A contract for US FAs must be completed prior to any new merger deal.

[700UW]

The IAM CBA didnt have a seniority clause, it had LPPs which followed Alleghany-Mohawk.

So what was the IAM suppose to do, let TW go chapter 7 or waive them?

 

[johnny kat]

The TWA list was also infilterated with SCABS from the 1986 strike. Karma baby!

 

[john john]

The IAM CBA didnt have a seniority clause,

Lesson learned​

?​

 

[700UW]

Once again you dont get it, you really need to educate yourself.

The IAM/TW had a seniority article that determined seniority amongst the flight attendants.

They CBA also had LPPs (Labor Protection Provisions), which covered what happens with pay, benefits, seniority and other things if there is a merger or a buyout.

AA agreed to buy TWA but TWA had to go into chapter 11 to void things in regards to vendors, contracts and labor. AA insisted ALL unions at TWA waive their LPPs otherwise they wouldnt buy TW and TW would go chapter 7.

So ALL the unions waived their LPPs, AA bought TWA and ALL the seniority integrations went to arbitration and the arbiter decided on how seniority would be determined. The IAM spent over $2 million on TWA FAs even though they werent IAM members anymore.

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

Desperate last gasp attempt at relevancy.

Much like Tempe...

 

[Onestep2flt]

Just to be clear...the TA didn't give up Scope but in fact enhanced it. The "me too" was enhanced to go beyond that and there was "me only" as in the change in pilot rest requirments. With the change in the pilots rest requirement as per the FAA...we were able to get better terms. If we stay with them....we will be subject to the new rules....which are not in our favor.

Sorry to quote you twice but the thread was going in a different direction and just wanted to go back to this for a second. You will note I asked for specific language that was an enhancement to scope. As we all get sometimes, I am sure you are busy so I will start it out.

First and foremost the most important thing to note is that this is a legally binding agreement. As such, when voting whether to live under such an agreement it should have had many drafts and corrections over the course of the negotiations in the last seven years. It should be a carefully thought out concise and accurate. One thing that continues to strike me is the following on the failed agreement. It can be read on page SL-10. There were people on this board (not you) that claimed it did not exsist so I ask everyone to read for yourself on the actual failed T/A:

"Disclaimer:

This copy of the new US Airways Tentative Flight Attendant
Single Agreement is not in its final format and may contain
paragraph reference and typographical errors."

This alone should raise the red flags. What you were voting on is something you have to live with for at least five years and most likely many more. It most certainly should have been in its final form before any vote takes place. Would any of you actually sign a document that is not what you believed to be anything but its final form? I don't believe I have ever signed a contract for anything that has such language. This is akin to writing a blank check to the company and union for later interpretation issues. What a great scapegoat. "That is not what we meant to say." Vote yes before the final draft and it could happen.

As far as enhancements to scope. Well, for the most part and is true with quite a few things in the failed T/A it is mostly cut and paste from your existing agreement with a change of a few words. There is one added paragraph.


"4. In addition to any of the other protections in this Agreement, any flight time as defined in Section 11.A, 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 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 Pilot System Seniority List (including during separate operations the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists); provided, however, that this paragraph will 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 air carrier's pilot seniority list."

While we have discussed this paragraph before and it does seem to add value to the scope language it also seems to be very poorly written. Let me say that I am not an attorney but the language seems to be a little ambiguous at best.

This one paragraph alone was probably not reason enough for defeat but is one of many that in my opinion contributed to the no vote. I hope the partly new negotiations team will be more receptive than just saying there are enhancements or trying to convince folks it was all a Facebook conspiracy.

I am sorry to hear that more people did not participate in the recent survey. This does not mean there is no mandate. The mandate was that 75% that voted voted no! Interesting to note that you will not be able to see results of said survey until after a new T/A is ratified according to the official "AFA, we are all one voice or else video."

I am sorry, but there may indeed be some enhancements but just not enough or the kind that a majority could live with. Now they need to make a sincere effort to make the changes needed that a majority can live with. Don't vote for a repackaged shell game out of fear for a merger that may or may not take place.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Now they need to make a sincere effort to make the changes needed that a majority can live with.

What is it you are asking for?

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

I am sorry to hear that more people did not participate in the recent survey. This does not mean there is no mandate

Yes it does.

Voting NO but being unable to articulate your views is a damning indication that many have NO idea what they want.

"I voted NO, HELL NO!" but what is your solution? "I don't know, something better!"

A lack of survey results from the overwhelming NO majority shows an overwhelming lack of knowledge.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Let me saythat this paragraph will 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 air carrier's pilot seniority list."

While we have discussed this paragraph before and it does seem to add value to the that I am not an attorney but the language seems to be a little ambiguous at best.

This one paragraph alone was probably not reason enough for defeat but is one of many that in my opinion contributed to the no vote.

No kidding?

This paragraph is self evident.

If you are sold or merged you will, by definition be flying with pilots not on the US senority list.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Don't vote for a repackaged shell game out of fear for a merger that may or may not take place.

The vast majority of NO voters, who found it too inconvenient to express their views, did vote out of a sense of fear.

Fear founded and perpetuated by the ignorance of FB.

If you didn't read the TA, if you didn't call the union with your questions, if you didn't go to a road show (which the vast majority did not do ) and ask questions, if you got your info from FB, if you didn't fill out your survey then you are ignorant.

It's one thing to vote out of an informed opinion but another when you join in the ignorance of the mob.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

"Disclaimer:
This copy of the new US Airways Tentative Flight Attendant
Single Agreement is not in its final format and may contain
paragraph reference and typographical errors."

Not voting out of fear is what you said.

Well this seems to me the epitome of fear mongering.

Taking boilerplate legal terms to suggest that there is a conspiracy, by the union, to insert some unkown, unseen and evil clause into the contract without the memberships approval IS the worst of FB and IS voting out of fear.

 

[BungeeJumper]

Here's the latest update from AFA...no agreement in this weeks negotiations. Next NMB scheduled meetings are to be held the week of July 18th.
http://ourafa.org/featured-articles/progress-but-no-agreement/

 

[737823]

Once again you dont get it, you really need to educate yourself.

The IAM/TW had a seniority article that determined seniority amongst the flight attendants.

They CBA also had LPPs (Labor Protection Provisions), which covered what happens with pay, benefits, seniority and other things if there is a merger or a buyout.

AA agreed to buy TWA but TWA had to go into chapter 11 to void things in regards to vendors, contracts and labor. AA insisted ALL unions at TWA waive their LPPs otherwise they wouldnt buy TW and TW would go chapter 7.

So ALL the unions waived their LPPs, AA bought TWA and ALL the seniority integrations went to arbitration and the arbiter decided on how seniority would be determined. The IAM spent over $2 million on TWA FAs even though they werent IAM members anymore.

Clearly I'm not the only one who is uneasy about the AA/TW integration it's clear from the AA FAs and APFA the IAM screwed up. No wonder they got their &$@ handed to them at the CO election last summer and AFA prevailed. We all know you're a staunch IAM proponent and defender but clearly things didn't work out here.

Josh

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Another uneducated uninformed unroadshow going neandrathal rehashing what is common knowledege. No wonder we got the results that we did.

It's YOUR time to shine but all you can show is your ignorance.

 

[700UW]

737 is a banker who posts over on the AA board and hates US and has a beef with the IAM, and constantly posts misinformation.