WN Mechanics seek mediation

[B737 driver]

So it REALLY doesn’t bother you at all in the slightest that your so called king of the hill in transparency Union never released the vote tally publicly to show the Company how overwhelmingly you all told them that they can shove it?

I call absolute total BS. And it’s also why the Company isn’t buying it either.

And there are only 2300 of you so the Company don’t give a chit about your anger or morale either. In their minds they offered you a good deal and you said no. They told you if you voted no that they would make you sweat even longer.

You people seem to be your own worst enemies.

Amen brother, wait till they get ETOPS without us, oh wait, that was a Trump card, so was if you guys vote this down, there is more money to get. So it continues. Still no release of the official vote talley.

 

[Birdman]

WeAAsle, maybe u forgot I spent 23 years at AA, my last 10 years under the worst concessionary contract in their history. I’ve got it better now at WN than I ever had it at AA (including over $31,000 in profit sharing over 5 years) and every ex-AA employee feels the same. At 62 years of age I’m seasoned and patient. Sure, the TA we/I voted down was not bad but I’ll be damned if I will fold like a tent and stop supporting the democratic craft union I fought 13 years for at AA. I worked with Bret O. at AA and I trust his leadership.

 

[WeAAsles]

WeAAsle, maybe u forgot I spent 23 years at AA, my last 10 years under the worst concessionary contract in their history. I’ve got it better now at WN than I ever had it at AA (including over $31,000 in profit sharing over 5 years) and every ex-AA employee feels the same. At 62 years of age I’m seasoned and patient. Sure, the TA we/I voted down was not bad but I’ll be damned if I will fold like a tent and stop supporting the democratic craft union I fought 13 years for at AA. I worked with Bret O. at AA and I trust his leadership.

I never said you shouldn’t support your Union. Hell if we had more of that instead of throwing stones at each other’s, we’d all be doing a lot better IMO (Remember I counterpunch)

But again I’m still going to call BS when I see it that AMFA is the king of transparency if they never released that vote count that they “say” was so overwhelmingly against the TA.

Give me a break if you really think the Company bought into it.

Oh I don’t think they lied that it didn’t pass. I just think it didn’t go down in flames like they claim.

 

[Birdman]

At this juncture the benefits of revealing an overwhelming no vote has passed. You might recall though the Trueballot SNAFU that revealed to several mechanics about an 80% rejection with over 75% of the vote in. You can look back at past posts if you want to verify but I know for a fact it occurred. I have nothing more to add to this subject.

 

[swamt]

I believe negotiations envolves compromise but the company went for the jugular first, which to me is a joke, to show us just how good we should have realized we had it with the previous TA. The whole time Mr. McCrady was sympathizing with us that our evil NC would not let us vote he was being disingenuous. We said NO, he could have added a little economic incentive and gotten a sellable TA. He has added another distraction for SW mechanics that will translate into lower morale and anger focused on upper management.

Agree.
I firmly believe (my opinion only) that if they did exactly what you stated above and just brought out a little more economics we would have had a sellable T/A. I would be willing to bet if they left everything alone outside of economics, and padded the retro and added to the snap up as they did (up to 18.25%) and as long as each contract date had a raise in it starting with Aug. 2019-2023 getting the 3%, that they would have had a sellable offer.
But no, they had to go in and try to gamble for more than just one items. International outsourcing, getting rid of paid rest, getting rid of a lot of day trades, limiting us to 16 hours max with NO paid rest (what about down lines and what about overtime call outs in longer houred shift areas? Just won't work. Can't do the 16 hours.
It does also appear they are nego in better faith as more offers are being passed as indicated by the update the union also sent back a counter to the companies counter to our first pass to the new NC for the co. I guess we will see how they respond in the Feb. meetings.
I haven't even cost it out myself yet because the ask from the company for international just shut my thought process down completely. Remember guys if they get the international language back it means just that, international, which means anywhere outside USA not just El Salvador...

 

[swamt]

2028? Really? Wow that sucks.

I did not post that.
You made the changes and made it look like I posted it.
I reposted what I posted for your correction. You see, you have to make things up to try and make AMFA look bad and it never works, it always seems to backfire on you. Here's my post below, YOU added 2028 not me.

Sense of humor? Ok, I guess we will call it that.
I guess the company doesn't want to keep it to only economics after all. I can fathom some of it but the 16 hours is impossible to do with some of our 10 hour shifts. Even a day trade with an 8 hour shift will put someone over the 16 hours let alone 2-10 hour shifts.
I won't even address the international outsourcing, automatic No from me with international outsourcing.
2 weeks back to the table. I don't foresee April 1st at this rate. The beat goes on...

 

[swamt]

I never said you shouldn’t support your Union. Hell if we had more of that instead of throwing stones at each other’s, we’d all be doing a lot better IMO (Remember I counterpunch)

But again I’m still going to call BS when I see it that AMFA is the king of transparency if they never released that vote count that they “say” was so overwhelmingly against the TA.

Give me a break if you really think the Company bought into it.

Oh I don’t think they lied that it didn’t pass. I just think it didn’t go down in flames like they claim.

It was released. Again you look the fool. It was overwhelmingly no with right at 75% voting No.
You say the co never bought into it. Then why did they increase the economics? Why did they increase retro as well as snap up and change the amendable date as the membership requested overwhelmingly.

 

[swamt]

Agree.
I firmly believe (my opinion only) that if they did exactly what you stated above and just brought out a little more economics we would have had a sellable T/A. I would be willing to bet if they left everything alone outside of economics, and padded the retro and added to the snap up as they did (up to 18.25%) and as long as each contract date had a raise in it starting with Aug. 2019-2023 getting the 3%, that they would have had a sellable offer.
But no, they had to go in and try to gamble for more than just one items. International outsourcing, getting rid of paid rest, getting rid of a lot of day trades, limiting us to 16 hours max with NO paid rest (what about down lines and what about overtime call outs in longer houred shift areas? Just won't work. Can't do the 16 hours.
It does also appear they are nego in better faith as more offers are being passed as indicated by the update the union also sent back a counter to the companies counter to our first pass to the new NC for the co. I guess we will see how they respond in the Feb. meetings.
I haven't even cost it out myself yet because the ask from the company for international just shut my thought process down completely. Remember guys if they get the international language back it means just that, international, which means anywhere outside USA not just El Salvador...

OOPS.
Sorry Birdman, forgot to add the AMFA!! update showing the counter from Union to company...
It's on the AMFA11 site.

 

[swamt]

Again sorry Birdman. Was having problems getting it.

The Negotiating Committee is providing this update to the AMFA Membership at Southwest Airlines. This report is the only official authorized source of negotiating communications by the Committee.

As you will recall, we presented the Company with a streamlined proposal in November 2018 intended to reach a prompt agreement. The full details of our November proposal can be found in Negotiations Update #70. We were hopeful the Company would respond in similar fashion and focus on reaching a deal that could promptly be voted upon by you. However, the Company proposed an 18.25% snap up to wages effective April 1, 2019, and three percent (3%) raises in the out years with an amendable date of August 16, 2023. The Company’s proposal assumed an April 1, 2019, ratification date with a ratification bonus of $132.8 million. This offer is only marginally better than the tentative agreement (TA) that you rejected.

Our economist has determined the Company’s ratification bonus calculation is undervalued, and the Company’s forward-looking increases only amount to approximately $17 million over the entire life of the contract. The economics of the Company proposal would have caused concern standing alone; however, the Company also introduced proposals to language it characterized as “offsets.”

As you will remember, the Company was steadfast in its position for the past three (3) years that it intended for LOA #1 to sunset, and with that, the Company had no further need for international vendors to perform aircraft maintenance. Now, the Company has altered that position by 180 degrees, and asked for the following change to Scope as one of the “offsets” in its January 24 proposal:

o Article 2 Modification:

• Strike 2.9. Proposal conditional upon industry standard language allowing outsourced heavy maintenance to be performed by an international vendor.
  [Note: this is verbatim language from the Company proposal]

The Company, after years of advising it had no intention of returning maintenance to international vendors, has now, once again, asked for consent to do so, but without offering any of the protections and growth pieces that were included in LOA #1.

In addition to the international outsourcing “offset,” the Company also proposed to reduce your duty day to sixteen (16) hours. This proposal would entirely eliminate paid rest. The Company’s proposal to reduce the duty hours and eliminate paid rest was as follows:

o Articles 6, 8, and 24 Modification:

• Modify Articles 6, 8, and 24 to include a reasonable duty day for our Mechanics, not to exceed 16 hours in any consecutive 24-hour period. Employees working 16 consecutive hours will be given a mandatory rest period of at least 8 hours. The rest period will be unpaid. Address trading language in Article 24 to be consistent with 16 hour duty day.
  [Note: this is verbatim language from the Company proposal]

We received the Company’s proposal on day 1 of this session. Our economist spent the first day costing the proposal and addressing concerns with the Company. In addition, we reconvened with the Company to express our deep disappointment that Southwest chose to drive the parties further apart by opening issues that had long since been put to bed in these negotiations.

We spent most of the second day working on an economic counterproposal as well as a comprehensive information request designed to elicit all relevant information in the Company’s possession regarding its newly expressed need to revert to sending maintenance to international vendors. This information is necessary in order to allow us to evaluate what exactly the Company has proposed with respect to Article 2. Our economic counterproposal struck the Company’s international outsourcing and duty day asks, and included a wage snap up of 23.44% effective January 1, 2019, with an amendable date of August 16, 2023. The counterproposal included 3.25% increases in the out years, and a ratification bonus amount of $158.0 million.

We conveyed the message, in no uncertain terms, that it was our opinion the Company had moved in the wrong direction with its January 24 proposal, and that the pathway to a prompt deal, which would start repairing the fractured relationship, is to focus purely on economics. We ask that you stay engaged with your Union updates and continue to watch what the Company does as opposed to what it says in written updates or video messages.

We thank you for this continued support. The solidarity that we have seen since conclusion of the ratification process continues to increase with each passing day and that is exactly what we need in order to bargain for what you have rightfully earned.

Sincerely,

Your Negotiating Committee

 

[WeAAsles]

I did not post that.
You made the changes and made it look like I posted it.
I reposted what I posted for your correction. You see, you have to make things up to try and make AMFA look bad and it never works, it always seems to backfire on you. Here's my post below, YOU added 2028 not me.

It was released. Again you look the fool. It was overwhelmingly no with right at 75% voting No.
You say the co never bought into it. Then why did they increase the economics? Why did they increase retro as well as snap up and change the amendable date as the membership requested overwhelmingly.

Swamp you sell more fake news then all those cable news channels combined.

You said that you wouldn’t have a contract till 2028 and you know it. Those were YOUR words that I copied and pasted.

Don’t try to weasel out of it now.

 

[swamt]

View attachment 13764

Maybe AMFA can learn from the IAM TWU

All articles were 100% done when we went into Jan talks except for economics, so no AMFA doesn't need to learn squat from industrial unions, period.
The updates you guys receive are not detailed in any way for the membership to be updated in an informational way at all. They only get what articles are closed (T/A'ed) and what articles are left open and working on. Not a word about what was passed, info about the body language or what the changes were in each and every article. You would think you would want the membership informed so they could get behind their negi cmte full bore with support, bet they cannot, they don't have a clue of what is or is not changed until you guys bring the T/A out and they will have to take the time get informed on what ALL the changes are that were "agreed" to at the table.
Remember AMFA never endorsed the last offer we had as it did not and still does not meet the needs of the membership at large, NOT, just what the international wants as in your case with only the EC nego all the agreements between the company and EC.
It is sad that the membership is kept in he dark for so long.
Now I will quote you and I guarantee you that the majority of your members will agree:
Maybe it's time for the IAM/TWU ASSo. to get a clue from AMFA on how to keep a membership informed and united...

Example of a detailed update:
Oh and gee wiz, a link to read from the last detailed update #70 as well...

The Negotiating Committee is providing this update to the AMFA Membership at Southwest Airlines. This report is the only official authorized source of negotiating communications by the Committee.

As you will recall, we presented the Company with a streamlined proposal in November 2018 intended to reach a prompt agreement. The full details of our November proposal can be found in Negotiations Update #70. We were hopeful the Company would respond in similar fashion and focus on reaching a deal that could promptly be voted upon by you. However, the Company proposed an 18.25% snap up to wages effective April 1, 2019, and three percent (3%) raises in the out years with an amendable date of August 16, 2023. The Company’s proposal assumed an April 1, 2019, ratification date with a ratification bonus of $132.8 million. This offer is only marginally better than the tentative agreement (TA) that you rejected.

Our economist has determined the Company’s ratification bonus calculation is undervalued, and the Company’s forward-looking increases only amount to approximately $17 million over the entire life of the contract. The economics of the Company proposal would have caused concern standing alone; however, the Company also introduced proposals to language it characterized as “offsets.”

As you will remember, the Company was steadfast in its position for the past three (3) years that it intended for LOA #1 to sunset, and with that, the Company had no further need for international vendors to perform aircraft maintenance. Now, the Company has altered that position by 180 degrees, and asked for the following change to Scope as one of the “offsets” in its January 24 proposal:

o Article 2 Modification:

• Strike 2.9. Proposal conditional upon industry standard language allowing outsourced heavy maintenance to be performed by an international vendor.
  [Note: this is verbatim language from the Company proposal]

The Company, after years of advising it had no intention of returning maintenance to international vendors, has now, once again, asked for consent to do so, but without offering any of the protections and growth pieces that were included in LOA #1.

In addition to the international outsourcing “offset,” the Company also proposed to reduce your duty day to sixteen (16) hours. This proposal would entirely eliminate paid rest. The Company’s proposal to reduce the duty hours and eliminate paid rest was as follows:

o Articles 6, 8, and 24 Modification:

• Modify Articles 6, 8, and 24 to include a reasonable duty day for our Mechanics, not to exceed 16 hours in any consecutive 24-hour period. Employees working 16 consecutive hours will be given a mandatory rest period of at least 8 hours. The rest period will be unpaid. Address trading language in Article 24 to be consistent with 16 hour duty day.
  [Note: this is verbatim language from the Company proposal]

We received the Company’s proposal on day 1 of this session. Our economist spent the first day costing the proposal and addressing concerns with the Company. In addition, we reconvened with the Company to express our deep disappointment that Southwest chose to drive the parties further apart by opening issues that had long since been put to bed in these negotiations.

We spent most of the second day working on an economic counterproposal as well as a comprehensive information request designed to elicit all relevant information in the Company’s possession regarding its newly expressed need to revert to sending maintenance to international vendors. This information is necessary in order to allow us to evaluate what exactly the Company has proposed with respect to Article 2. Our economic counterproposal struck the Company’s international outsourcing and duty day asks, and included a wage snap up of 23.44% effective January 1, 2019, with an amendable date of August 16, 2023. The counterproposal included 3.25% increases in the out years, and a ratification bonus amount of $158.0 million.

We conveyed the message, in no uncertain terms, that it was our opinion the Company had moved in the wrong direction with its January 24 proposal, and that the pathway to a prompt deal, which would start repairing the fractured relationship, is to focus purely on economics. We ask that you stay engaged with your Union updates and continue to watch what the Company does as opposed to what it says in written updates or video messages.

We thank you for this continued support. The solidarity that we have seen since conclusion of the ratification process continues to increase with each passing day and that is exactly what we need in order to bargain for what you have rightfully earned.

Sincerely,

Your Negotiating Committee

 

[swamt]

Sense of humor? Ok, I guess we will call it that.
I guess the company doesn't want to keep it to only economics after all. I can fathom some of it but the 16 hours is impossible to do with some of our 10 hour shifts. Even a day trade with an 8 hour shift will put someone over the 16 hours let alone 2-10 hour shifts.
I won't even address the international outsourcing, automatic No from me with international outsourcing.
2 weeks back to the table. I don't foresee April 1st at this rate. The beat goes on...

Swamp you sell more fake news then all those cable news channels combined.

You said that you wouldn’t have a contract till 2028 and you know it. Those were YOUR words that I copied and pasted.

Don’t try to weasel out of it now.

No I did not. I only posted April 1st.
Go back and look for yourself, it was post # 3688 where I was responding to Birdman about the "sense of humor" comment he made. No where in there did I say 2028 only April 1st.

 

[sendmeupacrowsfoot]

For 80 bucks an hour, I'd be willing to vote yes to the company's proposals.
Go ahead and throw in another week of vacation also.

 

[WeAAsles]

No I did not. I only posted April 1st.
Go back and look for yourself, it was post # 3688 where I was responding to Birdman about the "sense of humor" comment he made. No where in there did I say 2028 only April 1st.

You could be right. I thought you wrote 2028. Maybe the year you wrote was 2029?

Can you verify what year it was again that you wrote?

 

[GVPSPIAM]

All articles were 100% done when we went into Jan talks exceput for economics, so no AMFA doesn't need to learn.

First of all you NEVER had a tentative agreement, you had an “Agreement in Principal.”

Then it took like two months for the committee to put it out.

If it was TA like you said, then your NC would have recommended a Yes. They said vote it down and EVERY Article would have been agreed too if it was a TA.

And AMFA NEVER released the official tally.

You should apply for Fox “news” or replace Sarah Sanders as you are spewing false information.