AA flight attendants
- Thread starter flybynite
- Start date
- Banned
- #33
You people at AA are unreal.
Do you know the non-rev travel was arbitrated at US and one case was settled right before arbitration, meaning both cases are precedent setting.
Do you understand what that means?
It means if it is violated the unions go to court and get an injunction or a TRO to uphold the precedent setting grievances, the company if they proceed will be in violation of the Railway Labor Act.
Why is it so hard for you folks over at AA to understand that?
Do you know the non-rev travel was arbitrated at US and one case was settled right before arbitration, meaning both cases are precedent setting.
Do you understand what that means?
It means if it is violated the unions go to court and get an injunction or a TRO to uphold the precedent setting grievances, the company if they proceed will be in violation of the Railway Labor Act.
Why is it so hard for you folks over at AA to understand that?
- Banned
- #35
I dont know if there is a link.
The US East FAs filed a grievance, went through first step, second step and then third step, company denied the grievance at all steps, right before the arbitration the company caved and agreed with the AFA.
The US West FAs went to arbitration on their grievance and won it.
I doubt there are links, the AFA's sites are members only for things like that.
Any grievance that renders a third step or arbitration win is precedent setting, so if the company violates the awards they are liable for damages in court and the unions can and will seek a TRO or an injunction.
The US East FAs filed a grievance, went through first step, second step and then third step, company denied the grievance at all steps, right before the arbitration the company caved and agreed with the AFA.
The US West FAs went to arbitration on their grievance and won it.
I doubt there are links, the AFA's sites are members only for things like that.
Any grievance that renders a third step or arbitration win is precedent setting, so if the company violates the awards they are liable for damages in court and the unions can and will seek a TRO or an injunction.
johnny kat
Senior
- Oct 11, 2011
- 343
- 330
700UW,
IMHO, I think the APFA/AFA will use the seniority vs FCFS grievance as a bargaining chip for other improvements to a CBA. And I think the other PMUS groups will do the same. I would be really surprised if the DOH is made the universal nonrev way at AA.
IMHO, I think the APFA/AFA will use the seniority vs FCFS grievance as a bargaining chip for other improvements to a CBA. And I think the other PMUS groups will do the same. I would be really surprised if the DOH is made the universal nonrev way at AA.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #38
why would the AFA want to bargain something they already have to improve the benefits for AFA FAs?
US FAs might want it but AA FAs want to build on what they have, not negotiate regarding something they already have.
US FAs might want it but AA FAs want to build on what they have, not negotiate regarding something they already have.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #40
.... lovely. let's tie up the ability of US employees to gain benefits from the merger while you argue over pass priority.
I get that it is important to US employees but your argumentative mindset over gnats is exactly what Parker is looking for to withhold the benefits to US employees for another year or two.
Brilliant strategizing. Once again.
I get that it is important to US employees but your argumentative mindset over gnats is exactly what Parker is looking for to withhold the benefits to US employees for another year or two.
Brilliant strategizing. Once again.
silverbird007
Senior
I think we should just vote on it. Isnt that how they do it in Russia?johnny kat said:
jimntx
Veteran
John John, you are still assuming that the US f/a CBA will survive the merger. Unless, you want the current American West/Us Airways style merger to become a 3-way with American, you need to hope that instead of US flight attendants winning a grievance that is going to do them no good in the long run that they are able to negotiate an acceptable JCBA with the APFA being the surviving union.
Points to remember:
1. AA flight attendants greatly outnumber US flight attendants.
2. AA flght attendants are pretty happy with the current non-rev travel policy.
3. We do not have a commuter policy (if you mean that commuters get a leg up on boarding over leisure travel nonrevs). If current AA has anything to do with it, neither will you in the future. I repeat for those who just came into the discussion...American's view of commuters has always been, it is your choice to live somewhere other than your base. That is your choice. That makes it your responsibility to get yourself to work. Do not expect the company to make a place on an airplane for you if you are commuting to or from work. You know the nonrev rules. Live by them or move to your base.
If and when we have a JCBA for the flight attendants, I have a pretty strong feeling that the result will look a lot like the current AA f/a CBA (though I would LOVE for some of US work rules to survive the merger process). If the US flight attendants grieve and win the nonrev FCFS policy issue, it will last until there is a JCBA, and (I'm guessing) only on PMUS a/c and flights.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #44
I've got one.700UW said:If more people were like you, we would be speaking German and Japanese.
Are you a fan of Neville Chamberlain?
You might want to find one of these:
You might look into acquiring what is attached to the top of it and realize that AA FAs are happy with what they have.
It was a given from when this merger was announced that US employees and their unions would be outnumbered by AA. Thinking that AA employees are going to fight to change a system they are accustomed to is not within the realm of logic.
Seniority just isn't going to be the end all and be all for US employees when it comes to non-revving.
The language is weak, besides NRSA is non-contractual the company can make changes or suspend the privilege at any time and you have ZERO recourse. The effect of the language, if I recall correctly, is that privileges have to be given to employees the same way they are allocated to others. The company will prevail here, they wouldn't make the change otherwise the union reps will run away with their tails between their legs.700UW said:
Josh
