mechanics may be free to strike by Sept 17th

[pitguy]

There is no flow through agreement for the mechanics at the feeder/commuter airline. They must apply like everyone else. I doubt if they ever get a flow through either for training reasons. They are to be given some preference in hiring, but no guarantees. Please familiarize yourself with the contract and you then can see why most mechanics are voting no.

 

[Bob Owens]

I find it hard to accept anything from someone who does reveal themself as credible. You know who I am and what my position is. What is Lakeguy and Chipmun's interest in all this? I realize that what happens at USAIR will directly effect me. Therefore IT IS MY BUSINESS! I have no wish to see USAR go out of business. I see a lot of inaccurate posts by those in favor of this SIX YEAR concessionary agreement. Lots of threats. USAIR must know that they really dont have much in order to stoop so low. If going the for abrogation of the contract was so likely, and so much more benificial to the company dont you think they would have kept quite and just did it?
PS. I received the E-Mail sent to the President of our local complaining about my posts. Sorry, but I will not stop.

 

[chipmunn]

Bob:

My interest is for US Airways to survive and eventually thrive with the employees receiving the highest pay and benefits possible. Only with a financially strong company will the airline grow, more jobs be created, and eventually pay and benefits recover.

US will not receive its credit facility or loan guarantee without the IAM-M & CWA accord ratified, period. Dave Siegel is not the hammer, but nobody is going to loan this company money, who is in default, unless its has a competitive labor cost structure.

This is not about what we think we are worth, it's about what the company and its financiers believe the company can pay to get a B credit rating.

Just today, David Swierenga, chief economist of the Air Transport Association said, Traffic recovery in the airline industry has stalled.

Today according to CBS.MW The reason for the problems then and now is simple. Costs in the airline industry are very high and cannot be changed quickly. Planes, workers and jet fuel all cost a lot. With revenue falling off a cliff, airlines were bleeding money at unspeakable rates.

Airlines' credit lines have been drawn down to maximum extent and now we find ourselves in bankruptcy.

CBS.MW also said, A year later (after September 11), the bad news just keeps getting worse.

It's still deep in crisis, said Robert Crandall, the former head of American Airlines, in an interview. Finally, he said, executives are taking action. They're doing the kinds of things that I thought some months ago needed to be done.

Bob, these are the facts and a no vote is a vote for no contract, deeper cuts, and possible damages for the union and its members. This is the legal filing facing the CWA & IAM-M.

Everything written above are the facts, period.

Chip

 

[Chock]

Chip,
I would like to thank-you for taking the time from your busy flight schedule to help the hapless and confused AMT's of USAir..........BTW, still voting NO!

 

[UAL777flyer]

To continue to compare your pay that those of your counterparts at WN is a grossly inaccurate comparison. They are a much more highly efficient carrier than any other major U.S. airline. It's all about Unit Revenue vs. Unit Cost. WN keeps their unit costs down for many reasons. They operate 1 fleet type which saves them millions on training and parts/spares. Their utilization is much higher because of their quicker turns and point to point system. Their unit costs are low and their workers are among the most productive in the industry. So to simply say that because their mechanics make more than you, your mechanic salaries aren't the problem is a distortion. Compare their work rules/staffing requirements. It all adds up. It isn't simply W-2 wages.

This second vote is in my opinion a face-saver for the IAM. I think every member who voted no the first time needs to think long and hard before voting no again. My opinion is that if you vote no, you're increasing the likelihood of 1 of 2 scenarios: either the bankruptcy judge will shred your contract and give the company the ability to pick and choose who they keep and who they don't and what work they do in-house and what work they outsource, which will have a much more painful impact on you than this current agreement; or, worse, the above happens and your union actually strikes. In that scenario, your company will most likely shutdown, and possibly liquidate, because their access to needed DIP financing won't be there. I completely understand the feeling of enough is enough, or they've been taking from us for years. But how do you win if the airline shuts down for good and liquidates? All you've done then is become another footnote in the industry that never learns from past mistakes. And you put thousands of people on the streets looking for new jobs who are competing with the hundreds of thousands already out there in a depressed economy. Some will do alright and land on their feet quickly. But those will be a lucky minority. For the majority, the pain will be substantial. As painful as this agreement is to swallow, it at least gives you the opportunity to keep going and turn things around, in hopes of recouping what you've lost down the road.

In the end, if you think a majority vote of no will force Siegel to blink, I believe you're going to be sadly mistaken and I hope for the sake of all US Airways employees, that it doesn't come to that.

 

[N513AU]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/9/2002 4:27:12 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
This second vote is in my opinion a face-saver for the IAM. I think every member who voted "no" the first time needs to think long and hard before voting "no" again. My opinion is that if you vote "no", you're increasing the likelihood of 1 of 2 scenarios: either the bankruptcy judge will shred your contract and give the company the ability to pick and choose who they keep and who they don't and what work they do in-house and what work they outsource, which will have a much more painful impact on you than this current agreement; or, worse, the above happens and your union actually strikes. In that scenario, your company will most likely shutdown, and possibly liquidate, because their access to needed DIP financing won't be there.[/blockquote]

The Dave and the IAM need to go back to the table and come up with a contract that we can vote YES on. I'm not a full pay to the last day type. I will vote for a contract that is acceptable for the type of work we do. However, five days vacation is unacceptable, period.

The fact that the company and the IAM won't even discuss cost savings like compressed work weeks, biweekly pay, etc shows me that they want to f*k with us more than anything else.

I talked to a friend down south the other day and he told me that the IAM and management just forced the maintenance planning group to 8 hour days from 12s, causing a signifgant personnel shortage. The funny thing is, the planners didn't want this. They had a compressed work week and liked it - it makes the employees happy and SAVES THE COMPANY MONEY! Duh, DAVE ARE YOU A RETARD?

This gets better...the IAM forced their contract on them! No vote, just here it is. Then their pay rate was effective July 15th (first raise in years), now they want retroactive cut to July 1st! Then, they aren't getting paid according to their years of service; as their pay seniority date is what step they were closest to on the day of the contract. So, you have planners with enough time to top out, who are getting year two pay! (Because management never gave raises to planners, most of them were way behind their new union scale.)

I don't know all the details, but it seems like the IAM is giving their newest represented group the extra-special treatment. Hope you like paying dues, guys. Remember, its like the mob - see it as protection money and that's about it.

 

[Lakeguy67]

[P]Boob Owens, in case you cant read and understand I will repost the rebuttals to your false postings[/P]
[P] [/P]
[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]Bob Owens, why dont you stick your nose into AAs business and the TWUs. You are posting false information by leaps and bounds. When a company is in bankruptcy, bankruptcy laws take all presidence over anyother federal law. The status quo in the RLA only pertains to section 6 negotations. If you were a true trade unionist you would not post false information.[BR][BR]Congress established section 1113 of the bankruptcy code because in 1982 with just a stroke of a pen a judge abrogated all contracts at Continental Airlines, under Lorenzo as CEO and WOlf as President. In 1983 section 1113 was passed, all this does is ensure that a judge at just a stroke of a pen does not abrogate a contract. There are nine criteria a company has to meet in order for the judge to abrogate. So far US Airways is batting 100% in having every motion they have filed granted to them. You are posting numerous falsehoods that will directly affect one of your major competitors, do you want to see 40,000 employees out of work so your company can benefit?[BR][BR]The mechanic and related are NOT particpating in the IAM national pension fund, the 401K match is still there.[BR][BR]You as a treasure of your local would not under the landrum-griffith act it is illegal for the company to pay the IAM money and for the IAM to accept money for a contract passing. That money is being paid directly to the Financial Advisors, Lawyers and to reimburse the cost of the ratificaton vote, just as ALPA, AFA and TWU recieved under their concessionary package.[BR][BR]And we are not getting a better deal then fleet service, you fail to know your history, the IAM has represented mechanic and related at US Airways since 1949, Fleet Service only since 1995, with their first contract being ratified in 1999. Mechanic and related are giving $152 million a year and fleet service is only giving $70 million. Simple math tells you we as mechanic and related are giving up more.[BR][BR]And if you were a trade unionist you would be glad about the fact that the IAM got representation at MDA so a flow thru agreement is reached so furloughed mainline employees would still have a job, granted at a lesser rate, but still be employed and accruing seniority at mainline with the chance to go back to mainline once it grows.[BR][BR]You are a not a US employee and you did not attend the bankruptcy presenations nor did you negotiate. And on a post you made on yahoo you called this a T/A, this is not a T/A, it is the company's last offer given to us before they would seek abrogation of our contract and make us employees at will with no job protections at all.[BR][BR]I really find it hard to believe as an officer of the TWU you would risk 40,000 employees where some of them are members of your union careers.[BR][/SPAN][/P]

 

[JonC]

On 9/9/2002 4:46:07 PM N513AU wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
The fact that the company and the IAM won't even discuss cost savings like compressed work weeks, biweekly pay, etc shows me that they want to f*k with us more than anything else.

I talked to a friend down south the other day and he told me that the IAM and management just forced the maintenance planning group to 8 hour days from 12s, causing a signifgant personnel shortage. The funny thing is, the planners didn't want this. They had a compressed work week and liked it - it makes the employees happy and SAVES THE COMPANY MONEY! Duh, DAVE ARE YOU A RETARD?

This gets better...the IAM forced their contract on them! No vote, just here it is. Then their pay rate was effective July 15th (first raise in years), now they want retroactive cut to July 1st! Then, they aren't getting paid according to their years of service; as their pay seniority date is what step they were closest to on the day of the contract. So, you have planners with enough time to top out, who are getting year two pay! (Because management never gave raises to planners, most of them were way behind their new union scale.)

I don't know all the details, but it seems like the IAM is giving their newest represented group the extra-special treatment. Hope you like paying dues, guys. Remember, its like the mob - see it as protection money and that's about it.

----------------
[/blockquote]

You're right, 513 (tail number of 427 right?) I'm a planner in TPA and the IAM screwed with the planners pretty good.

We tried to unionize back in '99 or so, when the admin reps and other non-management, non-contract employees were getting left in the dust. Everyone was getting decent raises and we were seeing nothing. In the three years I've been a planner, I've seen one 2% raise. There are some down here that have seen one or 2 2-3% raises in 10 years.

I don't know the specifics, but about two years ago, we were informed that we had been accreted by the IAM and were now negotiating for a contract. Little did I know that accretion meant we didn't get to vote on our agreement. It was simply put in place last May and it was a piece of junk.

First, as you stated, it eliminated the compressed workweek. None of us wanted this and I personally wrote letters to Heminway, Siegel, Snyder and local people pushing to keep this schedule. I will say that Dave did send me an email, but just said that they were exploring all the options.

We worked the 12 hour day, with alternating three and four days off. Even the newest guy had a full weekend day off and every other Saturday. This was a no brainer. It covered the work better, only had two turnovers daily, which kept the loss of productivity to a minimum, and you usually worked opposite the same person, so you knew what was going to happen on your off shift.

Personally, I think this is nothing more than management screwing with us because we voted in a union. They know we hate the schedule and that it leaves us short staffed.

Eventually, the being short probably will catch up with us. I've heard that QA is getting a little hot about some of our paperwork being a mess. In our uncovered offices, it is. Management got themselves into this pickle, now they can get out of it.

Our pay scale also screwed us, just as you said. Instead of getting paid our step, we got slotted into the step closest to our current (management plan pay). It didn't effect me that much, but a good number of our people got shafted. They have enough time to top out, but are only getting year two or three pay, because management always paid us as little as possible. The only incentive in incentive pay is to pay your employees as little as posssible, so you can get promoted.

Then the retroactive pay. Our pay raise was effective July 15th, now they want retroactive to July 1st? If I vote yes, I'm voting to take away the only raise I've seen in years! I don't think so.

I could rant for pages about this debacle. But, if they reinstated the 12 hour day, eliminated retro paybacks and left my vacation alone, then I'd probably vote yes.
Seriously, the money saved by putting people on compressed work weeks, could save more than enough to allow us to keep our vacation time (which is VERY important to me.)

But, knowing that they haven't explored all of the options, including the ones that save money and keep morale high and allow for a family life outside of work, I'm still solidly in the no camp.

Jon C TPA

 

[wrenchbender]

If the company moves to abrogate our contract, The IAM has the right to strike. The IAM remains as representative of mechanic and related.

It would be in the best interest of Dave and all parties involved to make the necessary changes in the IAM proposal or it is over for usairways.

I for one can not vote for six years of concessions retroactive to july 1.

It would not be prudent to let a 150 million dollar deal cause billions in lost financing and possible liquidation with thousands of jobs at stake.

See link below from the patomic air lodge website

http://www.dcl.edu/lawrev/2001-4/Smith-Bales.pdf

The court then sustained the debtor’s motion to reject the agreement, but
not before pointing out that the status of the union as representative of the
employees is unchanged, that the employees retain their right to strike, that the
debtor remains obligated to bargain in good faith with the union, and that the
debtor is obligated to operate its business in a fair and commercially
responsible manner

Good luck to ua all

 

[chipmunn]

N513AU said: “The Dave and the IAM need to go back to the table and come up with a contract that we can vote YES on. I'm not a full pay to the last day type. I will vote for a contract that is acceptable for the type of work we do.â€￾

Chip comments: N513AU, your union had weeks to negotiate and they gave you the company’s proposal. There is no additional time to negotiate and the cuts are required to meet financing and loan guarantee requirements. If you want your company to survive, you will vote yes. It’s that simple.

Wrenchbender said: “If the company moves to abrogate our contract, The IAM has the right to strike.â€￾

Chip comments: In US Airways' S.1113 Legal Brief filed with the bankruptcy court, the company said, the company seek(s) to abrogate the contract (and) have the court prevent a strike. Wrench, if the judge signs the order in front of him your union will be prevented from striking and if employees stage an illegal action, I suspect the company will duplicate AMR’s action and immediately head back into court seeking a contempt order and asking for more than the $30 million it now says it will seek if the restructuring agreement is not ratified.

Wrench, the judge has agreed with every company motion and will likely agree with the S.1113 legal case, if the courts action are used as a benchmark.

In its simplistic form, if you want the company to survive, you will vote yes. It’s really that simple.

Chip

 

[pitguy]

Above Lakeguy67 stated:


2 The Wholly Owned Carrier will be requested to offer employment to any qualified furloughed Employee who has applied under the terms stated in item (1) above prior to employing anyone else in that Vacancy. As employment opportunities become available, the Wholly Owned Carrier will be requested to offer such positions in relative seniority order to qualified Employees who have submitted applications in accordance with this Agreement.

Now I want you to notice were it says REQUESTED twice.
That means nothing. If the company and union wanted something we would vote yes on they should have asked for input. But it seems they know what is best for us. The company is asking to much from mechanics. It is not fair and it looks like NO for PIT......AGAIN!!!
Cry all you want, but if the vote is truly counted I do not see how it could pass. Looking at how the industry pays all of its employees allot of us feel the mechanics are the ones that would be working the lowest below industry average or parity. Sorry, that is how we feel. It looks like even a stronger no vote this time around. I know you are not going to understand, but that is how it is.

 

[N513AU]

[blockquote]
----------------
In its simplistic form, if you want the company to survive, you will vote yes. It’s really that simple.

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]

If the company wants to survive, it will come with a TA that is acceptable. When US management opens that door of kicking the unions out, hell will break loose. I think the company will try to contract the maintenance work out, but then there likely will be substantial intimidation when it comes to the contract companies. Then, customers will start to see a lot of maintenance problems. Remember when NW almost went on strike a few years ago? That is what IS on the horizon for us, if the company tosses out our contract. There will be reprocussions and they probably will spell the end of the company. If Dave knows what's good for US Airways, he will go back to the table and come up with a reasonable contract.

I don't want that. But, I can't in good conscience vote for the TA as it stands, it takes too much away from me and will make family life all but impossible. Five days off all year?

Oh, I forgot - pilots have plenty of time off. I DON'T DAMMIT! I hardly see my family as it is! Now, doing much of anything with them will be impossible.

It seems like the little guy has been all but flushed down the toilet. They don't care if we have no life, no money, etc. The 9-5 management of this company is a bunch of JACKASSES! They forget that there are thousands of us that work everyday to pay their big ol' bonuses and they love their little 9-5, MF world. I'd like to see some of those -----heads work a midnight shift with midweek days off!

I'm angry as hell, but with little employement options elsewhere, I'll stick around. But an angry employee is an unproductive employee. They pretend to pay me, I'll pretend to work.

 

[jetmechline]

Lakeguy67(boof1967)(or anyone else your giving your password word & user name to)

I have some questions for you, seeing that you are so well versed in our contract.

1.Can you direct me to the IAM by law that gives the IAM the authority to override our no vote of AUG. 28. simply because honest DAVE ask them to ?

2.We've been told here in pit that some no voters were confused , that they were not aware of the consequences of voting no. If that (B S EXCUSE) is legitimate , can we use the same excuse to void the next vote ?

3. If the results of the next vote is still NO, will the int'l step in and accept it for us ? I hope so , someone has to save us from all this confusion.

P.S. TO BOB OWENS :
I'M VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, YOU MAKE ALOT OF SENSE.

 

[chipmunn]

N513AU:

N513AU said: If the company wants to survive, it will come with a TA that is acceptable.

Chip comments: N513AU, the 85 percent agreements are required by the ATSB to obtain the loan guarantee and TPG, CSFB, & BOA or the DIP financing credit facility and emergence financing will not be available. Do you agree with this statement?

Again, it's not the company setting the limit of the concessions, it's the investors and government who are willing to provide help if the unions meet their requirements. Do you agree that this is what the requirements are of the investors & ATSB?

Again, if you want the company to survive, you will vote yes.

Chip

 

[N513AU]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:43:56 AM chipmunn wrote:

Again, if you want the company to survive, you will vote yes.

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]

Sigh. I hate to kick a dead horse here. But, the mechanics will refuse to work for the wages imposed on them by the courts. The company will fire some, raise hell, etc - but the reality is, the end is near the day they end our contract. Scabs will be dealt with, contract maintenance will be unproductive and good luck getting an MEL cleared at the gate. Tose log stickers will be just about everywhere. Mechanics and related WILL have their way, OR US Airways will be moved into the airlines or the past forum. Pissing off the mechanics is a bad, bad idea. We buried Eastern and we will bury Little Davey Lorenzo and this company if they can't come up with a reasonable package!!! I think I'm layoff bait anyway, so if I must go, let the whole ship be damned!

That said, US and the IAM need to go back into the room and come out with something else. I don't care what cost savings target the investors came up with, maybe it should include a little retroactive pay action to Wolf and Gangwal - THEY ARE THE PROBLEM! NOT A LITTLE GUY LIKE ME. I JUST GET CRAPPED ON AT WORK EVERY DAY!!!