AFA Scope- What does this mean?

[Phoenix]

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

This language amounts to fluff because it is meaningless to the USAir FAs that will have no gurantee to be flying in the event of a merger.. Which is all of them if they pass the TA.

All planes flown by USAir pilots will be staffed by USAir FAs, but this provision does not apply if there is a merger. The absence of that protection in a merger means that Doug can staff planes flown by USAir pilots with FAs from anywhere he chooses, Eagle, furloughs from Mesa, new hires...

 

[SparrowHawk]

After reading this and the other AFA threads I've reached the following conclusion,

AFA Scope- What does this mean? It means BOHICA

The fox is in the Hen House and he's ready to eat your career. Do what you will.

 

[Onestep2flt]

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!

Seeking clarification from those who negotiated it? If you find you have a major medical issue, most rational folks go for a second opinion. In fact, most doctors worth anything usually insist on it! I think trusting the people that are trying to sell it to you is foolish at best. It is like buying a used car. Buyer beware! The language might indeed have different "intent" than what the lay person sees. As suggested here, if that is the case then it should be written in more concise language. The language is only as good as the lawyer who wrote it. Let's see here, If I was going to place my bets here I think that can be answered without even saying it. You have an AFA staff attorney and several flight attendants with totally different agendas, or you have your company with high price lawyers singularly focused on creating a document that convince the flight attendants that all is well and and this is the best you will ever do. If you read anything here you might have noticed that over the years people have tried to talk to the union about different issues regarding their contract. Right now, they can't even defend the one they have or seem to follow the rules in their constitution and by laws. If you can't fix what is broken now a new contract will not solve any of your problems. The problem with the one you are sharing that is one of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I think your company as well as your union are spreading enough of that around. I think at this point if you have the opinion that something is good in this new agreement, by all mean share it. If you choose to do so be a little more specific as to why you feel that way. Just like if someone sees something bad please point it out but be specific as to why you feel this is the case.

The FUD stops here!

 

[usfliboi]

Here is Mikes response...Obviously most didnt bother to read the current agreement vs the TA. Language is the same with exception of some stronger language! What is amazing is that all of the BS rumors being spread about scope not one person on here who was stirring took the time to ask the question to the person who was at the table and knows the answer or can find it. No...some just enjoy strirring the pot and yelling the sky is falling! Gotta luv um!

There seems to be a big rumor out on the line that Scope “disappears” after 12 months. That is not the case.

The East Scope language lives on. And then some. We are publishing a Q and A Friday that addresses many things-including the rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months. IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL.

In my thirty years as a flight attendant and, seven as a Union leader, no one has ever written me about Scope until now. That is a good thing because flight attendants should read both the current contract and the TA.

The rumor seems to be centered around the “12 month” language in our current contract and the same language in the TA.

The “12 month” language is solely about Partial Transactions (Section 1-2 in the current agreement and TA Section 1.D). In the event of a Partial Transaction the union has “sole discretion” to determine who transfers to the new airline –if in fact such as transaction takes place. In short, if there is sell off part of the airline, the union – not – the company has the discretion to determine who gets to stay at the USA and who gets to go to the other airline. This language lets the union – in its sole discretion – to let the members decide. It is important to note, that in the industry, this was not at the discretion of the union. In all cases of partial transactions between airlines the company to decide the fate of the flight attendants.

So, for some reason, some flight attendants read this language and interpret it to mean that Scope disappears. I don’t know why some believe the language means more than it says, but as stated above we will address the concern.


The Scope section in this TA has been maintained and, in fact, improved by paragraph B.4 in the TA.

The company was willing to walk away from negotiations and, the NMB was willing to let them do that, over the demand the union agree to company’s Scope proposal. We were willing to walk away if the Company did not agree to our Scope language. We won.



The rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months is false.


Thanks for writing me -



Best Regards,

Mike Flores, President

The US Airways Master Executive Council

AFA-CWA

 

[Onestep2flt]

Well, make up your mind. Is the TA done and all you can do is vote or do you want clarification/revision before voting?


This is an excellent point! Has anyone tried to clarify the statement on the last page of the agreement that reads:

Disclaimer:
This copy of the new US Airways Tentative Flight Attendant
Single Agreement is not in its final format and may contain
paragraph reference and typographical errors.

I think until that one is clarified any argument of clarification/revision is a useless one. Are you going to vote on the final corrected agreement or not? ONE WORD can change the entire agreement. If you vote on what you have before you it may not be what you live with for the next five years in my opinion. I do not believe any major transaction of this nature should be decided without the "final" draft of the document in hand. There very well could be errors in that as well. You should have every opportunity to get clarity from the actual document which you are suppose to be voting for.

 

[KTM300]

Here is Mikes response...Obviously most didnt bother to read the current agreement vs the TA. Language is the same with exception of some stronger language! What is amazing is that all of the BS rumors being spread about scope not one person on here who was stirring took the time to ask the question to the person who was at the table and knows the answer or can find it. No...some just enjoy strirring the pot and yelling the sky is falling! Gotta luv um!

There seems to be a big rumor out on the line that Scope “disappears” after 12 months. That is not the case.

The East Scope language lives on. And then some. We are publishing a Q and A Friday that addresses many things-including the rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months. IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL.

In my thirty years as a flight attendant and, seven as a Union leader, no one has ever written me about Scope until now. That is a good thing because flight attendants should read both the current contract and the TA.

The rumor seems to be centered around the “12 month” language in our current contract and the same language in the TA.

The “12 month” language is solely about Partial Transactions (Section 1-2 in the current agreement and TA Section 1.D). In the event of a Partial Transaction the union has “sole discretion” to determine who transfers to the new airline –if in fact such as transaction takes place. In short, if there is sell off part of the airline, the union – not – the company has the discretion to determine who gets to stay at the USA and who gets to go to the other airline. This language lets the union – in its sole discretion – to let the members decide. It is important to note, that in the industry, this was not at the discretion of the union. In all cases of partial transactions between airlines the company to decide the fate of the flight attendants.

So, for some reason, some flight attendants read this language and interpret it to mean that Scope disappears. I don’t know why some believe the language means more than it says, but as stated above we will address the concern.


The Scope section in this TA has been maintained and, in fact, improved by paragraph B.4 in the TA.

The company was willing to walk away from negotiations and, the NMB was willing to let them do that, over the demand the union agree to company’s Scope proposal. We were willing to walk away if the Company did not agree to our Scope language. We won.



The rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months is false.


Thanks for writing me -



Best Regards,

Mike Flores, President

The US Airways Master Executive Council

AFA-CWA

I have not heard one person say that they thought SCOPE disappears after 12 months! I also don't hear anyone talking about rumors!

 

[700UW]

He is obviously confused, the scope issue has nothing to do with usfliboi and Flores wrote about.

Apparently some people have comprehension issues. Its about a merger and who works US flights.

 

[Phoenix]

Here is Mikes response...Obviously most didnt bother to read the current agreement vs the TA. Language is the same with exception of some stronger language! What is amazing is that all of the BS rumors being spread about scope not one person on here who was stirring took the time to ask the question to the person who was at the table and knows the answer or can find it. No...some just enjoy strirring the pot and yelling the sky is falling! Gotta luv um!

There seems to be a big rumor out on the line that Scope “disappears” after 12 months. That is not the case.

The East Scope language lives on. And then some. We are publishing a Q and A Friday that addresses many things-including the rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months. IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL.

In my thirty years as a flight attendant and, seven as a Union leader, no one has ever written me about Scope until now. That is a good thing because flight attendants should read both the current contract and the TA.

The rumor seems to be centered around the “12 month” language in our current contract and the same language in the TA.

The “12 month” language is solely about Partial Transactions (Section 1-2 in the current agreement and TA Section 1.D). In the event of a Partial Transaction the union has “sole discretion” to determine who transfers to the new airline –if in fact such as transaction takes place. In short, if there is sell off part of the airline, the union – not – the company has the discretion to determine who gets to stay at the USA and who gets to go to the other airline. This language lets the union – in its sole discretion – to let the members decide. It is important to note, that in the industry, this was not at the discretion of the union. In all cases of partial transactions between airlines the company to decide the fate of the flight attendants.

So, for some reason, some flight attendants read this language and interpret it to mean that Scope disappears. I don’t know why some believe the language means more than it says, but as stated above we will address the concern.


The Scope section in this TA has been maintained and, in fact, improved by paragraph B.4 in the TA.

The company was willing to walk away from negotiations and, the NMB was willing to let them do that, over the demand the union agree to company’s Scope proposal. We were willing to walk away if the Company did not agree to our Scope language. We won.



The rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months is false.


Thanks for writing me -



Best Regards,

Mike Flores, President

The US Airways Master Executive Council

AFA-CWA

Typical obfuscation.

Scope disappears if there is a merger, and there is no time limit.

 

[ggiby]

Well Gibby perhaps now would be a good time to turn into "The Gibbinator" and start raising hell.

As an outsider I'm alarmed at the vagueness of some of the Language I've seen to date. Seriously look how fast Callpway was able to spin the paragraph in a particular direction. That should tell Flight Attendants something. What I'm not sure.

Labor & Management is an adversarial relationship. It's those who work the flights versus those who don't. You do! They don't!.

Understand that a pro like Jerry Glass is going to eat your AFA counsel as an appetizer. Larry Cohen is up Verizon's arse, think he's going to help? You guys are on your own. Remember, business is done in Black and White. If it isn't written down it doesn't exist. With a guy like Glass you have to negotiate every word, every sentence as if your career depended upon it, because it does.

I woul not call Jerry Glass a pro... maybe a pro company guy.... he has been our "fo" for many many consessionary contracts with the old USAirways.... he pretty much is the one who has sailed us down the river many times over and over again. When this new AW mgt put him onboard we here on the old side about rolled over in our grave. No, this new t/a is not what many here would have wanted. We have been beaten down for so long. For a company that has made plenty of money, they need to share a penny or two. As far as the SCOPE language, nothing iin the language has changed from our old language. The only thing that has changed, is, that the company will not buy our house in the event of a base closure. In the past when a base closed USAIr bought our house. The Scope still states it will pay for our move. That is the only change. If the SCOPE language is week... its been there for years. The company was willing to walk away many times over keeping the Scope....

As far as how the company could put a spin onto how things are written, it has always been a fact that the USAIR contract has always been written like that. Why do you think we have so many grevances? I was always amazed at how vague our contracts have been. At PI we had a very small contract, with little provisions, but it was alway written clearly and directly. No grey area.

 

[usfliboi]

I have not heard one person say that they thought SCOPE disappears after 12 months! I also don't hear anyone talking about rumors!

Maybe you should read the entire thread...it might help you draw a pictue...... If you are a f/a then you'll understand otherwise...

 

[Onestep2flt]

Here is Mikes response...Obviously most didnt bother to read the current agreement vs the TA. Language is the same with exception of some stronger language! What is amazing is that all of the BS rumors being spread about scope not one person on here who was stirring took the time to ask the question to the person who was at the table and knows the answer or can find it. No...some just enjoy strirring the pot and yelling the sky is falling! Gotta luv um!

There seems to be a big rumor out on the line that Scope “disappears” after 12 months. That is not the case.

The East Scope language lives on. And then some. We are publishing a Q and A Friday that addresses many things-including the rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months. IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL.

In my thirty years as a flight attendant and, seven as a Union leader, no one has ever written me about Scope until now. That is a good thing because flight attendants should read both the current contract and the TA.

The rumor seems to be centered around the “12 month” language in our current contract and the same language in the TA.

The “12 month” language is solely about Partial Transactions (Section 1-2 in the current agreement and TA Section 1.D). In the event of a Partial Transaction the union has “sole discretion” to determine who transfers to the new airline –if in fact such as transaction takes place. In short, if there is sell off part of the airline, the union – not – the company has the discretion to determine who gets to stay at the USA and who gets to go to the other airline. This language lets the union – in its sole discretion – to let the members decide. It is important to note, that in the industry, this was not at the discretion of the union. In all cases of partial transactions between airlines the company to decide the fate of the flight attendants.

So, for some reason, some flight attendants read this language and interpret it to mean that Scope disappears. I don’t know why some believe the language means more than it says, but as stated above we will address the concern.


The Scope section in this TA has been maintained and, in fact, improved by paragraph B.4 in the TA.

The company was willing to walk away from negotiations and, the NMB was willing to let them do that, over the demand the union agree to company’s Scope proposal. We were willing to walk away if the Company did not agree to our Scope language. We won.



The rumor that Scope disappears after 12 months is false.


Thanks for writing me -



Best Regards,

Mike Flores, President

The US Airways Master Executive Council

AFA-CWA

While this is great you share this, and nice that Mr. Flores tries to explain himself it is not answering the question we are talking about here and now. Don't get me wrong, the successorship language is also an important part over the overall scope section. It still unfortunatly for whatever reason fails to address the question that is being asked from the paragraph right before it which reads:

4. In addition to any of the other protections in this Agreement, any flight time as defined in
Section 11.A, 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 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 Pilot System Seniority List (including during separate operations the US Airways
and America West pilot seniority lists); provided, however, that this paragraph will 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 air carrier's pilot seniority list. (bold added by me)

This is what is specifically being talked about here. As far as his answer regarding what you posted I share what is my OPINION only I what I read. He said:


"In my thirty years as a flight attendant and, seven as a Union leader, no one has ever written me about Scope until now. That is a good thing because flight attendants should read both the current contract and the TA."

That might be a true statement. It does not mean that nobody has talked to him about it before. I am confident with the discussion taking place on this board that it was at least brought up at the roadshows. I am 100% sure that flight attendants have taken a little more interest in this language recently in light of the fact that there is a high probability of another merger. After all, why all the sudden is your company willing to negotiate all of the sudden when they could have just let it play out right into a recess? I am also 100% positive that just because he is just now hearing it makes no less important of a question that deserves an honest answer. His thirty years should at least give him the knowledge that not everyone goes without questioning the establishment.

As far as the language going forward with that I will leave to the experts. I personally feel that it makes no sense to have a specific time limit. Again, I am no expert so someone else can chime in. Would you not just structure a deal then that "closed" in thirteen months? I know it is not that simple but that is actually the way it seems to read.

Once again, it is fine to share all the good points. You must however give the complete picture of what you are looking at. These items while both just as important are two different areas regarding your scope. You need to look at there merits or risks on an individual level.

 

[usfliboi]

While this is great you share this, and nice that Mr. Flores tries to explain himself it is not answering the question we are talking about here and now. Don't get me wrong, the successorship language is also an important part over the overall scope section. It still unfortunatly for whatever reason fails to address the question that is being asked from the paragraph right before it which reads:

4. In addition to any of the other protections in this Agreement, any flight time as defined in
Section 11.A, 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 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 Pilot System Seniority List (including during separate operations the US Airways
and America West pilot seniority lists); provided, however, that this paragraph will 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 air carrier's pilot seniority list. (bold added by me)

This is what is specifically being talked about here. As far as his answer regarding what you posted I share what is my OPINION only I what I read. He said:


"In my thirty years as a flight attendant and, seven as a Union leader, no one has ever written me about Scope until now. That is a good thing because flight attendants should read both the current contract and the TA."

That might be a true statement. It does not mean that nobody has talked to him about it before. I am confident with the discussion taking place on this board that it was at least brought up at the roadshows. I am 100% sure that flight attendants have taken a little more interest in this language recently in light of the fact that there is a high probability of another merger. After all, why all the sudden is your company willing to negotiate all of the sudden when they could have just let it play out right into a recess? I am also 100% positive that just because he is just now hearing it makes no less important of a question that deserves an honest answer. His thirty years should at least give him the knowledge that not everyone goes without questioning the establishment.

As far as the language going forward with that I will leave to the experts. I personally feel that it makes no sense to have a specific time limit. Again, I am no expert so someone else can chime in. Would you not just structure a deal then that "closed" in thirteen months? I know it is not that simple but that is actually the way it seems to read.

Once again, it is fine to share all the good points. You must however give the complete picture of what you are looking at. These items while both just as important are two different areas regarding your scope. You need to look at there merits or risks on an individual level.

LOL You dont get it...The scope langauge has not change other than some addtions to strengthen it. You must not be a f/a otherwise you would know it is the same language we have had for 15 years....... Nice to add your opinion however you dont have the full picture ....The existing contract and the one before and before and the t/a!!!!!!!!!!! It is simply amazing that so many open their mouths on this site but have nothing to say!

 

[SparrowHawk]

LOL You dont get it...The scope langauge has not change other than some addtions to strengthen it. You must not be a f/a otherwise you would know it is the same language we have had for 15 years....... Nice to add your opinion however you dont have the full picture ....The existing contract and the one before and before and the t/a!!!!!!!!!!! It is simply amazing that so many open their mouths on this site but have nothing to say!

15 years eh? of those 15 years how many of them included a pay raise? How many? If the scope language is sooooo terrific then y'all should be the highest paid of the whole bunch. Oh wait!!! Silly me this is US Airways and the AFA we are talking about. Never mind, I forgot.

 

[usfliboi]

15 years eh? of those 15 years how many of them included a pay raise? How many? If the scope language is sooooo terrific then y'all should be the highest paid of the whole bunch. Oh wait!!! Silly me this is US Airways and the AFA we are talking about. Never mind, I forgot.

They say Fish Oil is good for that...Oh no wait B12? Guess its catching!

 

[KTM300]

Maybe you should read the entire thread...it might help you draw a pictue...... If you are a f/a then you'll understand otherwise...

Let me see if I can understand...You get a letter from a guy that was told not to touch the me too language and it is gone.

And this same guy wanted to expedite the vote by shortening the time allowed to vote against AFA policy for some reason

And this is also the guy that wanted to change from paper ballots to electronic ballots after the TA had been put out.

Without getting into a debate over what you think the contract says and what I see as problems with the language, I just look at it as possibly the last contract that many will work under and dam&@t, I don't want any grey areas or loopholes. I want it right!