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

[jimntx]

This site has become all but irrelevant to F/As, but as I do check it from time to time to see if anything is new regarding the airline, it has become increasingly painful to read some of the drivel posted here by individuals who have neither the knowledge nor sense to refrain from posting about the FA contract.

-If a merger happens, DOH was left open whether US f/as had voted in a new contract or not. APFA is bigger. They outnumber US f/as. They don't have AFA's DOH rule (see TWA f/as, oh forget it, they were furlouged). Due to that abomination, the Mcaskill-Bond amendment was passed. Sans McB, contract or not, we would be truly screwed, kinda like the pilots. With McB, we're only slightly screwed. That's reality. Nothing changes that.

-If US f/as had passed that inferior, concession ridden nonsense we would be sitting on a 5 year prison sentence. Trapped in ANOTHER concession ridden contract, kinda like what is happening to WEST f/as right now. As it is, we can be parked by the NMB, but not forever. And unlike WEST, we will not remain trapped in a bankruptcy grade contract waiting for a "merger contract" with AA, should a merger happen. We are already on the road to self help, as pothole strewn as it might be. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons, a different EAST mindset, contract differences etc, but a major fact is that AWA has already demonstrated a bad faith and bad bargaining history with US f/as already. An arbitrator cannot help but see that AWA has managed to trap WEST in a 12 year mess, paying 1989 wages and would LOVE to do again on a larger scale to all US f/as. Had US f/as voted in that TA, there would be no real argument for getting out of it. They ran out EAST's bankruptcy contract and they would have run out that 5 year abomination as well. If anyone thinks that the current managment wouldn't run three companies under one name if it saves them a nickel, I suggest you consult your US history.

-Also, if US f/as had voted in that concessionary waste of paper, the Change of Control language would no longer be there. I personally think it's a long shot, however dependent on court interpretation, the chance is there that with a merger that clause can be activated. Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg shot, but it's ours and better there than not.

Finally, I have better things to do than explain a defunct TA and its abysmal negatives to posters who are drunk on Cactus koolaid, however, I can only wonder at the incredible naivete of thinking that ANY "endorsement" by ANY union rep would be considered good cause for voting yes on an agreement. Trotting out "their JNC recommended voting in the new TA" as support for an argument that US f/as have made a mistake? US f/as read the TA, consulted lawyers and pored over the details. 90% made their decision, 75% did their math.

Second guessing any of us is truly arrogant, not to mention, this little sideshow is simply a company infested propaganda fest.

I suggest you update your own comprehension of recent history--AA, APFA, and NMB.

1. Only a small number of the former TW f/as are still on furlough. The rest have been recalled and are assigned and working in every domestic base.
2. Don't bet that you can not be "parked" by the NMB forever. The APFA has requested release from mediation at least 3 times since the NMB got involved with the "negotiations"--though that word suggests something other than the company just presenting their first offer over and over again without modification. The NMB has refused to release us to self-help every time. And, there appears to be no avenue of appeal in Federal law. Evidently, no court can "force" the NMB to do anything.

 

[700UW]

http://connectlive.com/events/afa052512/

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Only 38% of the membership turned in a survey.

Assuming the same percentages as the NO vote (25% Yes, 75% No, which I doubt) it looks like only an approximate 30% of the membership that turned in a survey and voted to KEEP a DOUBLE BANKRUPTCY contract bothered to put down the KoolAAide long enough to think up something to change.

The JNC now has no mandate to get anything substantial changed.

It's your LEC's.

It's your JNC.

Do something, oh yeah, you can't think of anything.

Let ignorance reign among the uninformed.

 

[Onestep2flt]

Only 38% of the membership turned in a survey.

Assuming the same percentages as the NO vote (25% Yes, 75% No, which I doubt) it looks like only an approximate 30% of the membership that turned in a survey and voted to KEEP a DOUBLE BANKRUPTCY contract bothered to put down the KoolAAide long enough to think up something to change.

The JNC now has no mandate to get anything substantial changed.

It's your LEC's.

It's your JNC.

Do something, oh yeah, you can't think of anything.

Let ignorance reign among the uninformed.

You want everybody to do something when your union leaders have failed at that for the last seven years? Look, you are right, more should have did the survey. The problem with it is that they did a survey seven years ago and were all but ignored. The reality is the survey should not have been needed in the first place!

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

The reality is the survey should not have been needed in the first place!

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

What is the super secret part that no one is willing to own up to?

You can't enunciate a position because you don't have one.

 

[Onestep2flt]

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

What is the super secret part that no one is willing to own up to?

You can't enunciate a position because you don't have one.

I am not sure I follow. Perhaps what I said was a little confusing. My position is that the members did a survey seven years ago and those member surveys were all but ignored by those who were negotiating the contract. In simple terms, why do another survey to be ignored again? I will agree with you that you should at least take the time to do the survey, but I do understand the lack of participation.

 

[Itestwell]

I am not sure I follow. Perhaps what I said was a little confusing. My position is that the members did a survey seven years ago and those member surveys were all but ignored by those who were negotiating the contract. In simple terms, why do another survey to be ignored again? I will agree with you that you should at least take the time to do the survey, but I do understand the lack of participation.

How do you know that the "member surveys were all but ignored"? Have you seen the results of those surveys? If so, please post a link to those results for the rest of us.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Best one yet from a NO voter:

"We need to get rid of the union because they're not listening to us." as in having NO union at all.

Among the multitude of ludicris reasons justifying voting NO this has got to be the winner... so far.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

A few more gems from the people who didn't read the TA, who didn't go to a road show, who didn't call the union if they had any questions, who didn't fill out their surveys and who didn't watch the web cast.

1. "I do not want to do Transcon 1 days!", while they're on a 9 hr. Carribean turn.

2. "I voted NO, so when does the 321 aft pay begin?"

3. "We would have gotten a raise when PBS was implemented NOT on DOS!

4. "This is concessionary! We want the cleaners back!" from someone who would never ever fly a trip that requires cleaning by the crew.

5. "The West took our raise! It's OUR money!"

6. "I'll never split from the pilots!" while on a 321 extra trip.

Many of these comments made in a shouty voice, prefaced by "I have __ years!" and followed by "No I didn't go to a road show - I didn't have to."

 

[Itestwell]

A few more gems from the people who didn't read the TA, who didn't go to a road show, who didn't call the union if they had any questions, who didn't fill out their surveys and who didn't watch the web cast.

1. "I do not want to do Transcon 1 days!", while they're on a 9 hr. Carribean turn.

2. "I voted NO, so when does the 321 aft pay begin?"

3. "We would have gotten a raise when PBS was implemented NOT on DOS!

4. "This is concessionary! We want the cleaners back!" from someone who would never ever fly a trip that requires cleaning by the crew.

5. "The West took our raise! It's OUR money!"

6. "I'll never split from the pilots!" while on a 321 extra trip.

Many of these comments made in a shouty voice, prefaced by "I have __ years!" and followed by "No I didn't go to a road show - I didn't have to."

Hysterics.
A lack of researching what our [far higher revenue generating] competitor flight attendant contracts contain,
A lack of AFA leadership at the local level.

The perfect storm.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

You want everybody to do something when your union leaders have failed at that for the last seven years?

No! I want you to do something now since you are in control and have the votes to change things.

What is it you are going to change?

Talk is cheap. Except there is no talk, only sound and fury signifying...

You are in charge.

It's time to think now.

What are you going to do now ?

You will own this.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Hysterics.
A lack of researching what our [far higher revenue generating] competitor flight attendant contracts contain,
A lack of AFA leadership at the local level.

The perfect storm.

Since CLT voted no and PHL pretended to vote, it will be interesting to see if their positions change... Not hearing PHL being on board.

If they continue to live in the past and let the ship sail with out us they may be
doomed in the future.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Am I the only one who has heard such ludicris NO votes?

You can't fix stupid.

 

[DCAJet]

1. Why does this membership let leaders, who mis-lead them into voting no, off the hook when the leaders do an about face and now support a new TA. Did'nt want to split with the pilots...now its ok. Did not think the merger was real, now its a serious deal. and on and on.

Those buffoon leaders do an abrupt about face and not held to account. in the meantime, we've lost money we can't recover. imbeciles.

2. cwa-afa continues to put out tripe and twist the facts. pathetic. cwa-afa says they have 60,000 members in a press release. baloney. they have less than 45,000, if that. a union that lies about how many members they have will lie about anything. they want our dues money. that says it all.

 

[Onestep2flt]

No! I want you to do something now since you are in control and have the votes to change things.

What is it you are going to change?

Talk is cheap. Except there is no talk, only sound and fury signifying...

You are in charge.

It's time to think now.

What are you going to do now ?

You will own this.

Here is the problem with what you say. You are stuck on the fact that you are in favor of the failed T/A and 75% that voted were not. Your answer to that is a conspiricy therory that Facebook doomed the process with false rumors. While I am sure that some incorrect info made it out there there is a huge issue with this theroy. This is where you have to look at the differences between east and west. You had two groups with two different agendas for what they wanted in a contract. You even had two different MEC's with two different negotiating teams (contrary to AFA policy by the way). It looks as most of the info which you site is east centric such as "the west took our raise, it OUR money" (your words) or things about splitting from the pilots. Assuming these are the rumors that doomed the T/A the west should have least carried a yes based on what you say because these things do not involve them. They do not fly with the pilots to begin with and any raise they get would be just as deserved as any other employee. Funny thing though, it failed in the west too. Not by as wide of margin but still a majority. So if your conspiracy is to work it would also mean that they would have to have their own set of rumors I guess. I suppose you could make it work but I think it is a stretch to believe the ONLY reason the T/A failed is based solely on internet rumors! You have to give more credit to your co-workers than that. What you are suggesting is that all your coworkers lack any kind of intelligence if they voted no. Quite sad really.

Here is what I believe to be true. You are probably right that some might have been swayed by what others said or even by rumor. This however, can be said for those who voted yes or no. That is human nature. Some that voted yes could have been swayed by rumor just as those that voted no. In the end a very large percentage actually voted and a very large percentage of those said no.

You are now trying to place the burden to the members by saying things like "you will own this." What exactly are they owning? People were voting on a contract. They had to decide whether it was a livable contract or not. Most decided it was not. You can try to throw a merger into the mix and it might have changed the outcome, but in the end they were deciding if the failed agreement made since to them at the time. Nobody has a crystal ball to know what will happen in the future. A merger with AA might happen, it might not. Remember, it was a sure thing you were merging with United. Your CEO even stated in public that he was singularly focused on it and they had no plan B! Then they tried again with United only for them to merge with Continental. Then it was on to keep Delta their Northwest.

You state "You are in charge". You are very correct! The members spoke and now they expect those that are in position to make changes needed for a livable contract to do so. The mandate is there with a huge no vote. They have a union in place that they elected to listen to their needs and to represent them. You say they have the control and should do something. They did, now they expect that the leaders that represent them will stop making excuses and stop trying to pass the buck!