Us Airways / Behind The Scenes: Machinists

[USA320Pilot]

Savy:

I do not expect anybody to support me and my family. In regard to more days working, that's true. We would have to work Monday through Friday, which is the bad news. The good news is that I would be home every night, be able to spend more regular time and weekends with my family, and not have to commute.

My point is this argument is simple: I believe it’s in the best interest of every labor group, including yours, to negotiate new contracts prior to a potential bankruptcy filing. Then if these deals are unacceptable, rather than fight the change, any employee is free to resign and pursue another career. Moreover, Dave Siegel's comments on this issue is true. "If it doesn't work, I'd encourage you to support the change, and then go on and find something else. It's better to have a job when you're trying to find another job," he said.

Savy, it serves no useful purpose, except to help the competition, to burn the place down to the ground.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[AP Tech]

I would be all for negotiating a new contract IF the contract would honor the contract. The fact is we have "negotiated" two previous contracts that the company continues to violate! Their answer is "take it to arbitration".

How can you deal with someone you cannot trust?

By the way I will not give the company the satisfaction of resigning and plan hanging on until the end which is not to far away. I still go to work and although the work enviroment stinks , still manage to give 110% each day!!!

 

[USA320Pilot]

AP Tech:

Thanks for the effort. We have many, many mechanics and workers from other employee groups who are like you and provide an excellent product/110% effort.

I believe there is a contract out there that would work for the IAM and the company, however, the only way we will know is if the IAM goes to the bargaining table.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[to much time to quit]

In regard to my personal situation, my wife has a standing offer to rejoin the work force and she has a MBA. We have a plan in place or "Plan B", but we do not want to exercise it because it would effect our flexibility. I believe many mechanics cannot make the same claim.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

So your saying you also know what type of education and earning potential a mechanics wife has? And your sure that many don't have a plan B in place. Your ignorance is amazing. The only satisfaction I'll get from this company folding is you being forced into plan b or c. The fact is you'll never have your overpaid busdriver job again for the rest of your existence.

 

[to much time to quit]

FYI, In 1885 I was PROMOTED into Sales at Xerox Corp with a High School Diploma,

Wow, I didn't think you were that old Piney!

 

[TheLarkAscending]

Seems I am a walking contradiction to your assumptions.

Well, you are certainly a lot of things, that is for sure. You are also an exception to the rule. Education, education, education -- doors open, people listen, money follows.

 

[ClueByFour]

As I have said, the IAM and its members have the fundamental right to participate in the news business plan or possibly be eliminated. So far the uninon has not elected to participate in the new business plan or to seek ways to conduct A320 heavy maintenance in-house.

Let's say the company comes along one fine day and says: "We are going to outsource all A320 series flying to Alabama Air." Let's further postulate that this is against the ALPA contract. Can we expect the same rallying cry of "ALPA should work with the company to find a cost effective way of performing the A320 flying."?

In a later post in the thread:

I believe there is a contract out there that would work for the IAM and the company, however, the only way we will know is if the IAM goes to the bargaining table.

They have a contract that calls for the IAM to be doing to work. If by some miracle the arbitration finds otherwise, it stands to reason that it could happen to any contract, ALPA's included. Something to think about, eh?

In regard to my personal situation, my wife has a standing offer to rejoin the work force and she has a MBA. We have a plan in place or "Plan B", but we do not want to exercise it because it would effect our flexibility. I believe many mechanics cannot make the same claim.

Then why pound away on every other labor group? It makes it seem like you don't need the job, but want to keep it and would like those who cannot afford to work for US under the proposed conditions to take one in the teeth so that you can keep a job that you really don't need. That's what gets people up in arms, Captain.

 

[700UW]

There will be a bulletin coming out later today from the IAM, and I guess 320 will be eating crow, as the concession stand is still closed.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The issue here is simple: US Airways and every legacy carrier must cut their unit costs nearer to LCC levels to survive, which is no different than what retails stores faced with the business model shift to new companies like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Loews etc.

Up to this point every major labor group is participating in negotiations except the IAM, therefore, what do you expect the company to do? Negotiate contract changes and let the current IAM contract remain in place?

The company has an alternate plan and if forced to execute, will close both the Charlotte and Pittsburgh maintenance facilities. As I understand it, a state government is willing to fund the transfer and PineyBob’s Mack Truck reference is germane to the argument.

The company has offered to meet with the IAM to discuss ways to conduct A320 ovehaul in-house and to include the IAM in the new business plan, but the union refuses to meet. Therefore, without any other alternative to lower maintnance expenses the company could seek to eliminate all heavy maintenance, thus making the IAM irrelevant to the process.

In regard to me, I do not want to see US Airways fail or its employees hurt more than necessary, but the reality of the marketplace and the number one problem for the company and its employees are the LCCs and for a labor comparison, labor pay rates and benefits.

The IAM can do what they desire, but they have backed them self in the corner and the union is scared of AMFA. Instead of negotiating, the union just may give the company cause to eliminate virtually all of their US Airways members.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[mweiss]

Education, education, education -- doors open, people listen, money follows.

I agree. And it takes a lot of chutzpah to choose to not be educated, and then complain about the trials and tribulations that result from that choice.

 

[sentrido]

Isnt there some stat that says most millionairs in the US are high school dropouts or something?

 

[ClueByFour]

Up to this point every major labor group is participating in negotiations except the IAM, therefore, what do you expect the company to do? Negotiate contract changes and let the current IAM contract remain in place?

The company has offered to meet with the IAM to discuss ways to conduct A320 ovehaul in-house and to include the IAM in the new business plan, but the union refuses to meet. Therefore, without any other alternative to lower maintnance expenses the company could seek to eliminate all heavy maintenance, thus making the IAM irrelevant to the process.

You continually mischaracterize this process to fit your drumbeat.

1. Company negotiates new contract with IAM in Chapter 11. Contract calls for heavy MX on the airbus to be done by IAM members. This statement is made on these very boards and at the negotiating table.

2. Company proceeds to ship MX offsite anyway, despite #1.

The IAM did meet with the company, and the company decided that MX was best done in house. The company proceeded to change it's mind. Unilaterally.

Again, I state: I can only conclude that if the company decided that it was a "necessary cost cutting move" to send Airbus narrowbody flying to Mesa that you would advocate in favor of actually sitting down to negotiate such a move? It's much more cost effective than having AAA ALPA members fly the aircraft at the current rates.

What it comes down to is the lack of good faith on the company's part in negotiation with the IAM in the first place. They are taking what they did not ask for. In light of that, why should the IAM sit down with the company?

 

[cavalier]

WHOA.

What a pompous thing to say.

Bob a lot of your posts glorify the term "pompous".

You act like your life is a role model that successful people must follow.

Given the fact you spilled your entire being out on this forum over the years I can see yours is not a life I would desire, hence your opinions are like hot air balloons which the wind carries away.

 

[insp89]

You continually mischaracterize this process to fit your drumbeat.

1. Company negotiates new contract with IAM in Chapter 11. Contract calls for heavy MX on the airbus to be done by IAM members. This statement is made on these very boards and at the negotiating table.

2. Company proceeds to ship MX offsite anyway, despite #1.

The IAM did meet with the company, and the company decided that MX was best done in house. The company proceeded to change it's mind. Unilaterally.

Again, I state: I can only conclude that if the company decided that it was a "necessary cost cutting move" to send Airbus narrowbody flying to Mesa that you would advocate in favor of actually sitting down to negotiate such a move? It's much more cost effective than having AAA ALPA members fly the aircraft at the current rates.

What it comes down to is the lack of good faith on the company's part in negotiation with the IAM in the first place. They are taking what they did not ask for. In light of that, why should the IAM sit down with the company?

Well said Clue...Seems our "Respectful" 320 captain always "overlooks" the Airbus Arbitration Issue whenever he moans and groans about the IAM refusing to talk concessions with the company...Respectfully ? insp89