That's a lie and there are 12 other witnesses, who were there when Lombardo offered Gary an International spot, Gary turned him down and asked instead that they meet to settle the lawsuit by putting things in place so we don't get screwed again. Lombardo demanded an unconditional withdrawl of the lawsuit. Said withdraw the lawsuit, then he will talk.Overspeed said:
TWU and IAM representation alliance vote
- Thread starter chellow
- Start date
- Status
Guess they never heard of an airline called "United", they have been in negotiations for three years for a Joint agreement, sure it may put us "on a "fast track" to negotiations but it wont put us on a fast track to a settlement, why would AA agree to anything when the IAM just signed a deal that leaves us all at the bottom of the industry till 2018? The IAM didnt even seek what UAL and Delta are getting now. That's just pathetic.iluvaa said:
Time for a Reality Check, See postsRealityck said:
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57325-twu-and-iam-representation-alliance-vote/?p=1113587
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57325-twu-and-iam-representation-alliance-vote/?p=1113592
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Let me reiterate, GP got played. He and the rest of the hate Little/Int'l/AMFA lover team are bargaining with someone who has been playing the political game a lot longer than you. Even Bob said Lombardo said he would "talk" about and Int'l position.
On the TUL AO side I am not surprised 757 checks are dropping. They are being retired like mad over the next year and being replaced with new A321s. MD80s? Well I'm surprised you haven't heard...AA ordered a bunch of new planes to replace older high maintenance MD80s.
Fact is overhaul demand is falling for now.
The Association will go through. After reading the IAM letter it seems they have educated their members well and won't tolerate lies and BS. I saw the TWU signed on but Lombardo needs to come out and do the same with the 591 officers.
On the TUL AO side I am not surprised 757 checks are dropping. They are being retired like mad over the next year and being replaced with new A321s. MD80s? Well I'm surprised you haven't heard...AA ordered a bunch of new planes to replace older high maintenance MD80s.
Fact is overhaul demand is falling for now.
The Association will go through. After reading the IAM letter it seems they have educated their members well and won't tolerate lies and BS. I saw the TWU signed on but Lombardo needs to come out and do the same with the 591 officers.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Overspeed said:
You are assuming that everyone is a sheep like you and whatever the IAM or TWU says that the member will follow. We will see you could be right. But, I think the credibility of both leaderships are weak these days.
TRAVIS
Veteran
I voted NO! What I can't understand is why the ones who voted yes didn't see this! Makes me spitting mad!!! And to top it off have some non-airline BOZO tell me how good I have it.Bob Owens said:
That's just pathetic!
Have a blessed night BOB
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
Pretty slick the way you mention the diminishing need of OH based solely on the arrival of new aircraft as a means of giving the TWU a pass. As if they played no part in the destruction of the aircraft mechanics class.Overspeed said:
I guess the TWU had no part in loss of mechanic jobs to line cargo...Deicing and push backs?
I guess the TWU had no part in the creation of the B scale!
I guess the TWU had no part in the elimination of building cleaners!
I guess the TWU had no part in the creation of OSMs and SRPS!
Incidentally the above mentioned HAPPENED WAAAAAY BEFORE BANKRUPTCY!
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,544
- 5,263
Aren't your Local presidents the one's who go and negotiate for you? Aren't they the one's who accept recommendations from the members? Aren't they the one's who bring back a TA and aren't the members ultimately the ones who vote yes or no?MetalMover said:
Prior to the concessions of 03 and the bankruptcy these item were voted on and accepted by the majority of those who voted. They did not need to be accepted by the membership but they ultimately were. Sometimes people should look in the mirror and fault themselves and not always try and lay blame on others.
I just did some archive research. It's very difficult to find things on the net that predate 1995. The New York Times seems to be about the only source. So who voted this in and why?
"The current contract, reached by American and the union in March 1983, has become a benchmark for other carriers in their efforts to bring down labor costs and compete with low-fare nonunion lines. In return for wage increases of 21 percent over three years and guarantees of full-time jobs until retirement for most T.W.U. workers, American could hire new workers at pay scales 32 percent below those then in effect, could hire part-time workers to make up 12.5 percent of the work force, and could shift workers into different jobs."
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/30/us/bonus-not-raise-in-airline-accord.html
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,544
- 5,263
Who voted this one in? I know in Fleet this brought in the wonderful idea of junior FSC. $10.00 per hour top out in 9 years. So what and who did you guys in maintenance who voted yes for this sell out for?
Published: August 15, 1995
"The tentative agreement between American Airlines Inc. and the Transport Workers Union -- a pact that would include a temporary wage-scale freeze and an early retirement package -- would provide substantial savings for the airline, a spokesman for the airline's parent, the AMR Corporation, said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/15/business/american-airlines-in-tentative-union-pact.html
Published: August 15, 1995
"The tentative agreement between American Airlines Inc. and the Transport Workers Union -- a pact that would include a temporary wage-scale freeze and an early retirement package -- would provide substantial savings for the airline, a spokesman for the airline's parent, the AMR Corporation, said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/15/business/american-airlines-in-tentative-union-pact.html
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
$10.00? I wish. I had to start at $7.00WeAAsles said:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,544
- 5,263
I'd like to hear from some people who were around for both those TA's that I posted who have the guts to admit that they voted yes on them. Any takers?
I hired on in May of 95. Had a ton of old farts trying to get me to vote yes on the 95 contract the second I walked in the door of the company. I didn't vote because I was new and had no clue what any of it really meant and just wanted to work.
I voted YES in 01. Told a former Junior friend that I was voting yes but if I were him I would vote no. They were slotted over on the payscale rather than being placed at the scale that coincided with their years in the company. It took guys who hired on in late 95, 14 years total to top out where I topped out in 8 years. 6 years longer than me and I hired on only 5 months before the contract was ratified.
I didn't vote in 03. My thought was if the company was going to mug me they could take my wallet out of my pocket themselves. The gun was at the back of my head and I couldn't see the bullets.
I was going to vote NO on the TA we had just prior to the BK.
I voted YES on the BK contract. I saw a loaded gun pointed at my face and I handed over my wallet.
I bet I won't get any honest injuns on this thread? <_<
I hired on in May of 95. Had a ton of old farts trying to get me to vote yes on the 95 contract the second I walked in the door of the company. I didn't vote because I was new and had no clue what any of it really meant and just wanted to work.
I voted YES in 01. Told a former Junior friend that I was voting yes but if I were him I would vote no. They were slotted over on the payscale rather than being placed at the scale that coincided with their years in the company. It took guys who hired on in late 95, 14 years total to top out where I topped out in 8 years. 6 years longer than me and I hired on only 5 months before the contract was ratified.
I didn't vote in 03. My thought was if the company was going to mug me they could take my wallet out of my pocket themselves. The gun was at the back of my head and I couldn't see the bullets.
I was going to vote NO on the TA we had just prior to the BK.
I voted YES on the BK contract. I saw a loaded gun pointed at my face and I handed over my wallet.
I bet I won't get any honest injuns on this thread? <_<
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
The B scale concept was not created by the TWU. The APA at AA brought in the exact same thing and AMFA counsel Martin Seham bragged about negotiating the B scale in for the pilots. Get your facts straight.
Deicing and pushbacks have been done by other AMTs at many airlines around the same time as the TWU. It was post deregulation.
The TWU Int'l had been trying to bring the building cleaners over to the higher wage Title III wage scale but their brothers and sisters in Title III were against it. The 2010 TA was going to move them over to the higher wage utility pay scale but we the membership voted that down too. We are the membership and WE voted to screw them.
The OSM/SRP classification was and is an attempt to hang on to jobs in-house at wages higher than those people would be making at low wage MROs. Plus it provides and place to bump if you get laid off as an AMT. Also the other unions eventually decided overhaul jobs of any kind would be better off being outsourced entirely which means making zero pay versus making much more plus earning seniority and the ability to transfer to a higher wage AMT job.
Deicing and pushbacks have been done by other AMTs at many airlines around the same time as the TWU. It was post deregulation.
The TWU Int'l had been trying to bring the building cleaners over to the higher wage Title III wage scale but their brothers and sisters in Title III were against it. The 2010 TA was going to move them over to the higher wage utility pay scale but we the membership voted that down too. We are the membership and WE voted to screw them.
The OSM/SRP classification was and is an attempt to hang on to jobs in-house at wages higher than those people would be making at low wage MROs. Plus it provides and place to bump if you get laid off as an AMT. Also the other unions eventually decided overhaul jobs of any kind would be better off being outsourced entirely which means making zero pay versus making much more plus earning seniority and the ability to transfer to a higher wage AMT job.
- Status
Similar threads
