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

[The Goose]

Respectful dissent is the way to go. Too many people on this board demonize other posters instead of discussing the issues.

And now some respectful dissent to your points:

1. Of course the negotiating committee should not be bypassed. Negotiations are their job. Didn't intend to imply otherwise.

2. I disagree that AA and TWU are one and the same. Granted there have been some shenanigans in recent years and I am not eager to see more of those, but we are the only ones who can hold our leaders accountable. And certainly proposals must be negotiated. That means give and take on the issues.

My broader point was that things don't always have to be so adversarial in that sense that there is one winner and one loser. I'll avoid invoking "win-win" but there are cases where co-operation and creative thinking can lead to benefit for both sides. The VBRs are a great example of that.

Kindly explain to me the procedure for recalling the likes of Little Jimmy or Dennis Burchette - you'll play hell with this because it can't be done per the TWU Constitution.

The International can't be held accountable so they're free to play footsies with the company to their benefit - not ours.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Kindly explain to me the procedure for recalling the likes of Little Jimmy or Dennis Burchette - you'll play hell with this because it can't be done per the TWU Constitution.

The International can't be held accountable so they're free to play footsies with the company to their benefit - not ours.

As I read his post, he didn't say it was a perfect situation, just that going head-to-head might not be the best option every time.

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Given that the dispatchers and AA have filed for mediation, the rest of the work groups under twu can not settle a new contract. Is that correct? If it is why would not all work groups ask for mediation?

 

[Bob Owens]

Problem with selling miles in advance is this: what happens next year when the bank already has that year's miles? When you sell stuff too far in advance, you really miss that revenue in the subsequent period. That's how Lucent and the other Telecoms got in trouble: they pushed huge equipment orders onto their customers to make that year's numbers, but their customers didn't need to buy as much stuff in those subsequent years. All of a sudden, Lucent was trading for $0.50/share and bankruptcy was a possibility.

So wouldnt the risk really be buying miles in advance? You gave your cash, made their books look good, the execs got their bonuses but now the company cant deliver.

 

[Bob Owens]

Respectful dissent is the way to go. Too many people on this board demonize other posters instead of discussing the issues.

And now some respectful dissent to your points:


2. I disagree that AA and TWU are one and the same. Granted there have been some shenanigans in recent years and I am not eager to see more of those, but we are the only ones who can hold our leaders accountable. And certainly proposals must be negotiated. That means give and take on the issues.

The TWU International , namely Jim Little and AA are one and the same. Why else would full time International officials still be getting paid by American Airlines? Robert Gless testified to this under oath during a deposition and the company threatened to cut off all the $3.1 million that they pay TWU officials if they didnt get all the concessions they demanded back in 2003. So your local can try and act like a union but they are subordinate to the International which is without doubt in the companys pocket.

You can hold your local leaders accountable but the fact is your local leaders have no power over the contract. Sure they can sit on a powerless Presidents council or negotiating committee -but look and see whose name makes the contract valid, you wont find any local official or negotiating committee member from any locals name on it- if anything they are listed as witnesses to a contract. A witness has no authority over a contract they can only validate that an agreement was made.

A while back Arpey called in the International-not the negotiating committee, and made an offer and also made some requests for time which the International agreed to without consent or notification of the negotiating committee. They struck a deal to give Arpey more time, and the negotiating committee had no say in the matter. Sure it may seem minor but it gave you a peek behind the curtain. The negotiating committee, as well intentioned as individual members of it may be, has been led to believe that they really have a say when in fact all they are is a facade to make the members believe that they really have an input into the process and that when things turn out bad-which they normally do with TWU-AA contracts dont blame the International and try to leave the TWU-vote out the people who you sent to be on the powerless committies. The AA/TWU negotiating committee is the the TWU International what an anode(sacrificial zinc) is to a boat. They make it look like its a part of the structure but in fact its really there to be sacrificed.

 

[getreal]

Given that the dispatchers and AA have filed for mediation, the rest of the work groups under twu can not settle a new contract. Is that correct? If it is why would not all work groups ask for mediation?

I hear (which don't mean squat) that mediation will be the route taken by all work groups (TWU).
Given the downward spiral of the industry and the time it would take, it would be to the benefit
of the company to go that route. Again, just hearing a whisper of this rumor.

 

[TWU informer]

I hear (which don't mean squat) that mediation will be the route taken by all work groups (TWU).
Given the downward spiral of the industry and the time it would take, it would be to the benefit
of the company to go that route. Again, just hearing a whisper of this rumor.

We should have already been negotiating for 2 plus years now, and mediation completed.

Jim Little's Without Further Ratification Agreement gave us an early opener option for 2006.

Why do you suppose it was never used after making such a big drum sound about it being an important gain in 2003?

 

[getreal]

We should have already been negotiating for 2 plus years now, and mediation completed.

Jim Little's Without Further Ratification Agreement gave us an early opener option for 2006.

Why do you suppose it was never used after making such a big drum sound about it being an important gain in 2003?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Little+TWU=$$$$AA

 

[Tx_Amt]

Jeez I remember now!!!! Look at all the 514 goo-gobblin' yes voters!!!! Still amazed even today.

Why is that not a surprise.

Show us the ShAAred SAAcrifice :blink: :blink: :blink:

I guess you won't be surprised then when in the near future the presidents will vote on the original proposal and with the YES vote of TUL's PRES we will all get to vote on it again, by phone, and it will be the same outcome as before!!!!! Romano has ensured how LUIS will vote by moving the 777 from AFW to TUL, and also ensured the headcount will remain in TUL. But if there were eligibility for some of us to bump to TUL (which we will never see) then we would clearly bump alot of TUL boys out on the street, instead of us out on the street!

 

[Chuck Schalk]

The fleet service division asked the company to accept the last proposal they were offered with the inclusion that they have a "me too" clause. Note: the vote was not unanimous to accept the proposal by the fleet service negotiating committee.
the "me too" clause would enable them to recieve anything negotiated by other work groups. The company came back with their answer last week.......NO, it is off the table, they said all groups or no deal. Explain with that statement why do we negotiate seperately when they group us all together anyway?
Now the maintenance and related submit a counter proposal and what answer can we all expect from the company? Remember all groups or no deal!

I still hear the echo of Jim Littel, Don Videtich, Gary Yingst, and Bobby Gless of " we will have full contract openers in 2006 and ask for it all back" selling the 2003 concessions to the herd of sheep. Now it is coming up on 2009 and no where is the echo of getting anything back of substantial value or not a benefit to the company as well. The TWU members still feel the pain from 2003 while our appointed representatives enjoy 6 digit salaries plus perks. Everytime the members listen to the ATD we get hurt in shape or form. The last company proposal also included work rule changes that were not specified. So they give us things back that benefit them and us and then take more out of our contract. That would constitute another concessionary contract! Then why should that be any different for the TWU.....

 

[Boomer]

Last Union Meeting I asked our Local President if M&R would go back and request NMB mediation becuase he said nothing was going on at the "negotiations", he answered to the effect that the International didn't want to use that yet. These guys do not understand that if they do not push, nothing will happen until AA and the TWU International decide that it will.

AA already has a plan for the current enviroment and it is all directed towards inflicting enough pain on the TWU Membership to allow the TWU International to broker a deal for everyone while claiming it was out of their control. Ergo, we are getting joint negotiations whether we want them or not.

If Dispatch filed for NMB mediation it could have the affect of allowing the NMB to split the former labor group of Jim Little off into true separate negotiations while the rest of us remain lumped together. Even if NMB Mediation is denied at the first request, as often happens, Little could claim that the request somehow makes their negotiations different.

The M&R needs to go ahead and get the NMB involved in mediated negotiations: it will prevent the lumping together of our contracts with all of the other contract groups and make the TWU International more accountable for the deal they sign off for us.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Last Union Meeting I asked our Local President if M&R would go back and request NMB mediation becuase he said nothing was going on at the "negotiations", he answered to the effect that the International didn't want to use that yet. These guys do not understand that if they do not push, nothing will happen until AA and the TWU International decide that it will.

AA already has a plan for the current enviroment and it is all directed towards inflicting enough pain on the TWU Membership to allow the TWU International to broker a deal for everyone while claiming it was out of their control. Ergo, we are getting joint negotiations whether we want them or not.

If Dispatch filed for NMB mediation it could have the affect of allowing the NMB to split the former labor group of Jim Little off into true separate negotiations while the rest of us remain lumped together. Even if NMB Mediation is denied at the first request, as often happens, Little could claim that the request somehow makes their negotiations different.

The M&R needs to go ahead and get the NMB involved in mediated negotiations: it will prevent the lumping together of our contracts with all of the other contract groups and make the TWU International more accountable for the deal they sign off for us.

Hopefully your President will be replaced before he can do too much more damage.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I still hear the echo of Jim Littel, Don Videtich, Gary Yingst, and Bobby Gless of " we will have full contract openers in 2006 and ask for it all back" selling the 2003 concessions to the herd of sheep. Now it is coming up on 2009 and no where is the echo of getting anything back of substantial value or not a benefit to the company as well. The TWU members still feel the pain from 2003 while our appointed representatives enjoy 6 digit salaries plus perks. Everytime the members listen to the ATD we get hurt in shape or form. The last company proposal also included work rule changes that were not specified. So they give us things back that benefit them and us and then take more out of our contract. That would constitute another concessionary contract! Then why should that be any different for the TWU.....

Very interesting; I didn't know they made the promise to ask for everything back in 2006. In retrospect they probably should have gone after salary increases a lot sooner, as oil would have been much lower. The flip side is that, if they had, there might be a lot more furloughs than we'll see now.

Once AA returns to profitability I hope you guys get your concessions back.

 

[Boomer]

Very interesting; I didn't know they made the promise to ask for everything back in 2006. In retrospect they probably should have gone after salary increases a lot sooner, as oil would have been much lower. The flip side is that, if they had, there might be a lot more furloughs than we'll see now.

Once AA returns to profitability I hope you guys get your concessions back.

No offense intended, butt, as someone that advertises as a customer and not a player: you sound like the sterotypical do-gooder that pushes for a resolution to some societal ill up to and until asked to pay for the good wishes. The labor movement was founded in direct action despite criminal prosecution and bloodshed.

It is my opinion that the former Unionists would have regarded you with the same regard as a wayward Catholic Priest asking his flock to forebear the abuses of the mill owner while remaining quiet about their buggery of the alter boys.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

No offense intended, butt, as someone that advertises as a customer and not a player: you sound like the sterotypical do-gooder that pushes for a resolution to some societal ill up to and until asked to pay for the good wishes. The labor movement was founded in direct action despite criminal prosecution and bloodshed.

It is my opinion that the former Unionists would have regarded you with the same regard as a wayward Catholic Priest asking his flock to forebear the abuses of the mill owner while remaining quiet about their buggery of the alter boys.

No offense taken. I'm not trying to be a "do-gooder", but rather engage in constructive discussions about what is ailing AA and the industry. My interest is more than just a holiday flier; flying around the country and world is an absolute necessity for my business, so a functional and rational air transport system is very much in my interest.

As for paying for it, I have no problem with airlines charging more to cover their costs. Since I need to fly to do my work, I'll pay whatever the fare is. What some on this board do not understand, however, is that AA is not able to raise fares unilaterally to cover its costs. There are competitive factors to consider, primary what other airlines are charging for the same city-pair. Raising fares without regard to competitors would kill AA faster than an oil price spike to $200. So with the upside to fares limited to what the competition will allow, AA looks in other spots for cost savings. In 2003 that was you guys giving up concessions to avoid bankruptcy. Thankfully it hasn't come to that this time since there are creative options out there like the VBRs.