So your in favor of firing the TWU as your representatives?
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
TERM SHEET DURATION........
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
AA89 I know the LBO sucked, and the term sheet is worse, but there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Of all the contracts I've been thru, it's common knowledge that we end up voting on a contract thats worse than the previous deal.
No, let's get the deal going. we will get the term sheet rammed down our throat in the end. Again we will take the worst deal by voting no.
comatose
Senior
You and overpeed could be brother/sister. Twu lovers that are light in the loafers.
If you trying to recruit to your Surrender Advocacy Group you've come to the wrong site. You might try the TWU514 on Facebook or Twitter.
AA89
Veteran
- Jun 1, 2010
- 690
- 320
Donna, were you around for 95? That was a pretty game changing contract that passed by a yes vote. If you were not I would be more than happy to scan and email a copy of the packet of fear to you.
In the packet the TWU urges us to vote yes due to the economy forcast ahead. For 6 years we were locked into contract with a total of 6.5% in raises plus the introduction of the OSM position. (Which is about to bite another 15% of licensed mechanics in the butt)
The 2003 concessions were a yes vote as well. I'm sure you are aware of the cuts we took there.
The bottom line is guys are sick of concessions, sick of profits off our backs and sick of bonuses for inept executives. To lock us in to that contract for 6+ years is insanity. This will be the last contract alot of guys will ever work under due to their ages.
We feel have very little to lose and more to gain by voting NO. Time will tell.
In the packet the TWU urges us to vote yes due to the economy forcast ahead. For 6 years we were locked into contract with a total of 6.5% in raises plus the introduction of the OSM position. (Which is about to bite another 15% of licensed mechanics in the butt)
The 2003 concessions were a yes vote as well. I'm sure you are aware of the cuts we took there.
The bottom line is guys are sick of concessions, sick of profits off our backs and sick of bonuses for inept executives. To lock us in to that contract for 6+ years is insanity. This will be the last contract alot of guys will ever work under due to their ages.
We feel have very little to lose and more to gain by voting NO. Time will tell.
Airlinesforever
Member
- May 16, 2012
- 16
- 3
I voted NO, for a reason of I will not vote for a non union contract with union dues attached. A worker would be better off working for a non union company than to be stuck with a contract like this and being made to pay union dues for 6 years to TWU.
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
Come on Brother, the last vote was not a negotiated contract. It was a Settlement Proposal from the company. When it was obvious that there were more no votes than expected, TWU Local 514 and those in fear of the TWU International began to take a Yes position.
Thats what you claim now,
Where is my mistake? Thats what I said, that you were confusing what happened to you under 1113e with what AA filed an 1113c when Hopeful was citing you saying that if our agreement gets abrogated that the company could impose a 6 year term on us.
Once again where is my mistake?
Others believe the IAM facilitated concessions, even pro-union Bob Owens so the IAM is the concessions master. How come you didn't harp on Bob for calling your favorite airline USAIR a name that you always say hasn't been used since 1995? Just wondering why you're inconsistent. Slow day?
Josh
And under the terms imposed how long was the term? One year ? I doubt it, they continued to negotiate. because "terms" are not a contract, they can be a part of a contract but you can still work under terms without one. If they had a five or six year term then why would they continue to negotiate under section 6?
The pilots lawyer made that clear yesterday, the company agreed and the judge said nothing. If the contract is abrogated there is no contract, therefore no six year term. That would be like Delta telling their employees they have a 20 year contract, then if the workers get a union and the union filed with the NMB Delta coming back and saying "Come back and talk to us in 20 years when this deal becomes amendable. If what you say is true why go for just six years, why not 10, why not 20?
BTW AA is seeking a more than 40% reduction in labor costs from M&R in their motion. Just eliminating 4600 mechanics alone would slash their LABOR costs by 40%, add in the elimination of the pension, another 10%, the elimination of another week of vacation, the elimination of retiree medical etc etc and LABOR costs for maintenance would go down more than 50%. The company stated in court that when you compare labor costs to labor costs you cant add in what they pay to vendors when they outsource, they siad its Apples to apples and mixing them would be apples to oranges.therefore we have to look at what the company is asking from us and see if its fair and equitable, they are demanding 20% from everyone else, and over 50% from us.
All previous case workers went from at or near the top to at or near the bottom, we are at the bottom, this has never happend before where a company with over $4 billion in cash is seeking to take their mechanics, who are already at the bottom and slash their compensation by another 20% and then some.
You'd have to ask a NW (now Delta) flight attendant what their failed March 1, 2006 TA said about the term of the agreement - since that was the CBA that was imposed by NW on its FAs at the end of July, 2006 until the FAs narrowly ratified another offer about May 29, 2007. "Terms" are not a contract? Your lack of expertise in contract law is showing. AA has asked the judge for permission to reject your current CBA and replace it with a new six year CBA. The terms of that new CBA are the old CBA as modified by the term sheets provided to you in March.
Incorrect. If the judge permits AA to abrogate your contract, and permits AA to impose its terms, then AA has said it will impose a six year agreement upon you. Sure, AA will keep negotiating in the hope that the mechanics will ratify an agreement, but you're just plane wrong when you post that there is no agreement.
It's no skin off my nose if you insist on posting false and incorrect information for your members.
Yes, AA will cut a number of maintenance jobs as it begins to outsource heavy C checks where it can find vendors willing to do the work. That's going to happen whether the mechanics agree to it or the contract is abrogated. What really matters is how much are the mechanics who keep working for AA giving up in terms of compensation, and it's not 40%. It's not 20%. AA is planning to trim its maintenance expenses by 20% by eliminating quite a few positions at TULE and AFW plus some line station reductions.
Yes, your hourly pay and non-pension benefits place you near or at the bottom of licensed AMTs among your competitiors (commercial airlines). I understand that the failed 2010 TA had unacceptable concessions within it, but had it been ratified, your hourly pay wouid not be at the bottom. AA offered its AMTs higher hourly pay just two years ago, and it was rejected. Now, the court is likely to permit AA to abrogate your contract and make cuts not from the higher 2010 TA level, but from the lower 2003 level. Ouch.
Similar threads
