AFA Files Suit In Federal Court

[LukeAisleWalker]

I believe with the AFA stalling, will play right into Delta's hands.

By stalling, do you mean the seniority integration discussions? Or the union vote?
(If it's the latter, it's been stated here that the NMB must clear the way w/ the SCD).

If it's the former, why do you say stalling plays into Delta's hands??

 

[BABABOOY]

By stalling, do you mean the seniority integration discussions? Or the union vote?
(If it's the latter, it's been stated here that the NMB must clear the way w/ the SCD).

If it's the former, why do you say stalling plays into Delta's hands??

The seniority integration discussions are stalled because the AFA refuses to
meet with them. hence the lawsuit filed by Delta Flight Attendant Marianne Bicksler
and the NW AFA.

Yes the NMB must clear the way w/ the SCD when they are petitioned from the Unions.
FWIU the AFA has not. Five other unions and Delta are asking the NMB to make a single carrier determination.
IF it "appears" the AFA will delay this integration, they will most likely loose
more votes on the Delta side. I have stated before. 09 will be a bad year for
flight attendants. (NW/DL equipment swaps). Any further delays, will only aggravate.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

The seniority integration discussions are stalled because the AFA refuses to
meet with them. hence the lawsuit filed by Delta Flight Attendant Marianne Bicksler
and the NW AFA.

Yes the NMB must clear the way w/ the SCD when they are petitioned from the Unions.
FWIU the AFA has not. Five other unions and Delta are asking the NMB to make a single carrier determination.
IF it "appears" the AFA will delay this integration, they will most likely loose
more votes on the Delta side. I have stated before. 09 will be a bad year for
flight attendants. (NW/DL equipment swaps). Any further delays, will only aggravate.

I can tell you're based in ATL or NYC by this response as they are primarily the bases affected by these proposed equipment swaps.

So in affect, you're saying that part of the 40% who voted in favor of AFA last Spring will NOT vote for representation because they may not have a trip or two or three that they want to fly in the near-term? (And don't forget the time will be replaced w/ DTW/MSP Int'l flying. So they get paid for deadheading on the front and back ends...that's a real deal-killer, now isn't it? Besides, the original NRT flt will stay in ATL and JFK will actually ADD NRT on 777--all DL crews.)

Your theory suggests a rather short-sighted group, wouldn't it? Again, I'm not talking about the 60% who didn't vote the last time. Most of the people I know in favor of a CBA would gladly fly a trip w/ a deadhead on front and back ends and know in the long run, they will have a contract when it's all said and done.

To sum up, I don't agree with your logic at all. Most of the ATL people I've talked to are angry at the company about this more than the AFA. (Not that I necessarily believe their anger at the company is justified as DL is trying to maximize the benefits of the merger.) AFA is merely following the rules in place.

 

[BABABOOY]

I can tell you're based in ATL or NYC by this response as they are primarily the bases affected by these proposed equipment swaps.

So in affect, you're saying that part of the 40% who voted in favor of AFA last Spring will NOT vote for representation because they may not have a trip or two or three that they want to fly in the near-term? (And don't forget the time will be replaced w/ DTW/MSP Int'l flying. So they get paid for deadheading on the front and back ends...that's a real deal-killer, now isn't it? Besides, the original NRT flt will stay in ATL and JFK will actually ADD NRT on 777--all DL crews.)

Your theory suggests a rather short-sighted group, wouldn't it? Again, I'm not talking about the 60% who didn't vote the last time. Most of the people I know in favor of a CBA would gladly fly a trip w/ a deadhead on front and back ends and know in the long run, they will have a contract when it's all said and done.

To sum up, I don't agree with your logic at all. Most of the ATL people I've talked to are angry at the company about this more than the AFA. (Not that I necessarily believe their anger at the company is justified as DL is trying to maximize the benefits of the merger.) AFA is merely following the rules in place.

Believe it or not, most are now just finding out that the AFA is stalling.
As far as the one or two flights you pointed out. Don't kid yourself in underestimating
how many flights WILL be affected. And no, Many are not jumping for joy to Dead head
out of their base to DTW/MSP. The F/A's I know are not happy with the equipment situation but understand the reasoning but also understand the AFA couldn't prevent this from happening. Many of those who talk about it are reluctantly accepting. But patient? We will see. Your right you don't have to agree with the logic. Time will tell and I don't think the AFA delaying this doesn't help their cause.

 

[Kev3188]

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I was getting the two confused.
I guess the only Union that hasn't petitioned the NMB to declare is the AFA..
I believe with the AFA stalling, will play right into Delta's hands.

Actually, I don't think *any* union except ALPA has petitioned the NMB...

 

[BABABOOY]

Actually, I don't think *any* union except ALPA has petitioned the NMB...

We are being told 5 unions plus Delta have petitioned.

 

[Kev3188]

We are being told 5 unions plus Delta have petitioned.

Who's telling you guys that?

I know for a fact that the IAM has NOT petitioned the NMB.

As for the other unions on the NWA property:

ALPA: Yes
AFA: No
IAM: No
NAMA (meteorology): ???
TWU (dispatchers): ???
ATSA (tech. instructors/writers):???
AMFA (AMT's):???

As for Delta petitioning, I thought only the unions themselves could?

 

[BABABOOY]

I belive Delta has two unions on property. Alpa and
another with with Pilot training? PAFCA ? dispatchers?

In a letter dated Dec 3 from Joanne Smith it goes into
what is happening with the AFA and stated that It was unfortunate to see the AFA refuse to join in the requests made by five other unions and Delta asking the NMB to make a single carrier determination, which is the first step in the process of resolving representation issues.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Actually, once the NMB makes the SBU ruling (regardless of who requested the ruling) it's basically a formality for anyone else. At US, I think it was the IAM that sought the SBU ruling first, so when USAPA filed for a representational election they concurrently asked for a SBU ruling covering the pilots.

Jim

 

[BABABOOY]

Actually, once the NMB makes the SBU ruling (regardless of who requested the ruling) it's basically a formality for anyone else. At US, I think it was the IAM that sought the SBU ruling first, so when USAPA filed for a representational election they concurrently asked for a SBU ruling covering the pilots.

Jim

Thanks BB!

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'm just not quite clear on what the AFA hopes to achieve at this point. They can have a representational election of the combined F/A group at any time after the NMB declares a Single Bargaining Unit. The AFA message in the OP makes it sound like they still hope to become the CBA for the entire F/A group and therefore nullify the federal law covering labor integration in mergers. I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems to me that the law is already in effect for this merger so becoming CBA for the entire F/A group would make no difference.

The law defines "Covered Transactions" as:

COVERED TRANSACTION- The term `covered transaction' means--

(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which

(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of--

- (i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or

- (ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.

The "transaction for the combination..." has already occured - the corporate merger - as well as the transfer of ownership or control, or at least that's the way it seems to me since "for" is defined as "used as a function word to indicate purpose" and not result. Nowhere does it say that the carriers must be operated as one, have a single ops certificate, operate under one brand/name, etc. Those would seem to be merely steps to accomplish after the "covered transaction" has taken place. All that matters seems to be that the transaction was undertaken for the purpose of becoming a single carrier.

Likewise, the transfer of ownership or control has occurred. Equity has changed hands - NW shares ceased to exist, replaced with DL shares. So it seems to me that the federal law will apply no matter what the AFA does at this point.

Jim

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Believe it or not, most are now just finding out that the AFA is stalling.
As far as the one or two flights you pointed out. Don't kid yourself in underestimating
how many flights WILL be affected. And no, Many are not jumping for joy to Dead head
out of their base to DTW/MSP. The F/A's I know are not happy with the equipment situation but understand the reasoning but also understand the AFA couldn't prevent this from happening. Many of those who talk about it are reluctantly accepting. But patient? We will see. Your right you don't have to agree with the logic. Time will tell and I don't think the AFA delaying this doesn't help their cause.

The AFA obviously feels that it's premature to discuss seniority integration when it could be as long as 2 years before crews actually fly together. (Based on Delta's press releases and FAA's SOC time line.) But the main point is they feel that by coming up with an integration plan now, rather than later, will affect how individual f/a's vote. That's the way I understand it. And anything that sways how a f/a votes, especially if it is overseen and directed by the company (the Seniority Integration Committee), is deemed interference. We won't know whether they have a case to stand on until the court rules. Sounds like a good tactical move on their part.
You can't compare pilots to this situation as both airlines' pilots are, obviously, already part of the same union.
Like Kev, I have not heard anything either about the other unions petitioning the NMB for the SBU (Single Carrier Determination), only the pilots.

And finally, DL wants to paint the AFA as "stalling" so that f/a's will take their frustrations out on AFA, rather than mgt. Makes perfect tactical sense.
Delta it seems, is hoping that some of the 40% pro-union'ers will become disenchanted with AFA either by
shifting blame to AFA for it taking longer to combine (which is silly because the FAA's SOC is going to take 12-24 mos anyway) or having a merged seniority list that favors DL f/a's thus hoping some of that 40% grab hold of a better relative seniority position (better than D.O.H) rather than a CBA w/ AFA whose by laws require strict D.O.H. The latter strategy,of course is unlikely because: 1. the lawsuit and,2. NW f/a's won't accept a ratio rank that disadvantages their f/a's in favor of Delta's ,thus trigerring arbitration.

 

[Wings]

1. Since the DAL and NWA pilot groups are both represented by ALPA - there will be no representational election. Their filing with the NMB was something they agreed to in their contract and it favors DAL management (management no doubt hoped the move would get the NMB to declare a 'single transportation system' now and set the timeline for elections with the other employee groups at NWA before Obama takes office and has the opportunity to replace Read Van de Water at the NMB).

2. Three of the unions have (I believe) less than 100 employees (whoopee - the numbers are impressive, aren't they Joanne?)

3. AMFA represents the mechanics - numbers are hard to calculate since mechanics were outsourced right before bankruptcy.

4. What Joanne isn't saying in her letter is that the two unions that have not filed for elections are AFA and IAM which represent over 20,000 NWA employees.

In addition, Joanne tried to spin the language of the new law that was passed in December of 2007 regarding seniority integration by hinting that AFA 'could' staple FAs to the bottom of the list. Joanne Smith is not stupid - I'm sure she is well aware that AFA's National Policy is DATE OF HIRE. Funny Joanne didn't mention that ....

DAL management hit a new low with this letter. Hmmmm, perhaps Joanne has someone at the top of the leadership chain giving her orders? If I were her, I would never have written a letter like that or put my signature on it. NWA FAs have had representation for 60+ years now - the majority are smart, know the rules, can read between the lines, and will see right through Joanne's version/spin on the seniority integration issue. I hope the DAL FAs are smart enough to realize that her letter was written to divide and conquer in terms of our upcoming election.

It's really too bad .... the majority of us at NWA are looking forward to the merger and we were hoping that management would change for the better. It now looks like those who are left from the 'old' Delta days are taking lessons from NWA management. Sad, but not surprising.

 

[Kev3188]

I belive Delta has two unions on property. Alpa and
another with with Pilot training? PAFCA ? dispatchers?

PAFCA is correct. They represent DL's dispatchers. When you said "Delta," I thought you meant the compnay itself, not the unions on the property. Sorry 'bout that...

In a letter dated Dec 3 from Joanne Smith it goes into
what is happening with the AFA and stated that It was unfortunate to see the AFA refuse to join in the requests made by five other unions and Delta asking the NMB to make a single carrier determination, which is the first step in the process of resolving representation issues.

So, she's either willfully lying, or didn't take the time to get her facts straight? Either way, it doesn't do much for her credibility.

2. Three of the unions have (I believe) less than 100 employees (whoopee - the numbers are impressive, aren't they Joanne?)

NAMA & ATSA are pretty small; I would guess the TWU membership is ~150-200.

3. AMFA represents the mechanics - numbers are hard to calculate since mechanics were outsourced right before bankruptcy.

~800 on the property.

4. What Joanne isn't saying in her letter is that the two unions that have not filed for elections are AFA and IAM which represent over 20,000 NWA employees.

It's never what they say; it's what they cleverly omit that's interesting.

In addition, Joanne tried to spin the language of the new law that was passed in December of 2007 regarding seniority integration by hinting that AFA 'could' staple FAs to the bottom of the list. Joanne Smith is not stupid - I'm sure she is well aware that AFA's National Policy is DATE OF HIRE. Funny Joanne didn't mention that ....

DAL management hit a new low with this letter. Hmmmm, perhaps Joanne has someone at the top of the leadership chain giving her orders? If I were her, I would never have written a letter like that or put my signature on it. NWA FAs have had representation for 60+ years now - the majority are smart, know the rules, can read between the lines, and will see right through Joanne's version/spin on the seniority integration issue. I hope the DAL FAs are smart enough to realize that her letter was written to divide and conquer in terms of our upcoming election.

I hope they are too. Some of the posts on here (and other boards) lead me to believe they put their full trust in what Smith and others are telling them w/o ever bothering to critically think or read between the lines.

 

[BABABOOY]

You can't compare pilots to this situation as both airlines' pilots are, obviously, already part of the same union.
Like Kev, I have not heard anything either about the other unions petitioning the NMB for the SBU (Single Carrier Determination), only the pilots.

Where was I comparing the pilots? Just mentioned what unions.

And finally, DL wants to paint the AFA as "stalling" so that f/a's will take their frustrations out on AFA, rather than mgt. Makes perfect tactical sense.
Delta it seems, is hoping that some of the 40% pro-union'ers will become disenchanted with AFA either by
shifting blame to AFA for it taking longer to combine (which is silly because the FAA's SOC is going to take 12-24 mos anyway) or having a merged seniority list that favors DL f/a's thus hoping some of that 40% grab hold of a better relative seniority position (better than D.O.H) rather than a CBA w/ AFA whose by laws require strict D.O.H. The latter strategy,of course is unlikely because: 1. the lawsuit and,2. NW f/a's won't accept a ratio rank that disadvantages their f/a's in favor of Delta's ,thus trigerring arbitration.

Now your seeing the logic...Fair or not, I think its going to play well for Delta