Below is a link to a video of Teamster Airline Division Director David Bourne explaining the TA and what it means to the future of mechanics at United.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngBat1AAjp4
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Seattle Road Show Meeting
Please join us at the Joint Council 28 of Teamsters building in Tukwila.
14675 Interurban Ave
Tukwila,Wa
Friday April 29th
11:00 am and 2:45pm
Meeting will be held in the training room on the ground floor left after entering the main doors to Joint Council 28.
Lunch will be provided.
14675 Interurban Ave
Tukwila,Wa
Friday April 29th
11:00 am and 2:45pm
Meeting will be held in the training room on the ground floor left after entering the main doors to Joint Council 28.
Lunch will be provided.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
This is a guest post from the Honolulu Chief Steward, Roger Apana.
THE MAIN EVENT
Mechanics at UAL are in a position along with their CAL brothers in getting the very best contract of all legacy airlines. The way to achieve this goal is to get to the Main Event in the shortest way possible right after a YES vote on this UAL TA. The Main Event I am talking about would be our final negotiation in which both UAL and CAL would be joined under a single carrier contract. By getting to the Main Event, we would have been the only labor group at UAL to be in position to move into amalgamation with 75% of our contract already resolved.
In the past couple of weeks, the UAL negotiating team traveled across the system to explain our Tentative Agreement. We faced very emotional crowds and listened to their complaints of what this TA lacked. The list in order of priority was all the same, Medical, Wages, Retirement and Retro. These items are also very important to your negotiators and we will continue to fight for all of this in the Main Event.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot work under Continental’s agreement as well as they cannot work under our United TA. We need to have one contract that would combine both mechanic groups into single carrier status.
VERY IMPORTANT! When this UAL TA passes, CAL would team up with us and go IMMEDIATELY to the MAIN EVENT.
This is where the big fight begins; Medical, Wages, Retirement and Retro. These are the items that we need to focus on without being distracted by the other 200 pages of articles and letters of agreement. Those other non main issue items have already been settled in this TA. The reason for a YES vote on this TA is to move forward with a big portion of our contract in our pocket. Never in my 40yrs with UAL have we ever been able to reap benefits while still continuing to negotiate. This is an opportunity that should not be squandered.
We understand there is a lot of negative talk coming from a person who once headed AMFA and now is pushing the IAM. The IAM with its weak scope left us with just under 5000 mechanics from 15000. They allowed the use of our pension surplus to buy Pan Am yet never increased the pension plan while the Pacific route was so lucrative. They pushed for and gave us the failed ESOP. Finally they assigned someone from US Air to a seat on the board of UAL who later was the swing vote in favor of a failed merger which probably helped UAL go into bankruptcy. These new IAM people have never sat in our negotiations but declare themselves the authority on this contract. I have sat in these negotiations from the start and the #1 proposal was job security. We got the strongest job security and scope in the industry. Also we had to start from scratch because the previous contract out of bankruptcy had no snapback clause. The company was not going to give any of it back but we got most of it, plus more.
This a critical time in our careers where we must all take the initiative in gathering factual information. If you look at Northwest and Delta or US Air and America West, you will see the mediation process can really drag on. Also here at UAL our Flight Attendants, Pilots and Ramp are all under mediation and not moving. I really do believe that our position to vote YES and take advantage of 75% of our completed contract now would strengthen our position to move forward.
TIME is on the company’s side and is the reason why the other groups that chose mediation are not talking. The longer they make them wait the longer UAL gets to use their money. Our contract is worth millions and you can believe me they will make us wait if this contract fails.
I cannot emphasize more; it is easier to move forward and focus on Medical, Wages, and Retirement alone than it is with 200 plus pages of articles and LOAs. Please vote YES
Mahalo, Roger Apana
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Ballots go out April 27, 2011
The IBT steering committee began these negotiations with the hope of updating and changing many parts of our old and vulnerable collective bargaining agreement. The merger between United and Continental has added even more need to improve virtually all areas of the contract, which has resulted in a Tentative Agreement with a large amount of new language.
As a result of the many changes and the feedback we received during the informational meetings, it quickly became evident that the membership would need more time than usual to study and familiarize themselves to the important modifications to this Tentative Agreement. It is our intent to give the membership enough time to look over all the changes, ask questions, receive answers, and finally vote this contract in a manner that will best benefit each of them and their families.
A third party company will manage all aspects of the printing and distribution process. They will be assisted by another independent election services firm that will oversee the actual mail out, collection, distribution and tallying of the ballots.
The mailing of the ballots and information should begin by April 27, 2011, and the count will take place on May 26, 2011.
The negotiation committee urges each of you to look closely at your ballots, study allthe considerable changes, and most importantly, VOTE.
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committee
Summaries of CAL's Various Plans
There have been many inquiries from the membership regarding the details of Continental Airlines Medical and Dental Plans. Attached are the summaries of CAL's various plans. Please click on each link to view the attachment.
CO 2011 Benefits Decision Guide September 28, 2010
CO Dental Program January 31, 2011
CO Health Care Program January 31, 2011
CO Long Term Disability Program January 31, 2011
CO Personal Accident Insurance Program January 31, 2011
This was emailed out from the Airline Division communications department.
CO 2011 Benefits Decision Guide September 28, 2010
CO Dental Program January 31, 2011
CO Health Care Program January 31, 2011
CO Long Term Disability Program January 31, 2011
CO Personal Accident Insurance Program January 31, 2011
This was emailed out from the Airline Division communications department.
Monday, April 18, 2011
I am reposting Bob's Blogs from DIA because I believe everyone should read them. The first is on the recommendation on the T/A. My opinion: to read the bullet points does not tell the whole story (Please Read the T/A), also when you have the Negotiation Team at your road shows ask them a little about how negotiations goes. It is interesting and I am glad we had a good team on it.
I have seen and been a Union Rep. with the 1989 contract, ESOP 1994, and the 2000 negotiations and this was by for the shortest time ever taken to reach a T/A. We have never reach this high of a pay increase, except for the PEB (Presidents Emergency Board and that as you know did not live long). To quote a Friend "If I got you a big pay increase and you were lay off tomorrow am I a good Union Rep?".
Negotiate smartly is the key. This is an intern agreement and needs to be look at it that way. Please take time to ask questions and read the full T/A. The second is on MRO and how the Teamsters watch for the trends and how we need to stay involved to keep our jobs from being shipped overseas.
Jock
Committee Recommendation
The Tentative Agreement that is now before you comes after two years of negotiations, both pre and post merger announcement. During this process we made a couple of major strategic decisions that were beneficial to the process.
The first decision was not to invoke federal mediation. This decision enabled us to continue the negotiations at a pace that we had more control of. While the other Unions made an early decision to invoke mediation, in our view, mediation is a process that you invoke only when nothing is being accomplished through direct negotiations. This was not the environment we were in, and that led to our determination that mediation would not be beneficial for us. That decision paid off by enabling us to freely schedule the negotiation dates and continue to make progress. While we wish our colleagues at the other Unions the best in their mediation sessions, we do not envy the current pace of their mediated negotiations.
The second decision was to not go into amalgamated negotiations without first completing our "Section 6" negotiations for a "stand‐alone" UAL contract. Last year, after the merger was announced and then again when the merger was approved by the government, the Company very strongly expressed its desire to enter into formal amalgamation negotiations to combine the UAL and CAL Mechanic contracts. The Company wanted to do this because it wants to set the upper bar or standard for a long‐term, amalgamated contract at the current CAL mechanics' agreement. We opposed the company's effort in part because of the large number of changes that needed to be improved in the current UAL CBA and because we fully intend to obtain economic and work‐rule improvements in amalgamation that are higher and greater than the current CAL mechanics' contract. There are so many differences between current CAL and UAL contracts that it was far better to fix a good portion of the contractual provisions and language in these pre‐amalgamation Section 6 negotiations, and then focus on the remaining, very important but uncompleted items when we are in amalgamated negotiations.
The TA immediately recovers many of the contractual rights and protections that were conceded and lost in the existing and prior contracts. The TA also has many improvements that will be beneficial to all of our UAL members. We have lived far too long under the existing wages that were a result of bankruptcy concessions, and we have seen too many of our coworkers laid off while our work has been outsourced due to the current weak scope language. But this TA is not the end of the road. It takes care of the more immediate need to raise our incomes and protect our work and our jobs as we go through this merger, while giving us an advantage going into the amalgamated negotiations, our second bite of the apple.
The decision that is now before you ‐‐ to either vote yes or no on this TA – comes during an extremely unusual situation that will not likely be repeated in our careers: both options will result in further negotiations. A yes vote means that we will immediately enter into the amalgamated negotiation process, and within 30 days, a joint committee will be established to work on alternative Health and Welfare options. Ultimately, a yes vote will allow the joint negotiating committee to focus on the core items – the compensation and benefits that we intend to obtain in amalgamation.
A no vote will also mean a return to negotiations, but the Company will almost certainly move those negotiations into NMB mediation, and those mediated negotiations will start at the existing UAL contract terms and will therefore be without any of the wage and work‐rule recoveries and improvements that are contained in the TA. In that no‐vote scenario, the Company will most likely slow the process down for what could be a very long time because the existing UAL contract is far cheaper for the Company than the CAL contract and the TA (in spite of the fact that the TA does not provide all of the compensation and benefit items that we want and deserve); and that savings could outweigh the Company's benefits of completing the amalgamation process.
In our view, if the TA is ratified, the Company will not be able to slow the process down nearly as long as it otherwise could. That's because the TA forces the Company to enter into amalgamation negotiations from a higher economic starting point. The Company therefore cannot stop or delay the amalgamation because the TA imposes additional costs without providing it with any of the benefits of a fully integrated operation. For the same reason, Wall Street will also push it to complete the amalgamation. The TA is, quite simply, a necessary, short‐term transitional step toward achieving an industry leading, long term contract. With its scope and other job‐related improvements, the TA places us solidly at the top of the legacy passenger airline industry and allows us to finish the job of amalgamating the contract from a higher level of wages, better work rules and much stronger job protections.
It's important to have a good understanding of the meaning and the benefits of the new language in this TA as you make your decision. We will be communicating through membership meetings, an online teleconference, and written publications in order to properly disseminate the information. Please take the time to learn all you can as we enter the voting process.
For all the above reasons, your negotiating committee strongly recommends a YES vote.
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committee
Posted by Bob Fisher
MRO America’s Conference.
This week as part of my duties with the Airline Division, I attended the MRO America's Conference in Miami. I am working on a detailed report but would like to quickly share some items with you.
My first initial thought upon entering the trade show was that the amount of vendors and the scope of work they perform were truly overwhelming. Literally every part or aspect of any aircraft had some provider offering maintenance services or repair to the operators. I say this not to scare anyone; rather this is to inform because we need to know the competition we face so we can develop sound strategies on how best to counter these potential outsourcing attempts.
This was the 16th year of this conference and there were over 400 vendors with over 8000 attendees. By all accounts, worldwide, annually this is an over $50 billion dollar industry. Most MRO providers were expecting an increased workload over the course of the next five and ten years. The one caveat was oil and a speaker from Aerostrategies stated that with oil at $110/bbl airlines would remain flat as far as profit was concerned however the losses would accelerate exponentially the higher oil climbed. The purpose of his report was to outline the potential challenges MRO providers may face and should take into account. The speaker told the audience with oil over $120/bbl in his opinion "all bets were off".
As far as the MRO providers were concerned they were encouraged as several airlines indicated they were willing to entertain nose to tail airframe maintenance contracts. This trend could lead to a windfall for the OEM group. That trend could also work to the benefit of other MRO providers as they work to become contractors for the OEM manufacturers. For us this means we have to be very careful with the scope clauses of our agreements as we move forward.
When my detailed report is complete I will post it here.
Bob
I have seen and been a Union Rep. with the 1989 contract, ESOP 1994, and the 2000 negotiations and this was by for the shortest time ever taken to reach a T/A. We have never reach this high of a pay increase, except for the PEB (Presidents Emergency Board and that as you know did not live long). To quote a Friend "If I got you a big pay increase and you were lay off tomorrow am I a good Union Rep?".
Negotiate smartly is the key. This is an intern agreement and needs to be look at it that way. Please take time to ask questions and read the full T/A. The second is on MRO and how the Teamsters watch for the trends and how we need to stay involved to keep our jobs from being shipped overseas.
Jock
Committee Recommendation
The Tentative Agreement that is now before you comes after two years of negotiations, both pre and post merger announcement. During this process we made a couple of major strategic decisions that were beneficial to the process.
The first decision was not to invoke federal mediation. This decision enabled us to continue the negotiations at a pace that we had more control of. While the other Unions made an early decision to invoke mediation, in our view, mediation is a process that you invoke only when nothing is being accomplished through direct negotiations. This was not the environment we were in, and that led to our determination that mediation would not be beneficial for us. That decision paid off by enabling us to freely schedule the negotiation dates and continue to make progress. While we wish our colleagues at the other Unions the best in their mediation sessions, we do not envy the current pace of their mediated negotiations.
The second decision was to not go into amalgamated negotiations without first completing our "Section 6" negotiations for a "stand‐alone" UAL contract. Last year, after the merger was announced and then again when the merger was approved by the government, the Company very strongly expressed its desire to enter into formal amalgamation negotiations to combine the UAL and CAL Mechanic contracts. The Company wanted to do this because it wants to set the upper bar or standard for a long‐term, amalgamated contract at the current CAL mechanics' agreement. We opposed the company's effort in part because of the large number of changes that needed to be improved in the current UAL CBA and because we fully intend to obtain economic and work‐rule improvements in amalgamation that are higher and greater than the current CAL mechanics' contract. There are so many differences between current CAL and UAL contracts that it was far better to fix a good portion of the contractual provisions and language in these pre‐amalgamation Section 6 negotiations, and then focus on the remaining, very important but uncompleted items when we are in amalgamated negotiations.
The TA immediately recovers many of the contractual rights and protections that were conceded and lost in the existing and prior contracts. The TA also has many improvements that will be beneficial to all of our UAL members. We have lived far too long under the existing wages that were a result of bankruptcy concessions, and we have seen too many of our coworkers laid off while our work has been outsourced due to the current weak scope language. But this TA is not the end of the road. It takes care of the more immediate need to raise our incomes and protect our work and our jobs as we go through this merger, while giving us an advantage going into the amalgamated negotiations, our second bite of the apple.
The decision that is now before you ‐‐ to either vote yes or no on this TA – comes during an extremely unusual situation that will not likely be repeated in our careers: both options will result in further negotiations. A yes vote means that we will immediately enter into the amalgamated negotiation process, and within 30 days, a joint committee will be established to work on alternative Health and Welfare options. Ultimately, a yes vote will allow the joint negotiating committee to focus on the core items – the compensation and benefits that we intend to obtain in amalgamation.
A no vote will also mean a return to negotiations, but the Company will almost certainly move those negotiations into NMB mediation, and those mediated negotiations will start at the existing UAL contract terms and will therefore be without any of the wage and work‐rule recoveries and improvements that are contained in the TA. In that no‐vote scenario, the Company will most likely slow the process down for what could be a very long time because the existing UAL contract is far cheaper for the Company than the CAL contract and the TA (in spite of the fact that the TA does not provide all of the compensation and benefit items that we want and deserve); and that savings could outweigh the Company's benefits of completing the amalgamation process.
In our view, if the TA is ratified, the Company will not be able to slow the process down nearly as long as it otherwise could. That's because the TA forces the Company to enter into amalgamation negotiations from a higher economic starting point. The Company therefore cannot stop or delay the amalgamation because the TA imposes additional costs without providing it with any of the benefits of a fully integrated operation. For the same reason, Wall Street will also push it to complete the amalgamation. The TA is, quite simply, a necessary, short‐term transitional step toward achieving an industry leading, long term contract. With its scope and other job‐related improvements, the TA places us solidly at the top of the legacy passenger airline industry and allows us to finish the job of amalgamating the contract from a higher level of wages, better work rules and much stronger job protections.
It's important to have a good understanding of the meaning and the benefits of the new language in this TA as you make your decision. We will be communicating through membership meetings, an online teleconference, and written publications in order to properly disseminate the information. Please take the time to learn all you can as we enter the voting process.
For all the above reasons, your negotiating committee strongly recommends a YES vote.
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committee
Posted by Bob Fisher
MRO America’s Conference.
This week as part of my duties with the Airline Division, I attended the MRO America's Conference in Miami. I am working on a detailed report but would like to quickly share some items with you.
My first initial thought upon entering the trade show was that the amount of vendors and the scope of work they perform were truly overwhelming. Literally every part or aspect of any aircraft had some provider offering maintenance services or repair to the operators. I say this not to scare anyone; rather this is to inform because we need to know the competition we face so we can develop sound strategies on how best to counter these potential outsourcing attempts.
This was the 16th year of this conference and there were over 400 vendors with over 8000 attendees. By all accounts, worldwide, annually this is an over $50 billion dollar industry. Most MRO providers were expecting an increased workload over the course of the next five and ten years. The one caveat was oil and a speaker from Aerostrategies stated that with oil at $110/bbl airlines would remain flat as far as profit was concerned however the losses would accelerate exponentially the higher oil climbed. The purpose of his report was to outline the potential challenges MRO providers may face and should take into account. The speaker told the audience with oil over $120/bbl in his opinion "all bets were off".
As far as the MRO providers were concerned they were encouraged as several airlines indicated they were willing to entertain nose to tail airframe maintenance contracts. This trend could lead to a windfall for the OEM group. That trend could also work to the benefit of other MRO providers as they work to become contractors for the OEM manufacturers. For us this means we have to be very careful with the scope clauses of our agreements as we move forward.
When my detailed report is complete I will post it here.
Bob
Monday, April 11, 2011
Update -- April 11, 2011
The Tentative Agreement that is now before you comes after two years of negotiations, both pre and post merger announcement. During this process we made a couple of major strategic decisions that were beneficial to the process.
The first decision was not to invoke federal mediation. This decision enabled us to continue the negotiations at a pace that we had more control of. While the other Unions made an early decision to invoke mediation, in our view, mediation is a process that you invoke only when nothing is being accomplished through direct negotiations. This was not the environment we were in, and that led to our determination that mediation would not be beneficial for us. That decision paid off by enabling us to freely schedule the negotiation dates and continue to make progress. While we wish our colleagues at the other Unions the best in their mediation sessions, we do not envy the current pace of their mediated negotiations.
The second decision was to not go into amalgamated negotiations without first completing our “Section 6” negotiations for a “stand-alone” UAL contract. Last year, after the merger was announced and then again when the merger was approved by the government, the Company very strongly expressed its desire to enter into formal amalgamation negotiations to combine the UAL and CAL Mechanic contracts. The Company wanted to do this because it wants to set the upper bar or standard for a long-term, amalgamated contract at the current CAL mechanics’ agreement. We opposed the company’s effort in part because of the large number of changes that needed to be improved in the current UAL CBA and because we fully intend to obtain economic and work-rule improvements in amalgamation that are higher and greater than the current CAL mechanics’ contract. There are so many differences between current CAL and UAL contracts that it was far better to fix a good portion of the contractual provisions and language in these pre-amalgamation Section 6 negotiations, and then focus on the remaining, very important but uncompleted items when we are in amalgamated negotiations.
The TA immediately recovers many of the contractual rights and protections that were conceded and lost in the existing and prior contracts. The TA also has many improvements that will be beneficial to all of our UAL members. We have lived far too long under the existing wages that were a result of bankruptcy concessions, and we have seen too many of our co-workers laid off while our work has been outsourced due to the current weak scope language. But this TA is not the end of the road. It takes care of the more immediate need to raise our incomes and protect our work and our jobs as we go through this merger, while giving us an advantage going into the amalgamated negotiations, our second bite of the apple.
The decision that is now before you -- to either vote yes or no on this TA – comes during an extremely unusual situation that will not likely be repeated in our careers: both options will result in further negotiations. A yes vote means that we will immediately enter into the amalgamated negotiation process, and within 30 days, a joint committee will be established to work on alternative Health and Welfare options. Ultimately, a yes vote will allow the joint negotiating committee to focus on the core items – the compensation and benefits that we intend to obtain in amalgamation.
A no vote will also mean a return to negotiations, but the Company will almost certainly move those negotiations into NMB mediation, and those mediated negotiations will start at the existing UAL contract terms and will therefore be without any of the wage and work-rule recoveries and improvements that are contained in the TA. In that no-vote scenario, the Company will most likely slow the process down for what could be a very long time because the existing UAL contract is far cheaper for the Company than the CAL contract and the TA (in spite of the fact that the TA does not provide all of the compensation and benefit items that we want and deserve); and that savings could outweigh the Company’s benefits of completing the amalgamation process.
In our view, if the TA is ratified, the Company will not be able to slow the process down nearly as long as it otherwise could. That’s because the TA forces the Company to enter into amalgamation negations from a higher economic starting point. The Company therefore cannot stop or delay the amalgamation because the TA imposes additional costs without providing it with any of the benefits of a fully integrated operation. For the same reason, Wall Street will also push it to complete the amalgamation. The TA is, quite simply, a necessary, short-term transitional step toward achieving an industry leading, long-term contract. With its scope and other job-related improvements, the TA places us solidly at the top of the legacy passenger airline industry and allows us to finish the job of amalgamating the contract from a higher level of wages, better work rules and much stronger job protections.
It’s important to have a good understanding of the meaning and the benefits of the new language in this TA as you make your decision. We will be communicating through membership meetings, an online teleconference, and written publications in order to properly disseminate the information. Please take the time to learn all you can as we enter the voting process.
For all the above reasons, your negotiating committee strongly recommends a YES vote.
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committee
The first decision was not to invoke federal mediation. This decision enabled us to continue the negotiations at a pace that we had more control of. While the other Unions made an early decision to invoke mediation, in our view, mediation is a process that you invoke only when nothing is being accomplished through direct negotiations. This was not the environment we were in, and that led to our determination that mediation would not be beneficial for us. That decision paid off by enabling us to freely schedule the negotiation dates and continue to make progress. While we wish our colleagues at the other Unions the best in their mediation sessions, we do not envy the current pace of their mediated negotiations.
The second decision was to not go into amalgamated negotiations without first completing our “Section 6” negotiations for a “stand-alone” UAL contract. Last year, after the merger was announced and then again when the merger was approved by the government, the Company very strongly expressed its desire to enter into formal amalgamation negotiations to combine the UAL and CAL Mechanic contracts. The Company wanted to do this because it wants to set the upper bar or standard for a long-term, amalgamated contract at the current CAL mechanics’ agreement. We opposed the company’s effort in part because of the large number of changes that needed to be improved in the current UAL CBA and because we fully intend to obtain economic and work-rule improvements in amalgamation that are higher and greater than the current CAL mechanics’ contract. There are so many differences between current CAL and UAL contracts that it was far better to fix a good portion of the contractual provisions and language in these pre-amalgamation Section 6 negotiations, and then focus on the remaining, very important but uncompleted items when we are in amalgamated negotiations.
The TA immediately recovers many of the contractual rights and protections that were conceded and lost in the existing and prior contracts. The TA also has many improvements that will be beneficial to all of our UAL members. We have lived far too long under the existing wages that were a result of bankruptcy concessions, and we have seen too many of our co-workers laid off while our work has been outsourced due to the current weak scope language. But this TA is not the end of the road. It takes care of the more immediate need to raise our incomes and protect our work and our jobs as we go through this merger, while giving us an advantage going into the amalgamated negotiations, our second bite of the apple.
The decision that is now before you -- to either vote yes or no on this TA – comes during an extremely unusual situation that will not likely be repeated in our careers: both options will result in further negotiations. A yes vote means that we will immediately enter into the amalgamated negotiation process, and within 30 days, a joint committee will be established to work on alternative Health and Welfare options. Ultimately, a yes vote will allow the joint negotiating committee to focus on the core items – the compensation and benefits that we intend to obtain in amalgamation.
A no vote will also mean a return to negotiations, but the Company will almost certainly move those negotiations into NMB mediation, and those mediated negotiations will start at the existing UAL contract terms and will therefore be without any of the wage and work-rule recoveries and improvements that are contained in the TA. In that no-vote scenario, the Company will most likely slow the process down for what could be a very long time because the existing UAL contract is far cheaper for the Company than the CAL contract and the TA (in spite of the fact that the TA does not provide all of the compensation and benefit items that we want and deserve); and that savings could outweigh the Company’s benefits of completing the amalgamation process.
In our view, if the TA is ratified, the Company will not be able to slow the process down nearly as long as it otherwise could. That’s because the TA forces the Company to enter into amalgamation negations from a higher economic starting point. The Company therefore cannot stop or delay the amalgamation because the TA imposes additional costs without providing it with any of the benefits of a fully integrated operation. For the same reason, Wall Street will also push it to complete the amalgamation. The TA is, quite simply, a necessary, short-term transitional step toward achieving an industry leading, long-term contract. With its scope and other job-related improvements, the TA places us solidly at the top of the legacy passenger airline industry and allows us to finish the job of amalgamating the contract from a higher level of wages, better work rules and much stronger job protections.
It’s important to have a good understanding of the meaning and the benefits of the new language in this TA as you make your decision. We will be communicating through membership meetings, an online teleconference, and written publications in order to properly disseminate the information. Please take the time to learn all you can as we enter the voting process.
For all the above reasons, your negotiating committee strongly recommends a YES vote.
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committee
Friday, April 8, 2011
Misery loves company, and when you can not be strong yourself, the next best option is to try and make others appear weak. Let’s take a look at the latest flier sent by the IAM and you can see what I mean. Never mind, it's too stupid to post. But read on and you will get the just of what it said.
The IAM whines that this new Tentative Agreement allows for the elimination of the “20% outsourcing limit language.” I disagree. Eliminate is much too soft a word. I propose we have a giant weenie roast with a good bon fire and celebrate by burning this language during a huge party. Just think, we can invite the over 10,000 furloughed mechanics that this crappy piece of BS did not protect. It all sounded comforting and warm, but so does a coffee enema. With both, you wind up with crap all over yourself and an empty feeling inside. So much for job protection.
Another great fallacy, is that the Teamsters are not really ready to battle outsourcing? Awwww, come on? Does the IAM really want to go there? Vendors are nothing new, and neither is the rest of that antiquated language that did not protect us. The IAM ignored this threat for many agreements, and now they want to blame others for their miss-steps in allowing us to be in this predicament. When we figured it out they pointed their fingers at AMFA and said it was them. Now they say this is the fault of the IBT. Really?
Yes, we replaced many of the corporate and vendor favored agreements in this new contract because the old stuff simply was not working. Think about it? IAM language has even allowed the American aircraft building giant Boeing to fabricate major portions of their planes overseas. One has to ask, does the IAM even realize there is a problem with outsourcing? Do they know the dangers of sending work to other countries?
The long standing dilemma with the IAM is their refusal to change. We all remember this as the number one reason for dumping them in the first place. “Look IAM, your cruddy antiquated language did not work then and it will not work now. We need a new progressive contract if we are to get through this time of continuous outsourcing. We need the knowledge and experience of the Teamsters."
The language in the Teamsters agreement at the former Continental Airline should allow all the proof we need that this type of forward thinking does in fact work. While the rest of the trunk airlines lost Mechanic jobs to vendors, only Continental showed increases in the amount of work brought IN to the airline and they began hiring more Mechanics. Recovering work can continue through both United Airlines maintenance collective bargaining agreements, and we too can finally see the recall of our friends. The real threat to the IAM is that our new contract will work for us.
The IAM sits back and throws stones while their own contract talks are at a standstill. "IAM, shouldn't you be taking care of your membership?" Our brothers and sisters who work on the Ramp, Stores, and as Customer Service Agents would surely appreciate it if you just got back to work. These groups too have suffered long enough through your mountainous BS psycho babble.
It is time for the IAM, and the Association to take off their rosy colored goggles and enter the real world. We are in a tough fight. By sticking together and ignoring the rhetoric of useless politics, and with real protection language along with strength of the IBT, we can gain ground and eventually win this fight to save our jobs. Talk with your family and friends and ignore the crap being put out by the other two groups. Remember, they both failed us once before. In the end, no matter what you decide, please just vote with your heart, and your intelligence.
Dave
The IAM whines that this new Tentative Agreement allows for the elimination of the “20% outsourcing limit language.” I disagree. Eliminate is much too soft a word. I propose we have a giant weenie roast with a good bon fire and celebrate by burning this language during a huge party. Just think, we can invite the over 10,000 furloughed mechanics that this crappy piece of BS did not protect. It all sounded comforting and warm, but so does a coffee enema. With both, you wind up with crap all over yourself and an empty feeling inside. So much for job protection.
Another great fallacy, is that the Teamsters are not really ready to battle outsourcing? Awwww, come on? Does the IAM really want to go there? Vendors are nothing new, and neither is the rest of that antiquated language that did not protect us. The IAM ignored this threat for many agreements, and now they want to blame others for their miss-steps in allowing us to be in this predicament. When we figured it out they pointed their fingers at AMFA and said it was them. Now they say this is the fault of the IBT. Really?
Yes, we replaced many of the corporate and vendor favored agreements in this new contract because the old stuff simply was not working. Think about it? IAM language has even allowed the American aircraft building giant Boeing to fabricate major portions of their planes overseas. One has to ask, does the IAM even realize there is a problem with outsourcing? Do they know the dangers of sending work to other countries?
The long standing dilemma with the IAM is their refusal to change. We all remember this as the number one reason for dumping them in the first place. “Look IAM, your cruddy antiquated language did not work then and it will not work now. We need a new progressive contract if we are to get through this time of continuous outsourcing. We need the knowledge and experience of the Teamsters."
The language in the Teamsters agreement at the former Continental Airline should allow all the proof we need that this type of forward thinking does in fact work. While the rest of the trunk airlines lost Mechanic jobs to vendors, only Continental showed increases in the amount of work brought IN to the airline and they began hiring more Mechanics. Recovering work can continue through both United Airlines maintenance collective bargaining agreements, and we too can finally see the recall of our friends. The real threat to the IAM is that our new contract will work for us.
The IAM sits back and throws stones while their own contract talks are at a standstill. "IAM, shouldn't you be taking care of your membership?" Our brothers and sisters who work on the Ramp, Stores, and as Customer Service Agents would surely appreciate it if you just got back to work. These groups too have suffered long enough through your mountainous BS psycho babble.
It is time for the IAM, and the Association to take off their rosy colored goggles and enter the real world. We are in a tough fight. By sticking together and ignoring the rhetoric of useless politics, and with real protection language along with strength of the IBT, we can gain ground and eventually win this fight to save our jobs. Talk with your family and friends and ignore the crap being put out by the other two groups. Remember, they both failed us once before. In the end, no matter what you decide, please just vote with your heart, and your intelligence.
Dave
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
United Airlines Celebrates 85th Anniversary With Commemorative Aircraft
FRIEND SHIP AIRCRAFT FEATURING RETRO LIVERY TO TAKE FLIGHT CHICAGO, April 6, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- United Airlines commemorates its 85th anniversary today by unveiling an Airbus A-320 painted in the airline's 1970s-era "Friend Ship" livery at an employee celebration at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
NTSB To Investigate Flight 426
The National Transportation Safety Board has launched a team to investigate an incident involving a passenger jetliner in New Orleans.
On April 4, 2011, at about 7:25 a.m. CDT, an Airbus 320-232,with 109 passengers and crew aboard, operating as United Airlines flight 497, exited the left side of runway 19 at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY). The aircraft had returned to the airport about 20 minutes after take-off due to electrical difficulties and smoke in the cockpit.
Preliminary information indicates that, while climbing through 4,000 feet, the crew reportedly received automated warnings and detected smoke in the cockpit. A loss of primary instrumentation was also reported during the event. The crew indicated that they initiated emergency procedures and turned back to the airport. Upon landing, the crew described a loss of anti-skid braking and nose-wheel steering and exited the runway approximately 2,000 feet from the approach threshold.
The passengers and crew exited the airplane via slides. It was reported that the right forward slide did not inflate. There were no reported injuries. Initial information is that the airplane had minor damage, but it will be examined by NTSB investigators after defueling and recovery.
The NTSB investigator-in-charge, Dan Bower, and NTSB technical experts in systems and survival factors are en route to the scene. Additional NTSB experts in the areas of operations, maintenance records, vehicle performance, and flight recorders will also assist. Parties to the investigation include the Federal Aviation Administration, United Airlines, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Association of Flight Attendants, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) of the Government of France has appointed an Accredited Representative who will also travel to the scene along with technical advisors from Airbus.
A preliminary report of the incident will be available on the Board's website within 10 business days
On April 4, 2011, at about 7:25 a.m. CDT, an Airbus 320-232,with 109 passengers and crew aboard, operating as United Airlines flight 497, exited the left side of runway 19 at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY). The aircraft had returned to the airport about 20 minutes after take-off due to electrical difficulties and smoke in the cockpit.
Preliminary information indicates that, while climbing through 4,000 feet, the crew reportedly received automated warnings and detected smoke in the cockpit. A loss of primary instrumentation was also reported during the event. The crew indicated that they initiated emergency procedures and turned back to the airport. Upon landing, the crew described a loss of anti-skid braking and nose-wheel steering and exited the runway approximately 2,000 feet from the approach threshold.
The passengers and crew exited the airplane via slides. It was reported that the right forward slide did not inflate. There were no reported injuries. Initial information is that the airplane had minor damage, but it will be examined by NTSB investigators after defueling and recovery.
The NTSB investigator-in-charge, Dan Bower, and NTSB technical experts in systems and survival factors are en route to the scene. Additional NTSB experts in the areas of operations, maintenance records, vehicle performance, and flight recorders will also assist. Parties to the investigation include the Federal Aviation Administration, United Airlines, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Association of Flight Attendants, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) of the Government of France has appointed an Accredited Representative who will also travel to the scene along with technical advisors from Airbus.
A preliminary report of the incident will be available on the Board's website within 10 business days
Monday, April 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)