Why Tim Nelson is Dangerous to IAM-represented employees at United Airlines

[WorldTraveler]

Tim,
you are correct that UA has a harder time in reducing RJs because of the huge number of 50 seaters - a heritage of CO's pilot scope - and that pilot unions often get the strongest scope on RJ flying.
However, scope changes can't force a company to do something that doesn't economically work.

UA has a much higher percentage of RJs even in its own hubs because UA's market strength is and always has been much more heavily concentrated in the largest cities of the US than in small and medium sized cities -which is what DL and US have and AA to a lesser extent.

Even if UA had more 100 seat mainline jets, there is no assurance they could make them work like DL or to a lesser extent US does because it is much harder for UA to fill seats in smaller markets in part because their hubs are in large cities which are highly competitive.

It is much harder to be price and cost competitive with low fare carriers in large cities and still be able to carry lots of connecting traffic, which is more costly to carry. Thus, UA usually has to choose to protect their local market at the expense of being able to carry connecting traffic; connecting traffic on RJs is even more costly to carry.
Further, UA's costs are going up faster than other carriers as they settle merger integration contracts.

There is a great unknown about the industry until AA-US is settled. Given the overlap between AA and UA, it is very possible that UA could gain ground but UA mgmt. needs to understand "which AA" it will have to compete with.

 

[jet job]

Nelson perhaps you can explain this , how can you call yourself a union man?

Http://facebookunplugged.blogspot.com

 

[737823]

Funny you throw stones at Tim for posting the truth that the IAM turned a blind eye and UA is outsourcing those six stations. The nonsense you posted below doesn't refute Tim's point, just like on here you seem to think if you repeat yourself enough people will believe your BS. So much for the "facts" you posted. And you conveniently disregard that under the current agreement those employees can go to another station they can hold.

Josh

 

[737823]

All in all, alpa has reduced the total capacity of express since it restricts ual express flying more than delta. So although its patterned bargaining, its much harder for ual to park the gas guzzling 50 seater than it is for delta. Thats the scope choke. What will ual do? Will if they bring in more of the 76 seaters within the 450 total express limit then it has to bring in more mainline. Although the wall street journal article today indicated that 41% of all mainline jet orders domestically will be used to increase capacity as opposed to replace older jets. So maybe ual chooses to increase mainline jets instead of not crossing the scope choke.

The iam member most certainly needs to be a part of express work with work covenants and protections that have something more than time bomb protections that only serve the short term political gain of current officers.

I agree and that is why now more than ever you need SCOPE for express work, hubs and out stations alike. As I said before the simple fact is other workgroups (F/As, fleet service, M&R, etc) directly benefit from strong SCOPE and it's time fleet/ramp have their own protection, not back door deals with Air Willy and UAL management.

Josh

 

[T5towbar]

I agree and that is why now more than ever you need SCOPE for express work, hubs and out stations alike. As I said before the simple fact is other workgroups (F/As, fleet service, M&R, etc) directly benefit from strong SCOPE and it's time fleet/ramp have their own protection, not back door deals with Air Willy and UAL management.

Josh

AMEN.
The 50 seaters were a legacy of the restrictive sCO pilots scope. A lot of them will be gone soon. Larger RJ's (particulary the E175 will be coming online within the next year or so) We have to get that work in so called Tier 2 cities, at least.

Also, I keep harping on that very same issue you described, Josh. No one wants to address it because that little detail between DL 141 & 142 seriously UNDERCUTS any agreement to the "so called" scope that protects ALL work in a hub. IMHO, that's why the TA that was shot down seriously has problems. Even though it called for "insourcing" some major cities that has mainline, there are still problems and holes which should be firmed up. And of course, EVERYBODY working under ANY agreement should be protected. Leaving ANYBODY out is criminal and defeats the purpose of the union.

 

[jet job]

Nelson perhaps you can explain this , how can you call yourself a union man?

Http://facebookunplugged.blogspot.com

 

[Tim Nelson]

Explain what? Those 6 stations would have been contracted out. Ta didnt protect that work joe. Your 96% guarantee protection is a scandal that is based on the assumption that someone from cvg wants to uproot familt to go to a station determined by the company. Maybe cvg to ewr. Listen, we got the same 1999 dates as well but the company knows that 90% of folks choose to stay home instead of moving to dca or phl. Yes i was against it but i thought 80% of the membership was. Looks like i had good company so im not sure what yourpoint is?

 

[Socplat13]

Explain what? Those 6 stations would have been contracted out. Ta didnt protect that work joe. Your 96% guarantee protection is a scandal that is based on the assumption that someone from cvg wants to uproot familt to go to a station determined by the company. Maybe cvg to ewr. Listen, we got the same 1999 dates as well but the company knows that 90% of folks choose to stay home instead of moving to dca or phl. Yes i was against it but i thought 80% of the membership was. Looks like i had good company so im not sure what yourpoint is?

So, why will you not answer the simple question of what contract covering ramp or customer service protects an individual in his or her station? Answer, please. There is none.

Your beloved Southwest CBA says you cannot be involuntarily furloughed due to outsourcing. That means you could have to move. American and USA protect only by mainline flight activity. That means if there is a reduction in the flight schedule beyond a certain point, call Uhaul.

HOWEVER, the just announced proposed contract protects the WORK of of approximately 20,000 IAM workers at UA. 20,000 with pure scope. THEN, anyone with 6/3/99 cannot be laid off for any reason---AT ALL. THEN, anyone with 4/1/06 CANNOT be laid off due to outsourcing, which is 96% of the entire membership.

It is impossible to have just 7 stations left by 1/15/18. Where will all the workers go?

The best job security/scope in the airline industry. Fact. Stop lying Nelson. Or, stop being so misinformed and dangerous.

 

[737823]

American and USA protect only by mainline flight activity. That means if there is a reduction in the flight schedule beyond a certain point, call Uhaul.

WRONG. The US CWA CBA protects the E170/175 work, but not CRJ-900/700/200. Those flights are treated as mainline in regards to scope.

Josh

 

[T5towbar]

I've read the highlights. I will have to read the TA in full, but I know some people who were hired after the 4/06 date. Are they sacrificed for someone who has to move to a hub? Because the hubs are where most of the junior people are. Just sayin'.......
Someone has to be sacrificed.....

And I won't vote for this until I know about the seniority list that was recently arbitrated. I and others would like to know about it and where we stand (especially with the Lead situation). This has to be settled NOW. Not after a contract is signed. Why Delaney and crew are holding it up?

Plus I know that there will be in-person balloting, instead of mail.

 

[737823]

I've read the highlights. I will have to read the TA in full, but I know some people who were hired after the 4/06 date. Are they sacrificed for someone who has to move to a hub? Because the hubs are where most of the junior people are. Just sayin'.......
Someone has to be sacrificed.....

And I won't vote for this until I know about the seniority list that was recently arbitrated. I and others would like to know about it and where we stand (especially with the Lead situation). This has to be settled NOW. Not after a contract is signed. Why Delaney and crew are holding it up?

Plus I know that there will be in-person balloting, instead of mail.

I agree with you. The new T/A doesn't seem markedly different, but then again we have these officials hiding behind aliases bashing Tim and praising POS TA 1.0. I still have a feeling the IAM wouldn't be so willing to walk away from 60+ stations over the term of the agreement and the associated dues, there must be something setup behind closed doors for ZW to jump in. And the fact that after repeated (4-5+) attempts haven't gotten an answer is revealing to me at least.

I do wonder how much "negotiating" was accomplished with UA or do they figure eventually it will get voted in if they shove it down your throats enough? School districts and municipalities are known for doing this to get bond issues passed...

Josh

 

[Socplat13]

WRONG. The US CWA CBA protects the E170/175 work, but not CRJ-900/700/200. Those flights are treated as mainline in regards to scope.

Josh

The USA contract has what's called "dependent" or "variable" scope, which really isn't scope. Whatever aircraft is considered mainline isn't the point. The amount of flights is. If the schedule is reduced beyond a certain point, DGS is called in. Can't happen to 20,000 IAM-represented employees at UAL now. They do that work. 96% have to have a job. If you think that's not good security you're plain wrong.

 

[Kev3188]

So, why will you not answer the simple question of what contract covering ramp or customer service protects an individual in his or her station? Answer, please. There is none.

You guys coulda changed that today, but you pissed all that leverage away.

Shame, really...

Tell me something; are the guys with you at the table just hopelessly outmatched, or do they just not care enough to keep pushing?

 

[Tim Nelson]

So, why will you not answer the simple question of what contract covering ramp or customer service protects an individual in his or her station? Answer, please. There is none.

Your beloved Southwest CBA says you cannot be involuntarily furloughed due to outsourcing. That means you could have to move. American and USA protect only by mainline flight activity. That means if there is a reduction in the flight schedule beyond a certain point, call Uhaul.

HOWEVER, the just announced proposed contract protects the WORK of of approximately 20,000 IAM workers at UA. 20,000 with pure scope. THEN, anyone with 6/3/99 cannot be laid off for any reason---AT ALL. THEN, anyone with 4/1/06 CANNOT be laid off due to outsourcing, which is 96% of the entire membership.

It is impossible to have just 7 stations left by 1/15/18. Where will all the workers go?

The best job security/scope in the airline industry. Fact. Stop lying Nelson. Or, stop being so misinformed and dangerous.

Haven't we been over this before? Hasn't your membership already answered that for you? Just because you guys brought back the same ta doesn't mean that your unsubstantial arguments are any better than last time. Where will they all go? They will all go bye bye. Why not???? Start with the 4,000 IAM members from the 60 plus stations that the company can get working on at DOS. Although we can't be sure how many of them will take their 'iron clad protections' with them 2,000 miles and uproot their family, we can reasonably guess that most likely 90% of them will stay home and take the severance after you supported management to contract out their jobs you dope. BTW, why are you so desperate?

Then after dismantling those stations [see labor history how conditional no furlough language works], you toss in another 23 stations that get 'time bombed' 3 years later. Exactly what part of this is new from the first TA other than delaying the time bomb a bit more? So, management decides to contract out those 23 stations since NOTHING in scope prevents it. Where do those 5,000 IAM members go? Why don't you ask them where they will go or if they will stay home? Or are you presuming that management will be nice fellas and just allow them to stay?

You ask what contract can prevent an airline from laying off a person if there is no work? Well, if there is no work then there is no work. But, what we are talking about is getting laid off when there is work but the union agrees to allow a vender to do the work. Big difference. If you can't understand scope at Southwest then I can't help you but it's fairly basic and it doesn't say only 7 stations have scope. It gives scope to stations prior to 2009. After 2009 I think a station has to have 12 flights. Cargo is their work if it has something like 250,000lbs a month I believe.

More troubling is that the one thing we know about this industry is that airlines continually shift their flight schedule. So, because you failed to protect flight activity and instead red circled 7 stations, you put a target on their back. Again, you should have read up on labor history in this industry. Hopefully, ORD doesn't become CLE. I don't know what management's plan is but there is a reason why they only wanted 7 stations. For you to prove your point, you have to necessarily take the position that management will be nice fellas and not take complete advantage of what you gave them.

In a perfect world where management lies down with angels and walks on water, then they will love their employees and keep all stations open and not just the 7. That's the fairy tale you want your members to believe? They didn't buy it last time.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The USA contract has what's called "dependent" or "variable" scope, which really isn't scope. Whatever aircraft is considered mainline isn't the point. The amount of flights is. If the schedule is reduced beyond a certain point, DGS is called in. Can't happen to 20,000 IAM-represented employees at UAL now. They do that work. 96% have to have a job. If you think that's not good security you're plain wrong.

96% have to have a job? Is that contract language? Unfortunately, it's the same as last time. You goobers said 90% had to have a job, then we found out with the language that there was no scope and that the iron clad "No furlough protection meant FURLOUGH unless you uprooted your family. Yaawwwwnnnnnnn.

Look, don't argue with me, rehash the same arguments you lost with 80% of those who voted against this last time. Just keep telling them that management is nice and even though you only protected work at 7 stations that management is going to sing kumbuya because it loves its employees and will not betray the stations. The only thing 90% in this TA is the amount of stations with no scope.

Keep up your fairy tale. "Long ago and far away.......". Hey, I did like how you continued your fairy tales by naming each article as parts. "Part 1" "Part 2". Lovely indeed.