AFA Anounces 94% Strike vote But leaves out actual numbers...Why?

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

...i say the 2 t/a were rejected due to the lack of scope protection etc

I'd say you are a CC Moron Zombie who can't read, count, type, etc.

You're right about one thing - there will be no scope protection for 1/3 of the F/As because of the NO voters.

"Solidarity Forever"

MM!

 

[robbedagain]

LAST TIME I CHECKED I DID NOT RESORT TO INSULTS OR NAME CALLING I JUST SIMPLY SAID THAT APPARENTLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE F/A WHO SHOT DOWN THE T/A DID SO FOR A REASON

 

[cynic]

LAST TIME I CHECKED I DID NOT RESORT TO INSULTS OR NAME CALLING I JUST SIMPLY SAID THAT APPARENTLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE F/A WHO SHOT DOWN THE T/A DID SO FOR A REASON

Are you saying the rest of the ones that shot it down had no reason at all for doing so? There is nothing "apparent" about why people voted for or against it, only the conclusions that people wish to make up to support their own position.

 

[robbedagain]

let me ask this and see if this will anger you folks is it possible that some of those who voted no did so bec they want more and did they vote no bec may be they do not like the scope and may be they want a better and stronger scope and more

 

[MyrnaMinkoff]

The scope language was exactly the same scope language as was in the original contract and for that matter was the same scope language form the contract before that. The scope language was in the East Contract for years. The poor west f/as do not have the scope protection. Although we have a unified seniority list that has not been ratified. The PHX f/as do not have the same scope.

There are tons of details that would have been taken care of in the T/A that was recommended by the leadership the last go round. It is foolish to think that anything not nailed down wont be exploited by management. The f/as have screwed up and had better figure this out before a merger announcement has been made.

I have encountered so many f/as that don't have a clue about the actual language and are just making an opinion based upon what the best friend of a friends attorney husband is saying. I just can't have any sympathy for stupid. The f/as will get what they can figure out based upon their educated 10th grade guess. It is really sad to watch this group. Pitiful Bull and the rest really don't have a clue as to how dumbed down this group has become.

The christmas season is upon us once again, and for the eighth year, everyone is shopping with the same low bankrupt wages as 2004. What kind of gifts can anyone afford and still fly a trip. One day it is slowly, very slowly going to occur to some of our smart well educated f/as that voted no, that they just don't have the same buying power as they did eight years ago. Pitiful! Their mantra is "WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN RAISE" because we are the arrogant stupid idiots.

"What kind of gifts can anyone afford and still fly a trip[?]" The question mark is my addition because I assume this is an interrogative, and I'm not sure how to answer, but I'll give it a shot. Umm, this year, I can still afford to gift my handmade voodoo dolls, and at the same time be able to fly what will likely be a back-breaking four day trip awarded by daily scheduling about mid-day Christmas Eve, just like the way it's gone down for time immemorial--one hundred and five years if I were Parker's perky lap pooch. It's just a matter of time management; on one of the eleven days I'm free from the scheduling albatross, I'll scour thrift stores in search of forsaken dolls and doll parts, cloth remnanats, etc. Then, over the course of several evenings, I'll don my Snuggie or my Jeggings or whatever infomercial clothing purchase for the chronically cold and uncomfortable I've most recently acquired, light the Yule log and cue up the Jim Nabors Christmas Album (on vinyl, if it matters), and begin the process of transforming, say, a 1974 Malibu Ken into, for example, a paunchy ex-frat boy executive. Mother has been dropping hints, she thinks she isn't being obvious, but when I hear her say of Paul Ryan, "I wish that little f***er would come down with a case of the clap," I know I need to somehow find an Eddie Munster doll if I'm to make her holiday wishes a reality. I hope that answers your question about how I'm going to afford gifts and fly a trip at the same time.

Another point. I voted no on both of the TAs for several reasons. I couldn't ever crack tenth grade math, so I used sixth grade math to calculate that a 13.5% pay raise provided in TA2, the more generous of the two, fails to address even a modest cost of living increase, which has risen approximately 21% since the signing of the concessionary contract we work under now. To wit: You actually had more spending power in January 2005 with the acceptance of concessionary wages than you would in 2013 with the proposed "industry leading" raise, never mind in five years when the top-out wage of $49.06 is only about 4% more than than top-out on the date of signing. And surely, no one is enough a Pollyanna to think this contract would be replaced in five years, it would more likely be at least seven. The second proposal returned no vacation days that were snatched in the name of saving the company--there were ten more of those in 2004, plus it provided for no increase in per diem. In 2018, that rate would be .10 more than in 2003, just like the wage proposals, ridiculous, though I don't think that would have mattered much if the company would pony up with fair wages.

 

[PITbull]

"What kind of gifts can anyone afford and still fly a trip[?]" The question mark is my addition because I assume this is an interrogative, and I'm not sure how to answer, but I'll give it a shot. Umm, this year, I can still afford to gift my handmade voodoo dolls, and at the same time be able to fly what will likely be a back-breaking four day trip awarded by daily scheduling about mid-day Christmas Eve, just like the way it's gone down for time immemorial--one hundred and five years if I were Parker's perky lap pooch. It's just a matter of time management; on one of the eleven days I'm free from the scheduling albatross, I'll scour thrift stores in search of forsaken dolls and doll parts, cloth remnanats, etc. Then, over the course of several evenings, I'll don my Snuggie or my Jeggings or whatever infomercial clothing purchase for the chronically cold and uncomfortable I've most recently acquired, light the Yule log and cue up the Jim Nabors Christmas Album (on vinyl, if it matters), and begin the process of transforming, say, a 1974 Malibu Ken into, for example, a paunchy ex-frat boy executive. Mother has been dropping hints, she thinks she isn't being obvious, but when I hear her say of Paul Ryan, "I wish that little f***er would come down with a case of the clap," I know I need to somehow find an Eddie Munster doll if I'm to make her holiday wishes a reality. I hope that answers your question about how I'm going to afford gifts and fly a trip at the same time.

Another point. I voted no on both of the TAs for several reasons. I couldn't ever crack tenth grade math, so I used sixth grade math to calculate that a 13.5% pay raise provided in TA2, the more generous of the two, fails to address even a modest cost of living increase, which has risen approximately 21% since the signing of the concessionary contract we work under now. To wit: You actually had more spending power in January 2005 with the acceptance of concessionary wages than you would in 2013 with the proposed "industry leading" raise, never mind in five years when the top-out wage of $49.06 is only about 4% more than than top-out on the date of signing. And surely, no one is enough a Pollyanna to think this contract would be replaced in five years, it would more likely be at least seven. The second proposal returned no vacation days that were snatched in the name of saving the company--there were ten more of those in 2004, plus it provided for no increase in per diem. In 2018, that rate would be .10 more than in 2003, just like the wage proposals, ridiculous, though I don't think that would have mattered much if the company would pony up with fair wages.

The other factor you forgot to add to the concessionary TA2 proposal and only requires mental math is that the "out of pocket medical costs"...that if you get just 1 illness (you or a family membe) that requires more than just an antiobiotic could eat up that $13% wage increase in an instant!

 

[johnny kat]

Dear Myrna,

I hope your mom enjoys her gift. Maybe you can get her the one with the twist off head that has the Dutch gin in it.

Believe me when I say that I too want the best raise I can get. I respect the fact that you voted no. I voted yes and here's why....When Parker, the NMB, the negotiating committee, MECs, Veda Shook, and everyone else says that they are convinced that a 13.5% raise and still be able to keep current duty rigs (which are the best among all of the legacy carriers) is the best we are able to do and they recommend a yes vote. Then who the heck am I to doubt it?

I can't think of one company that expresses a raise in any other terms than Percentages. Yes, a 40% raise sounds and is better than a 13.5% raise. But according to all of the above mentioned, after all these years the 13.5% is the best we can do. So, I have to listen to these people because I was not at the negotiating table.

Everybit of your 6th grade math is correct and what Pitbull said is true also.

So, while we spin around in circles p!$$ed off at this situation we find ourselves in, all we are doing is losing several hundred dollars per month that we will NEVER get back. The 40 mil.that we passed up this year could possibly be added in next year in order for US to sweeten the deal but it still does not make up for the fact that we lost that 40 mil. this year. Capeche?

There is also public opinion, and in this depression we are in, I doubt alot of people will have any sympathy for our plight. A 13.5% raise would sound good to alot of people. And if you take into consideration the fact that we still have superior duty rigs on the east, then our wages would have been very much in line with the others. This is my view. Enjoy shopping at the thrift store, I hear underwear is on sale. Merry Christmas young tiny Tim.

The only ones around US having a great Christmas this year are the Grinch and his minions out in Whoville errrr PHX.

 

[Toothy Grin]

Quoting Johnnykat "So, while we spin around in circles p!$$ed off at this situation we find ourselves in, all we are doing is losing several hundred dollars per month that we will NEVER get back. The 40 mil.that we passed up this year could possibly be added in next year in order for US to sweeten the deal but it still does not make up for the fact that we lost that 40 mil. this year. Capeche?"

Part of the problem is that we had many fa's using this form of 'voila' "6th grade" mathematical problem solving to help them make their decisions. Thus we had the issuance of cliches such as "you wouldn't buy the first car you found" and all the other lousy adages. The loss of earned income is "lost" on them because reality is defined as a sensoral experience only which is in effect what sixth grade math really amounts to. 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples.

I suppose some on here would be happier if they were taking a covered wagon across the us.......

 

[FWAAA]

As annoying as that certain Airbus captain can be at times, months ago he made a good point about the FA contract, even if you disagree with the conclusion. I'll see if I can summarize it:

IF you think that US will merge with AA, then you're going to get healthy raises (as US pilots and flight attendants earn substantially less than AA pilots and FAs, even after AA's bankruptcy). Raises are likely to happen, as a merger seems likely. If there's a merger, big raises are a given.

So what's the harm in rejecting TA after TA? Seniority integration. If the AA and US FAs cannot agree on how to integrate the lists, then M-B requires arbitration. In SLI arbitration, the absence of integrated lists and the very low pay of the US pilots and FAs will no doubt be taken into account by the arbitrator and will probably result in less-advantageous placement on the combined lists than if the FAs had ratified one of the failed TAs.

I can understand the emotion behind rejecting a TA because its raises just aren't big enough and because the TA contains some concessions with which you may disagree. But it could very well be that the failure to ratify an agreement before a merger will affect your bidding position (and, of course, for pilots, hourly pay and equipment flown) for many years to come if US merges with AA. It's not just the thousands of dollars in lost pay so far, but potentially "expensive" placement on a combined list for the rest of your career.