TWU and the Company reached a Tentative Agreement

[Tex-Mech]

Having worked A300 in the past, I hope the A320 is more maintenance friendly.

Title 2 works airplanes at DFW???

Thought that was only in New Orleans?

 

[Overspeed]

Title 2 works airplanes at DFW???

Thought that was only in New Orleans?

Uh, I never said I was title 2.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Title 2 works airplanes at DFW???



... snip

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:9458]

 

[Buck]

Yes I was in Tulsa then & it happened to Dan at AFW, he was in the same Isle as me but at the front, I have the whole grievance report actually, it was not for wearing a regular AMFA shirt & you know it.
We both know what he was wearing & what all transpired.

Oh & I push back often against everything ..... LOL
I'm a rebel. B)

Was the same time frame when Kruse was the Boss at TUL?

 

[Overspeed]

Slow down Overspin, you are forgetting what you wrote.


UAL emerged in 2005, just like I said, and negotiated a new deal the end of 2011, you do the math.




Vacation, Sick time, Holidays and Health Benefits (even though I did not include that because its variable) are all part of your pay. Cmon, you know that!! You also know that 25% was what the company was demanding, when the committee said to take it all in the form of a wage cut the company said no, they demanded that some of it be in benefit cuts which compound over time, and for the International means a smaller hit to the dues flow.



Not Cherry Picking, you are using your Fox News Hannity style misinformation techniques to try and blurr the facts. The comparasion was between DOS of the Modified Last Best Offer and what UAL currently has. In the MLBO we lose the pension, retiree medical. Are you spinning so fast you didnt see that?



I should have put the word "real" in, my mistake, but yes in real terms the buying power we have from our wgaes has declined by 40%.

25%for the cut, yes we got 7% increase back on the wages, nothing else, but all of that was consumed by the Medical between higher rates, copays and deductibles. The Pilots got back 9% the first year. 3.75%-your number not mine- seems high to me but ok, 3.75 x 9 years = 33.75% (without factoring in compounding) so going by your numbers its more like 58%. My property taxes alone nearly doubled. I know the CPI does not include taxes but if we are talking buying power Taxes and many other things they leave out should be otherwise its not an accurate reflection on the loss of buying power. I use the standrd 30 year average of 3%, before the government altered the formula to include 'value" such as advances in technology that keep prices for electronics steady while offering more computing power for the same price. The new formula counts that as a reduction in price even if thats the only replacement available.

UA entered BK in Jan 2002 and exited Jan 2006. UA's BK was the longest airline BK on record and drove some BK law changes we are dealing with now. Your dates are off, way off. That means the TWU restructured CBA changes were driven a lot by the UA/AMTs voting no with the IAM on their restructured agreement then changing unions because AMFA promised a better deal than the IAM. Hey, that sounds oddly familiar...kind of like you and your AMFA/AMP supporters recommending a no vote and we will get AMFA who will "fight" for a better deal than the TWU. I suppose we can expect all of AO to be outsourced while the new union is "fighting".

I did do the math. If your pay is cut in an 1113e motion on Jan 2004 that's when the cock starts. Did the months before emerging from BK with a pay cut not count? It did if you were the one receiving the pay cut. Getting wrapped around the axle Bob. The point is it took more than the six years proposed in the current TA and UA did not get past us until Dec 2011. That's a long time by any measure. Is that what we have to look forward under the "vote no until something happens" plan? Nice.

Exactly, all those things count. So then do the same for UA. They had thousands of jobs outsourced (all airframe overhaul), their pensions frozen, gave up two holidays, 75% SK pay for the first 56 hours, eliminate double time and a 16.9% pay cut. You want the UA deal? Okay then you need to compare the whole deal. When will you be showing up in TUL AO to inform them you will putting their jobs on the block? Again you reveal the real reason for the "vote no until something happens" plan. Once outsourcing of all AO happens you can get your geo pay and line premium. That has been your motive all along. Chuck even said it when he stated the raise may be good for TUL but it doesn't cut it in JFK. Keep blaming TUL like you always have.

All those economic factors effect them as well. And Bush cut taxes remember?

40%? Uh, no. In the past decade there has actually been some deflation. No way it is 40% decrease in buying power. More fuzzy math.

 

[FWAAA]

UA entered BK in Jan 2002 and exited Jan 2006. UA's BK was the longest airline BK on record and drove some BK law changes we are dealing with now. Your dates are off, way off.

Your dates are off as well. UA filed for Ch 11 protection in December, 2002 (not January, 2002 as you posted) and exited Ch 11 in February, 2006.

 

[xUT]

Your dates are off as well. UA filed for Ch 11 protection in December, 2002 (not January, 2002 as you posted) and exited Ch 11 in February, 2006.

Yep. Don't confuse him, he's on a roll...

 

[Buck]

The shortage is here people. just remember 1995 when we had to sit on the sidelines as the country went through one of the biggest economic expansions ever while we were tied to a 6 year 6% concessionary deal thank to Ed Koziatek. We had a ME TOO clause then as well.


As I recall, in 1995 our top AMT rate was $2.50 above the UAL rate (It may have been due to a wage cut), and $7.00 above the TWA rate. The APA (Pilots in case you forgot that too Bob) also had a 6yr agreement with the same wage freeze as we did. They added a 7th year for a 2% wage increase. The me-too language in our 95 contract required AA to offer it to us, they did and the President's Council rejected it in order to open asap. I always believed that was a good move on their part. The 95 agreement also expanded job security to include all AMTs on payroll hired prior to August 15, 1995. The early-out option in the agreement also allowed the recall of close to 1,000 AMTs, all of who got job security when they returned to payroll.

I know you're just doing your sales pitch, but try to be a little more accurate. It hurts your image when you start having memory lapses.

1995? Wasn't that when the SRP's were started? So while as you say we were $2.50 above United, were we really?

 

[Realityck]

1995? Wasn't that when the SRP's were started? So while as you say we were $2.50 above United, were we really?

Yes to both comments, although no SRP's could be hired until all Tulsa AMTs were recalled from layoff. The vacancies to recall them were created by the 5 + 5 early-out Program.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Yep. Don't confuse him, he's on a roll...

Yep - confusing the issues with facts - gets them every time.

 

[Overspeed]

Your dates are off as well. UA filed for Ch 11 protection in December, 2002 (not January, 2002 as you posted) and exited Ch 11 in February, 2006.

Excuse me Dec 2002 and Jan 2006. I entered Jan for 2002 in error. Either way, the 1113e initiated the first round of pay cuts with the 1113e on Jan 6, 2004. It is from that date that the pay cuts started. The point is that UA got slammed and it has taken eight years to finally pass us at AA. The comparison to UA now, eight years after BK and say, "Look how good they are doing," is a ridiculous. If we walked in their shoes back then there would be no AO work here and yes we would now be making eight years later $37/hour for those that stayed on.

Or we could have voted yes on the July 2010 TA and been making for the last two years and still have AO. Not reliving the past just pointing out that the "vote no until something good happens" people aren't that smart. They have a poor track record.

 

[Overspeed]

1995? Wasn't that when the SRP's were started? So while as you say we were $2.50 above United, were we really?

Yes the SRPs started in 1995. Do you remember that the Company proposal was to outsource that work? The membership was surveyed and they said they wanted job security to be there number one concern. With the combination of an early out package and the SRP classification no work was outsourced. The choice was allow the work to be outsourced or insourced.

You do know that UA, DL, and CO all have SRP/OSM type classifications at that time. They call them Utility, Technician Helper, and Mechanic Helper. In 1995 CO only paid one license for overhaul AMTs as well as having unlicensed AMTs working overhaul. Bash the SRP/OSM program all you want but we weren't the first. It was a response to the market forces.

Again market rate has to include the MRO where the work is outsourced to. AA's OSM rate and benefits are higher than MROs where UA, DL, CO, WN, UPS, FDX, and US outsource the work our OSMs perform.

The average wage rate argument has to include the impact of work outsourced to raise the in-house wage rate.

 

[Boomer]

Yes the SRPs started in 1995. Do you remember that the Company proposal was to outsource that work? The membership was surveyed and they said they wanted job security to be there number one concern. With the combination of an early out package and the SRP classification no work was outsourced. The choice was allow the work to be outsourced or insourced.

You do know that UA, DL, and CO all have SRP/OSM type classifications at that time. They call them Utility, Technician Helper, and Mechanic Helper. In 1995 CO only paid one license for overhaul AMTs as well as having unlicensed AMTs working overhaul. Bash the SRP/OSM program all you want but we weren't the first. It was a response to the market forces.

Again market rate has to include the MRO where the work is outsourced to. AA's OSM rate and benefits are higher than MROs where UA, DL, CO, WN, UPS, FDX, and US outsource the work our OSMs perform.

The average wage rate argument has to include the impact of work outsourced to raise the in-house wage rate.

Last things first:

If the average wage argument has to include the impact of work outsourced to raise the in-house wage rate why does the TWU only include WN, UPS and FDX when discussing the in-house wage rate during outsourcing if they also include UA, DL, CO and US when discussing the pay parity of the AA AMT?

I agree that the wage rate argument has to include the impact of work outsourced: the problem is that outside the TWU Elite; you guys have never bothered to inform us of the degree of the wage disparity for Overhaul.

In fact, we do not know that the total cost of outsourcing is lower than the total cost of insourcing given that the comapny never actually funded their promises under the DBP and that they now propose, to the BK Court that they own their contributions to the TWU Retiree Health Care Trust, and to totally eliminate retiree health care for those already retired and eliminate retiree health coverage for all of those still employed.

We do not know that actual average wage rate for any of the overhaul bases given the number of OSMs' deployed and the fact that overhaul does fully staff all docks, shops and lines 24-7-365 is not competitive with the costs of outsourcing that same work and the rework experienced from the recent experience with the last several 757's outsourced to Greensboro, NC.

This is not a Line v. Overhaul thing: this is an information versus disinformation thing. Sort of like Obama wanting Romney to give up all of his financial records while Obama refuses to give up all of his educational records.

I personally think that having refused the 2010 TA, we only avoided deeper concessions now given that the ask would have had to include those raises.Given that most people spend more when they make more, I could reasonably argue that the degree of financial difficulty would now be far worse for the average TWU M&R Represented Union Member given the ratification of the 2010 TA and that the job of the TWU International Officer would be far easier given that we had already given significant concessions which the Company, under testimony and negotiations, have refused to grant credit in the current BK Negotiations.

 

[comatose]

1995? Wasn't that when the SRP's were started? So while as you say we were $2.50 above United, were we really?

Yes to both comments, although no SRP's could be hired until all Tulsa AMTs were recalled from layoff. The vacancies to recall them were created by the 5 + 5 early-out Program.

Ah the 5 and 5. Which bought roughly 500-600 yes votes so the majority working under the

95 contract (6 percent for 6yrs + the SRP's) were no voters. TWU took the HOV lane to the concession

stand.

 

[AA89]

Were you not at TUL when the shirt fiasco started? I cannot remember the exact time frame, but Dave Kruse was the boss. The TWU tried to make the company force either a shirt removal, an inside out or go home. There is a LAS poster that goes by the "The Dissident " here occasionally he was one of those that pushed back. The TWU loss that one.

Yes I was in Tulsa then & it happened to Dan at AFW, he was in the same Isle as me but at the front, I have the whole grievance report actually, it was not for wearing a regular AMFA shirt & you know it.
We both know what he was wearing & what all transpired.

Oh & I push back often against everything ..... LOL
I'm a rebel. B)

If you are referring to Dan C., you are correct. His shirt was not a simple AMFA shirt. But a few years before that, there was a huge push at AFW to restrict the wearing of AMFA shirts. Many of us were had charges brought against us and were to be put on trial and if found guilty would be put in bad standing. Most of us went on hand pay dues and there never was a trial. I think we promised not to wear them again and it went away. That ban lasted for no time at all though.