1. Title III shift bid: The week saw the bid committee build their fourth bid for the March 21st bid. Continual and multiple changes by the company have forced the re-building of the shift bid for full time fleet service. The Crew Chief bid should be posted and the bid times will be posted on Monday. I will try to get the bids posted on the Locals website early next week. The delay in posting the Crew Chief seniority list is so the 11 Crew Chiefs that bid for Crew Chief positions that closed yesterday will be added to the seniority list and able to bid with their seniority on this bid. As of now, Crew Chiefs will bid Friday February 27th followed by full time Fleet Service on Monday March 2nd followed by part time Fleet Service. The March 21st bid will last just 5 weeks and will include dedicated deicing shifts.There are more details still being worked out and we will work to resolve issues surrounding the bid.
2. Envoy to AA "transfers": With the recent batch of hiring, we are seeing an influx of Envoy employees. At one point these were deemed inter-company transfers. That practice stopped on Nov.1, 2014. Employees coming from Envoy no longer bring their seniority, VC or SK time when they come over to AA and are pretty much considered a new hire. Their company seniority only applies to retiree travel and 401(k) eligibility and vesting. Please click on the link below to read the entire policy.
3. Delta Profit sharing: This week it was announced that Delta is paying out more than one billion dollars to their employees in profit sharing. The payout equals about sixteen percent of their eligible earnings for last year. Mr. Parker could recognize the sacrifices we have continually made to restore this company to profitability (record profitability at that) and distribute some kind of financial payout for last years performance. Please click on the link below for more information.
4. Another Equity lawsuit dismissed:The court dismissed the second lawsuit against the TWU in the equity distribution cases. As in the first case (Demetris) this case (Letbetter) was dismissed with prejudice. The second group (Letbetter) of plaintiffs' argument was their claim was different than the first case (Demetris) because their case was a state law case and not a Duty Of Fair Representation (DFR) case. The plaintiffs in the second case (Letbetter) case agreed that the rationale in dismissing the first case (Demetris) as duty of fair representation (DFR) claims would apply to their case if it was properly characterized as a DFR case. The California Judge said he agreed with the Judge in Oklahoma that the second complaint (Letbetter) is properly characterized as a DFR complaint so he therefore dismissed the second (Letbetter) complaint. At this point the plaintiffs in the second suit (Letbetter) will have the right to file their own appeal. If they do file an appeal it would likely be consolidated with the Demetris appeal because they are now seen as similar cases. The formal order to dismiss the complaint is attached to this email. If you have any questions, please call the office and speak to an Officer.