Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL, can you say "side letter of agreement"?True it has not been tested in BK. I would hope it never is. Yes it can be changed with the stroke of pen but it has not and therefore is the best out there.
You act as though there have never been layoffs at AA, the TWU never agreed to SRP/OSM, and the Delta mechanics have no choice in being non union. You should take that comedy routine on the road.The non-union DL airframe overhaul mechanics that were laid off would have loved it though when their work was outsourced to AVEOS and ST Aero. And DL now has over 1,000 unlicensed mechanic helpers in ATL Base. DL management can do anything they want at any time.
""
You are awesome! You missed the point. I posed cases where the TWU language is strong and also others where the language is inferior. I was not saying, "Look at them they suck more than us." To the contrary, the TWU has stood the test of time and won. The TWU language is solid and you can't accept it. A simple, "Thank you TWU for protetcing my job so I can blog would be sufficient."
One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.
The tentative agreement also gives American additional productivity and better aligns our work rules with all other airlines through outsourcing the dayline cabin cleaning and fueling work. The employees currently performing these jobs will be reassigned to other duties. The productivity improvements and savings provided through the outsourcing helps fund the structural increases and the other economic enhancements, while ensuring that we remain competitive.
I wonder if one fifth of the fleet service clerks will be against outsource of their fueling and cabin cleaning?
Talk about TWU Outsourcing...holy cow. I think they have put a 1200 job number on that one.
I bet you have some lame excuse other than blame the TWU on this one too?
Apparently you have never been through bankruptcy before.
We negotiated for several months, US was not interested in anything except what they presented to us as the Negotiating Committee, our CBA was abrogated in court as US wanted to lay off 46% or the M&R workforce and terminate the pension, something we could not agree too.
We gave them a full comprehensive proposal, except pension termination and they were not interested at all, they didnt want to "manage" people.
Better go read up in Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code and educate yourself.
1) Well that's why we have a TA voting process.
2) So the Joint Committee agreed to what Southwest and UPS do (offset the higher wages of Line and a small amount of Base AMTs) by offsetting higher wages for a one group by outsourcing some work and the TWU sucks. I agree that concept may is lame but the TWU didn't start that.
There you go again with tired old arguement that the TWU might suck but not as bad as others suck.
I agree with you on the concept of others, but instead the TWU started lower payscales like B-Scales, OSM/SRP/Junior Mechanics, workers paying for medical and LTD, and gave away 50 years of negotiated contract gains to save more jobs, which through attrition the company got the head count anyway and based on two recent grievance decisions really have little protection to the jobs supposedly saved. And that started other carriers wanting the same, which those union fought off and then those airlines went bankrupt. That concessionary direction the TWU has lead since even before I became a member 28 years ago. In other words the TWU has been the leader in placing negative pressures on the profession using the concept they do lead with.
You are the one claiming TWU outsources less and has stronger scope language than any union in existence. Now you flip-flop and defend outsourcing jobs and once again blame some group other than your paid negotiators. Again, why do you not hold the TWU to the same standards you advocate or wish to hold other unions? Is it something about defending the TWU regardless of how stupid or wishy wash it makes you sound, that you feel a requirement to do? Or is it something you have been appointed to do, and get some compensation to keep propogating? How much do they pay you to propogate this B/S anyway?
LOL, can you say "side letter of agreement"?
You act as though there have never been layoffs at AA, the TWU never agreed to SRP/OSM, and the Delta mechanics have no choice in being non union. You should take that comedy routine on the road.
It could be good, could be bad, ugly, neutral or simply used as a bargaining tool by the company. Odds are AA's mechs won't be allowed a look-around when they're returned as the aircraft were signed off as airworthy. "If the paper's right, the ship is tight". Right?For nearly 10 years on this website, the consensus has been that outsourced overhaul is perhaps cheaper initially, but of such low quality so as to negate the initial cost savings (as all the chop shop mistakes have to be addressed by inhouse repair prior to return to service). If that's true, isn't this outsourcing of the four 757s a good thing? Won't it confirm the widely-held belief that Tulsa is overall cheaper because of the higher quality/faster turnaround?
Once again you dont comprehend, Judge Mitchell sided with the company and abrogated our CBA and distressed terminated our pension.Oh I have but apparently you haven't. Just because you propose a plan does not mean it has to be accepted. The BK judge has the ultimate say and you must not have laid out a convincing enough argument in court.
Here for you to educate yourself. And Buck now I will get back on topic.
Since the enactment of §1113, courts have developed a nine-point test for determining motions to reject CBAs under that section. See In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 50 B.R. 969, 974-75 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1985), aff’d., 52 B.R. 997 (W.D. Pa. 1985). Bankruptcy courts consistently apply these nine factors when deciding §1113 motions. See Truck Drivers Local 807 v. Carey Transp. Inc., 816 F.2d 82, 92 (2d Cir. 1987); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 791 F.2d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 1986). These nine factors are:
(1) The debtor must make a proposal to modify the CBA or obtain concessions from the union;
(2) The debtor’s proposal must be based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time the proposal is made;
(3) The proposal must be necessary to the debtor’s reorganization;
(4) The proposal must treat fairly and equitably creditors, the debtor and all other affected parties; and
(5) The debtor must provide the union with relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
After making a proposal and before the hearing:
(6) The debtor must meet at reasonable times with the union; and
(7) The debtor must negotiate in good faith with the union in an attempt to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of the CBA.
After the above steps are satisfied, courts have the authority to grant a rejection motion only if:
(8) The union has refused to accept the debtor’s proposal without good cause; and
(9) The balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of the CBA.
See In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, 50 B.R. at 974-75 (citing to Code §1113). All nine of these factors must be satisfied before a CBA can be rejected.
For nearly 10 years on this website, the consensus has been that outsourced overhaul is perhaps cheaper initially, but of such low quality so as to negate the initial cost savings (as all the chop shop mistakes have to be addressed by inhouse repair prior to return to service). If that's true, isn't this outsourcing of the four 757s a good thing? Won't it confirm the widely-held belief that Tulsa is overall cheaper because of the higher quality/faster turnaround?
50? You guys get to retire at 50?The terminated plan was substantially reduced under the PBGC, at 50 I would have gotten around a lot more than I will get now, I will collect $563 a month at 50 from the PBGC, if I wait till I am 65 I will get $1,000, my pension was reduced 50% to 75% from what it would have been under the plan before it was terminated.
I left so I dont know what the multiplier is for the current IAMNPF for the M&R. But yes they will get to collect both.
I didn't say there should be no LOA, but that your so called "iron clad" language can be changed at the drop of a hat, even to the point of a contract abrogation before the amendable date, as with what occurred in 2003.Yes I can say LOA. That's how the TWU got the Special Severance for those AMTs cut right after 9/11 and the way the recent +30 AFW OSMs that went to JFK to upgrade to AMTs back to AFW in less than the contractual limit.
See members like LOAs more than they know. Because if they did not exist, everything would go to arbitration and the outcome is not predictable or immediate. No LOAs? Yes you could have that but there are a way more good things than bad that come out of them. And that's no joke.