AFA Scope- What does this mean?

[flybynite]

I'm glad this has finally come to the attention of a few folks on this board. I've been screaming bloody murder over this on the FB pages and I'm getting ignored.

The first page of our contract is the most important. Period.

The first page of our contract deals with SCOPE.

Our Scope language has been changed......I don't know who is responsible...and it is so muddy...that it's worthless. It leaves the Flight Attendant group twisting in the wind in the event of a merger.

I'll vote NO over this alone.

 

[Phoenix]

The AFA TA has this in section 1. It has rather ominous sound to it if the company is involved in another transaction.

4. In addition to any other the other protections in this Agreement, any flight time defined section 11.1A, Hours of Service, of this agreement that is operated by US Airways Pilots ,(including during the period of separate pilot operations either America West or US Airways pilots) shall include Flight Attendants on the US Airways Flight Attendant System Seniority List. Flight Attendants on the US Airways flight attendant system seniority list shall serve on all commercial passenger revenue flights operated by US Airways, Inc. with pilots on the US Airways system seniority list (including during operations on the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists); provided however, that this paragraph shall not apply if and when following a transaction of any type, the US Airways Pilot System Seniority List (including during separate operations the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists) is integrated with another carrier's pilot seniority list.

This last paragraph is troubling. I would not vote for any agreement that makes this change to scope with out a full explanation from legal authority. Does this mean there will be no integration? i have no idea what this language means? Perhaps it's just a temporary item to allow other FA's to operate US Airways flights if there is a stalled pilot integration. I would want more information prior to voting.

That is a very good catch. Looks to me that if there is a merger, this language leaves USAir FAs to be the sole group to suffer all the furloughs in the inevitable downsizing that follows a merger. (Parker could use this in a merger offer to sweeten the pot for the other carrier... ie. think TWA pilots on a silver platter, no muss, no fuss).

The first part of the paragraph protects the USAir FAs so that they alone can fly on planes flown by USAir pilots...

BUT the second part of the paragraph explicitly takes away that protection in the event of a USAir pilot merger with another company... furloughed FAs from another company, or even new hires could replace all the USAir FAs on flights flown by USAir pilots.

 

[Phoenix]

It was always my opinion that giving up the scope clause was not worth a 100.00 an hour raise...

Good point. Doug has made his intention to merger very clear... so everyone should read this TA with scrutiny regarding how a merger affects it..

100.00 an hour won't mean much when Doug is shopping around promising to furlough USAir FAs (both East and West because the new scope allows it).

 

[flybynite]

That is a very good catch. Looks to me that if there is a merger, this language leaves USAir FAs to be the sole group to suffer all the furloughs in the inevitable downsizing that follows a merger. (Parker could use this in a merger offer to sweeten the pot for the other carrier... ie. think TWA pilots on a silver platter, no muss, no fuss).

The first part of the paragraph protects the USAir FAs so that they alone can fly on planes flown by USAir pilots...

BUT the second part of the paragraph explicitly takes away that protection in the event of a USAir pilot merger with another company... furloughed FAs from another company, or even new hires could replace all the USAir FAs on flights flown by USAir pilots.

BINGO!!!

Give this man a cigar!!!

Why I'm not hearing people screaming bloody murder over this one issue is astounding to me. And the only reason is because the Scope Clause has been so muddied up.....no one understands it....nor realizes how it can be interpreted to our disadvantage.

 

[flybynite]

DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR SCOPE WHAT EVER YOU DO. VOTE NO!!!!!!

Ditto

 

[Phoenix]

BINGO!!!

Give this man a cigar!!!

Why I'm not hearing people screaming bloody murder over this one issue is astounding to me. And the only reason is because the Scope Clause has been so muddied up.....no one understands it....nor realizes how it can be interpreted to our disadvantage.

Have you looked at the terms for the AA FAs? The AA FA Bankruptcy Term Sheet

They are talking about 100 hrs. per month, 14 hour scheduled days (with 16 hour actual), and no pay for onboard ground delays (like during de-icing and ramp congestion). And of course they are also planning PBS... That is just the beginning of the horrors over there.

Imagine how many FAs will become unnecessary to support the joint schedule if AA and LCC are combined.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Again this is in the spirit of helping to make a decision not urging one way or another.

Generally Speaking Contracts are vaguely worded for two reasons.

!. Counsel is not a very skilled attorney and rushed the contract along using boiler plate and cut and paste.

2. Counsel has deliberately left certain terms and conditions vague in anticipation of a legal battle down the road where he gets to argue the "spirit and intent" of the language as opposed to the strict letter of a tightly written contract.

Now then all of us are aware of the parties involved and as a result that likely rules out reason #1.

 

[KTM300]

That is a very good catch. Looks to me that if there is a merger, this language leaves USAir FAs to be the sole group to suffer all the furloughs in the inevitable downsizing that follows a merger. (Parker could use this in a merger offer to sweeten the pot for the other carrier... ie. think TWA pilots on a silver platter, no muss, no fuss).

The first part of the paragraph protects the USAir FAs so that they alone can fly on planes flown by USAir pilots...

BUT the second part of the paragraph explicitly takes away that protection in the event of a USAir pilot merger with another company... furloughed FAs from another company, or even new hires could replace all the USAir FAs on flights flown by USAir pilots.

This is good info that needs to be read by many FA's that don't visit this forum.

I understand that there is a place called 'working peeps' on FB that is a popular blog for them. I don't do FB, but maybe one of you do?

 

[BoeingBoy]

2. Counsel has deliberately left certain terms and conditions vague in anticipation of a legal battle down the road where he gets to argue the "spirit and intent" of the language as opposed to the strict letter of a tightly written contract.

Which is why there needs to be good notes taken of the negotiating sessions - the intent of the language should not be in doubt so that the language can't take on a different meaning than what was understood by both sides' negotiators.

The west candidates for USAPA officer positions support hiring a stenographer to take down the discussions pretty much verbatim and it sounds like a good idea to me.

Jim

 

[usfliboi]

Reading a contract gets you no where lol! You must understand it and the only way to do that is to get clarification from those who negotiated it.......Anyone done that or is this just someone calling out "The sky is falling"? What has been the union response to this devastaing news? LOL Amazing all of this and no one seems to have talked the union or those at the table? Typical of many on this site!

 

[jimntx]

And, what good would that do if the language is ambiguous? That is the very thing that the union and the negotiators should have prevented. In the quoted section of the TA, there could be more than one interpretation to what is there. For the union to tell you now "Well what it means is this" is all well and good, but due to the ambiguity, the company may be able to convince an arbitrator down the road that what the passage means is "that." But by then it will be too late.

You don't need the union to tell you what the contract language means. You need the union to see to it that you or anyone else can clearly see what it means because there is no ambiguity in the contract language. Ambiguity almost always works to the company's benefit (whoever that company may be).

 

[usfliboi]

And, what good would that do if the language is ambiguous? That is the very thing that the union and the negotiators should have prevented. In the quoted section of the TA, there could be more than one interpretation to what is there. For the union to tell you now "Well what it means is this" is all well and good, but due to the ambiguity, the company may be able to convince an arbitrator down the road that what the passage means is "that." But by then it will be too late.

You don't need the union to tell you what the contract language means. You need the union to see to it that you or anyone else can clearly see what it means because there is no ambiguity in the contract language. Ambiguity almost always works to the company's benefit (whoever that company may be).

Huh? So just talk about that clause and say shucks...the union should have done a better job? It is not to late for this to be fixed prior to a vote. There have already been 3 sections re worded because of questions of clarifications. Nah some just want to talk ! What you just said makes no sense..unless you are not a f/a~

 

[SparrowHawk]

Which is why there needs to be good notes taken of the negotiating sessions - the intent of the language should not be in doubt so that the language can't take on a different meaning than what was understood by both sides' negotiators.

The west candidates for USAPA officer positions support hiring a stenographer to take down the discussions pretty much verbatim and it sounds like a good idea to me.

Jim

Let me see if I'm reading you correctly.

Currently, unions do NOT use a stenographer to record notes of negotiating sessions? You're kidding right?

If I were a union Leader I'd go for video taping the sessions as it would be a great way to gauge body language in preparation for future sessions. Plus it leaves no doubt as to what was said.

 

[KTM300]

Huh? So just talk about that clause and say shucks...the union should have done a better job? It is not to late for this to be fixed prior to a vote. There have already been 3 sections re worded because of questions of clarifications. Nah some just want to talk ! What you just said makes no sense..unless you are not a f/a~

Flight Attendants on the US Airways flight attendant system seniority list shall serve on all commercial passenger revenue flights operated by US Airways, Inc. with pilots on the US Airways system seniority list (including during operations on the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists); provided however, that this paragraph shall not apply if and when following a transaction of any type, the US Airways Pilot System Seniority List (including during separate operations the US Airways and America West pilot seniority lists) is integrated with another carrier's pilot seniority list.


Reading this section of Scope, I do see many problems with the language in this TA because just as others have pointed out, there is too much ambiguity. We don’t have the luxury of accepting a contract with ANY ambiguity. The fact that many view the language in this TA differently may be intentional.
As simple as it should be, when I see the word Union used, where there is no definition of what the union is and what it represents in this contract, that is a flag!
When I see the use of ‘America West’, when America West doesn’t exist, another flag!

Additionally, when I read this section:

Successorship The company shall require any Successor, including, without limitation, any merged companies or company, transferee, administrator, receiver, executor, and/or trustee, to cause the Company (i.e. the airline entity that was acquired) to continue to be bound by all the terms of this agreement as a condition of any transaction that results in a Successor, subject to applicable procedures under the Railway Labor Act; for purposes of this paragraph, a Successor shall be defined as an entity that acquires or controls all or substantially all of the assets or equity US Airways Group or the company through a single transaction or a multi-step related transaction that close within a 12 month period (“Successorship Transaction”.) The Company shall provide the union with written notice of any successorship transaction no later than (30) days prior to the closing of the transaction and such notice shall be subject to any confidentiality restrictions that the Company in its discretion may impose on the union or legal requirements that may apply.

And I see ‘such notice shall be subject to any confidentiality restrictions that the Company in its discretion may impose on the union or legal requirements that may apply.’

I always get a little nervous. Take the time to read carefully the next part of this section in the TA. What I see is this…

The company is obligated to tell the union in writing of a transaction that involves all or substantially all of US Airways Group. There is no mention of any transaction that is less than ‘substantially all’. So hypothetically, if the west operation is less than substantially all of US Airways Group, and Parker and company decide to unload it, scope doesn’t apply.

One other thought on all of this…It says that the company has to notify the union in writing. Okay? But it then goes on to say all that crap about confidentiality and discretion and may impose. I take this as indicating that Parker has to tell Mike Flores something but legally force him from telling us anything

 

[usfliboi]

Ok So again has anyone asked this question to the AFA union or those who were at the table? I have submitted this thread to the union to get some sort of clarification since no one seems to want the real answer from those who are "in the know!" FYI There is no East or West parts of UsAirways so unloading west operations is NOT something that could or would happen! Doug has discussed this numerous times indicating we are One airline with two union groups working on two different conbtracts. No more no less. I will let you know what I hear from Mike once he responds.

Thanks