B
BottomFeeder
Guest
767jetz said:
Seniority/merger
- Thread starter d9ever
- Start date
- Status
B
BottomFeeder
Guest
767jetz said:
StraaightTaalk
Veteran
- Sep 10, 2003
- 787
- 0
Interesting how the US employees are posting their "WELCOME ABOARD"s to the HP employees, as if US is saving HP, instead of the other way around. And, of course, they are already screaming for date of hire as they know that this will put them over and above incumbent HP employees.
Best of luck to the HP employees...you will need it.
Let the games begin.
Best of luck to the HP employees...you will need it.
Let the games begin.
Whats interesting too is the number of non US/HP employees concerned about the merger too and expressing their views (mostly negative and pot stirring.) Seems like most of the negative comments on the subject have come from other aairline employees and former US employees who have left the company for one reason or another. You be the judge.
I personally look forward to working for a company that has management that wants to run a good company and not just "be there".
I personally look forward to working for a company that has management that wants to run a good company and not just "be there".
StraaightTaalk
Veteran
- Sep 10, 2003
- 787
- 0
tadjr said:
Of course you do. It is natural that you would feel somewhat more secure, especially since there are now thousands of (HP) employees you can now bump out of their positions.
I don't see any HP employees rejoicing on this board, for good reason.
As a former TWA f/a, I hope you both will follow the AFA national charter which dictates DOH. There can never be sucess with labor strife, and both carriers are bringing assets to the table. (planes, routes and most importantly the employees) I only wish the planned joining of HP and TWA had come to pass. Best of luck and much success to you both. Show the rest of the industry that you are not only survivers but unrecognized leaders in the industry.
drifterreno
Veteran
- Aug 21, 2002
- 611
- 3
My question is a little unusual. I'm a retired U employee with 16 years seniority in res. I'm a HP employee with 2 years seniority in res. What happens to my retirement, seniority, pay??? I'm totally confused. :blink:
StraaightTaalk
Veteran
- Sep 10, 2003
- 787
- 0
skyflyr69 said:straaightaalk: your sound scared. and YOU SHOULD BE.
[post="271304"][/post]
Keep deluding yourself.
As I said...Let the games begin. Best of luck to the HP employees. The US bunch is already starting!
StraaightTaalk said:
Well, there are no HP employees in my city and we will be hiring soon, so maybe we'll be getting (gasp) HP employees who want to transfer in? BTW, I dont care to "bump" or transfer anywhere. I'm quite happy where I am.
Re- No HP employees rejoicing on this board.... I only can think of 3 HP employees who post on here to begin with....not a lot of posters to be able to get a feeling one way or the other.
B
BottomFeeder
Guest
StraaightTaalk said:
StrAAighttAAlk,
Which AA example should they follow?
AA- Reno
AA-Air Cal
AA-Twa
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
From AWA website AWA
Mechanics (for US Airways includes stock clerks and maintenance training instructors)
AWA
union....................... IBT
# in group................ 852
Contract Status.........Currently in negotiations
USAirways................IAM
# in group................3848
Contract Status.........December 2009
AWA footnote....
Note: When two carriers merge and the same union represents both carriers’ employees (in this case, pilots and flight attendants), both carriers’ groups follow their respective union’s Merger Policy. When the two groups are represented by different unions (dispatchers, mechanics, fleet service, stock clerks, passenger service and reservations agents), the National Mediation Board (NMB) generally will order a representation election to determine which union will represent the combined group if each union represents at least 35% of the combined group. If one airline’s work force does not represent at least 35% of the combined group, the larger work force’s union would likely be certified to represent both airlines’ specific work group.
Are the numbers correct? (Seems to me USAirways numbers are off after all the layoffs etc unless utility members that are laided off are still considered part of group in eyes of NMB) If so IAM represents 81.9% IBT 18.1% Give or take stock clerks, training instructors. In other words IAM takes the cake?
Mechanics (for US Airways includes stock clerks and maintenance training instructors)
AWA
union....................... IBT
# in group................ 852
Contract Status.........Currently in negotiations
USAirways................IAM
# in group................3848
Contract Status.........December 2009
AWA footnote....
Note: When two carriers merge and the same union represents both carriers’ employees (in this case, pilots and flight attendants), both carriers’ groups follow their respective union’s Merger Policy. When the two groups are represented by different unions (dispatchers, mechanics, fleet service, stock clerks, passenger service and reservations agents), the National Mediation Board (NMB) generally will order a representation election to determine which union will represent the combined group if each union represents at least 35% of the combined group. If one airline’s work force does not represent at least 35% of the combined group, the larger work force’s union would likely be certified to represent both airlines’ specific work group.
Are the numbers correct? (Seems to me USAirways numbers are off after all the layoffs etc unless utility members that are laided off are still considered part of group in eyes of NMB) If so IAM represents 81.9% IBT 18.1% Give or take stock clerks, training instructors. In other words IAM takes the cake?
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
BottomFeeder said:
If it is a takeover of USAIr by AWA, then staple.
If it is a "MERGER" as they claim, then dovetail!
AA purchased TWA, it was not a merger!
The seniority issue for the TWU and IAM was decided by Kasher the arbitrator because both unions agrred to binding arbitration. Kasher gave the TWAers 3 different seniorities depending on location.
He came to his formula like this:
AA was 5 times the size of TWA. So he gave the TWAers 20% seniority. Then he threw in another 5% seniority because of the quote, SYNERGIES", end quote that the purchase brought to AA. The synergies were basically routes that AA did not have.
Now at stations where TWA's PSM's were greater that 25% compared to AA's at those stations, they got 25% seniority. That is 25% to 4/10/01 ) the day AA purchased TWA.) Then after that it's day for day.
These stations ar JFK, LGA, LAX,SFO.
Now at stations that did not meet the 25% criteria, they got 4/10/01 seniority.
At STL and MCI, where AA did not have maintenance or anything of an operation, the TWAers got 100% seniority.
Now, on to the pilots:
AA pilots agreed to dovetail TWA captains, I think, every 7 down to each AA pilot.
I say I think because I am not toally certain of the 7.
AFter the captains were done dovetailing, the TWA pilots essentially got stapled to the bottom.
No lawsuits, end of story.
Now, the Flight Attendants:
TWA f/a's were stapled to the bottom of the AA f/a list.
TWA f/a's lost their lawsuit.
PAX service agents were all stapled as well.
They too lost their lawsuit.
- Status
