Us Airways, Flight Attendants Deal Near

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways, flight attendants deal near

Pittsbrugh Post-Gazette reported: John Luth, Seabury Group CEO, testified that "it's going to be challenging process" for the airline to attract the $250 million in additional funds it needs to stay afloat. But Luth said he believed it was possible to find investors if the airline is able to cut labor and other costs.

USA320Pilot comments: With $1.1 billion in total labor cuts there are Equity Investors available to provide exit financing.

Pittsbrugh Post-Gazette reported: US Airways is nowhere near an agreement with the International Association of Machinists (IAM), which represents mechanics and cleaners, according to testimony presented yesterday and Thursday. One former executive and a current executive said they are frustrated with the lack of progress in talks with the IAM.

USA320Pilot comments: No kidding. Like I have said before, the IAM would rather see "imposition" and its members take a "painful" hit versus having to make a difficult decision.

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[motnot]

I believe the mechanics will strike if the judge abrogates the contract -- regardless of whether a strike is deemed to be legal (a question that, by all accounts, is up in the air). Furthermore, I believe such a strike will result in the company liquidating.

USA320Pilot, do you agree with my assessment of what the mechs will do and the effect that will have?

 

[Justme]

I believe the mechanics will strike if the judge abrogates the contract -- regardless of whether a strike is deemed to be legal (a question that, by all accounts, is up in the air). Furthermore, I believe such a strike will result in the company liquidating.

USA320Pilot, do you agree with my assessment of what the mechs will do and the effect that will have?

[post="228041"][/post]​

You aren't listenting to 700. If the judge "abrogates" the contract, employees under that abrogated contract become at will employees. The are still represented by and members of their union. If they want to "not come to work" and call it a "strike" that's fine. But the company and the courts would still view that action as choosing to "not come to work" and then take appropriate actions as outlined in the employee manual for employees who chose to 'not come to work".

I am not 100% certain on this as my law degree is still a fantasy and my master's degree in labor relations is still on my to do list. But.....it's going to be interesting to see what the real deal is.....right now I'm guessing 70-30 that a TA is struck and voted in by the mechs only.

jm

 

[UseYourHead]

I think you are correct USA320Pilot,

This is the cowards way out (like the RC4), & the saddest thing about it...IAM could have got a better deal, vs burying their head in the sand.

Really a disservice to the IAM membership.

When they get the contract abrogated, they will fire who does show and move on from there.

US Airways, flight attendants deal near


USA320Pilot comments: No kidding. Like I have said before, the IAM would rather see "imposition" and its members take a "painful" hit versus having to make a difficult decision.

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="228035"][/post]​

 

[700UW]

Glad to see all you NON-IAM pilots think they know what is going on.

Since when did you join the Negotiating Committee for the IAM and think you know what is going to happen?

You can't even keep your own union's affairs in check.

people like you are traitors to the labor movement and have set the worker's ecomonics back 30 years.

The IAM will do what is best for ITS members NOT pilots who are non-members.

Your own union admits it has over 265 outstanding grievances against the company, you bent over for them time and time again and looks like they will becoming back for more, get the lube ready.

And like I said, CAL's unions went on strike after a contract abrogation, and the only thing that has changed since then is the nine steps to follow for an abrogration.

And I guess YOU two can't comprehend that 3,000 people will not vote themselves out of a job.

And your postings just show you are terrified that the IAM will not get a deal and your precious six-figure income will perish, see the topic thread is Flights Attendants Near a Deal, not the IAM Negotiations.

 

[flyguy121]

see the topic thread is Flights Attendants Near a Deal, not the IAM Negotiations.

[post="228082"][/post]​

WRONG...this thread is misleading. Once again...a thread that has NOTHING to do with it's Title. Start a new one or stay on topic!! :down:

 

[700UW]

First of all you are not a moderator, so don't tell me what to post, I was merely correcting the management wannabe's posting.

And do you mean 320pp would be misleading in a thread?

 

[flyguy121]

Who's telling you what to post fool?

Furthermore, did you name the thread? NOPE...so that couldn't have been directed at you either...but Bonus Points about 320 misleading the thread with an inaccurate Title.

 

[700UW]

see the topic thread is Flights Attendants Near a Deal, not the IAM Negotiations.

[post="228082"][/post]​

WRONG...this thread is misleading. Once again...a thread that has NOTHING to do with it's Title. Start a new one or stay on topic!! :down:

[post="228088"][/post]​

You qouted me and I replied, how quickly you forget. So that would make you the fool.

 

[flyin2low]

Either way, if the IAM participates in an illegal strike or just simply decides not to work, their head count will be reduced by the company. Similar situation to the ATC strike in '81.

 

[700UW]

The PATCO strike is something totally differant. They are federal workers who by law are prevented to strike.

Just like with Continental once their contracts were aborgated they went on strike, lets see they were not thrown in jail nor ordered back to work, that is fact.

The only differance is that a company has to follow nine steps in order for an abrogation occur.

Seeking self-help is legal once a contract is abrogated.

 

[A320 Driver]

Ok 700, we get the message. You know more about IAM politics than any of the rest of us and you are the self proclaimed savior of the labor movement. Fine, so be it.

Now understand this. For many of us, our families come first. If that means making sacrifices, then that's the way it will have to be. Those folks at the counters and working the ramp are the ones making the REAL sacrifices. They couldn't care less for your diatribes into trade unionism. The simple truth is while 3 folks are suffocating in the back of my aircraft loading and unloading, 6 of your union members are in the breakroom watching TV, playing cards or reading the paper. Many of your IAM members are on their feet less than 2 hours out of an 8 hour shift. The scales are tilted instead of balanced and you couldn't care less. That lack of productivity is a prime reason for our costs being so high. We fix this now or we are toast. But that's what it has come down to isn't it? The IAM gets it's way, keeps things just as they are, or they attempt to take down the airline. I say attempt because there are many in every work group that will not go quietly...and that includes IAM as well.

Do what you must but don't expect everyone else to blindly follow you into oblivion. What people say and what they do are often two entirely different things. Talk is cheap and you may have a rude awakening in your immediate future.


A320 Driver

 

[USA320Pilot]

Motnot:

At this point I believe the company could care less if they have a TA with the IAM-M. Management may make public and private statements to the contrary (especially in front of the court), however, they just might like to get rid of the IAM-M all together. Without a deal the company would be free to outsource all maintenance so any talk about a strike may be pointless.

Nobody knows if a strike could occur and there are a number of hurdles for a union to seek "self help".

Will Judge Mitchell grant the company's motion that prevents self help? Will the court grant an injunction preventing a strike? Does the RLA apply? Can the president order a PEB? Would Congress intervene? These are untested waters, but there are a number of hurdles for a union to over come to seek "self help".

However, a job action may play right into the company's hands. Every reader on this board was warned about this and no meaningful A320 overhaul discussions, the "concession stand is closed" approach, and no progress in TP participation all will likely "cook the IAM-M". With that said, it's too bad that the rank-and-file could be badly hurt with "maximum pain", but it is their choice.

What's interesting is that the only union without any meaningful new business plan labor participation progress is the IAM, and they are the only union without a contract, TA, or close to a TA that has not publicly discussed "self help". I wonder why?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Whatnow?]

Here's something interesting to add.....If AFA comes up with an agreement before the deadline and obviously the IAM does not and the IAM chooses to go on strike, will AFA go along with another sympathy strike like they did back in 1992?
Can that happen again? Especially if AFA hasn't ratified their agreement yet? :huh:

 

[USA320Pilot]

UseYourHead:

I agree with your post -- you’re 100% correct.

Separately, I find it interesting that with all of the public rhetoric ALPA, the CWA, the 3 TWU units all have new agreements, and the AFA appears near a TA, but the 3 IAM units are apparently not even close to an agreement. I wonder why? Could it be failed union leadership again?

Regards,

USA320Pilot