JimJimmyJim
Advanced
This poll is not going too give any insite to the vote because of the way it is worded. It should have been How will you vote? YES or NO
Yea or nay
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
- Status
L
Large Grey
Guest
That is what I fear.
no problem, i should have been a little more clearer.
OP
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #49
Again, the reason i did not ask HOW WILL YOU VOTE, is because this is not a MECHANICS ONLY forum......
All I am asking what people think will happen, that's all.
Feel free to start a poll here asking whether people will vote YES or NO.....While the voters will be made up of pilots, flight attendands, titles other than I and II,,,,and better yet.....NON-AAEers will be voting..anti-unionists and pro management types as well....
Well shut my pie-hole, I didn't know that.
JimJimmyJim
Advanced
Good point. Wasn't trying to upset anyone.
Bob;
I share your point on this, but.................. You were there. If this T/A is voted down as you say it should. What would you (and the other members of the negotiating committee) do differently to provide us with an adequate contract? We have been at this for 2 and one half years, you have been there for 1 and 1/2 years (almost). What could you change that you havent already tried?
I guess what I'm saying is that I would like to see some glimmer of hope that turning this down is not just spinning our wheels in the mud.
This should never have come back to a vote in its current form. Its tough to get the horse back in the barn!
Pete
P.S. I THINK it will pass.
If its voted down then we have the expressed desires of the membership for something better. Thats leverage.
The company, and some on the committee feel that the members are amenable to another five year concessionary agreement. If the members vote NO it gives those of us who were against it a mandate to get more. I feel that we 'left money on the table" in that we didnt offer counters like stores, who won a skill premium as a result, and some of the concessions are actually being packaged as a gain, such as MRT, many think that they will get getting an extra buck an hour, what they will most likely end up with is no MRT at all. The current language grants you MRT if your shift starts anywhere from 1700 to 0600, an 11 hr span, there is no way to cover that time span, even with 4-10s and avoid paying MRT, however with the new language 2000 to 0400, an eight hour span they can have nights start at 1959, scan out at 0429, have days start at 0400 and have coverage without paying anyone MRT. Our 8.5 hour shifts makes it possible to do that. At JFK alone they could save around $900k/year by working the shifts around that window.
If we were sent back I would demand;
; the time span returned to 1700-0600,
;no permanent probation for Crew Chiefs
:chop off one year and roll that 1.5% into the second structural increase, making it two 3% adjustments over 4 years instead of five, not oustanding but we would suffer less inflation driven losses
;keep the 1/7 rule for OH,
:Line pay increase retro to 2009
;restore vacation acruals to industry average
;Bridge insurance, make our plan more like the CAL and SWA agreements we were told ours was modeled after.
-we would need the same accrual rates. 12 per year instead of 8
-we would need to accrue up to 600 hours of IOD time to aid in saving sick time, 10 days IOD is a joke
-we would need to be charged a fixed rate of 11 hours per month for coverage, not 20 with the ability to increase
-we would need a max bank of 2400 hours and the option to use it to buy coverage from 55-65*
-because we are coming into this late in the game all incumbant employees would need to be able to roll their 600 hours of IOD time into their sick bank for coverage*
:mirror our wage adjustment letter to the one that USAIR had years ago, one that we know is enforceable,
* part of CALs current proposal
None of this is radical nor do I think the company would risk a strike over it, they would still enjoy low costs due to the fact we get less holiday pay and other concessions that would remain in place. Then in less then 18 months instead of two and a half years we could start all over again.
Thats what I have, others may have more. Thats assuming a slim margin for rejection, the larger the no vote the more we could go for such as retro structural increases, Holidays and 2.5x, and all the other 2003 concessions.
Tex-Mech
Veteran
I would vote but I have been ordered to shut my pie hole. 
Looks like a solid NO for AFW. Hearing the same from my friends at DFW.
Looks like a solid NO for AFW. Hearing the same from my friends at DFW.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I was informed today that this was brought back to the membership by demand of the International TWU
BOHICA
BOHICA
Like everyone else here emails and opinions have been flying through the internet port holes. We have to educate the members that are looking at the money and saying screw the rest. These guys are the ones that are in need of an education session about what this T/A means for our future. It's not just about the money. Tulsa, DFW and Miami need to start listening to the real deal not what their local presidents are telling them since those locals pushed this concessionary T/A through.
Get the word out to those stations through any means possible.
I hear many guys voting NO but how many are voting Yes?
Get the word out to those stations through any means possible.
I hear many guys voting NO but how many are voting Yes?
It looks like TUL and AFW will finally know what it feel's like to work for an airline. I don't think there is a lot of sympothy for the base guys, they have had it good for a long time. I'm sure the senior guys will still have weekends off. Welcome to working weekends and holidays to everyone else.
I would vote but I have been ordered to shut my pie hole.
Looks like a solid NO for AFW. Hearing the same from my friends at DFW.
We all heard "NO" when we took the concession's, what people actually vote is something else.
- Status
Similar threads
