Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[737823]

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.

Not lying, there was a thread about it several months ago, go educate yourself. Either way its pretty pathetic US doesn't have the equipment, facilities, and personnel at their home base airport to handle their flagship aircraft. Again if they use airserve or swissport whats the big deal? Still IAM dues payers.

BOS is a small sation for US, they don't currently send widebodies unlike DL.

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

Josh as for phx that used to be hp home base not sure what they used for their 747s when they had it... but hp did not have widebodies other than that. Secondly in bos even if us doesnt have k loader or if us wont send it they could borrow from aa or dl. And any work must be covered by the iam imagine the grievance and the outcome of that

 

[Tim Nelson]

Although the online boarding policy is set to change for sUS employees to a 'first check in' ,  management has made boarding policy as a matter of contract and incorporated the boarding policy in the contracts of at least the CWA and IAM.
Management agreed to use DOH as the application for non rev boarding.   "Date of hire shall [edit: not 'may'] be applied to boarding for on-line non-revenue space available travel."
 
Although travel is a privilege, it becomes a right when it is offered to other groups.  And applying DOH to the boarding process becomes contractual when management agreed to it. 
 
I suggest that if management wants a 'seamless' merger, even for travel, that it negotiate fair contracts for the sUA employees. It's fair to do so.
 
At any rate, I'm against seamlessness, even if it relates to travel, unless fleet gets a fair agreement that can be ratified FIRST.  I certainly hope that Delaney and crew don't speak for management and claim the DOH seniority doesn't apply to travel, and I hope that our fearless leader doesn't do any side letter waiving off the DOH in our contract to make the travel more seamless.   Reading over the USAPA MOU, it appears that the complete seniority rules will be complete before 4 months from effective date and that APA will file single carrier by then as well.  I suggest no MOU and "no nothing' for fleet service unless we get a fair agreement.  HINT: Fair agreement means an increase in scope!!!!!!!!   I'm a member of 1487 in ORD but I'll be a member of 1725 'shortly'. And I will DEFINATLEY keep the same opinion.  SCOPE IS A REQUIREMENT, and I'm not talking about some dopey Cinderella band aid dates that push the problem to a time when our leverage will be less. 
 
regards,

 

[700UW]

Not lying, there was a thread about it several months ago, go educate yourself. Either way its pretty pathetic US doesn't have the equipment, facilities, and personnel at their home base airport to handle their flagship aircraft. Again if they use airserve or swissport whats the big deal? Still IAM dues payers.

BOS is a small sation for US, they don't currently send widebodies unlike DL.

Josh

How ignorant are you really?
 
If a plane doesnt fly into a station, there is no need to outlay the money for equipment that will never be used.
 
A K-Loader isnt cheap, and it would sit and rot, HP hasnt seen scheduled widebody service in PHX for probably over 20 years.
 
You are truly just someone wanting to stir the pot.
 
I stated US USE TO fly the 767, BOS-FRA-BOS for a short period of time, so there are widebody capable gates.

 

[Tim Nelson]

[SIZE=10pt]I'd like to continue a separation of work until our union can agree to a fair settlement with management.  Below is a continuation of work in the MOU of USAPA.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]8. The protections in this Paragraph begin on the Effective Date and last until the earlier of eighteen (18) months after US Airways and the New American Airlines obtain a single operating certificate, or the date on which a JCBA and integrated seniority list are in effect. From the Effective Date until the effective date of the JCBA, the terms and conditions of employment of the New American Airlines and US Airways pilots shall be governed by the MTA.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]a. The New American Airlines pilots and US Airways pilots will perform work in accordance with the MTA, including flying and training, and neither airline will interchange pilots between their operations. Neither New American Airlines nor US Airways may utilize in its flight operations or flight training operations a pilot employed by the other airline, except : (i) for pilots hired from one airline by the other pursuant to Paragraphs 8(i) and 8(j); (ii) as may be needed to comply with conditions prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of transition to, and eventual operation under, a single operating certificate; or (iii) to train pilots who will make up the initial cadre of check airmen for a new fleet type. APA and USAPA, as applicable, shall support the efforts of US Airways and New American Airlines to obtain regulatory approval for the Merger and issuance of the single operating certificate.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]b. Except for the circumstances described in paragraph (a) above, no pilot of New American Airlines or US Airways will fly as a crewmember on an aircraft in the Fleet of the other airline. The “Fleet” of each airline shall be defined to include all aircraft in the service of or stored by the airline, or on order or option by the airline, on the Memorandum Approval Date. A list of all aircraft in the respective Fleets of American and US Airways as of the Memorandum Approval Date is included as Attachment A. All orders, options, and anticipated returns set forth in the airlines’ fleet plans as of the Memorandum Approval Date are included as Attachment B.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]c. In the event that American/New American Airlines or US Airways acquires aircraft not listed in Attachments A or B as a replacement for an existing aircraft, that aircraft shall be designated as American Airlines or US Airways based upon the aircraft being replaced. For purpose of this section, “replacement” means that the newly acquired aircraft can be matched, on a oneto- one basis, to an aircraft that has left or will leave the service of the airline within six (6) months before or after the new aircraft enters service.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]d. With respect to new aircraft not listed on Attachments A or B and not assigned under Paragraph 8(c) above, the pilots of each airline will operate any of their respective unique aircraft types. As to all other aircraft, the following procedure will be applied: the airline will provide notice to APA and USAPA, if applicable, of its intent to acquire any such aircraft not less than 270 days prior to such aircraft entering service, and will inform the organization(s), to the extent known, of the type, model and number of such aircraft, the type of engines on them, their ETOPS capability, if any, and the extent to which such aircraft will be used as replacements for other aircraft then or previously operated. The representative(s) of the New American Airlines and US Airways pilots will promptly determine which pilot group will operate such aircraft or will implement binding arbitration, if necessary, to determine the allocation of such flying; the pilot representative(s) shall notify the airlines of the results of this process no later than thirty (30) days after receiving notice from the airlines. If the airlines do not agree with the position of the labor representative(s), the dispute will be resolved pursuant to final and binding interest arbitration with a decision issued no later than 120 days prior to the date when the aircraft is scheduled to be placed in service. The standard to be applied by the arbitrator will be the fair and equitable allocation of flying between the two pilot groups giving due consideration to the airline business plans. Nothing in this Paragraph will delay or prevent the planned implementation of such aircraft into revenue service.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

 

[ChockJockey]

PHX has received two new K-loaders, they're sitting over at the hangar. CLT-PHX service on a 330 begins sometime in March I believe, just in time for spring break.

 

[ograc]

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

Can't speak for the entire system but I was a Teller for the local in my station for the most recent UA ratification vote. The UA station is considered outline and the TA offerred no future job protection for the members. Voter turnout was around 50%. Suprisingly the TA passed by the same margin in my station that it did systemwide. IMO... this was the result of a number of factors. Many you have touched on. Senior employees who saw retro money, are close to retirement and figure they would ride it out until they're furloughed. Senior employees, many of which from the UA side, who have been displaced before. They are either willing to be displaced again or have a false belief UA will keep the station open. Another major influence on the outcome was voter supression. When voting is limited to one day and the member is required to be physically present at their local in order to vote it drives the number of members voting down. Generally speaking; the majority of those going out of their way to vote view the TA as acceptable. Especially in the large stations where there is a retro check awaiting and scope is not a concern. Voter supression works. I think the District and the International knew this. Quite a different outcome from the first TA voting results. A voting procedure that better accommodated the members. 

 

[Falcon]

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56572-2014-fleet-service-discussion/