83 replies to this topic

[SparrowHawk]

CallawayGolf, on 20 February 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

How is it gaining an advantage to allow FAs the freedom to not be tied to the pilots for another 5-10 years should another merger take place? It might just be beneficial to both Management and to the FAs at the same time.

Something tells me you would work at US Airways without a contract if the price was right. Is the sales department unionized or are they at-will employees?

Frankly Callaway I wouldn't pee on Dougie if he were on fire. That goes double for Kirby. Now when I look to travel I check US Airways LAST which is a far cry for when I was a Chairman's Preferred and never shopped US Airways. Now I could hijack the thread with yet another diatribe as to why, alas it would fall on deaf ears. So why bother?

Contract language needs to be spelled out so someone with a 4th to 6th grade reading level can fully comprehend it. Reason being that's roughly the reading level of most in the USA.

I think you've done a great deal to clarify. However I'm a "Don't tell me what it means, read me what it says" type of guy. Maybe it's because I've gotten burned on one to many consumer contracts, I don't know.

Bottom line is this. The language needs to be clean, clear & concise which is not something an excellent lawyer like Jerry Glass is going to do unless forced by the threat of CHAOS or worse. The wording of this contract has millions of dollars riding on it and Jerry Glass is going to try to add so much "fudge" in it that you'll think you're on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City.

[ggiby]

SparrowHawk, on 20 February 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Frankly Callaway I wouldn't pee on Dougie if he were on fire. That goes double for Kirby. Now when I look to travel I check US Airways LAST which is a far cry for when I was a Chairman's Preferred and never shopped US Airways. Now I could hijack the thread with yet another diatribe as to why, alas it would fall on deaf ears. So why bother?

Contract language needs to be spelled out so someone with a 4th to 6th grade reading level can fully comprehend it. Reason being that's roughly the reading level of most in the USA.

I think you've done a great deal to clarify. However I'm a "Don't tell me what it means, read me what it says" type of guy. Maybe it's because I've gotten burned on one to many consumer contracts, I don't know.

Bottom line is this. The language needs to be clean, clear & concise which is not something an excellent lawyer like Jerry Glass is going to do unless forced by the threat of CHAOS or worse. The wording of this contract has millions of dollars riding on it and Jerry Glass is going to try to add so much "fudge" in it that you'll think you're on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City.

Thank you for your input on how you see this. I assumed.... (lol) and we know what that means, that the Scope language was the same as all of our other contracts,
however, we know that the west did not have a Scope clause. It was always my opinion that giving up the scope clause was not worth a 100.00 an hour raise...
and we we held out to the eleventh hour and got the Scope clause.... I will have to research your comments... Also... I am sorry that our mgt does not value our most frequent fliers. I would rather have you on board than the once a year who knows nothing about air travel and thinks that we are still like the Pan Am show!!!

and PSSSSS Jerry Glass is the enemy..... He has screwed us many times with our contracts, and when he got hired by the west I knew we were screwed....

[SparrowHawk]

ggiby, on 20 February 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Thank you for your input on how you see this. I assumed.... (lol) and we know what that means, that the Scope language was the same as all of our other contracts,
however, we know that the west did not have a Scope clause. It was always my opinion that giving up the scope clause was not worth a 100.00 an hour raise...
and we we held out to the eleventh hour and got the Scope clause.... I will have to research your comments... Also... I am sorry that our mgt does not value our most frequent fliers. I would rather have you on board than the once a year who knows nothing about air travel and thinks that we are still like the Pan Am show!!!

and PSSSSS Jerry Glass is the enemy..... He has screwed us many times with our contracts, and when he got hired by the west I knew we were screwed....

Well Gibby perhaps now would be a good time to turn into "The Gibbinator" and start raising hell.

As an outsider I'm alarmed at the vagueness of some of the Language I've seen to date. Seriously look how fast Callpway was able to spin the paragraph in a particular direction. That should tell Flight Attendants something. What I'm not sure.

Labor & Management is an adversarial relationship. It's those who work the flights versus those who don't. You do! They don't!.

Understand that a pro like Jerry Glass is going to eat your AFA counsel as an appetizer. Larry Cohen is up Verizon's arse, think he's going to help? You guys are on your own. Remember, business is done in Black and White. If it isn't written down it doesn't exist. With a guy like Glass you have to negotiate every word, every sentence as if your career depended upon it, because it does.

[Al Legheny]

SparrowHawk, on 20 February 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Well Gibby perhaps now would be a good time to turn into "The Gibbinator" and start raising hell.

As an outsider I'm alarmed at the vagueness of some of the Language I've seen to date. Seriously look how fast Callpway was able to spin the paragraph in a particular direction. That should tell Flight Attendants something. What I'm not sure.

Labor & Management is an adversarial relationship. It's those who work the flights versus those who don't. You do! They don't!.

Understand that a pro like Jerry Glass is going to eat your AFA counsel as an appetizer. Larry Cohen is up Verizon's arse, think he's going to help? You guys are on your own. Remember, business is done in Black and White. If it isn't written down it doesn't exist. With a guy like Glass you have to negotiate every word, every sentence as if your career depended upon it, because it does.

There is more here. Compare the 2004 current East Agreement with the 2012 proposed agreement on successorship. The company slips in the addition of All or substantially All of the equity. This means that a partial transaction is not covered. There is also a confidentiality section that effectively negates the 30 prior notice of the sentence above it. Yes we will give you 30 days notice of a transaction but it will be under confidentiality so that you cannot tell your membership.

Additional Scope Changes to the AFA proposed agreement.

2004 agreement
1. Successorship – this agreement between the company and the association and all other letters of agreement shall be binding on any successor, including without limitation, any merged company or companies, assignee, purchaser, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor, and/or trustee of the company or US Airways Group (A “Successor”.)

2012 TA New Proposed language
1. Successorship The company shall require any Successor, including, without limitation, any merged companies or company, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor, and/or trustee, to cause the Company (i.e. the airline entity that was acquired) to continue to be bound by all the terms of this agreement as a condition of any transaction that results in a Successor, subject to applicable procedures under the Railway Labor Act; for purposes of this paragraph, a Successor shall be defined as an entity that acquires or controls all or substantially all of the assets or equity US Airways Group or the company through a single transaction or a multi-step related transaction that close within a 12 month period (“Successorship Transaction”.) The Company shall provide the union with written notice of any successorship transaction no later than (30) days prior to the closing of the transaction and such notice shall be subject to any confidentiality restrictions that the Company in its discretion may impose on the union or legal requirements that may apply.

No fragmentation – this change requires all or substantially all of the assets or equity US Airways group to be involved.

This agreement does not include applicable side letters.

When the company gives notice of the transaction they may impose confidentiality restrictions. Your union may not be able to tell the membership what is going on.

YOU GUYS NEED GOOD LEGAL ADVICE TO WALK THROUGH THIS ENTIRE SCOPE SECTION- IT IS TOO IMPORTANT AND THERE ARE TOO MANY CHANGES HERE.

[SparrowHawk]

Al Legheny, on 20 February 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

There is more here. Compare the 2004 current East Agreement with the 2012 proposed agreement on successorship. The company slips in the addition of All or substantially All of the equity. This means that a partial transaction is not covered. There is also a confidentiality section that effectively negates the 30 prior notice of the sentence above it. Yes we will give you 30 days notice of a transaction but it will be under confidentiality so that you cannot tell your membership.

Additional Scope Changes to the AFA proposed agreement.

2004 agreement
1. Successorship – this agreement between the company and the association and all other letters of agreement shall be binding on any successor, including without limitation, any merged company or companies, assignee, purchaser, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor, and/or trustee of the company or US Airways Group (A “Successor”.)

2012 TA New Proposed language
1. Successorship The company shall require any Successor, including, without limitation, any merged companies or company, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor, and/or trustee, to cause the Company (i.e. the airline entity that was acquired) to continue to be bound by all the terms of this agreement as a condition of any transaction that results in a Successor, subject to applicable procedures under the Railway Labor Act; for purposes of this paragraph, a Successor shall be defined as an entity that acquires or controls all or substantially all of the assets or equity US Airways Group or the company through a single transaction or a multi-step related transaction that close within a 12 month period (“Successorship Transaction”.) The Company shall provide the union with written notice of any successorship transaction no later than (30) days prior to the closing of the transaction and such notice shall be subject to any confidentiality restrictions that the Company in its discretion may impose on the union or legal requirements that may apply.

No fragmentation – this change requires all or substantially all of the assets or equity US Airways group to be involved.

This agreement does not include applicable side letters.

When the company gives notice of the transaction they may impose confidentiality restrictions. Your union may not be able to tell the membership what is going on.

YOU GUYS NEED GOOD LEGAL ADVICE TO WALK THROUGH THIS ENTIRE SCOPE SECTION- IT IS TOO IMPORTANT AND THERE ARE TOO MANY CHANGES HERE.

Nice post but way way above my pay grade. Just know what you're signing up for with a Yes or No vote folks. I've said to much already

[jimntx]

Al Legheny, on 20 February 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

The AFA TA has this in section 1. It has rather ominous sound to it if the company is involved in another transaction.

4. In addition to any other the other protections in this Agreement, any flight time defined section 11.1A, Hours of Service, of this agreement that is operated by US Airways Pilots ,(including during the period of separate pilot operations either America West or US Airways pilots) shall include Flight Attendants on the US Airways Flight Attendant System Seniority List. Flight Attendants on the US Airways flight attendant system seniority list shall serve on all commercial passenger revenue flights operated by US Airways, Inc. with pilots on the US Airways system seniority list (including during operations on the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists); provided however, that this paragraph shall not apply if and when following a transaction of any type, the US Airways Pilot System Seniority List (including during separate operations the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists) is integrated with another carrier's pilot seniority list.

This last paragraph is troubling. I would not vote for any agreement that makes this change to scope with out a full explanation from legal authority. Does this mean there will be no integration? i have no idea what this language means? Perhaps it's just a temporary item to allow other FA's to operate US Airways flights if there is a stalled pilot integration. I would want more information prior to voting.

The bolded and underlined part is the most worrisome part by far. I also have some contract experience, and I think you have all misread the intention of this paragraph. It seems to me that (for all practical purposes) it eliminates your scope protections should another merger take place.

It seems to be saying that scope does not apply if and when the pilots seniority list is integrated with another carrier's list--even if a combined US Airways list is not achieved before the integration into another list. So, say you end up merging with us (AA)/buy us/marry us/(whatever you want to call it), and a list combining AA, US Airways East, and US Airways West pilots comes into being, you have just lost the scope protection stated above that paragraph. AA f/as could fly trips flown by pilots who were either East or West. (Now, I'm assuming that would also mean that you could fly trips flown by pre-merger AA pilots.)

What would be the actual effect of such loss, who knows. I'm guessing that most of the current US Airways flight attendants are about as senior as most of the current AA flight attendants. I'm one of the most junior active flight attendants, and I finally got my 10 years on the payroll last month. The great majority of the AA f/a corps are at top of scale (which means they are at 15 years or more). There are just a whole lot more of us than you.

[BoeingBoy]

jimntx, on 21 February 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

The bolded and underlined part is the most worrisome part by far.

Yes, but with 2 "if's"...

If the pilots achieve an integrated list before the FA's, (coming up on 7 years for the pilots of US) and
If provisions of any transition agreement don't modify that highlighted sentence.

Jim

[flybynite]

I'm glad this has finally come to the attention of a few folks on this board. I've been screaming bloody murder over this on the FB pages and I'm getting ignored.

The first page of our contract is the most important. Period.

The first page of our contract deals with SCOPE.

Our Scope language has been changed......I don't know who is responsible...and it is so muddy...that it's worthless. It leaves the Flight Attendant group twisting in the wind in the event of a merger.

I'll vote NO over this alone.