WN Mechanics seek mediation

[WNMECH]

Did you take your meds? Or are you just a second company plant using the same login?
Hmm.

Playing bad plant, good plant?

Whos being cute now?
You gonna threaten me we your lawyers and DA friend again?

 

[B737 driver]

Did you take your meds? Or are you just a second company plant using the same login?
Hmm.

Playing bad plant, good plant?

Whos being cute now?
You gonna threaten me we your lawyers and DA friend again?

No I just realized that I was being pointless arguing, does no one any good. When Hackman talking about their situation at American, whatever corporate America decides they are going to do something they do it, and we are along for the ride. With Eastern Texas Air corp wanted Continental to survive, so they took everything from Eastern and gave it to Continental, forced the work force to strike replaced them at a lower cost, and eventually folded the company! At Northwest they used Bankruptcy to get their cost down, forced the mechanics to strike and replaced them at a lower cost! Unions are a for profit business , just like companies are! A union will try to strike a ballance where they don't tick the workers off to much, trying to reach an agreement, if you make members upset to much then they try to replace the union, sometimes it works like when we got rid of the Teamsters at SWA and sometimes you end up like at a situation at American, where you have two different unions where people have been beat down so bad, they just don't care.Hopefully their situation will get better. If they get AMFA it will be more transparent than what they got now, but they will still be dealing with the same management team! In our situation we AMFA are trying to get a deal the membership can live with, so the company sends out emails trying to stir the pot. Thank God they are not ruthless like Northwest was.If we go into next year, or beyond some people will be strong, but most people will just not care, where I am at people are getting apathetic. Anyway just didn't want to cause problems, my frustrations I got over it and just see what happens, take care!

 

[Birdman]

Do not believe this new regime about the future of maint. here at SWA. They want more than the average of 68% to 75%. They want 80% to 90% to be farmed out.

I've been looking into MRO expansions and noticed new AAR hangars in Rockford and new Haeco/Temco hangar near completion in Greensboro. Again, I believe you are correct that SW wants to expand its outsourcing evidenced by the backslapping of our management with MRO reps at the recent competition in Orlando and the right language in our contract could assure that. Jim Sokol in Greensboro would LUV to secure work from his former employer and their new 500+ mechanic facility would fit the bill. Having put my name in the labor pool in 2012 transitioning from AA I have since been inundated with calls to this day from rabid brokers looking for mechanics and blocking each call does not deter. I'm all for promoting our profession but if the value we provide our employers does not match the pay/benefits they have no other option but to outsource. Certainly asking for exorbitant wages is unreasonable and will sabotage negotiations.

 

[B737 driver]

I've been looking into MRO expansions and noticed new AAR hangars in Rockford and new Haeco/Temco hangar near completion in Greensboro. Again, I believe you are correct that SW wants to expand its outsourcing evidenced by the backslapping of our management with MRO reps at the recent competition in Orlando and the right language in our contract could assure that. Jim Sokol in Greensboro would LUV to secure work from his former employer and their new 500+ mechanic facility would fit the bill. Having put my name in the labor pool in 2012 transitioning from AA I have since been inundated with calls to this day from rabid brokers looking for mechanics and blocking each call does not deter. I'm all for promoting our profession but if the value we provide our employers does not match the pay/benefits they have no other option but to outsource. Certainly asking for exorbitant wages is unreasonable and will sabotage negotiations.

On the increase on the Union side of wages , it just drags the negotiations on, but as it drags on , it does save the company money, and weakens our position because the membership gets angry, and when you finally come to an agreement, trying to use the strategy to vote it down hoping you can get a better offer, it gets voted in, just like our ramp did and then you have to live with it the next 5 years!

 

[swamt]

I've been looking into MRO expansions and noticed new AAR hangars in Rockford and new Haeco/Temco hangar near completion in Greensboro. Again, I believe you are correct that SW wants to expand its outsourcing evidenced by the backslapping of our management with MRO reps at the recent competition in Orlando and the right language in our contract could assure that. Jim Sokol in Greensboro would LUV to secure work from his former employer and their new 500+ mechanic facility would fit the bill. Having put my name in the labor pool in 2012 transitioning from AA I have since been inundated with calls to this day from rabid brokers looking for mechanics and blocking each call does not deter. I'm all for promoting our profession but if the value we provide our employers does not match the pay/benefits they have no other option but to outsource. Certainly asking for exorbitant wages is unreasonable and will sabotage negotiations.

Couldn't agree more. When Sokol left us and went to TIMCO I had a feeling we would probably be at TIMCO within 3-5 years. If I were a betting man I would put all my chips on TIMCO and/or AAR being the FBO's picked for the Elsavador maint. to be moved to once they make that move. I actually wouldn't mind TIMCO getting those birds that were going out of the country. SWA has always been outsourcing approx 65-75% since day one and this will continue as such. As we grow and obtain larger fleet the 65-75% also grows a little. I just don't wanna see 100% going to the FBO's that's all. Great to be paid 100 bucks an hour until there is no jobs to punch in and work for 100 bucks an hour. Of course that was just example of numbers. Not sure if that last increase in economics from AMFA terrified the company or if the company was just using it as another excuse to stop negotiating. Last update said there was some really good movement within the scope language by the company (imagine that) so I am thinking, maybe just maybe, after a resting period, the next nego's at our 5 year mark might get some movement done, we will see come Aug 16th. Maybe we can get enough of movement for the NC to allow the members to vote rather to send them back to the table or not. I have heard that the union will not produce a % of yes and no votes in order not to give the co. any ammo on how far to tweak to get the required 50% plus 1 vote. Still not sure about this "Med-Arb" process. I have heard both sides reasons for going with it or not going with it and both make good arguments of why we should use it and why we shouldn't. But I will say that maybe after 5 years it is time to let the membership speak for themselves. I honestly think the membership is about 50/50 on using this "Med-Arb" process. Most are saying, "hey, if it still not meeting what we want we can vote it down and send them back to the table". I am still tossed but I would hope the membership would be smart about the scope language. As some of us have always said, it's not all about the money as the company wants us to think.

 

[swamt]

Well, maybe we have a little more leaning in our favor:

National Brief | Vol. 5, No. 1 | July 2017

 

[Birdman]

Not sure if that last increase in economics from AMFA terrified the company or if the company was just using it as another excuse to stop negotiating.

I would say they're exasperated. Reminds me of Bob Owens years ago always throwing in examples of what we should be making at AA just to keep up with inflation. He meant well but it was totally unrealistic and at this late juncture we need to keep it real.

I will say that maybe after 5 years it is time to let the membership speak for themselves. I honestly think the membership is about 50/50 on using this "Med-Arb" process. Most are saying, "hey, if it still not meeting what we want we can vote it down and send them back to the table". I am still tossed but I would hope the membership would be smart about the scope language. As some of us have always said, it's not all about the money as the company wants us to think.

I think more than half want to vote and if med-arb is the trigger all the better. Progress on scope was encouraging and with a more realistic view from both sides on compensation a deal can be struck.
BTW, this Thursday the 2nd quarter results will produce enough to put us over $7,000,000,000 in profits since the contract became amendable. That could be exploited to our benefit in the near future.

 

[swamt]

I would say they're exasperated. Reminds me of Bob Owens years ago always throwing in examples of what we should be making at AA just to keep up with inflation. He meant well but it was totally unrealistic and at this late juncture we need to keep it real.






I think more than half want to vote and if med-arb is the trigger all the better. Progress on scope was encouraging and with a more realistic view from both sides on compensation a deal can be struck.
BTW, this Thursday the 2nd quarter results will produce enough to put us over $7,000,000,000 in profits since the contract became amendable. That could be exploited to our benefit in the near future.

I do understand the movement by the union on economics as we did in fact go another year and the bonus at a min should be adjusted, as well as the snap up rate. I believe now they are approx 8 dollars apart, could we not meet in the middle and see what the membership says? Just a thought. On the scope, yes it was encouraging to see the company FINALLY start a move where the membership was saying they needed to move. If they could get back in there and reengage the scope movement, meet in the middle or at least come up a little on the comp. then send it out, or maybe then go to the "Med-Arb" process. To me that sounds reasonable does it not???

 

[WNMECH]

I do understand the movement by the union on economics as we did in fact go another year and the bonus at a min should be adjusted, as well as the snap up rate. I believe now they are approx 8 dollars apart, could we not meet in the middle and see what the membership says? Just a thought. On the scope, yes it was encouraging to see the company FINALLY start a move where the membership was saying they needed to move. If they could get back in there and reengage the scope movement, meet in the middle or at least come up a little on the comp. then send it out, or maybe then go to the "Med-Arb" process. To me that sounds reasonable does it not???

It doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Full retro upon DOR no matter when that comes or I vote NO.
I don't care how long it takes, I wont vote to enrich the company for their stall tactics with OUR already earned wages.
They can start there, then can negotiate the rest.
If the company can have must haves, so can we.

 

[B737 driver]

I do understand the movement by the union on economics as we did in fact go another year and the bonus at a min should be adjusted, as well as the snap up rate. I believe now they are approx 8 dollars apart, could we not meet in the middle and see what the membership says? Just a thought. On the scope, yes it was encouraging to see the company FINALLY start a move where the membership was saying they needed to move. If they could get back in there and reengage the scope movement, meet in the middle or at least come up a little on the comp. then send it out, or maybe then go to the "Med-Arb" process. To me that sounds reasonable does it not???

I wiuld say the smart move wiuld be in the August meeting get the scope down pritecting the c check lines you have, with language in the contract not an LOA, that when the fleet reaches a certain size the fifth line is created , plus whatever else you can get down on scope, get that T/ A, at the end of the August 3 days, then try the med/ arb process, because you want scope done !

 

[WNMECH]

I wiuld say the smart move wiuld be in the August meeting get the scope down pritecting the c check lines you have, with language in the contract not an LOA, that when the fleet reaches a certain size the fifth line is created , plus whatever else you can get down on scope, get that T/ A, at the end of the August 3 days, then try the med/ arb process, because you want scope done !

No! The c checks are protected in our current language now. Article 2 section 6.
You still want us to give the company what they want before they move to us.
What a shill.

 

[WNMECH]

I wiuld say the smart move wiuld be in the August meeting get the scope down pritecting the c check lines you have, with language in the contract not an LOA, that when the fleet reaches a certain size the fifth line is created , plus whatever else you can get down on scope, get that T/ A, at the end of the August 3 days, then try the med/ arb process, because you want scope done !

Obviously you (the company plant) want us to give away everything on the scope language BEFORE you have us go to a MED-ARB process.
You have tried to say this several times now.
That way the company wont risk anything they really want to an arbitrator.

You are so transparent.

 

[Go Figure]

It doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Full retro upon DOR no matter when that comes or I vote NO.
I don't care how long it takes, I wont vote to enrich the company for their stall tactics with OUR already earned wages.
They can start there, then can negotiate the rest.
If the company can have must haves, so can we.

What is your full retro number based on? The industry as it progressed or final number on signing? That number is roving number depending on what side negotiates off what number. That is why actuaries and economists are involved in section 6 RLA negotiations. Giving a perspective from being there. Don't attack - trying to help. Would like to see SWA group come to industry leading CBA. Got many friends there and wish the best.

 

[WNMECH]

What is your full retro number based on? The industry as it progressed or final number on signing? That number is roving number depending on what side negotiates off what number. That is why actuaries and economists are involved in section 6 RLA negotiations. Giving a perspective from being there. Don't attack - trying to help. Would like to see SWA group come to industry leading CBA. Got many friends there and wish the best.

I actually agree with that. It is subjective.
All I can say at this point is that I will know it when I see it.
And right now I don't see it.

 

[B737 driver]

Obviously you (the company plant) want us to give away everything on the scope language BEFORE you have us go to a MED-ARB process.
You have tried to say this several times now.
That way the company wont risk anything they really want to an arbitrator.

You are so transparent.

Look Jerk you are the one screaming about scope no one said anything about giving anything away the two LOA's have everything to do with scope. It seems like the only think you are concerned with is getting your full retro pay! The union will not get everything they want in scope, Since we can not have observers in there; get the scope language done without being conditional on what the company wants in economics When I am talking scope tell the company we want this scope locked and we don't want it based on what you want in economics! Then once that is secured then you can entertain the med/ arb process! I am tired of everyone that has a sugestion is some company spy! If AMFA really wants a contract and not just throw impossible pay rates out there, and you guys scream about scope then get the scope done! If that takes a little longer to get the scope done then so be it !