Last week, the Airline Division completed negotiations on the resource utilization letter in an effort to enhance the rights and protections of its members and ensure no loss of leverage. Below is a Q&A designed to answer questions raised by the membership.
Why did the Airline Division (AD) negotiate the resource utilization letter?
After achieving its single operating certificate, the Company approached the Union and laid out the narrowbody plan for the rest of 2012. It was evident that there was going to be a substantial shift in the make-up of aircraft in each city. Under the single operating certificate, sub UAL, sub CAL and sub CMI aircraft simply became “United” aircraft. That branding was further supported with the conversion to a single reservation system.
Under each of the three stand-alone Collective Bargaining Agreements, the sub United companies have the right to schedule flights and position their aircraft where they see fit. Along with that right, they have the ability to determine where on their systems those aircraft will be maintained.
Pursuant to the “No Furlough” protections that accompany the Reduction in Force Articles of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, our maintenance technicians have the right to follow their work to whatever city on the system the work is assigned. Moreover, our maintenance technicians have the right to bump junior technicians in their station and/or the system should they become surplus by choosing not to follow the work. The exercise of those rights would potentially disrupt the lives of many of our maintenance technicians. So, when the Company approached us, we agreed to sit down and find a solution. We made every effort to accommodate each side’s interests while adhering to the scope provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreements.
What is the difference between a “No Furlough Clause” and a “Station Protection Agreement”?
“No Furlough” provisions protect your employment. While the carrier has the right to move work around the system, they must offer such work to those employees who are protected by the “No Furlough” provisions. Such protection affords all bumping rights pursuant to the Reduction in Force Articles of the CBA. “Station Protection” provisions protect your employment in the station you are working in with the effective date of such provisions.
Are the parties contractually obligated to meet and discuss such matters?
Yes. Under the Successorship and Mergers language of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Company was required to meet promptly with the Union to negotiate the implementation of the requirements set forth in the scope provisions.
Will the members need to vote on this letter?
No. Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides the language for the Company and the Union to meet and negotiate the implementation of the requirements of the scope provisions, no vote is required. Contractually it is no different than any other language in the CBA that provides for the Union and the Company to reach Agreement on contractual issues (i.e.: overtime administration, shift and day off patterns etc.).
Does the Union believe the Company is willing to spend the money in relocation expenses?
We do believe the company is willing to pay the cost of relocation. The price of keeping the equipment on their former routes rather than allowing changes to match the aircraft to the markets would be a much costlier endeavor for the Company. We do not see the Company’s plan of relocating mechanics as a bluff of any kind.
What choices did the Airline have once the SOC was reached?
There were two choices. The AD could have forced the company to involuntarily move a large portion of the membership to follow the old subsidiary aircraft or develop a plan to ensure members were not forced to relocate.
Why was the choice made to protect the members in their cities rather than incur massive relocations?
It was the best decision for the membership to avoid having large contingents of mechanics moving and bumping all across the system. Any potential upside in forcing the company to involuntarily move a potentially significant number of the members all over the system would be far outweighed by the hardship it would cause the affected members. Whether we like it or not, the sub United carriers will complete their operational merger sooner rather than later. There will be a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement. Any short-term upside attached to forcing the Company’s hand would disappear, but the hardship caused to the members affected by the execution of such tactics likely would remain for a long time to come.
How did this decision make more economic sense for the membership?
With the Station Protection Agreements, members do not bear additional or personal costs of relocating that are not covered by the Company pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreements. Furthermore, the money the company would have been forced to spend moving members across the system would have been used as an economic bargaining tool in the Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations. In other words, that sum of money would have been taken off the table before negotiations even began.
Did the Airline Division violate the scope of any of the three Agreements to do this?
No. The main purpose of the scope of any agreement is to protect the member’s employment. This letter actually enhances the scope by protecting members in their cities and avoids involuntary displacement and/or furloughs. The agreement does not alter the terms of the sub United Collective Bargaining Agreements, and is instead a short-term implementation of the requirements set forth in the scope provisions contained therein. The agreement remains in effect only through December 31, 2012 unless the parties mutually agree to extend it.
Can either party use the terms of this agreement in any future case involving the related language?
The Agreement states that neither party can rely on the terms contained in it to support or refute any future scope dispute or grievance once the agreement expires.
Did this decision reduce leverage at the negotiating table for the JCBA?
No. Leverage for the Joint Agreement is the 8,800 active mechanics working towards a new agreement in Section 6 bargaining. A decision to force the company to move members across the system would have been detrimental to any such leverage, not to mention the morale of this membership whom we are relying on heavily as we move forward.
Were Locals involved in the process of crafting this letter?
Yes. Either at the table, in face to face caucuses, or weekly by phone, Representatives of Local Unions were updated on what was transpiring and surveyed for direction for the betterment of their respective members.
Are the workforces being interchanged as a result of this letter?
No. The workforces will be kept separate except in cases of an “emergency,” as defined in the definitions article of the agreement.
Does this letter require the company to keep my station open for the duration of its effectiveness?
Yes, except in cases of “Force Majeure” which are described in the letter, the company will keep each member in the city where they currently work for the duration of the letter.
The Airline Division will continue to provide frequent updates on the status of the merger. If you have any additional questions, please contact your Chief Stewards and/or Business Agents.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Resource Utilization Letter
Brothers and Sisters,
Over the weekend, the Company
and the IBT agreed to a resource utilization letter of interpretation. The
letter protects the scope language in each of the three stand-alone CBA’s, and
nothing in the letter shall be used to diminish the language. Lastly, the
letter ends on December 31, 2012 unless the parties mutually agree to
continue it. The letter of interpretation is designed to facilitate both sides'
mutual desire to reach a joint CBA as soon as possible, and as such, provides
that the interpretation cannot be used in any scope arbitration if the letter
expires before the parties have reached a joint CBA. Below you will find bullet
points from the letter.
- The Company will not interchange employees (“interchange of employees” shall mean migration of employees from coverage under one collective bargaining agreement to coverage under another) from their respective Subsidiary collective bargaining agreements and will maintain separate maintenance operations pursuant to commitments contained in those agreements, pending final integration of the workforces, execution of an amalgamated collective bargaining agreement and integration of seniority lists. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, however, mechanics and related employees may be allocated work and utilized to perform work, as directed by the Company and according to the needs of the service, in accordance with their respective collective bargaining agreements, without regard to previously-existing Subsidiary-specific distinctions among aircraft certification, or identifications or designations of facilities and equipment.
- The Company will not assign or direct mechanics and related employees covered under different Subsidiary collective bargaining agreements to work together in a single intermingled work group or crew (for example, a crew or work group composed of two sub-UAL technicians and two sub-CAL technicians). Moreover, except in the case of an emergency that is recognized as such by both the Company and the IBT, once an assignment (aircraft maintenance or otherwise) has been made to one mechanics and related work group or another, that work group will perform and complete the assignment to the exclusion of the other maintenance and related work groups.
·
Subject only to
the “no-interchange” proscriptions (a decree that prohibits something) set forth herein, all of the Company’s maintenance
controllers shall continue to perform their regular and customary work for the
Company, and all maintenance and related employees covered under the Subsidiary
agreements with the IBT will interact with and take direction from the Company’s maintenance controllers
irrespective of previously-existing Subsidiary-specific distinctions among
aircraft certification, or identifications or designations of facilities and
equipment.
- The allocation of work and utilization of manpower as provided under this Letter to accommodate the redeployment of Company aircraft, facilities and equipment will not result in any involuntary relocations, involuntary reduction-in-force, or reduction in the status or pay of active Mechanics and Related Employees throughout the new United system for the duration of this Letter.
- The terms and obligations set forth in paragraph 2 of this Letter shall not apply under the following: an ongoing labor dispute; grounding or repossession of a substantial number of the Company's aircraft by a government agency or a court order; loss or destruction of the Company's aircraft; involuntary reduction in flying operations due either to governmental action(s)/requirement(s) or to a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical materials for the Company's operation; revocation of the Company's operating certificate(s); war emergency; a terrorist act; or a substantial delay in the delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery -- provided that the exception(s) (as defined above) relied upon by the Company to avoid the terms and obligations set forth in paragraph 2 of this Letter has (have) a material and substantial impact on the Company.
- Any and all disputes involving the interpretation or implementation of this Letter will be resolved on an expedited basis. In all such disputes, the IBT and the Company shall each designate an equal number of representatives to sit as a dispute resolution committee; that committee will be charged with the responsibility to promptly investigate and to attempt to resolve the dispute in a mutually acceptable fashion within five working days from the date the dispute arises. Any disputes that remain unresolved will then, at the option of either party, be submitted to expedited arbitration in accordance with the parties’ expedited arbitration procedures under the scope provisions of the collective bargaining agreements.
- This Letter will remain in effect until December 31, 2012, and will continue in effect thereafter subject to such amendments and modifications as may be agreed to in conference at the request of either party. Either party may serve notice of its desire for such conference upon the other party no earlier than October 31, 2012.
- Neither this Letter nor any of its terms shall constitute a substantive modification or waiver of any of the scope provisions contained in the current and future collective bargaining agreements covering the mechanics and related employees, including the separate maintenance operations provisions contained therein, nor shall it constitute or be treated as a permanent or precedent-setting interpretation of any of those scope provisions. Except with respect to disputes arising under paragraph 4 of this Letter while it is in effect, this Letter and its terms shall not be entered into any arbitration or courtroom or agency proceeding (including RLA Section 6 mediation) for any purpose.
Since this letter just came
out on Monday evening, there hasn’t been much discussion among the Business
agents and other Union officials, but I will have some discussion of this
agreement on the Chief Steward conference call today. I will notify you as more
information or clarification of items becomes available. If you have specific
questions about this letter, please contact me either by email, phone, or in
person.
In Solidarity,
Mike Moats
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
War between United, Southwest looms over Houston (Houston Chronicle 03-18-12)
A proposal by Southwest
Airlines to offer international flights from Hobby
Airport has triggered an intense lobbying duel with United
Airlines, which still wields considerable local clout as the successor to
Houston-based Continental.
If it gets city approval, Southwest says it would spend an estimated $75 million to $100 million to build a new international terminal equipped with full-scale Customs facilities, as well as to improve the aging airport's domestic terminals. Southwest flights would depart from the new terminal to destinations such as Cancun and the Caribbean.
But United has already broken ground on what may become another international terminal, a $700 million investment piled on top of an additional billion it has pumped into Bush Intercontinental Airport since the late 1990s.
United says this town isn't big enough for both projects.
While the city awaits two consultants' reports, expected next week, on the pros and cons of Hobby going international, both airlines have dispatched emissaries to City Hall. The outcome of their lobbying battle will determine whether Houston becomes the sixth among the nation's 10 largest cities to have two full-scale, international airports.
Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston Airport System director, Mario Diaz, have not publicly picked a side. They say only that they're obligated to listen to Southwest's pitch.
"The airport is not in the position of choosing winners and losers," Diaz said. "We're in a position of laying down a level playing field."
In letters to airport officials in the past week, United has argued that the deal would damage the economy by diluting international traffic at Bush - traffic United depends on to fill overseas flights, many of which originate elsewhere. Those flights create jobs and boost trade by making Houston accessible from spots across the globe, United said in a letter to Parker.
Increased competition
Southwest argues that its plan would create jobs and decrease airfares because United - which dominates local flights to Latin America - would face more competition.
"More passengers will fly to IAH because fares will be lower and that will stimulate demand at both airports," said Ron Ricks, executive vice president for Southwest.
United also fears that equipping Hobby with a full-scale Customs and Border Protection facility would force the federal government to split Customs officers between Hobby and Bush Intercontinental.
Brian Znotins, United's managing director of international planning, said fewer Customs officers would result in longer lines and longer layovers and eventually would prompt more international air travelers to book flights through another hub. Customs officers are scarce, Znotins said.
"To the extent we can get more officers from the federal government - or keep them - they're much better used at Bush Intercontinental than they are at Hobby," Znotins said.
Ricks called that argument the "biggest red herring I've heard in my 40-year career." The federal government has a duty to staff airports with an appropriate number of officers, he said.
Threats to leave
Diaz said the airport system would never let Customs staffing at Intercontinental diminish to the point where passengers would suffer.
If Diaz decides the Hobby plan is promising enough to forward to the City Council for a vote as early as May 9, he said he "could make a very, very good argument" for sending more Customs officers to Houston.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol declined to comment on whether it would have to reassign officers to a new facility.
Both airlines are threatening to take their business elsewhere if they're on the losing end of what Parker called a "historic" decision that's affected by recent shakeups in the airline industry.
If it gets city approval, Southwest says it would spend an estimated $75 million to $100 million to build a new international terminal equipped with full-scale Customs facilities, as well as to improve the aging airport's domestic terminals. Southwest flights would depart from the new terminal to destinations such as Cancun and the Caribbean.
But United has already broken ground on what may become another international terminal, a $700 million investment piled on top of an additional billion it has pumped into Bush Intercontinental Airport since the late 1990s.
United says this town isn't big enough for both projects.
While the city awaits two consultants' reports, expected next week, on the pros and cons of Hobby going international, both airlines have dispatched emissaries to City Hall. The outcome of their lobbying battle will determine whether Houston becomes the sixth among the nation's 10 largest cities to have two full-scale, international airports.
Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston Airport System director, Mario Diaz, have not publicly picked a side. They say only that they're obligated to listen to Southwest's pitch.
"The airport is not in the position of choosing winners and losers," Diaz said. "We're in a position of laying down a level playing field."
In letters to airport officials in the past week, United has argued that the deal would damage the economy by diluting international traffic at Bush - traffic United depends on to fill overseas flights, many of which originate elsewhere. Those flights create jobs and boost trade by making Houston accessible from spots across the globe, United said in a letter to Parker.
Increased competition
Southwest argues that its plan would create jobs and decrease airfares because United - which dominates local flights to Latin America - would face more competition.
"More passengers will fly to IAH because fares will be lower and that will stimulate demand at both airports," said Ron Ricks, executive vice president for Southwest.
United also fears that equipping Hobby with a full-scale Customs and Border Protection facility would force the federal government to split Customs officers between Hobby and Bush Intercontinental.
Brian Znotins, United's managing director of international planning, said fewer Customs officers would result in longer lines and longer layovers and eventually would prompt more international air travelers to book flights through another hub. Customs officers are scarce, Znotins said.
"To the extent we can get more officers from the federal government - or keep them - they're much better used at Bush Intercontinental than they are at Hobby," Znotins said.
Ricks called that argument the "biggest red herring I've heard in my 40-year career." The federal government has a duty to staff airports with an appropriate number of officers, he said.
Threats to leave
Diaz said the airport system would never let Customs staffing at Intercontinental diminish to the point where passengers would suffer.
If Diaz decides the Hobby plan is promising enough to forward to the City Council for a vote as early as May 9, he said he "could make a very, very good argument" for sending more Customs officers to Houston.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol declined to comment on whether it would have to reassign officers to a new facility.
Both airlines are threatening to take their business elsewhere if they're on the losing end of what Parker called a "historic" decision that's affected by recent shakeups in the airline industry.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Mechanics Dispatch for March 6, 2012
Single Operating Certificate Effects
Many changes are occurring since the company received its single operating certificate last November. The FAA now regards the three carriers, namely, sub-UAL, sub-CAL and sub-Air Micronesia as one combined carrier for regulatory purposes. This authority was granted without regard to the collective bargaining agreements in place at sub-UAL, sub-CAL and sub-Air Micronesia. A copy of the certificate from the FAA can be found here: http://av-info.faa.gov/detail.asp?DSGN_CODE=CALA&OPER_FAR=121&OPER_NAME=UNITED+AIR+LINES+INC+-+CONTINENTAL+AIRLINES+INC
This past week the company sent out notices issuing new numbers to passengers enrolled in Mileage Plus and merged the reservation systems over the weekend. This is another step towards combining the operations at the three carriers to streamline the experience for passengers.
For the membership, the three collective bargaining agreements' scope and successorship provisions dictate when the carrier can combine maintenance operations. The contracts also state that the Union and company shall meet to discuss the implementation of the maintenance operation. This is a collective bargaining issue and it is separate from the company’s regulatory achievement of obtaining the single operating certificate.
The granting of the single operating certificate and the move to the single reservation system certainly provides the company more flexibility in the deployment of its aircraft. With this transition to the single reservation system, the company will start to redeploy its equipment on routes based on input from marketing. In other words, the company will utilize the equipment they deem the most efficient on the routes they fly. This change will affect the narrow body fleet in the short term and the entire fleet at some point in the future. This will mean, what used to be sub-UAL, sub-CAL and sub-CMI aircraft will be treated as one “operating carriers” aircraft.
For the Mechanics and related groups at all the sub carriers, this means very soon, same as for the whole system as well as the passengers, there will no longer be three “brands” of aircraft, making them all the “new” United.
Not long after the beginning of the year company leadership approached leadership of the Airline Division stating that they understood the separation of maintenance operations may well put the parties in a position where mechanics would have to follow the aircraft of the old subsidiary companies. The company explained that even if there was an understanding regarding working on metal aircraft regardless of which subsidiary, there would be a significant training cost to the company.
With this information in hand, the IBT undertook a process with the intention of accomplishing three goals to protect the membership. First, the Airline Division believes it is imperative that mechanics are protected at their station through the duration of any letter of interpretation. Next, that any letter of interpretation must not dilute scope provision protections and finally that there is a duration limit to any such letter so that amalgamation talks do not drag on for an interminable period of time. As reported in the February 2nd Mechanics Dispatch, the parties continue to work towards just such a resolution.
Stay tuned for future developments
New Travel Cards
Chief Steward Dan Stunda from IAH passed on this information that he received via email. Hopefully this will help for those that participate in Field Trips.
If you are interested in applying for a corporate travel card, the process is now available on line. Please go to the “Flying Together” page, and under “Employee Services,” look under “Information for all co-workers” and select “Corporate Travel Card Agreement” and then follow the instructions.
For those employees with the American Express card, these cards will be phased out sometime in the future. You will be notified of when, and you will then have to request the Citi Card.
Division Attends Early Out Seminar
Representative Bob Fisher attended an early out seminar in Chicago last week to listen to the presentation and help answer questions. Tom Reardon from Chicago HR led the seminar and it was well attended with about 40 participants. There were various questions with the big concern dealing with benefits. In a previous FAQ the company put out it was stated after an employee’s death spousal benefits would not continue.
This information was only for those leaving prior to age 55. Those leaving that are retirement eligible would have the same medical benefits as spelled out in Article 16 of the new CBA and the employee’s spouse and dependents would continue as described. Additionally that is what is called out in LOA 32, on page 2. Also attending the seminar from Chicago were: BA George Graham, Chief Stewards Mike Pecoraro and Ronny Lunt, and from Denver Grievance Committee Chairman Mitch Hunt and Grievance Secretary Scott Brown.
Sub UA Members Advised to Check Life Insurance
Members; especially those recently returning are advised to check that they are insured for the correct amount per the CBA. There have been some discrepancies in the formula used to determine the correct amounts. If you are affected please see your Steward so they can pass on your information for resolution.
Furloughed Members Urged to Update Their Addresses
Members on furlough are advised to keep their addresses current with the company while on layoff. It is predicted that there will be many movements this year and there have been several members that have been removed from the seniority list because old addresses were on file when notices were sent. If you are in touch with a furloughed member please forward this information to them.
Updates may be emailed to: ESC@united.com
Useful Links
Several members, including those on furlough status, have requested links to Local websites be added to this section. The following Locals represent these respective cities:
Airline Mechanics Forum: Airline Mechanics forum
(This is a good place to discuss merger-related items)
Boston Local 25
New York & Washington: Local 210
Charleston & Atlanta: Local 528
Miami & Orlando: Local 769
Cleveland: Local 964
Chicago: Local 781
Houston, Dallas & New Orleans: Local 19
Phoenix: Local 104
Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Hawaii, Guam & San Francisco: Local 856/986
Denver: Local 455
Many changes are occurring since the company received its single operating certificate last November. The FAA now regards the three carriers, namely, sub-UAL, sub-CAL and sub-Air Micronesia as one combined carrier for regulatory purposes. This authority was granted without regard to the collective bargaining agreements in place at sub-UAL, sub-CAL and sub-Air Micronesia. A copy of the certificate from the FAA can be found here: http://av-info.faa.gov/detail.asp?DSGN_CODE=CALA&OPER_FAR=121&OPER_NAME=UNITED+AIR+LINES+INC+-+CONTINENTAL+AIRLINES+INC
This past week the company sent out notices issuing new numbers to passengers enrolled in Mileage Plus and merged the reservation systems over the weekend. This is another step towards combining the operations at the three carriers to streamline the experience for passengers.
For the membership, the three collective bargaining agreements' scope and successorship provisions dictate when the carrier can combine maintenance operations. The contracts also state that the Union and company shall meet to discuss the implementation of the maintenance operation. This is a collective bargaining issue and it is separate from the company’s regulatory achievement of obtaining the single operating certificate.
The granting of the single operating certificate and the move to the single reservation system certainly provides the company more flexibility in the deployment of its aircraft. With this transition to the single reservation system, the company will start to redeploy its equipment on routes based on input from marketing. In other words, the company will utilize the equipment they deem the most efficient on the routes they fly. This change will affect the narrow body fleet in the short term and the entire fleet at some point in the future. This will mean, what used to be sub-UAL, sub-CAL and sub-CMI aircraft will be treated as one “operating carriers” aircraft.
For the Mechanics and related groups at all the sub carriers, this means very soon, same as for the whole system as well as the passengers, there will no longer be three “brands” of aircraft, making them all the “new” United.
Not long after the beginning of the year company leadership approached leadership of the Airline Division stating that they understood the separation of maintenance operations may well put the parties in a position where mechanics would have to follow the aircraft of the old subsidiary companies. The company explained that even if there was an understanding regarding working on metal aircraft regardless of which subsidiary, there would be a significant training cost to the company.
With this information in hand, the IBT undertook a process with the intention of accomplishing three goals to protect the membership. First, the Airline Division believes it is imperative that mechanics are protected at their station through the duration of any letter of interpretation. Next, that any letter of interpretation must not dilute scope provision protections and finally that there is a duration limit to any such letter so that amalgamation talks do not drag on for an interminable period of time. As reported in the February 2nd Mechanics Dispatch, the parties continue to work towards just such a resolution.
Stay tuned for future developments
New Travel Cards
Chief Steward Dan Stunda from IAH passed on this information that he received via email. Hopefully this will help for those that participate in Field Trips.
If you are interested in applying for a corporate travel card, the process is now available on line. Please go to the “Flying Together” page, and under “Employee Services,” look under “Information for all co-workers” and select “Corporate Travel Card Agreement” and then follow the instructions.
For those employees with the American Express card, these cards will be phased out sometime in the future. You will be notified of when, and you will then have to request the Citi Card.
Division Attends Early Out Seminar
Representative Bob Fisher attended an early out seminar in Chicago last week to listen to the presentation and help answer questions. Tom Reardon from Chicago HR led the seminar and it was well attended with about 40 participants. There were various questions with the big concern dealing with benefits. In a previous FAQ the company put out it was stated after an employee’s death spousal benefits would not continue.
This information was only for those leaving prior to age 55. Those leaving that are retirement eligible would have the same medical benefits as spelled out in Article 16 of the new CBA and the employee’s spouse and dependents would continue as described. Additionally that is what is called out in LOA 32, on page 2. Also attending the seminar from Chicago were: BA George Graham, Chief Stewards Mike Pecoraro and Ronny Lunt, and from Denver Grievance Committee Chairman Mitch Hunt and Grievance Secretary Scott Brown.
Sub UA Members Advised to Check Life Insurance
Members; especially those recently returning are advised to check that they are insured for the correct amount per the CBA. There have been some discrepancies in the formula used to determine the correct amounts. If you are affected please see your Steward so they can pass on your information for resolution.
Furloughed Members Urged to Update Their Addresses
Members on furlough are advised to keep their addresses current with the company while on layoff. It is predicted that there will be many movements this year and there have been several members that have been removed from the seniority list because old addresses were on file when notices were sent. If you are in touch with a furloughed member please forward this information to them.
Updates may be emailed to: ESC@united.com
Useful Links
Several members, including those on furlough status, have requested links to Local websites be added to this section. The following Locals represent these respective cities:
Airline Mechanics Forum: Airline Mechanics forum
(This is a good place to discuss merger-related items)
Boston Local 25
New York & Washington: Local 210
Charleston & Atlanta: Local 528
Miami & Orlando: Local 769
Cleveland: Local 964
Chicago: Local 781
Houston, Dallas & New Orleans: Local 19
Phoenix: Local 104
Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Hawaii, Guam & San Francisco: Local 856/986
Denver: Local 455
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)