TUL mechs

[OldGuy@AA]

 
OldGuy
 
If I am not mistaken you have said many times here that you have 25+ yrs here at AA, so I wonder if the USAirways guys said since AA is/was in BK we should give them 10/4/2012 how you would like that? I would bet the answer would be "NO".
 
I have always said that each time we get merged/bought out the members should be fairly merged. My Opinion the TWA guys got hosed.
Merging by Occupational time is the only way each companies union members get a fair placement with thier seniority. They get what they had as it falls into the one list. Does it always work out that every one is happy NO, but it is fair. It is just part of the industry that companies come and go.
I would also assume that AA is the only place you have worked so you are a AA Blue blood. Many in our industry have worked at other carriers, some as many as 5, that includes me.
 
Each time we all start at the bottom of the payroll and at the bottom of the seniority list, if you had to do that over and over you would feel a bit different since as we changed companies we did not loose any knowledge. In fact we all had more to offer.
 
O/S is now and will continue to cause any trouble which will keep us at each other thus insuring his TWU will remain in place.
He attacks Bob Owens for his ways then attacks Bob for not doing enough as a TWU officer of 591. It's O/S just one of the TWU supporters
which don't want any change.
 
Merging by occupational/classification time as its called at US is fair for us all. The Blue bloods at AA even feel that the TWA guys should not even get to bid the yrs of vacation they earned as well. At what point do we stop this and work as one group fro the betterment of our class and craft?
 
AMFA at AA in 2014

It is very complicated and I don't know what is fair.  I do know that there are two sides to every issue.  Would it be fair if a career AA guy got laid off so a TWA guy could take his job?  The AA guy would say no and the TWA guy would say yes.  As it turned out, we couldn't bump them from their stations and they couldn't bump us.  This was the result of arbitration, not what the AA guys demanded.  AA bought Air Cal and those guys were dovetailed only because they were TWU.  They also made more money than we did and had their pay frozen until we caught up with them.  Also AA laid off mechanics in the early 80s and Air Cal didn't.  There are AA guys who hired on at AA before the Air Cal guys hired on there and lost seniority while laid off.  So you have AA guys with a hire date of 79 who are below Air Cal guys with hire dates of 80.  Is that fair?  the Air Cal guy would say yes and the AA guy would say no.  Reno Air guys lost their seniority.  They were non union so is it fair to protect the seniority of guys who refused to vote in a union when they are bought out by a unionized airline?  I think the AA guys would say no and the Reno guys would say yes.  Like I said it's complicated, but you can judge me if you want.  It is really surprising that you would consider me inferior because I have stayed at AA for my whole career.  Let me remind you that you leaving one airline to work at another was most likely YOUR choice.  I did not have any choice in buying Air Cal or Reno or TWA and I had no say in this merge.  I believe that in a true merge the seniority should be dovetailed as we will do.  I honestly don't know what is fair in any other case.  I don't claim to have all the answers but I did point out that there were AA guys who got screwed in the arbitration also.  The AA guys in Saint Louis were all laid off and the TWA guys got to stay and keep all their seniority.  Many of the TWA guys there had less seniority than the AA guys but that did not matter.  This was not fair no matter how you look at it.  Overspeed has his own opinions on this stuff and he is entitled to them as you are entitled to yours.  I can tell you I disagree with you on this but I can't tell you who is right or wrong because I really don't know.  I do know that AA and US Air merged and there is nothing you or I could have done to stop it.  I always thought it was a good thing that I have been here for 29 years, but to some I guess it is not.  That is why I love this blog.   You learn new stuff about how other guys think all the time.  But one thing is for sure.  Neither AA or the TWU or the IAM gives a hoot about what you or I think or our conception of fair. 

 

[OldGuy@AA]

As far as the betterment of our class and craft the easiest way, in my opinion, is to vote in AMFA.

 

[700UW]

My friends Uncle was a mechanic in LAX with TWA for 30 years, he had to go to STL to keep his job as he got abolished or bumped and a five year AA mechanic stays in LAX.
 
Not fair, the only was is dovetail.

Some lose, some win, some stay the same but its most equal to everyone.

 

[Slopoke]

Also AA laid off mechanics in the early 80s and Air Cal didn't.  There are AA guys who hired on at AA before the Air Cal guys hired on there and lost seniority while laid off.  So you have AA guys with a hire date of 79 who are below Air Cal guys with hire dates of 80.  Is that fair?  the Air Cal guy would say yes and the AA guy would say no.

 
Are you talking company seniority or occupational? How does a Air California person with 80 hire date (company seniority) be above a AA person with a 79 (company seniority) date?  I can't wrap my head around your statement. I know even if a person was hired on in 79 and got laid off, the time on layoff would be deducted from his or her original company date, so their adjusted company date on the seniority list would be later than the actual. So depending on how long he or she was laid off, the Air California person that was never laid off could be senior company seniority wise compared to the AA person. But the AA person would be above the Air California person occupational seniority wise. So if my example was what you were talking about, just because an AA person was laid off and lost time and an Air California person was not laid off and did not lose time. How is that unfair? Please explain your quoted statement.

 

[xUT]

 
I don't attack anybody. I point out what he should be doing and his inconsistencies just as you point out with me. It's the right thing to do. I think people like you and Bob drive change that is needed. Is the TWU perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative of AMFA? Based on what I have witnessed at NW (near complete destruction of all jobs), AS (loss of all remaining overhaul jobs at OAK), UA (gave in to mgmt's demands to outsource almost all airframe overhaul and blame the IAM), and SW (kept extending an agreement while mgmt kept outsourcing at higher and higher rates). We are better off tweaking what we have and making it better.

You have no clue as what happened at United, much less any of the other carriers that you mentioned. He11 why aren't you blaming the iam for the loss of jobs at Eastern?
Spin Spin Spin, wash, rinse and repeat.
I've explained it to you and the rest of your hucksters time and time again but you continue to fabricate your little knowledge of history.
IMHO, because no one will do the research and listen to your idiocy.
You deserve the twu and the iam.
B) xUT

 

[swamt]

 
Chuck, you know what was done in M&R was not right to treat 30 year AMTs like they were lucky to have a job. Management does that, not us. We should have given them fair treatment in regards to their time. How many times did we hear AA AMTs that had five years yell at TWA guys that they were acquired and were lucky they had a job?
 
AMFA didn't do that to the AirTran AMTs. We should not have even let that seniority issue get in that idiot arbitrator's hands. I would have been in favor of some form of dovetailing even if it did put my down the list. What we did in the TWU combined with what happened with the APA and APFA led to the government stepping in.

Get a clue dumb a$$.  Before you spout off about the SWA and AT integration agreement, you need to be better informed...

 

[swamt]

 
I don't attack anybody. I point out what he should be doing and his inconsistencies just as you point out with me. It's the right thing to do. I think people like you and Bob drive change that is needed. Is the TWU perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative of AMFA? Based on what I have witnessed at NW (near complete destruction of all jobs), AS (loss of all remaining overhaul jobs at OAK), UA (gave in to mgmt's demands to outsource almost all airframe overhaul and blame the IAM), and SW (kept extending an agreement while mgmt kept outsourcing at higher and higher rates). We are better off tweaking what we have and making it better.

You still need to get a clue.  Keep posting, your doing a great job...

 

[swamt]

My friends Uncle was a mechanic in LAX with TWA for 30 years, he had to go to STL to keep his job as he got abolished or bumped and a five year AA mechanic stays in LAX.
 
Not fair, the only was is dovetail.
Some lose, some win, some stay the same but its most equal to everyone.

And this is the BS TWU contract language that allowed it.  AA has some stupid a$$ language that allows lower mechs to stay put as others get booted, PATHETIC!!!

 

[swamt]

You have no clue as what happened at United, much less any of the other carriers that you mentioned. He11 why aren't you blaming the iam for the loss of jobs at Eastern?
Spin Spin Spin, wash, rinse and repeat.
I've explained it to you and the rest of your hucksters time and time again but you continue to fabricate your little knowledge of history.
IMHO, because no one will do the research and listen to your idiocy.
You deserve the twu and the iam.
B) xUT

You are so correct. he really has no knowledge of any info at any other airlines.  As proven before and now...

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
I don't attack anybody. I point out what he should be doing and his inconsistencies just as you point out with me. It's the right thing to do. I think people like you and Bob drive change that is needed. Is the TWU perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative of AMFA? Based on what I have witnessed at NW (near complete destruction of all jobs), AS (loss of all remaining overhaul jobs at OAK), UA (gave in to mgmt's demands to outsource almost all airframe overhaul and blame the IAM), and SW (kept extending an agreement while mgmt kept outsourcing at higher and higher rates). We are better off tweaking what we have and making it better.

 
Still trying to rewrite UAL history I see.
 
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20030505/NEWS02/20008754/united-shutters-two-maintenance-centers#
 

 
Bankrupt United Airlines is closing its maintenance centers in Indianapolis and Oakland, Calif., outsourcing all heavy maintenance and transferring some other work to its remaining maintenance hub in San Francisco.

 
Now lets check the date of the article - May 5th, 2003
 
Well that means this CAN NOT be AMFAs fault as AMFA wasn't certified on UAL til July of 2003
 

 
The decision to close the facilities came on the heels of the April 29 vote on pay cuts and work rule changes by the International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 141-M, which represents mechanics at both facilities. The concessions included removal of restrictions on outsourcing heavy maintenance work. Spokesmen for the IAM did not return calls seeking comment.

 
The IAM is blamed for the loss of heavy maintenance/overhaul at UAL just as they should be.
 
Nice try

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Overspeed implies many things and plainly misrepresents the facts in order to decieve the people who may read this and not be in the know of the truth. This is what the typical twu officers or sympathtetic twu officials do........they can not and have not listed all the great accomplishments the twu has done for my class and craft over the last 30 years because there is none! So they try to knock others in an attempt to bring them down to their low status. It is about time that overspeed and the twu supporters are exposed for what they are.
Spinsters and fear mongers amongst the people they are supposedly representing. If you can call it representing.......look at the twu history on concesssions and manipulation on voting.
If yiu want more of that then keep listening to the twu and their rhetoric or sign an amfa card and lets vote on who will better represent our class and craft.

 

[Slopoke]

And this is the BS TWU contract language that allowed it.  AA has some stupid a$$ language that allows lower mechs to stay put as others get booted, PATHETIC!!!

 
 
I'm not defending the TWU, but it was the Kasher ruling that affected the TWA AMTs. IIRC, LAX started out as a 4/10/2001 station and became a 25% station once all AA employees were recalled. I for one am for seniority portability, but until we get one union for all airlines, seniority issues will continue to be with us.

 

[swamt]

 
 
I'm not defending the TWU, but it was the Kasher ruling that affected the TWA AMTs. IIRC, LAX started out as a 4/10/2001 station and became a 25% station once all AA employees were recalled. I for one am for seniority portability, but until we get one union for all airlines, seniority issues will continue to be with us.

Not refering to the TWA/AA case.  Talking about general language in the contract during bumping and closures just as in the recent AFW fiascoe...

 

[OldGuy@AA]

 
Are you talking company seniority or occupational? How does a Air California person with 80 hire date (company seniority) be above a AA person with a 79 (company seniority) date?  I can't wrap my head around your statement. I know even if a person was hired on in 79 and got laid off, the time on layoff would be deducted from his or her original company date, so their adjusted company date on the seniority list would be later than the actual. So depending on how long he or she was laid off, the Air California person that was never laid off could be senior company seniority wise compared to the AA person. But the AA person would be above the Air California person occupational seniority wise. So if my example was what you were talking about, just because an AA person was laid off and lost time and an Air California person was not laid off and did not lose time. How is that unfair? Please explain your quoted statement.

The AA guy hired on in 79 and got laid off not long after.  The AirCal guy hired on in 80 and did not ever get laid off.  The AA guy lost occupational seniority due to a layoff that the AirCal guy did not go through.  The TWU was asked about this scenario and refused to consider protecting the AA guys seniority.  There were quite a few affected by it too.  If you look at the seniority list you can find guys with 5 digit emp#s who have a company sen date of 78 or 79 but occupational of 81 or 82.  Above them you'll see guys with six digit emp#s who have company dates and occupational dates of 80 or 81.  It's easy to see because AA didn't start issuing six digit employee numbers until the late 80s.  Air Cal guys with over two years seniority than B scalers like me made $2 more an hour than we did too.  Their pay was frozen until we caught up with them.  I would like to know if anyone thinks that was fair.  The TWU was not about to get the rest of us raises to match AirCal so they froze them.   My whole angle is that some seem to think that in every case others got screwed and AA guys got over.  I do know it's not fair to ignore the times when AA guys got screwed.

 

[MCI transplant]

And this is the BS TWU contract language that allowed it.  AA has some stupid a$$ language that allows lower mechs to stay put as others get booted, PATHETIC!!!

Welcome to AA/TWU!!!!