AFA mec

BajaBabe

Veteran
Aug 9, 2005
504
7
With all the issues facing the flight attendant group our mec at AFA is focused in supervisors seniority and embroiled in a dance of constitutional legality? we have much larger issues to focus on my friends one being reserve and the overall morale of the flight attendants. who is Mike Flores to introduce this agenda item to the mec as his position takes direction from the respective lec presidents not the other way around! afa has turned into nothing more than a circus with not enough rings. Cindi Simone and the company approach mike about something they want yet when we ask for relief it falls on deaf ears. what a disgrace. :angry: :down: :angry:


Agenda Item to change Contract Section 16.G-

Contract Section 16.G, negotiated as part of the 2004 Flight Attendant Agreement, pertains to the seniority rights of Flight Attendants who transfer to non-flying or to supervisory duties. For Flight Attendants who transfer to supervisory duties, full time training instructors or to administrative positions within the InFlight department Section 16.G freezes such Flight Attendants’ seniority for competitive bidding ninety (90) days after the effective date of the transfer. While one could argue the intent and the merits of the language that was implemented as a result of the 2004 agreement one can’t argue the fact the language restricts the ability to retain and attract Flight Attendants in these positions.

As a result, in order not to lose seniority, Flight Attendants in these positions have chosen to return to the line. The current contract severely limits the pool of Flight Attendants applying for these positions. In an effort to retain and attract Flight Attendants in these positions I brought forward an MEC Agenda Item to change the provisions of the contract with respect to seniority for Flight Attendants transferring to non-flying or supervisory duties. As with any Agenda Item, the full MEC weighs the merits of the item through debate.

The MEC concluded the provisions of section 16.G were in fact detrimental to the members. The MEC believes it is important to have as many Flight Attendants as possible in line supervisor, training instructor and InFlight Administration positions. The MEC realized that without a change we would begin to see more non-Flight Attendants filling these positions.

The MEC unanimously passed a resolution to rescind the provisions of section 16.G thus allowing Flight Attendants the ability to continue to accrue seniority for the duration of the time spent in non-flying or supervisory positions. The resolution requires that each Flight Attendant in a non-flying or supervisory position fly one trip per quarter, at their seniority, in order to continue to accrue seniority. The resolution also provided for the ability to make the policy retroactive to January 10, 2005 (date of signing of the 2004 Flight Attendant Agreement. In order for the resolution to become fact a Letter of Agreement must be drafted and signed by the Company and the Union.

Any Letter of Agreement must also be signed by the AFA International President. Upon consultation with AFA International President, Pat Friend, it became clear the retroactive clause of the resolution was a violation of the AFA Constitution and Bylaws. On its’ face the resolution would restore lost seniority to those that have returned to the line and also not adjust the seniority of those Flight Attendants who are currently serving in non-flying positions. Both circumstances are in conflict with the AFA C&B and therefore the retroactive clause of the resolution must be removed from consideration. While member ratification of a side letter that alters seniority is possible, the resolution, as proposed, violates the merger policy of the AFA C&B (Section X). Section X mandates that once a merged seniority list is compiled and certified, such list can’t be altered.

Therefore, the adjusted seniority date for those Flight Attendants who served in non-flying or supervisory positions will have to remain as adjusted. Furthermore, any Flight Attendant currently serving in a non-flying or supervisory position will have her/his seniority adjusted in accordance with the provisions of 16.G until the date a Letter of Agreement between the Company and the Union is signed by both parties.

A Letter of Agreement has been drafted and sent to the Company for their review. The letter requires the following for those Flight Attendants serving in non-flying or supervisory duties who wish to continue to accrue seniority upon the signing date:

A Flight Attendant must fly one trip per quarter.
Such trip must be picked up at the seniority of the Flight Attendant and not "bought", as is the case in the Co-Fly program.
If the status of a Flight Attendant is that of a Reserve, such Flight Attendant will be processed in LTO order and may be awarded or assigned a trip or OPR duty.
Absent mitigating circumstances, such as sick, injury, unfit for duty, leaves of absence, etc, a Flight Attendant who fails to fly the one trip per quarter requirement will forfeit the right to accrue seniority.
A Flight Attendant must notify the Company and the Union within 30 days of the date of the Letter of Agreement her/his willingness to comply with the provisions of the letter.
Nothing in the Letter of Agreement will allow a Flight Attendant to fly more than one trip per quarter unless as part of the Co-Fly program.
A Flight Attendant currently performing non-flying or supervisory duties will have her/his seniority adjusted in accordance with the provision of section 16.G up until the date of signing of the Letter of Agreement.
Once the Company reviews the letter, the MEC will review any changes the Company may want in the letter and will have the final say in whether the Union enters into an agreement with the Company. If such an agreement is reached, the complete and final copy of the Letter of Agreement will be posted your review.

Negotiations Update-

A closed session was held to update the members of the MEC on the status of the single agreement negotiations. A separate update for the members will be provided next week.
Mike Flores MEC President
 
BajaBabe,

While I agree that there are more important issues that affect F/As (pay, benefits, work rules, the plight of our RSVs), I still cannot help but believe that this change will be a good thing for the F/As in the long run. I would much rather have F/A SPVs that are/were F/As and this decision will attract more F/As as F/A SPVs.

PP (PHL) is one example of a great SPV that went back on-line because he did not want to continue losing his seniority. His departure from InFlight was not a positive for PHL based F/As.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
If that were the only reason he left I would fully endorse returning the sup's to full tenure. I was NEVER in favor of taking away seniority it is rare for someone who has never been a flight attendant to truly understand what a battle it can be. We lost many good sup's but the loss of seniority was not there main motivation.
 
If that were the only reason he left I would fully endorse returning the sup's to full tenure. I was NEVER in favor of taking away seniority it is rare for someone who has never been a flight attendant to truly understand what a battle it can be. We lost many good sup's but the loss of seniority was not there main motivation.
We lost supvs. in CLT when they went to work for the TSA, just like our old CLT LECP did(Hearn). It was a closed mouth deal, only a few people knew about it and didn't pass it on to line f/a's, as United ans American did. Boy did that pay them some great money. Too bad we all didn't have the chance at that position. They just told their freinds about it.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
Nothing has changed with the Union . I think of all the years that I put into it and the only regret is staying so long. It is a selfish organization and I do not care for management one bit either. The employees look for protection to the wrong people it's a spirling circus show.In 40 years there was still that belt that had to burn your flesh.Do not doubt for one moment that in the corridors of Phoenix and Philadelphia they laugh at the loss I have suffered. Take care of yourselves in the world of entitlements try somehow to be different. Play it forward because in the end it's those loving memories that turn your heart to gold
 
Personally..I think it is an excellent proposal that takes away nothing from negotiations.

How many times have we all (west and east) complained about the caliber of INF Sups?? Complaining that they have never flown or "don't understand the job"?

I hope they can get it settled and implement it sooner rather than later.

Thanks Mike.
Ciao.
 
Personally..I think it is an excellent proposal that takes away nothing from negotiations.

How many times have we all (west and east) complained about the caliber of INF Sups?? Complaining that they have never flown or "don't understand the job"?

I hope they can get it settled and implement it sooner rather than later.

Thanks Mike.
Ciao.

I agree....it is a step in the right direction and I hope eventually they will allow them to fly a little more frequently and also to go out on the line during irregular ops.
 
Nothing has changed with the Union . I think of all the years that I put into it and the only regret is staying so long. It is a selfish organization and I do not care for management one bit either. The employees look for protection to the wrong people it's a spirling circus show.In 40 years there was still that belt that had to burn your flesh.Do not doubt for one moment that in the corridors of Phoenix and Philadelphia they laugh at the loss I have suffered. Take care of yourselves in the world of entitlements try somehow to be different. Play it forward because in the end it's those loving memories that turn your heart to gold
I honestly wish AC would have lost the election in CLT. That way she would have had to come out here and see what is happening. It's tough to get that idea, sitting in a office. Word of mouth doesn't come close to really livving this hellish rsv system. She stated she had been in office 14-16 straight years. Now if that doesn't show someone needs a break, then I don't know what would. Maybe there should be term limits to holding office. JMO
 
Personally..I think it is an excellent proposal that takes away nothing from negotiations.

How many times have we all (west and east) complained about the caliber of INF Sups?? Complaining that they have never flown or "don't understand the job"?

I hope they can get it settled and implement it sooner rather than later.

Thanks Mike.
Ciao.

I agree. :up:
 
PP (PHL) is one example of a great SPV that went back on-line because he did not want to continue losing his seniority. His departure from InFlight was not a positive for PHL based F/As.

sky high states: He should consider himself lucky. Tons of Supervisors were LET GO (fired) shortly after 9-11. Remember how many supervisor offices there were in PIT on the second floor. All empty now.

Soooo, Supervisors can now retain seniority. Good. NEXT ISSUE!

only stating opinions.
 
BajaBabe,

While I agree that there are more important issues that affect F/As (pay, benefits, work rules, the plight of our RSVs), I still cannot help but believe that this change will be a good thing for the F/As in the long run. I would much rather have F/A SPVs that are/were F/As and this decision will attract more F/As as F/A SPVs.

PP (PHL) is one example of a great SPV that went back on-line because he did not want to continue losing his seniority. His departure from InFlight was not a positive for PHL based F/As.

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE whether a f/a becomes a supervisor, or NON-f/a. In both cases I have found THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW THE CONTRACT, and where they do know it, they ignore it and go along with the company position specifically when there is some ambiguity.
The idiot Flores wrote the agenda item, had the MEC vote on the damn thing... and never bothered to check if it conflicts with the C&B and other current f/as seniority position.

SHOULDN'T THE MAIN ISSUE HERE NOT BE WHETHER THEY FLY FOR A TRIP A QUARTER BUT WHETHER THEY PAY THE DAMN UNION DUES TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF ACCRUING F/A SENIORITY WHILE BEING IN A POSITION TO DISCIPLINE F/AS AND/OR CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR PEER TERMINATIONS!!!!

AND, they get to keep accruing their f/a seniority as a management cronnie; keep a contractual priviledge and pay NO union dues??????? What a deal!

Do not one of you have something to say to this? Ask the MEC to explain this????
 
I agree....it is a step in the right direction and I hope eventually they will allow them to fly a little more frequently and also to go out on the line during irregular ops.

What you should be concerning yourselves with is whether these f/a supervisors are PAYING UNION DUES TO HOLD A CONTRACTUAL PRIVILEDGE OF F/A SENIORITY ACCRUAL!

Most, if not 99% of the supervisors who ARE f/as still do not know the contract even if it is open to the page with the exact language in front of them!!!

This is a "winfall" for supervisors.
 
Word of mouth doesn't come close to really livving this hellish rsv system. Maybe there should be term limits to holding office. JMO
I couldn't agree with you more. I went to the last MEC meeting that had the open forum. I told the emtire MEC that after being a blockholder for 18+ years and then going to RSV in PIT for the last two that they could not begin to fathom what this system is like. I told them that when you are on RSV, crew scheduling will lie, break the contract and sell their mothers to get a body on the plane to get it out on time. They all shook their heads yes in sympathy but you could see by the look in their eyes that they just didn't get it.
I think ALL LECPs should spend 3 months on this RSV system and then they can tell me that we have to live with it until a joint contract is voted in. That's a bunch of CR@P !!!
 
If that were the only reason he left I would fully endorse returning the sup's to full tenure. I was NEVER in favor of taking away seniority it is rare for someone who has never been a flight attendant to truly understand what a battle it can be. We lost many good sup's but the loss of seniority was not there main motivation.

Its a proposal that I did not write or negotiate, however, I did support methodology NOT having f/a who turn into supervisors continue to accrue fa/ seniority while NOT paying union dues, disciplining f/as who are their peers.

And you know as well as I do that most did NOT know the contract. They only were indoctrinated on company policies. The more company they were, the more apt they were to get hired in inflight to be a management cronnie.
 
AND, they get to keep accruing their f/a seniority as a management cronnie; keep a contractual priviledge and pay NO union dues??????? What a deal!
Ask the MEC to explain this????

sky high states: Very insightful way of looking at it. In my earlier post, it shows how (non F/A experience) supervisors were fired post 9-11. Didnt the ones who had F/A experience, come back on the line? Again, having protections while NOT paying dues.

UNBELIEVABLE!

good call, BULL.


only stating opinions
 

Latest posts

Back
Top