Why there will never be a T.A.

[Racer X]

Good grief.

It says it will implement 1(c), which is the minimum flight threshold to keep a city TWU.

Nice try on your part.

We must be looking at 2 different things.
What page of your agreement are you referring to please?

Will continue to assign is essentially the same verbiage as will remain staffed.

The connotation is that the Company “can” outsource if they “chose” to but they don’t necessarily “have” to. Not that they “will” absolutely, outsource.

1(c) "The Company will continue to assign American Airlines TWU represented employees in classifications designated by the Company to all stations wherein such TWU represented employees are assigned currently with 5475 and above annual departures..."

That is what I see also WeAAs..just thought maybe there was a letter or something that I wasn’t seeing.
I see nothing there that says Will Implement or Will outsource.
Thanks

 

[NYer]

So, I am saying.if what you say is true then....why wouldn’t the company from the very beginning Just make Everything Public?

It's not making it public that creates the issue, it's what happens to what they made public.

If we go to Section 6, and we need to move towards the airline what would we change to get what we want from Scope and Medical? The holidays? The sick days? A combination of everything?

If they made things public at the beginning it wouldn't matter as much because we wouldn't be heading into Section 6.

 

[Racer X]

Once made public its difficult to change but of course not written in stone.If a TA came out and didnt have in it what the company publlised there would have to be a lot of explaining from co and union

Yep, I agree again. But what the company has stated in regards to pension and wages is NOT a TA...just their position.
That was what was the basis of this particular discussion.

 

[Racer X]

It's not making it public that creates the issue, it's what happens to what they made public.

If we go to Section 6, and we need to move towards the airline what would we change to get what we want from Scope and Medical? The holidays? The sick days? A combination of everything?

If they made things public at the beginning it wouldn't matter as much because we wouldn't be heading into Section 6.

Ok.

 

[WeAAsles]

Weez arent they trying to reduce the headcount? Arent they trying to outsource?Doesnt this give them the opportunity? Now I know the LUS flts dont count towards the threshold but if they dodnt work those they would probably be gone

NYer already claimed in an earlier post that perhaps all of those Stations have a unique protection anyway due to the IAM presence and possible cross utilization but let’s go with this anyway Al.

The Company already televised it’s intent to keep staffed the 40 Stations already held separately by the 2 Unions. I’ve already mentioned the ill will/bad blood so I don’t think I need to go over that again. I believe BTW that the Association has asked for Stations to be reopened.

Now as far as the numbers even if they could close all 4 we’re talking about a few hundred max. Let’s say even 500 which I think is more than they’re currently staffed anyway.

In our contract almost all of those Members will have bumping rights and moving allowances. Most knowing that there may be a buyout lingering in the shadows are going to exercise their rights and move in to other cities either creating overages or bumping (lower paid) others out who have recall rights.

So that doesn’t solve much of any overstaffing issues.

Again ABSOLUTELY the language gives them the right but sometimes common sense has to come into play.

 

[WeAAsles]

We must be looking at 2 different things.
What page of your agreement are you referring to please?

That is what I see also WeAAs..just thought maybe there was a letter or something that I wasn’t seeing.
I see nothing there that says Will Implement or Will outsource.
Thanks

You’re welcome. BTW Racer I seem to recall that LUS Management had the ability in your prior agreement to utilize a Ready Reserve program at the Airline.

It’s my understanding that that language and program was never introduced (used) by the Airline?

 

[Bin Stretcher]

I think it makes the company look bad for them to publish and not deliver. They are making promises at that point.
And yes, I would opt for a more valuable benefit(medical) and ease up on others. Parker wanted profit sharing negotiated. Negotiate it out to keep medical!

 

[Racer X]

NYer already claimed in an earlier post that perhaps all of those Stations have a unique protection anyway due to the IAM presence and possible cross utilization but let’s go with this anyway Al.

The Company already televised it’s intent to keep staffed the 40 Stations already held separately by the 2 Unions. I’ve already mentioned the ill will/bad blood so I don’t think I need to go over that again. I believe BTW that the Association has asked for Stations to be reopened.

Now as far as the numbers even if they could close all 4 we’re talking about a few hundred max. Let’s say even 500 which I think is more than they’re currently staffed anyway.

In our contract almost all of those Members will have bumping rights and moving allowances. Most knowing that there may be a buyout lingering in the shadows are going to exercise their rights and move in to other cities either creating overages or bumping (lower paid) others out who have recall rights.

So that doesn’t solve much of any overstaffing issues.

Again ABSOLUTELY the language gives them the right but sometimes common sense has to come into play.

So with the company already stating that the 40 stations/locations would remain.....according to the other discussion, then the company CANT go back on that. Therefore those 4 Cities should be “protected”. You think Yes or no?

 

[Racer X]

You’re welcome. BTW Racer I seem to recall that LUS Management had the ability in your prior agreement to utilize a Ready Reserve program at the Airline.

It’s my understanding that that language and program was never introduced (used) by the Airline?

They did have it...it was removed in the 2014 agreement

 

[Racer X]

You’re welcome. BTW Racer I seem to recall that LUS Management had the ability in your prior agreement to utilize a Ready Reserve program at the Airline.

It’s my understanding that that language and program was never introduced (used) by the Airline?

I couldn’t speak for 100% certainty that it was Never used. I do not recall ever hearing of it being implemented though

 

[WeAAsles]

I think it makes the company look bad for them to publish and not deliver. They are making promises at that point.
And yes, I would opt for a more valuable benefit(medical) and ease up on others. Parker wanted profit sharing negotiated. Negotiate it out to keep medical!

I would agree wholeheartedly to forego any claims or even desires for Profit Sharing if the Association could bargain a lower cost Medical for my Brothers and Sisters in the TWU.

Any further savings the Company would gain could be applied to other areas of any agreement and it would also appease any disagreement that any other organized groups at the carrier could make that we have an advantage over them.

Bam. Problem solved.

 

[WeAAsles]

So with the company already stating that the 40 stations/locations would remain.....according to the other discussion, then the company CANT go back on that. Therefore those 4 Cities should be “protected”. You think Yes or no?

In regards to this debate I would have to say yes. The Company is currently now under commitment to at least provide to the Association Fleet Membership 40 Stations.

 

[NYer]

We must be looking at 2 different things.
What page of your agreement are you referring to please?

This will confirm our understanding reached during the negotiations leading up to the agreement signed on September 12, 2012.

During these negotiations, we agreed that the following seventeen (17) stations will continue to be staffed with TWU represented employees following the implementation of Article 1(c). Those stations will remain staffed, with TWU represented Fleet Service employees, so long as the annual departures are at or above 2555 from the effective date of this agreement up to the day prior to the amendable date.

ATL, JFK, MIA, STL, AUS, LAS, ORD, TPA, BOS, LAX, SAT, DCA, LGA, SFO, DFW, MCO, SJU

Beyond the amendable date, Article 1(c) will apply.

 

[WeAAsles]

I couldn’t speak for 100% certainty that it was Never used. I do not recall ever hearing of it being implemented though

I was informed by your Negotiators that the RR system was never used at LUS and as such provided a fairly easy argument for it to be struck from that 2014 deal.

 

[ALUS78]

We must be looking at 2 different things.
What page of your agreement are you referring to please?

That is what I see also WeAAs..just thought maybe there was a letter or something that I wasn’t seeing.
I see nothing there that says Will Implement or Will outsource.
Thanks

Worry about the could