Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[mike33]

Speculate all you want. Cast blame wherever you want. One thing is certain; The "New American" will be seeking to eliminate as many mainline IAM Fleet Service represented jobs as possible. Same whore in a new dress. When will the collective group come to realize this? When will the collective group stand united and say "hell no"? When will the district / IAM leadership realize they are being played into "check mate"? Time will tell. In the meantime I encourage all to LOCK and LOAD! Solidarity behind our NC and accountability to district and international Officers who sell us out! The outcome of contract negotiations at US will tell all about the true resolve and agenda of the district and the International. Let this serve as notice to the fore mentioned: the educated, active and engaged members are watching.   

yes we are

 

[charlie Brown]

The 69 seat configuration aircraft is CRUCIAL to keep. It is a sweet buffer for stations that may otherwise fall under yhe minimums and get whacked. Especially with hundreds of these birds coming in like a fall movement of birds.
Go PSA!

Ok, I agree with the 69 seat language being huge. But the way the contract reads, I don't think it applies to PSA. That's just my opinion. Are you saying you believe it does?

 

[robbedagain]

Cb if tim thinks it applies then how do u explain the 175 which have close to that same nbr of seats?

 

[mike33]

Ok, I agree with the 69 seat language being huge. But the way the contract reads, I don't think it applies to PSA. That's just my opinion. Are you saying you believe it does?

I don't think he is aging that CB. I think he is implying anything mainline stations.... receipt and dispatch. Which pertains to our language.   I think !

 

[charlie Brown]

Cb if tim thinks it applies then how do u explain the 175 which have close to that same nbr of seats?

That's my point. 175,s are not counted. They are republic aircraft. PSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of US. Maybe that's what he's getting at. That's why I was asking.

 

[Tim Nelson]

That's my point. 175,s are not counted. They are republic aircraft. PSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of US. Maybe that's what he's getting at. That's why I was asking.

Who said anything about republic? I specifically said psa.
Btw, if u r telling us, publicly, that you dont believe it even applies with psa then u must have already expressed this with ah.
Why do u suggest that you dont believe it applies?

 

[charlie Brown]

Who said anything about republic? I specifically said psa.
Btw, if u r telling us, publicly, that you dont believe it even applies with psa then u must have already expressed this with ah.
Why do u suggest that you dont believe it applies?

Calm down, and no I haven't suggested anything to AH. But I do know the companies stance on it. I was merely asking your opinion. But I'll take it as you d

Who said anything about republic? I specifically said psa.
Btw, if u r telling us, publicly, that you dont believe it even applies with psa then u must have already expressed this with ah.
Why do u suggest that you dont believe it applies?

Calm down, I was merely asking your opinion. And no I haven't applied anything to AH. But I do know the companies position on it. I was just asking for yours. But I guess you don't want to give it.

 

[charlie Brown]

Sorry for the double post

 

[robbedagain]

I had seen on the iam141 that there going to be a new fed mediator now due to conflict of interest that sounds like the talks be pushed back even further now?

 

[charlie Brown]

I had seen on the iam141 that there going to be a new fed mediator now due to conflict of interest that sounds like the talks be pushed back even further now?

Don't really think it will delay things that much. Just have to see when the new mediator will have a week to get us back in.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Calm down, and no I haven't suggested anything to AH. But I do know the companies stance on it. I was merely asking your opinion. But I'll take it as you d Calm down, I was merely asking your opinion. And no I haven't applied anything to AH. But I do know the companies position on it. I was just asking for yours. But I guess you don't want to give it.

It's not my opinion. in 1999, I was at the Local Chairman meetings in PIT going over the contract even though we technically were not local chairman yet.  This has everything to do about history and if you don't know what the history over this language is then neither does Delaney. That's a problem.  But it's ok to ask. AH position is baseless, btw.  Not sure if he was a part of the 1998 negotiations which originally drafted this language but nonetheless it was incorporated in the 1999 agreement.
 
The history goes back to Metrojet and Shuttle, even though those two airlines didn't have any aircraft lower than 69 seats.  The pilots grew concerned and I think the language was incorporated in the ALPA agreement that covers any altar ego airline within this airline.  I'm not as versed on the ALPA contract but I'm sure it can be dug up online with a bit of research savy.
 
Brickner explained this to us in PIT, Steve Miller was there sitting in the back with the BOS guys, I was up front. Bill Jernigan from ROA actually stood up and asked him specifically about this since ROA was on the hot seat. Brickner said this language covers any aircraft that US AIRWAYS owns.  The LOA in the back of the 1999 is the origination of the language and it flushes out the full meaning of the 69 seats a lot better.  Specifically, wholly owns are mentioned as well in the LOA. That was the basis for article 3 language.   Tell Delaney to make some phone calls or get his head out of his arse and educate you guys on what the contract says and means. If you guys don't know what this means, or are operating in the opinion zone then AH is going to crucify all of us.
 
At any rate, I'm sure it must be in the negotiation notes of 1999. That will solve the problem. 

 

[charlie Brown]

It's not my opinion. in 1999, I was at the Local Chairman meetings in PIT going over the contract even though we technically were not local chairman yet.  This has everything to do about history and if you don't know what the history over this language is then neither does Delaney. That's a problem.  But it's ok to ask. AH position is baseless, btw.  Not sure if he was a part of the 1998 negotiations which originally drafted this language but nonetheless it was incorporated in the 1999 agreement.
 
The history goes back to Metrojet and Shuttle, even though those two airlines didn't have any aircraft lower than 69 seats.  The pilots grew concerned and I think the language was incorporated in the ALPA agreement that covers any altar ego airline within this airline.  I'm not as versed on the ALPA contract but I'm sure it can be dug up online with a bit of research savy.
 
Brickner explained this to us in PIT, Steve Miller was there sitting in the back with the BOS guys, I was up front. Bill Jernigan from ROA actually stood up and asked him specifically about this since ROA was on the hot seat. Brickner said this language covers any aircraft that US AIRWAYS owns.  The LOA in the back of the 1999 is the origination of the language and it flushes out the full meaning of the 69 seats a lot better.  Specifically, wholly owns are mentioned as well in the LOA. That was the basis for article 3 language.   Tell Delaney to make some phone calls or get his head out of his arse and educate you guys on what the contract says and means. If you guys don't know what this means, or are operating in the opinion zone then AH is going to crucify all of us.

I

I am aware of what it means. But thanks for clarifying your view. I would also have to say IMO the language has changed on is from the 99 agreement. If I'm not mistaken, and I'll have to check, I think it was from the first T/A to the second T/A. I liked the old language much better than the current.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I am aware of what it means. But thanks for clarifying your view. I would also have to say IMO the language has changed on is from the 99 agreement. If I'm not mistaken, and I'll have to check, I think it was from the first T/A to the second T/A. I liked the old language much better than the current.

If the company's position on it is that it does not apply to PSA then there is no reason to remove it from the contract. The 69 seat language has been preserved from the first LOA in the back of the 1999 agreement. Has never been taken out.  It is also clearly referring to express, due to the original language in the '99 agreement. It wouldn't make any sense anyways if it wasn't talking about express subsidiaries. I don't believe at any time that US AIRWAYS or the union thought that the single carrier, US AIRWAYS was going to start flying express jets.
 
At any rate, if it means nothing, then AH won't want to take it out of the contract and this will just be a bridge that will have to be crossed when the time comes.

 

[Tim Nelson]

http://old.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20010731usair0731bnp6.asp
 
The pilot agreement can be viewed at the NMB site.  The article above talks about how the seat language came to being, and was a direct result of the us airways express operation and also talked about the company's commuter airlines.  The language originated in 1997 with the pilots. In 1998, we incorporated it in the first TA.  The second TA was signed in 1999.  That language in article 3 is directly related to the express wholly owned operations. Actually, article 3 has the exact same language as it was in original form in 1998 and 1999.
 
At any rate, the worst thing that can happen is that an arbitrator could say AH is right.  So we'd be out a few thousand bucks if we had to cross that bridge later.

 

[T5towbar]

Sorry to hear that, so it seems even the people in the hub cities are not immune to this BS despite all the promises from the AGCs and district. What is mind boggling to me is why the district is so willing to give away scope without a fight. I mean sure, they got unlimited part time and protected core work at the hub cities along with cinderella dates for the other 23 stations. But what happens in 2018? Once only seven stations have scope, even with unlimited part time, wouldn't that be fewer members (and dues)? No way they would willingly give up dues payers, they must have some arrangement with UA to have Air Wily/Swissport/etc come in and take over as they would lose dues. I mean ZW is leaving IAD per the new CBA, I'm sure DL 142 is being made whole for the dues payers they are losing with that work being in-sourced to UA. Hopefully they will go in a new direction at AA/US and get new DL leadership.

Josh

They only got the ATW work at IAD.
That was the one question no one at the IAM would answer. Was there a tacit agreement betweem 141 and 142 to keep the dues flowing?