AFA Hires Financial Analyst

[EMBFA]

Well, both MAN and FCO are apparently very profitable for us, so maybe the union should rally for crew domiclies there? Is the union's position that the company should open domiciles in cities with the most profitable flying? What does one have to do with the other? The company is closing the domicile because they are reducing the flying from that city to a point where a domicile is senseless.

The company can shutter thier Philadelphia and Charlotte hubs tomorrow if they feel like it. Or they could maintain the hubs and crew all of the flying out of Boston if thier heart so desires. Like Baja Babe said, since when does the union make business decisions for the company? This just further ruins the credibility of our joke representation. The union needs to do it's job and force the company's hand in negotiations rather than piddle and pout in company business decisions.

I don't feel I need to defend myself to those who allege that I hate Pittsburgh by the way- it's a lazy, unimaginative retort on thier part. I'm only repeating the general consensus from the jumpseats, galleys, smoking areas, crew vans, and hotel bars throughout the system. It's another closed crew base, unfortunate as it is for all, it's no different than any of the other multiple base closings. To treat it differently is a disservice to all US F/As.

I would love to see if the same 'action' would be taken to preserve the New York base- a small, junior, non-commutable, high cost of living domicile- were it LGA instead.

 

[NAPAUS]

Amen.

Where was AFA when other bases such as BWI, LAX, SAN, SFO were closed?

Now that PIT is no longer the center of the USAirways universe, all of a sudden AFA comes to it's rescue? Please. Spend the money getting a good contract for the other 12,000 members you represent.

It's done, move on.

:down: :down: :down: AMEN - finally somebody said it. I'm so OVER and so are many others, this pity party for PIT. NO one gave a damn , especially burgers when LAX, SFO,SAN,MIA,BWI closed. Get over it ...MECCA is gone and its time to move on. Spend money on defending the needs of the rest of the membership! Put PIT to REST! AMEN

 

[safety stud]

A few points of consideration.

1. USAir(East) has a valid contract. Like it or not, we signed, we approved it, and it remains valid until 2011. Further, the company is under no oblgation to negotiate a contract until that time. They can run AFA East/West seperately. Everyone on this post seems to think the company has an obligation to negotiate. They don't. The only side that has a gripe is the West. The arbitrator shelved the meat of the AW contract (Compenstation, Vacation, ETC.) with the announcement of the merger. If the West was imposed with the east contract THEY would have grounds to take action. The East doesn't have a chair to stand on here. You can't put blame on slow negotiations when the company is under no obligation to do so for another 3 years!

2. It has always been a privilage to have AFA meet the approval of certain company issues. Uniforms is a prime example. You would think the majority of the posters on this board would be happy about that... But Nooooooo..... your not. Aircraft interiors, galley design, safety are also items AFA has the privilage to participate in. Shame on all of you if you think flight attendants shouldn't have a say in these things.

3. If the contract stipulates issues of financial responsibility when closing a base, then by all means persue it. It is my contractual right. Not because I am based here, because it is my contractual right. The same contractual right that protects flight attendants on so many other issues. You see if we don't back the language, then the company would be under no obligation to abide by it. Once again, shame on any of you who think it is OK to violate it.

4. We may feel the contract lacks the impact of full coverage to all flight attendants and their needs. It is a piece of paper that guides the company and the union to work as one. It provides protection from abuse and mis-use of it employee's by the company. We may or may not like everything in the contract or certain issues within it, however, it is OUR responsiblilty to defend it.

Just my opinion...

 

[nick]

:down: :down: :down: Put PIT to REST! AMEN

Another AMEN to that!

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Bottom line is this a waste of resources for a lost cause.

We all know the union picks its battles.

Is this a battle that could be won? No.

Is this a battle that should be fought? No.

Is this a prudent use of union resources? No.

Call your LEC.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Apparently it's part of that pesky contractual language between the AFA and the company. If they don't do it, all 350 of those people have a DFR lawsuit that's wrapped up with a stylish blue bow (just like those snazzy new uniforms!).
Which pales in comparison to the potential loss to AFA (and your dues money) if they don't do it and one or more of the current PIT F/As files a DFR lawsuit.

Drop the "I was beat up by a Pittsburgh F/A" grudge for a few seconds and think logically about it.

Let them do it - we'll pay our money then.

Talk is cheap. It's not all about PIT.

A joint contract, which(hopefully) is an an improved contract is where our focus should be.

Empty threats are just empty threats-the emperor has no clothes.

 

[ClueByFour]

The cost of national funding this pales in comparison to the Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit which the PIT F/As would win if the don't do it.

The union has an obligation to require certain performances from the company if the company tries to close a domicile. If the union failed to do that, those in the closed domicile have a very winnable lawsuit against THE UNION.

This has nothing to do with PIT (despite what the uninformed and otherwise dimwitted PIT bashers would otherwise have you believe). It's entirely about protecting the union from a lawsuit by it's own members. You want to really see your dues money wasted? Pay for that bad boy.

They would do the same thing if LGA closed, BOS closed, or if any of the other closed bases were around to close today. Failure to do it (whether it's successful or not) is a bigger risk than not.

I don't feel I need to defend myself to those who allege that I hate Pittsburgh by the way- it's a lazy, unimaginative retort on thier part. I'm only repeating the general consensus from the jumpseats, galleys, smoking areas, crew vans, and hotel bars throughout the system. It's another closed crew base, unfortunate as it is for all, it's no different than any of the other multiple base closings. To treat it differently is a disservice to all US F/As.

To start with--you can't defend yourself because your prior comments, like this one, are lacking in intellect and fact to the point where they are, quite literally, indefensible. With that said, the "general consensus" according to EMBFA will not provide cause to defend AFA-CWA against a DFR lawsuit. The union's chosen course of action will. The difference between you and someone (presumably in the legal department at national) is that the latter actually knows and understands the legal ramifications (as opposed to the finely honed consensus of the "bleached hair and snapping bubblegum set" on the crew van.) And it is different from the other base closings because it's the first one to happen after the transition agreement which contains the language in question.

That PIT, a place you have an unimaginably abject hatred for is going to be the first to benefit from this contract language is, well, an "inconvenient truth."

 

[EMBFA]

Good lord- you end every post with "EMBFA hates PIT!" Why don't you start a whole topic about this bizarre idea of yours and you can cry about it over there. How do you function in the real world? You are sensitive enough to feel you or your home or whatever are "bashed", because they share facts? Get a tissue- here comes more "bashing."

F/As can not have a DFR lawsuit against a union because a company chooses to close a work location. There is nothing in the contract stating where or under what conditions the airline chooses what stations will be crew domiciles. The very idea is absurd and would only be suggested by someone clearly outside the industry.

Even if there was some sort of lawsuit against the AFA (which there are no grounds for here), it would have no noticable affect on it's members. You don't think, like any large organization there are not already lawsuits against them? There's a class action lawsuit against the AFA right now on behalf of several hundred US F/As, a good bit more than 350... no signs of them shutting down yet!The AFA-CWA is not exactly sitting in a bingo hall counting dues money and worrying about court costs. Seriously, listen to yourself.

Are you a labor relations lawyer? Are you an aeronautical beverage specialist? Come on, quickly post that you are certainly not a flight attendant and make tons more money than one. Still, you have a somewhat sad fixation on your hometown's largest airline and post on a blog about them- I gather you feel this makes you an expert in these matters? Get a grip!

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

PIT, a place you have an unimaginably abject hatred for is going to be the first to benefit from this contract language is, well, an "inconvenient truth."

Since you brought it up, the "inconvenient truth" may be that PIT is actually the one taking the beating.

 

[N965VJ]

What I do not understand is what exactly the union hopes to gain.

Let's just say the results come back that PIT was not losing as much money as stated. Then what?

Parker would slap his forehead and say “Golly, I really goofed that one up! Sorry ‘bout that. Tell ‘ya what, I’m gonna re-hub PIT, like, yesterdayâ€￾

That’s just the kind of guy he is.

 

[Zarah]

Parker would slap his forehead and say “Golly, I really goofed that one up! Sorry ‘bout that. Tell ‘ya what, I’m gonna re-hub PIT, like, yesterdayâ€￾

That’s just the kind of guy he is.

LOL, you are silly.

I still do not understand what the union hopes to gain.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

LOL, you are silly.

I still do not understand what the union hopes to gain.

Buy outs for PIT.

 

[AlleghenyVista]

I actually heard about this tonight. So I decided that I should sign on sign on and read this thread. All I could do was laugh!! Judas Priest!! AFA..you are just a piece of work. Shameful and wasteful!!

PIT deserves to have a crew base with 22 mainline flights? Cmon! Spare us all this damm drama and settle a conract for the combined US flight attendant work force.

 

[EMBFA]

Why don't they just negotiate buyouts, period? Buy out 1000-2000 F/As to be replaced with furloughees and new hires. The union could have thier fancy lawyers and accountants crunch the numbers and present it to the company as a major cost savings in the long run, not to mention huge morale boost and much needed energy shot in general . Those results combined might be a step in the company and the union negotiating a mutually beneficial contract.

God forbid they spend our dues money on something that benefits the entire membership.