AFA Scope- What does this mean?

[Al Legheny]

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!

A seniority list is a list of names on a piece of paper in a particular order.
The McKaskill Bond amendment guarantees a spot on the piece of paper but it is
different contract language that guarantees who flies the airplanes.

The language in Section 1.B.4 is troubling. I am not discussing what Mike Flores is
talking about within the 12 month designation. I am asking why the following language:

"Provided however that this paragraph will not apply if and when following a transaction
of any type, the US Airways Pilots 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."

The beginning of this paragraph says that US Airways Flight Attendants operate all flight
crewed by US Airways pilots. Then this last paragraph takes that away.

To get back on subject:

1. Someone ought to look for language in the APFA (American FA) agreement that gives them the
right to operate any aircraft that is under the AMR umbrella. That would be problematic
considering the history of how AMA pilots and FA's have treated other employee groups like
Air Cal and TWA.

2. What is the purpose of this language if the above is not the case. If it is to allow a
split between the front and back for scheduling then there is an easier and more
clear way to word that. Get the clarification

3.Using the condition of a pilot integration as the conditional issue, a merger, it can
raise the question that there are a transfer of flying rights from US Airways flight
attendants to some other party. Please notice that seniority is not the issue, it is the
right to be a crew member on a US Airways aircraft. Did that right transfer, in contract
language to some other party? Will some other party now have those rights in the event
of a merger? Do American Flight Attendants have language that gives them rights on any
aircraft operated under the AMR umbrella or a merged carrier with American whether or not
it is controlled by AMR?

Note that this about rights to work an aircraft, not seniority per se. Your position on
the integrated list might not change but you don't have a right to operate aircraft in
your own system. There are two questions one of seniority and the other is what that
seniority right conveys.

The language in the TA seems to say that the right to work on a US Airways Aircraft
is in question in the event the pilots are involved in a seniority integration.

I am not a lawyer, someone needs to talk to one about this quick.

 

[Onestep2flt]

A seniority list is a list of names on a piece of paper in a particular order.
The McKaskill Bond amendment guarantees a spot on the piece of paper but it is
different contract language that guarantees who flies the airplanes.

The language in Section 1.B.4 is troubling. I am not discussing what Mike Flores is
talking about within the 12 month designation. I am asking why the following language:

"Provided however that this paragraph will not apply if and when following a transaction
of any type, the US Airways Pilots 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."

The beginning of this paragraph says that US Airways Flight Attendants operate all flight
crewed by US Airways pilots. Then this last paragraph takes that away.

To get back on subject:

1. Someone ought to look for language in the APFA (American FA) agreement that gives them the
right to operate any aircraft that is under the AMR umbrella. That would be problematic
considering the history of how AMA pilots and FA's have treated other employee groups like
Air Cal and TWA.

2. What is the purpose of this language if the above is not the case. If it is to allow a
split between the front and back for scheduling then there is an easier and more
clear way to word that. Get the clarification

3.Using the condition of a pilot integration as the conditional issue, a merger, it can
raise the question that there are a transfer of flying rights from US Airways flight
attendants to some other party. Please notice that seniority is not the issue, it is the
right to be a crew member on a US Airways aircraft. Did that right transfer, in contract
language to some other party? Will some other party now have those rights in the event
of a merger? Do American Flight Attendants have language that gives them rights on any
aircraft operated under the AMR umbrella or a merged carrier with American whether or not
it is controlled by AMR?

Note that this about rights to work an aircraft, not seniority per se. Your position on
the integrated list might not change but you don't have a right to operate aircraft in
your own system. There are two questions one of seniority and the other is what that
seniority right conveys.

The language in the TA seems to say that the right to work on a US Airways Aircraft
is in question in the event the pilots are involved in a seniority integration.

I am not a lawyer, someone needs to talk to one about this quick.

This is about the most clear, concise post I have seen on this topic. I think there should be no mistake now what everyone has been trying to post about. I am not sure how Mr. Flores's response to a different issue got tied up in this other that to draw attention away from what we we discussing here. Thanks for such a well thought out post!

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!

I understand exactly what you are saying. The new tentative agreement is a cut and paste for the most part of the current east agreement. I get that part so I am also aware that the language is similar. A couple of quick observations. First, you are dicussing an important issue but are confusing it with what we were talking about on this thread. (read above) Second, The same language could have been there for 50 years it does not make any less of an issue. You see, for that fifteen years that your language was there the priorities of the flight attendants were different so they probably did not even take notice. Now, trying to combine your two groups and a possible merger with someone else this has come to the forefront. They have taken notice because it is no coincidence that your company all the sudden became "partners" with you to finish this ASAP. What is there incentive to do so? The union was the only party concerned about a possible recess. Oh, something about industry consolidation. So yes, priorities change as well as folks don't want to get burned in a merger. What good is this "Stronger" language in one sentence that was taken away in another? If it is truly a technicality so your flight attendants can fly with a merged party even if you pilots still don't have their house in order, word it that way! Cause it does not read that way right now. You are right in the fact that I do not have the full picture. I don't think I am the only one though. The way it looks here is trying to draw the whole story (and truth) from union leaders is pretty tough to come by. From what people are saying here, even the one's that are usually vocal are eerily silent . I think there is a blackout in the home office or something. Yes, it should be their vote and their decision but they must have all the facts good and bad to make any intelligent decision. Nobody expects to get some perfect contract. What they do expect is for simple answers to simple questions so they can decide whether it is a livable contract.

 

[Phoenix]

.....

I am not a lawyer, someone needs to talk to one about this quick.

Lawyer? They would just argue and muddy the water. it is perfectly clear already.. The language as written absolves the company of any responsibility to staff flights flown by USAir pilots with USAir FAs. No FA protection at all in the event of a merger.

The company does not have to invoke that language, and their track record says they would neevvvvvver do something like that..... Right?

 

[BoeingBoy]

To tell the truth, I'm not really sure how much difference this paragraph makes. It does NOT change the provisions of paragraph 1 and 2:

1. Only US Airways employees as defined in Section 2.H of this Agreement shall be used as Flight Attendants in accordance with Definitions, Section 2.H.

2. Only regularly employed US Airways Flight Attendants shall be entitled to bid and fly all operations outlined in Hours of Service, Section 11. As an exception, the Company may select Flight Attendants from the US Airways System Seniority List to participate in FAA Proving Runs.

It appears that paragraph 4, especially the exception at the end, applies only for partial (fragmentation) or full mergers. In that case, IF the pilots settle seniority before the FA's, US flight attendants can fly with pilots from the other carrier and the other carrier's flight attendants can fly with US pilots (assuming their scope or a transition agreement allows it also). But the protections of paragraph 1 and 2 still apply (paragraph 3 appears to prevent a "Hooters" type of operation where non-flight attendants could be used over and above FAR minimum crew limits to serve passengers).

In addition, the protections of minimum fleet/block hours still applies. So in a merger, you'd have those protections even if you did fly with pilots of the carrier being merged with. In a partial transaction, the determination of how many flight attendants go with the equipment is also specified.

It appears to me that all this exception does, IF for some reason the merging flight attendant groups don't settle seniority before the merging pilot groups, is give the surviving company flexibility to use flight attendants more efficiently by not restricting them to only flying with only US pilots or only on US planes. If the pilots got everything settled first, you could have a mixed cockpit crew. Would you expect that flight attendants from both sides would be unable to fly with a mixed cockpit crew?

Plus, in a merger where the other carrier is the surviving company, would you want to be limited to only working on US aircraft when US disappears and it's assets (including airplanes) suddenly belong to someone else?

You have to look at the whole picture. Focusing on one corner can give a false impression. The OP, by only quoting one paragraph of Section 1, presented a false impression

Jim

 

[flyus2]

To tell the truth, I'm not really sure how much difference this paragraph makes. It does NOT change the provisions of paragraph 1 and 2:

1. Only US Airways employees as defined in Section 2.H of this Agreement shall be used as Flight Attendants in accordance with Definitions, Section 2.H.

2. Only regularly employed US Airways Flight Attendants shall be entitled to bid and fly all operations outlined in Hours of Service, Section 11. As an exception, the Company may select Flight Attendants from the US Airways System Seniority List to participate in FAA Proving Runs.

It appears that paragraph 4, especially the exception at the end, applies only for partial (fragmentation) or full mergers. In that case, IF the pilots settle seniority before the FA's, US flight attendants can fly with pilots from the other carrier and the other carrier's flight attendants can fly with US pilots (assuming their scope or a transition agreement allows it also). But the protections of paragraph 1 and 2 still apply (paragraph 3 appears to prevent a "Hooters" type of operation where non-flight attendants could be used over and above FAR minimum crew limits to serve passengers).

In addition, the protections of minimum fleet/block hours still applies. So in a merger, you'd have those protections even if you did fly with pilots of the carrier being merged with. In a partial transaction, the determination of how many flight attendants go with the equipment is also specified.

It appears to me that all this exception does, IF for some reason the merging flight attendant groups don't settle seniority before the merging pilot groups, is give the surviving company flexibility to use flight attendants more efficiently by not restricting them to only flying with only US pilots or only on US planes. If the pilots got everything settled first, you could have a mixed cockpit crew. Would you expect that flight attendants from both sides would be unable to fly with a mixed cockpit crew?

Plus, in a merger where the other carrier is the surviving company, would you want to be limited to only working on US aircraft when US disappears and it's assets (including airplanes) suddenly belong to someone else?

You have to look at the whole picture. Focusing on one corner can give a false impression. The OP, by only quoting one paragraph of Section 1, presented a false impression

Jim

Thank goodness someone else out there interpreted like I did. That is why some people see glass half full/some see half empty. I read it as, in a merger, US f/as would staff all US flights unless or until the 2 or 3 pilot groups integrate...then f/as can fly on either metal. It looked more like an opportunity rather than doom and gloom to me....but I could be wrong....only my interpretation which I will get clarified at a roadshow.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thank goodness someone else out there interpreted like I did.

That's obviously my interpretation, but based on the exception applying to only the paragraph that contains it I think it's a valid interpretation.

Jim

 

[ggiby]

Thank goodness someone else out there interpreted like I did. That is why some people see glass half full/some see half empty. I read it as, in a merger, US f/as would staff all US flights unless or until the 2 or 3 pilot groups integrate...then f/as can fly on either metal. It looked more like an opportunity rather than doom and gloom to me....but I could be wrong....only my interpretation which I will get clarified at a roadshow.

The SCOPE language is exactly the same in both our current contract, and the new t/a.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

The SCOPE language is exactly the same in both our current contract, and the new t/a.

Actually, not. Why was only part of the pilot's scope added, almost as an aside and definitely only by parts.

Can one say, an entire new paragraph?

 

[flybynite]

The SCOPE language is exactly the same in both our current contract, and the new t/a.

No, it's not. They added a new paragraph to B. Scope. And it states...

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 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 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.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That paragraph is self-contained. Regardless of what it says, you still have the min fleet/block hours protection and the fragmentation protection. Paragraph B4 just says that in a "transaction of any type" (as defined in other paragraphs) where the pilots settle their issues before the FA's do, you can fly with pilots of the "transaction" partner and their FA's can fly with US (east/west/both) pilots. But the amount of flying the US FA's have is still governed by the fleet/block hour requirement. Unlike the OP's and other interpretations apparently based on nothing but that one paragraph, it does NOT allow all US FA's to be furloughed while the other carrier's FA's do all the flying.

Plus, in any transaction I would certainly hope that a transition agreement would be negotiated just as it was for the US/HP merger. Nothing prevents such a TA from offering more protection than paragraph B4 or the entire scope section - like giving tail number specific flying to US FA's.

Jim

 

[flybynite]

That paragraph is self-contained. Regardless of what it says, you still have the min fleet/block hours protection and the fragmentation protection. Paragraph B4 just says that in a "transaction of any type" (as defined in other paragraphs) where the pilots settle their issues before the FA's do, you can fly with pilots of the "transaction" partner and their FA's can fly with US (east/west/both) pilots. But the amount of flying the US FA's have is still governed by the fleet/block hour requirement. Unlike the OP's and other interpretations apparently based on nothing but that one paragraph, it does NOT allow all US FA's to be furloughed while the other carrier's FA's do all the flying.

Jim

Thanks, Jim.

I have to admit, I've had a tough time understanding this paragraph. And I'm not alone.

 

[Phoenix]

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

Don't worry. The company will allow furloughed FAs to grieve it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

In plain english to me it says that US FA's will fly with US pilots EXCEPT in a transaction as defined, then IF the pilots settle their seniority before the FA's do you are not limited to flying with only US pilots. Obviously what isn't said is the FAA requirements - if the pilots settled on day one there's still have to be a single certificate before you could fly with anyone other than US pilots on US planes. You couldn't just show up at the gate and find another carrier's plane (which you may have never flown or been trained on) with another carrier's pilots.

But paragraph B1, B2, and B3 still apply, as does the fragmentation in another section (C??). The exception in paragraph B4 only applies to paragraph B4.

Personally I don't think you have to worry much about the pilots settling first. If the "transaction" involved a smaller carrier the AFA would undoubtedly be the union anointed by the NMB if two unions represented the two sides. If with a larger carrier, their FA's union would undoubtedly be anointed the representative of all the FA's. At the worst, FA seniority would end up in arbitration per federal law. And look at the current pilot's mess 7+ years after the merger - surely ya'll have better sense than the pilots.

I'd worry a lot more about the other parts of the contract - pay, work rules, etc. I don't personally see how paragraph B4 could affect you much even if it was triggered.

Jim

 

[ggiby]

No, it's not. They added a new paragraph to B. Scope. And it states...

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 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 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.

yes I stand corrected... it just added that we will only let us airways mainline f/a's fly on Usairways... mainline a/c.. to protect us from letting other f/a's that work for resourced airlines taking over at a lower pay rate...

 

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways Union Leader Hits the Road to Sell Flight Attendant Deal

In a provision from the existing contract, retained despite management opposition, a merger would mean that laid-off flight attendants would be entitled to 60% of their salary for five years, likely ensuring that none would be laid off.

Click here to read the story.