Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
I've been involved long enough to know; that is exactly how it goes down. Historically, the message is sent by the District through legal advisors, the NC feels intimidated and nods in agreement. With the make up of the NC, coming from hub or large stations, they endorse the TA and sell it to the members and the rest is history. This is the reason why the NC is made up of members from large or hub stations. With their endorsement... huge numbers ratify a sub par TA. In the end... a contract with all kinds of gray language and agreement to the loss of work and jobs. Hell, in my station, the day after the former CO and UA members were issued their retro checks, the company announced furloughs above wing and below. This strategy, which was why Canale was voted out, remains with the currently elected leadership team. All one has to do is look at the UA TA and it's eventual ratification. If our current NC believes they can change the course; they better be ready to "grow a set" like Maccarone and Miklavic. I do not believe the current strategy by the district represents the "true intent" of union representation. I wish the current NC the best but as I see it... they are fighting a battle on two fronts.

And it goes without saying that we are just talking about history.  The current NC doesn't have to repeat things.  The Association makes things interesting along with the merger.  But perhaps the greatest leverage is that the US AIRWAYS members make the worst wage in the industry by a large margin,  and the benefits aren't the greatest either.  That puts leverage in our NC hands. 

 

[737823]

Tim & cargo,
While I'm an outsider here it's obvious that the NC has a tough job going against a company that has delayed and denied you the opportunity to obtain an industry standard contract over the past two years (and counting). Not withstanding, even in ideal conditions the NC can't please everyone and effective negotiators would recognize this and work to ensure the interests of the greatest number are pursued in this agreement. As for small stations aren't BDL/BOS/MCO non-hub smaller stations for US? Like we saw with the UA agreement the District wants to get something palatable for the greatest number and unfortunately that means playing into the interests of the hub not smaller line stations. What I don't understand is why 141 completely disregarded the memberships input at UA, gutted scope and health care and now are left with mostly part-time in the hubs in a few years.

At US express work (except >69 seat) at hubs is currently contracted to Piedmont, right? What about line stations that have mainline fleet but also see express flying? Could they pull the same BS at US and dangle a carrot to bring back room, express, etc in house at hubs? Even at UA apparently ZW will still perform ground handling at IAD, must be some collaboration with 142 to keep this despite the CBA language.

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

Josh EN which is piedmont does the express in phl dca may be clt? Not sure about bos or lga or phx but the cwa reps en folks dont know if they have a contract. As far as leverage weve got it now is the time to get much needed and much improved contracts enhanced scope and station protections.

 

[ograc]

Tim & cargo,
While I'm an outsider here it's obvious that the NC has a tough job going against a company that has delayed and denied you the opportunity to obtain an industry standard contract over the past two years (and counting). Not withstanding, even in ideal conditions the NC can't please everyone and effective negotiators would recognize this and work to ensure the interests of the greatest number are pursued in this agreement. As for small stations aren't BDL/BOS/MCO non-hub smaller stations for US? Like we saw with the UA agreement the District wants to get something palatable for the greatest number and unfortunately that means playing into the interests of the hub not smaller line stations. What I don't understand is why 141 completely disregarded the memberships input at UA, gutted scope and health care and now are left with mostly part-time in the hubs in a few years.

At US express work (except >69 seat) at hubs is currently contracted to Piedmont, right? What about line stations that have mainline fleet but also see express flying? Could they pull the same BS at US and dangle a carrot to bring back room, express, etc in house at hubs? Even at UA apparently ZW will still perform ground handling at IAD, must be some collaboration with 142 to keep this despite the CBA language.

Josh

BOS/BDL/MCO are not hub stations but are stations that have a significant number of members and mainline flight activity. Similar, I guess to the 20 some stations at UA, who are only protected until the ammendable date of the current ratified agreement. If you were to apply the UA agreement to these stations they would be subjected to outsourcing in 4 years. When I refer to smaller outline stations at US I am referring to the countless number of stations who were left with no scope protection at UA. The UA agreement offered protection to 7 stations (hubs) and I believe 24 others. the other 24 have protection only through the ammendable date of the agreement. The district doesn't want to mention how many small outline stations they left unprotected and subject to outsourcing. At most... the UA agreement protects work in 31 stations. 4 years from now... 7 stations. Countless members' lives will be adversly affected. Countless members jobs will be outsourced. Let's hope it will be a different outcome at US (the new American). Unfortunately, it will be the same district leadership at the helm.  

 

[Hope777]

Pat, I am out on Voluntary Furlough for almost two years and have asked my local and National a question and after two years..... no response.   Does the IAM care about Anything but the Dues????

 

[737823]

Fair enough cargo, but why were so many willing to agree to this language that decimates your craft? Sure the holidays, pay raises and all are great but without scope it amounts to nothing. Is it that so many senior employees at the stations protected with Cinderella dates know retirement is near and figured they'd be gone come 2018? Voter apathy? Misleading information from international and district? Maybe it's just a numbers game and there is simply a greater mass in the hubs? Whatever it is I'm shocked so many people were willing to agree if this agreement.

Josh

 

[P. REZ]

P. REZ,
Some observations regarding the make up of the NC:
1.) 5 of the 10 committee members making up the NC are on the District payroll.  
2.) Of the 10 members making up the NC none are from a small outline station.
3.) 5 of the 10 committee members are from Hub Stations.
4.) The remainder are from "focus" or medium stations.
5.) Not sure how many have had previous NC experience.
Many I am familiar and comfortable with; and confident will serve the best interests of the entire membership. Including the importance of scope language that protects work in outline stations.This, despite the fact, there is no representation on the NC from a small outline station. Others; I do not know well enough to form an opinion. Two members I have no confidence in whatsoever. One IMO... has failed miserably in his obligations, to the members he serves, as an elected AGC for the past 2 years. The other serves, based on his current local position, in a major northeastern hub. Strictly a numbers game by the district IMO.

Ograc,
 
I hear you on the observations you have made on the make up of the committee. I can only say that at no time have I ever heard one person on the committee say something selfish. Everyone wants to do the right thing by this membership. Previous NC experience from MF, SM and myself. 
 
P. Rez

 

[P. REZ]

Pat, I am out on Voluntary Furlough for almost two years and have asked my local and National a question and after two years..... no response.   Does the IAM care about Anything but the Dues????

Hope777,
 
Are you asking me this question? If so, PM me.
 
P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

BOS/BDL/MCO are not hub stations but are stations that have a significant number of members and mainline flight activity. Similar, I guess to the 20 some stations at UA, who are only protected until the ammendable date of the current ratified agreement. If you were to apply the UA agreement to these stations they would be subjected to outsourcing in 4 years. When I refer to smaller outline stations at US I am referring to the countless number of stations who were left with no scope protection at UA. The UA agreement offered protection to 7 stations (hubs) and I believe 24 others. the other 24 have protection only through the ammendable date of the agreement. The district doesn't want to mention how many small outline stations they left unprotected and subject to outsourcing. At most... the UA agreement protects work in 31 stations. 4 years from now... 7 stations. Countless members' lives will be adversly affected. Countless members jobs will be outsourced. Let's hope it will be a different outcome at US (the new American). Unfortunately, it will be the same district leadership at the helm.  

A small correction,  the UA contract does not protect the work at those 23 stations, it protects employment. A sorta grandfather right situation.  Management can contract out the bagroom, or even employ a contracting outfit to work alongside United employees loading a flight if it wanted to in BOS/MCO at United. It just can't involuntarily furlough any current employees at those 23  for 4 years as a result of contracting out. I imagine as employees transfer out, retire, quit, that management may fill the gaps with contractors.
 
As far as I can tell,  the US AIRWAYS NC is made up of Class 1 stations only. BDL should still be class 1.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Fair enough cargo, but why were so many willing to agree to this language that decimates your craft? Sure the holidays, pay raises and all are great but without scope it amounts to nothing. Is it that so many senior employees at the stations protected with Cinderella dates know retirement is near and figured they'd be gone come 2018? Voter apathy? Misleading information from international and district? Maybe it's just a numbers game and there is simply a greater mass in the hubs? Whatever it is I'm shocked so many people were willing to agree if this agreement.

Josh

Josh,
intellectual dishonesty by the District eboard and INTL.   The "Top Experts" came in and manufactured the opinion.  Meetings with all the Local chairpersons, and the general membership had the AGC's and "Top experts" all lying and hoodwinking most members. Most of what was written is still locked in facebook and even on this site.  Even Ira Gottlieb's [IAM's top attorney]  infamous anti union letter suggesting that unions are powerless and that congress may come in and force a contract much worse on the membership, is still online to read.  I imagine Delta airline management has already copied that garbage letter and I suspect that Mr Gottlieb himself was even bothered to write such anti union trash.   The few AGC"s who posted on the United airlineforum claimed 98% protections, no full timer being reduced to part time except for "Severe Operational reductions"  [Joe bartz infamous lie],  only moderate health care increases [lol,  wait until March], and a host of other lies, including waiving of scope.   They got ramp stations that had scope, for mainline, to vote "Yes" and to lose their mainline scope by convincing them that their scope was of no value since it didn't protect express work.  Now it doesn't protect express or mainline. The Cinderella dates are going to pop, and there are more land mines in that contract than a Vietnam battlefield.
 
at the end of the day, the IAM chased 7,500 more dues payers.  Some have asked why the IAM gave so many stations up.  It's simple,  with its support of United management to enhance and spread part time, the IAM 141 eboard figured it would still increase dues since two part timers = twice the revenue as one full timer.  
 
Remember, when the IBT dropped from 1.5 to 1.1 million members, it signed the infamous UPS deal which allowed unlimited part time. Although it took some time, today, UPS is 80% part time and the IBT is now made up of mostly part time members and has increased its ranks back up to 1.4 million.    The IAM and TWU redoubled their efforts by slashing contracts and middle class jobs by supporting management and waiving part time limits.  As the United contract unfolds, United may very well end up over 80% part time.  If you have time, you might want to read the LOA "Full time commitment".  It was a brilliant concoction by the IAM to hoodwink its own members.  Although the title gives the appearance of a commitment,  the actual LOA gives no protections whatsoever and is only a 'back to back part time' exception.
 
Same thing happened at US AIRWAYS.  The IAM produced a letter called the "1113" letter.  It hoodwinked the entire membership into thinking it was protected from any further cuts.  I told folks that the 1113 letters weren't worth the paper it was printed on but Canale wrote a letter claiming that I didn't have a law degree and was not certifiable.   Unfortunately, members have always rented out their brains to "Top People" who are paid by the IAM to protect the interest of the IAM, not necessarily the members.   Hindsight, the rest of the membership now knows that the 1113 letters were a scandal.  Two more rounds of concessions followed and seniority cleansing was in full swing. 

 

[psa8979]

Happy 2014 AF Forum AAL IAMTWU Brothers /Sisters. Reading the most recent posts about IAM Leadership and the F/S IAM LCC NC , I rest my case about why F/S should either be put in D-142 or create a new District for the 32,000 Members at AAL. Staying in a UA/CO led  and dominated D-141 by UA Leadership will only have the same CBA results for IAM LCC/AAL Members. TN you are right again Brother ALL ! of the current LCC appointed NC IAM Members are in Class 1 Stations including the sharpest/wisest Brother at the table RW BDL.

 

[737823]

Looks like 332 is coming to BOS. Will US use the AA gates and personnel to handle this aircraft? Does the US side have the container equipment and properly trained personnel or will they use a vendor like at PHX?

Josh

 

[P. REZ]

Looks like 332 is coming to BOS. Will US use the AA gates and personnel to handle this aircraft? Does the US side have the container equipment and properly trained personnel or will they use a vendor like at PHX?

Josh

Josh,
 
PHX is getting equipment necessary and training to do the work as per our CBA.
 
P. Rez

 

[737823]

Josh,
 
PHX is getting equipment necessary and training to do the work as per our CBA.
 
P. Rez

What about BOS? 332 begins eff 03/05/14

Josh

 

[700UW]

US use to fly the 767 into BOS, so there are widebody gates all ready. 
 
Not sure about the K-loader and equipment is still there or not.
 
And NO US wont use AA personal to do the ground handling, as that is IAM/US covered work.
 
Why would you even ask, even you know better from reading all these threads over the years.
 
And joshie why are you lying again?
 
There is no widebody service into PHX by US, and when and if there is, it is IAM covered work, it isnt and hasnt been worked by a vendor.