TWU negotiations.........what?

[Bob Owens]

Does this article, if true, have any bearing on negotiations in regard to projected growth in retirement obligations?

Not to me.

M&R is well over 50% over 50. The company has made clear that after decades of promises, they want nothing to do with us once we are too old to make them money. They want to bail out of providing Health benefits when we retire and pocket the millions thats for us, remember Pre-funding was a concession, it used to be completely funded by the company. If the average refund is $6000 they stand to pocket as much as $66million ($6000 x 11000 workers).
We agreed to a dollar for dollar match now they want to keep the match.

They want to switch the new hires to a 401K. The laws may be different but that could change, who is to say that twenty years from now, when the company wants to buy 500 new planes to replace the A320s and 737s they are buying now they dont try and pocket that match as well?

 

[strikeforce]

Not sure what you are looking for as far as the chart rates, the only change since last fall is we added another year on the tail end for 6% back in June because the company wanted a longer term contract, but in defense of Tulsa they have two votes, same as AFW, DFW, LAX, MIA, NYC and ORD unless someone calls for a Roll call vote. That has not happened since May of 2010 when Todd Woodward and Steve Luis were in office.

Bottom Line Bob.....the line just lost out on about a 7% raise in exchange for an additional 3% structural increase. Pensionable compounded earnings really don't matter to me right now because I know the pension will be gone before I retire. So, I would rather have more in my pocket now rather than later. Therefore, if and when WE get retro, I lost a net increase of 4% for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Calculating my earnings within that timespan.....I lost about $16,000 in potential retro pay. Thanks Bob!

So, who brainstormed this idea....Line or Tulsa???? and by whom??? So, we can kick him out of the union!


Who agreed to raise the ASM's to 10%???? Was it Tulsa or Line????

"because the company wanted a longer term contract"[/i].....So, every time the company wants something......the union obliges, right??

It appears to me that the union is slowly moving towards the company's regressive proposals! Maybe it's time to clean house and bring in a fresh set of militant presidents with balls. I'm sorry to say it Bob, but you guys are too soft and maybe too compassionate towards the company.

 

[strikeforce]

"that has not happened since May 2010 when Todd Woodward and Steve Luis were in office"

Was the roll call vote used to bring back the rejected POS T/A??? Interesting????

I could have swore that Bob Owens said in an earlier thread that " the union agreed not to use the roll call vote during negotiations"?????

 

[Frank Szabo]

Bottom Line Bob.....the line just lost out on about a 7% raise in exchange for an additional 3% structural increase. Pensionable compounded earnings really don't matter to me right now because I know the pension will be gone before I retire. ... snip

I do wish you guys would pay attention re: this pension nonsense.

IF the company dumps the pension, it will go to the PBGC which will pay you what you would have received from the company BUT - at a severely reduced rate if you retired before 65 years of age.

The last I read, the PBGC will pay a maximum of $44,100 per year per retiree. Few, if any, of the twu workers will be collecting that much (well, maybe Blackman at LGA). What we've done by keeping this pension alive is protect the pilots and those management personnel not subject to collecting from the $46 million slush fund Carty fired up in 2003 that would pay the top 500 or so in the event the PBGC did take over the pension. We, the union people, are protected.

If the company "freezes" the pension, you simply will not accrue further benefits - ie, increases in the monthly amount but the company will still administer it and their rules re: when you can retire with "full" benefits apply.

Your pension is secure - quit listening to the friggin' union boys about "losing" it. It's been a point of contention that shouldn't even be argued about.

All that's at issue is what you'll get when you draw it. The boys and girls who retired pre-65 will take a helluva haircut should the PBGC take it over. That's why I made the decision to stay around a while, not knowing what our lovely company has in store for the rank and file.

 

[Frank Szabo]

We have just witnessed Airline Negotiations conducted with a union strategy that was more like a mediated World Series of Poker than professional negotiations. Once the bluff and the slogans were called by AA, we are now "All In" and we hold nothing more than a Joker and a Duece in our hand.

We cannot even fold and keep our chips now.

Dumbass fools

With your analogy, you're making the assumption they were playing REAL poker. I think they went in, dealt, and left their cards face up while they went to the bar.

Kane, in effect, called a impasse but nobody was really interested in being released. This shows me the company is negotiating with itself, putting on a giant dog and pony show for the union membership's "benefit".

All that seems to be at issue in these meetings is arguments about how long to continue the charade.

 

[strikeforce]

I do wish you guys would pay attention re: this pension nonsense.

IF the company dumps the pension, it will go to the PBGC which will pay you what you would have received from the company BUT - at a severely reduced rate if you retired before 65 years of age.

The last I read, the PBGC will pay a maximum of $44,100 per year per retiree. Few, if any, of the twu workers will be collecting that much (well, maybe Blackman at LGA). What we've done by keeping this pension alive is protect the pilots and those management personnel not subject to collecting from the $46 million slush fund Carty fired up in 2003 that would pay the top 500 or so in the event the PBGC did take over the pension. We, the union people, are protected.

If the company "freezes" the pension, you simply will not accrue further benefits - ie, increases in the monthly amount but the company will still administer it and their rules re: when you can retire with "full" benefits apply.

Your pension is secure - quit listening to the friggin' union boys about "losing" it. It's been a point of contention that shouldn't even be argued about.

All that's at issue is what you'll get when you draw it. The boys and girls who retired pre-65 will take a helluva haircut should the PBGC take it over. That's why I made the decision to stay around a while, not knowing what our lovely company has in store for the rank and file.

Frank, I'm merely pointing out that compounded earnings are meaningless to me right now regarding Bob's earlier thread about Line Premium of $2 built into the structural increases. I knew we don't lose the pension, but we wouldn't gain the additional earnings that Bob pointed out if it does go to the PBGC either. That's why I prefer the Line premium as a stand alone wage. Right now.....who cares about the pension when I'm only 46 and 9 years away from even being eligible to collect, at a reduced rate.

Here's the difference..... using 2008 as an example

union's previous proposal....... $2.55 Line pay x 2080 hours = $5304
$27.20 x 3% = .82 = 28.02 x 2080 = 58281.60
Total Line + Base = $63,585.60

union's current proposal ..... .55 Line pay x 2080 =$1144
$27.20 x 6% = $1.63 = 28.83 x 2080 =59966.40
Total Line + Base = $61,110.40

A difference of $2,475.20 per year.

The 6% structural increase is subject to agreement with the company which they rejected. The $2.55 Line premium was agreed to by the company in previous company proposals. We had that....not any longer thanks to the union.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Frank, I'm merely pointing out that compounded earnings are meaningless to me right now regarding Bob's earlier thread about Line Premium of $2 built into the structural increases. I knew we don't lose the pension, but we wouldn't gain the additional earnings that Bob pointed out if it does go to the PBGC either. That's why I prefer the Line premium as a stand alone wage. Right now.....who cares about the pension when I'm only 46 and 9 years away from even being eligible to collect, at a reduced rate.

Here's the difference..... using 2008 as an example

union's previous proposal....... $2.55 Line pay x 2080 hours = $5304
$27.20 x 3% = .82 = 28.02 x 2080 = 58281.60
Total Line + Base = $63,585.60

union's current proposal ..... .55 Line pay x 2080 =$1144
$27.20 x 6% = $1.63 = 28.83 x 2080 =59966.40
Total Line + Base = $61,110.40

A difference of $2,475.20 per year.

OK, then. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry 'bout that.

Re: your preferences - it'd be nice if one were given a choice as to how they wanted to collect but alas - that would require negotiation.

 

[Buck]

I am not sure I understand Industrial Unionism. It would appear that there are factions within those represented that want more for one and less for the other. That is not within my comprehension of Industrial Unionism. Brother a loaf of bread costs the same for you and I, right?

Industrial unionism is a labor union organizing method through which all workers in the same industry are organized into the same union regardless of skill or trade thus giving workers in one industry, or in all industries, more leverage in bargaining and in strike situations. ​

 

[Hopeful]

Frank, I'm merely pointing out that compounded earnings are meaningless to me right now regarding Bob's earlier thread about Line Premium of $2 built into the structural increases. I knew we don't lose the pension, but we wouldn't gain the additional earnings that Bob pointed out if it does go to the PBGC either. That's why I prefer the Line premium as a stand alone wage. Right now.....who cares about the pension when I'm only 46 and 9 years away from even being eligible to collect, at a reduced rate.

Here's the difference..... using 2008 as an example

union's previous proposal....... $2.55 Line pay x 2080 hours = $5304
$27.20 x 3% = .82 = 28.02 x 2080 = 58281.60
Total Line + Base = $63,585.60

union's current proposal ..... .55 Line pay x 2080 =$1144
$27.20 x 6% = $1.63 = 28.83 x 2080 =59966.40
Total Line + Base = $61,110.40

A difference of $2,475.20 per year.

The 6% structural increase is subject to agreement with the company which they rejected. The $2.55 Line premium was agreed to by the company in previous company proposals. We had that....not any longer thanks to the union.

If you read the company's last proposal concerning line premium...THEY offered 1.80 up from .55.....One would have to add up the company's total compemsation numbers vs. the union to see which is greater.

 

[Birdman]

Not to me.

M&R is well over 50% over 50. The company has made clear that after decades of promises, they want nothing to do with us once we are too old to make them money. They want to bail out of providing Health benefits when we retire and pocket the millions thats for us, remember Pre-funding was a concession, it used to be completely funded by the company. If the average refund is $6000 they stand to pocket as much as $66million ($6000 x 11000 workers).
We agreed to a dollar for dollar match now they want to keep the match.

They want to switch the new hires to a 401K. The laws may be different but that could change, who is to say that twenty years from now, when the company wants to buy 500 new planes to replace the A320s and 737s they are buying now they dont try and pocket that match as well?

We all know the compAAny has strictly adhered to the failed T/A's economic proposals as it's basis for continuing negotiations and especially structural raises, money that impacts pensions. 6% over the life of the contract, nothing more. You may recall in 2007, congress gave AA a break on pension funding and allowed recalculations affecting their contributions for 10 years. We all know at the end of the 10 year pass that many more thousands will likely be drawing from the underfunded plan. With cyclic retirements, it would appear AA will need additional funds to meet it's obligations in the near future and what better way to pad their coffers for many years to come than to add new hire 401k contributions, knowing the next cycle to be many years down the road. Are you sure pensions are having no impact on negotiations? BTW, have there been any serious discussions on an early out package?

 

[OldGuy@AA]

I am not sure I understand Industrial Unionism. It would appear that there are factions within those represented that want more for one and less for the other.


Exactly what I am saying buck. I have the same license in my pocket as any line guy. There seem to be a few who post on this board who would throw overhaul under the bus to get a line premium. I put it to you. Would you vote yes for a TA that gave O/H an hourly raise and gave line a lump sum and a variable compensation plan that not only has not even been talked about yet, but would pay once a quarter but only if AA felt like it and it would most likely be a very small amount? I hope not. I am not saying we should get the same raise as line pay. I only say that ours should be in our hourly pay rate and not a lump sum and/or a variable compensation pipe dream. I do think that we should get the same pay as the guys at the terminal at TUL since they live in the same place we do. I am sick and tired of one part of our membership getting the shaft so another part can get a cookie. Also I see Bob Owens getting roasted on this board. He is the ONLY one who is keeping us informed of what is actually going on in negotiations. He has no doubt been catching flack from the big wheels in the international. There are those of us who appreciate his dedication to the membership.

 

[Hopeful]

There seem to be a few who post on this board who would throw overhaul under the bus to get a line premium.
[/quote]

As there are guys in OH who sell out the line guys for their own needs.

Works both ways.

 

[Frank Szabo]

There seem to be a few who post on this board who would throw overhaul under the bus to get a line premium.

As there are guys in OH who sell out the line guys for their own needs.

Works both ways.

... and that is why we have such good luck in dealing with the company and its union. There's certainly no unity amongst the workers.

Ain't it grand?

 

[Buck]

I am not sure I understand Industrial Unionism. It would appear that there are factions within those represented that want more for one and less for the other

.

Exactly what I am saying buck. I have the same license in my pocket as any line guy. There seem to be a few who post on this board who would throw overhaul under the bus to get a line premium. I put it to you. Would you vote yes for a TA that gave OH an hourly raise and gave line a lump sum and a variable compensation plan that not only has not even been talked about yet, but would pay once a quarter but only if AA felt like it and it would most likely be a very small amount? I hope not. I am not saying we should get the same raise as line pay. I only say that ours should be in our hourly pay rate and not a lump sum and or a variable compensation pipe dream. I do think that we should get the same pay as the guys at the terminal at TUL since they live in the same place we do. I am sick and tired of one part of our membership getting the shaft so another part can get a cookie. Also I see Bob Owens getting roasted on this board. He is the ONLY one who is keeping us informed of what is actually going on in negotiations. He has no doubt been catching flack from the big wheels in the international. There are those of us who appreciate his dedication to the membership.

I have the same license in my pocket as any line guy.

That is part of the equation. I will answer this way. In the contract it is stipulated that a Title II mechanic be compensated equally for a profession the only requires one license as that of a profession the requires two. Why does the company allow for this mismatch? It has nothing to do with the importance of the profession, all are needed.

Would you vote yes for a TA that gave OH an hourly raise and gave line a lump sum and a variable compensation plan

I do not feel that a mechanic working the line at DFW should be compensated any more than a DFW, AFW and now DWH base mechanic. If a extra compensation is needed for working universally line functions, I would be interested having that explained to me.


Line mechanics opt to live where they do, be it family or something else. If these line mechanics have to commute because the company will not provide accommodations for them near the airport, then the equality of wages dissipates.That does not mean they should be compensated more or less. However as an economic situation, if they did not live under these conditions eventually the juniority would. So an economic pay system would be a more viable, above the base rate. I am going to ask the negotiators to provide Tulsa a Winter and Summer compensation plan. JFK et al would have to have wage increases all winter long but in the summer their pay would be reduced and given to DFW for the heat..... Now does that seem reasonable? The economic plan laid out in the TA will suffice. However, Old Guy you did not ask answer to the question of Industrial Unionism. Should a mechanics wages be held in check due the attributes of a collective of Industrial Unions, who feel that everyone be compensated the same?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bottom Line Bob.....the line just lost out on about a 7% raise in exchange for an additional 3% structural increase. Pensionable compounded earnings really don't matter to me right now because I know the pension will be gone before I retire. So, I would rather have more in my pocket now rather than later. Therefore, if and when WE get retro, I lost a net increase of 4% for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Calculating my earnings within that timespan.....I lost about $16,000 in potential retro pay. Thanks Bob!

The companys offer in the TA was 0% in 2008, 0% in 2009 and starting May 5 2010 the raise, the increased line Premium, and the increase in the MRT, with a shortened window that would allow the company to have 24 hour coverage without paying anyone MRT, that came at the expense of Prefunding, Pension for new hires, the creation of a new class of lower paid mechanics, the ability to send more line work overseas, increased medical, and scores of other concessiions. Basically whatever the company felt they missed in 2003.

Who agreed to raise the ASM's to 10%???? Was it Tulsa or Line????

With the caveat that our guys are protected in the station they are at, considering that many of our competitors have double that I was OK with agreeing to that if we could get the money, it hasnt been TA'd yet, its a proposal, the TA had 12% with no protection.

"because the company wanted a longer term contract"[/i].....So, every time the company wants something......the union obliges, right??

It appears to me that the union is slowly moving towards the company's regressive proposals! Maybe it's time to clean house and bring in a fresh set of militant presidents with balls. I'm sorry to say it Bob, but you guys are too soft and maybe too compassionate towards the company.

Well thats been happening, so far every one on the committee who voted for the TA who has faced an election has been voted out, DFW just got a new President last week, he takes office in September, Brian McMahon and Larry Pike voted No and were re-elected. Whereas before we would get outvoted 12 to 5, now its pretty much even, with DFW the numbers may go the other way. Each election makes the makeup of the committee more militant. Its painfully slow but thats the way its been going.