

Why not take it further, top pay on day one. a new hire is doing the same work as you correct? He should get the same pay. Do you know how the company could manage that the? Top pay would be 15 dollars an hour. Great now we all qualify for food stamps and public housing .