AFA's Proposed Contribution to Coalition Plan

[UAL777flyer]

United Air Attendants Make Offer to Take 3.6% Pay Reduction
By Lynne Marek
Chicago, Oct. 25 (Bloomberg) -- United Airlines flight attendants'' union offered to cut most attendants'' pay 3.6 percent as part of a plan to save parent UAL Corp. $5.8 billion over 5 1/2 years and keep it out of bankruptcy court.
United''s Association of Flight Attendants made the offer in negotiations this week with the world''s second-largest airline and told members in a summary of the proposal that only attendants with six or more years of service, about 85 percent of active attendants, would take the pay cut. The opening proposal is subject to negotiations that are likely to keep up this weekend, said union spokeswoman Sara Dela Cruz.
The company has said it must reduce costs to be viable and win approval for a federal loan guarantee that would help it raise $2 billion in private loans and avoid a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. UAL has said it won''t be able to pay $875 million of debt and $70 million in back pay due by year-end unless it can raise the money.
The attendants will contribute a smaller portion of the $5.8 billion than other unions because attendants are the lowest-paid workers at the airline, the union said. Under the proposal''s terms, attendants would skip two lump sum payments, equal to 5 percent of their previous year''s pay, due next year and in 2005. Attendants with more than six years service would give up a 2 percent pay increase in 2004, the union''s summary said.

 

[MrMarky]

[P]Hi UAL777Flyer,[/P]
[P]How did you manage to post that with a straight face???? [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [/P]
[P]By the way, are they really the lowest paid? Lower than reservations? Lower than CSA's? Lower than aircraft cleaners? Lower than lower management? [/P]
[P]Perhaps one immediate cost cutting measure United could implement is FAA minimum staffing levels for cabin crews on all aircraft. Somehow I doubt the service levels would suffer. [/P]
[P]Marky[/P]

 

[ualdriver]

Yeah! Sounds really fair to me to! Then again, this is coming from an overpaid greedy pilot who of course deserves to shoulder most of the burden and responsibility for the current crisis. But I digress.

I crunched a few numbers from the previously mentioned AFA publications that I got off of the f/a's bulletin boards and off a bulletin board at DENTK. Here's what I come up with, and all of these numbers come RIGHT FROM THE AFA! If I made a mistake in the math, feel free to correct me.

First of all the flight attendants ARE NOT the lowest paid on the property. This AFA publication uses 2002 numbers. It says that there are 18,200 passenger services employees on the property. Their salary and benefits take up 5% of UAL's 17.756 Billion operating costs. That's $48,780.22 per employee. The same publication states that at the same time there were 21,000 flight attendants on the property taking 1.0659B in salary and benefits. That comes out to $50,757.14 per employee. I guess the passenger services employees deserve the honor of being the lowest paid.

The attendants will contribute a smaller portion of the $5.8 billion than other unions because attendants are the lowest-paid workers at the airline, the union said. NOT TRUE!! Not trying to start a flame war, but when the AFA gives me the little poor mouse argument when the average UA f/a is pulling in 50 grand a year in pay and benefits, I have a hard time swallowing it.

Another interesting ROUGH computation as I don't know the rest of the AFA details, but I'm pretty sure the 3.6% pay cut and the 5% bonus is a pretty large portion of what they're giving up-well at least according to the f/a's on todays flight. Feel free to correct my rough computations with further facts or correct me where I'm wrong. OK, for the first two years or so the AFA gives up 3.6% of their pay and their 5% bonus, which is about an 8.6% paycut and the biggest concessions that I can find. We need ONE BILLION dollars in pay cuts a year from the unions. The UA flight attendant payroll is about 1.0659 Billion a year (AFA numbers, remember). 8.6% of 1.0659 Billion is about $91,667,400 per year in concessions. The flight attendants make up 25% of the UA headcount but are only hoping to contribute about 9.1% of the 1 BILLION a year needed in labor concessions. Interesting.......

 

[sumsonic]

ualdriver,

Let's remember this is only pay. We don't know what else is built into the package. That $91 million that you came up with, that could be doubled in work rules and benefits. I'm sure we'll be hearing all kinds of numbers from every group, let's give the benefit of doubt to the folks that are putting all these proposals together. We have to reserve judgment, we don’t have the time to be splintered.

I do agree with your statement about AFA portraying themselves as the lowest paid. It’s pay + benefits + work rules. Are they simply referring themselves relative to FA's in other majors? Is that a more fair comparison? I don't know.

 

[mancityfan]

Let's cut the crap and realize that 3.6% is a joke! What does the AFA think will happen to their membership in BK? Are these the same people who were squawking about the pilots giving 10% in ERP1? Come on folks! The reason F/As are F/As are there own personal reasons. The reason pilots are pilots are their own personal reasons. One takes about 10-12 years to do (if you are lucky enough to time the industry so there are even jobs to be had!) the other takes about 10-12 DAYS to do.

Now, I am not saying there are not people who take the job VERY seriously and are VERY professional at being an F/A. However, let's look at the education needed to do the job. Let's then look at the minimum training necessary to do the job. Then, let's look at the number of days MOST F/As work, and how much WORK that actually involves. THEN, let's compare salaries. I think you will find that F/As, on the whole, and especially after the 5 year B scale, are quite well compensated for the work they do. AND, if you want to make the argument, the B Scale is a result of the F/A lifestyle and union pilotics, and NOT the fault of ANYONE ELSE at UAL other than F/As.

There, that should warm things up a bit!

mancityfan

 

[will fix for food]

Ouch...this is going to be good! I/m thinking this one will go for a minimum of four pages...Anybody wanna bet?

 

[mancityfan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/26/2002 11:32:50 AM sumsonic wrote:

ualdriver,

Let's remember this is only pay. We don't know what else is built into the package. That $91 million that you came up with, that could be doubled in work rules and benefits. I'm sure we'll be hearing all kinds of numbers from every group, let's give the benefit of doubt to the folks that are putting all these proposals together. We have to reserve judgment, we don’t have the time to be splintered.

I do agree with your statement about AFA portraying themselves as the lowest paid. It’s pay + benefits + work rules. Are they simply referring themselves relative to FA's in other majors? Is that a more fair comparison? I don't know.

----------------
[/blockquote]
I think you will find that the AFA included benefits in their equation. Bacause it is impossible for the average pilot to be getting paid what they say he/she is getting paid without including every dime the company spends on a pilot. In fact, it would not surprise me to hear it even includes the sim time for a PC it is such an exaggeration of reality!

mancityfan

 

[mmahpeel]

Per usual certain egos on this board spew hyperbole without the benefit of the facts.

The AFA proposal includes pay cuts of 3.6% off the current book rates, foregoing two annual 5% lump-sum payments, foregoing an additional 2% book rate increase.

The proposal also reflects significant concessions in:

-Staffing work rules
-Vacation
-Uniform Points Allowance
-Hotels
-Elimination of the annual wage arbitration

The idea that the Flight Attendants, who make up around 25% of the workforce should bear 25% of the burden is folly as the Flight Attendants make up somewhere around 8% of the payroll.

ALPA represented employees on the property have the industry-leading contract for their work group.

IAM represented employees also now lead the industry in their compensation as compared to the other U.S. based carriers.

AFA represented employees have a contract that puts them at the average of the other U.S. based carriers.

What is very telling is that what AFA is offering is very close to what UA management was asking for. It seems that UA management recognizes that the Flight Attendants wages and benefits are not out of line with the rest of the industry. This is likely a by-product of the intensive, annual wage arbitrations that are held and extensive research is compilated to compare Flight Attendant wages with other carriers.

Either way you cut it, the Flight Attendants, by nature of their average pay and benefits are going to be less hit than the other work groups on the property in terms of the percentage of wage cuts inflicted. Regardless of whether it is a negotiated package or cuts determined by a bankruptcy judge.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/26/2002 11:30:46 PM ualdriver wrote:

******What is very telling is that what AFA is offering is very close to what UA management was asking for.******

How do you know this?

And for the record, I'm all for pulling together and trying to get this airline back on its feet, but I just want to make sure that everyone really is "pulling together."
----------------
[/blockquote]

Actually, I think the AFA, and IAM released the company term sheet that was proposed for the 1.5 billion in annual labor savings. I think the AFA proposal is fairly close to that number. as for the value of some of the scope type issues (like staffing), they can be VERY big depending on the level. For example, UALs 138 seat A-320s NEVER require more than 3 F/As. we almost always man them to 4. When we don't and there is meal service, I think the F/As get extra pay. Giving up that one F/A represents a 25% reduction in F/A cost for that flight. I'd imagine that the level of overmanning is really big for the Whale and 777. Devil is in the details, and cheers to the AFA for submitting a proposal. I'll reserve judgement until I know more.

 

[ualdriver]

mmahpeel

*******Per usual certain egos on this board spew hyperbole without the benefit of the facts*******
*****The idea that the Flight Attendants, who make up around 25% of the workforce should bear 25% of the burden is folly as the Flight Attendants make up somewhere around 8% of the payroll.*******

No ego here. I guess the AFA also has some pitbulls on the boards to make sure that anything said about the AFA is PC. God forbid if anyone merely suggests that a flight attendant pulling in an average of $50,000 grand a year in pay and benefits MAY not be coughing up their fair share. Anyway, I'm simply reporting for debate the facts as the AFA presents them and as they were related to me by our f/a crew yesterday. And for the record, the AFA facts show that flight attendants take up about 14.6% of the payroll, not the 8% you mention. So since the flight attendants take up about 14.6% of the payroll, I would reasonably expect them to take up about 14.6% of the contributions needed for that 1B in labor savings per year.


********The proposal also reflects significant concessions in:
-Staffing work rules
-Vacation
-Uniform Points Allowance
-Hotels
-Elimination of the annual wage arbitration********

Since you seem to know the facts, can you put a dollar value on the above? For instance the hotels that you mention simply say that you don't have to go to a downtown layover if the layover is only 14 hours vs. 12 for before? The Uniform allowance just means that you get a few less points per year? I doubt they amount to a significant amount of money, but probably count for a little something I guess.


******What is very telling is that what AFA is offering is very close to what UA management was asking for.******

How do you know this?

And for the record, I'm all for pulling together and trying to get this airline back on its feet, but I just want to make sure that everyone really is pulling together.

 

[WXGuesser]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/26/2002 2:35:23 PM will fix for food wrote:

Ouch...this is going to be good! I/m thinking this one will go for a minimum of four pages...Anybody wanna bet?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Nah, I don't think it will go that long... two and a half at the most. It isn'ta seniority integration argument, after all... [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

Peace!

 

[ualnyc]

As a UAL f/a i'm willing to give my fair share. It seems fair to me that industry average compensated employees take less of a percentage concession than those employees with industry leading wages. What's not fair about that?

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Folks, I'm not going to add in fuel to the fire by saying this group is right....or that employee group is wrong. I can tell you from a first hand perspective...that the figures agreed upon by voted concessions , tend to take on a life of thier own. We at U , that are represented by the IAM ratified a 6.8% give-back for 6 years. Then the give-back was Retro-ed back to July 01 of 2002. This affectively makes our concessions 11.9% for 16 weeks. Then we are going to take a real haircut regarding medical benefits...and our contribution to them. By and large even after the 16 weeks of retro pay are done...We will continue giving beyond that. Then you have payroll issues that in some cases become something boardering on Reaganomics or Al Gores Fuzzy math to contend with or grieve. Don't even begin to assume that things are going to be painless....but don't ever assume to be back in aviation anytime soon without enduring some pain either. I realize that some could careless...and that's noted. I just wish all you good folks at UA a speedy recovery from this situation....I know it's comes as little encouragement....but remember you folks are far from alone in this mess.

 

[mancityfan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/27/2002 1227 AM ualnyc wrote:

As a UAL f/a i'm willing to give my fair share. It seems fair to me that "industry average" compensated employees take less of a percentage concession than those employees with "industry leading" wages. What's not fair about that?


----------------
[/blockquote]


Hmmm, fair share. If you negotiate a 10 year contract and then the membership agrees to it, is that fair? If during your contract period, other work groups negotiate benefits based on their concessions (which you have decided NOT to participate in), yet YOU get those benefits too, while having contributed NOTHING for them, is that FAIR? If, at the end of giving 23.7% of pay and retirement benefits for 69 months, you receive the contract the company told you you were going to get at the end of the concession (i.e. an inflation adjustment from the 1993 wages you were making for the last 69 months), is THAT fair? When the ENTIRE company is about to go Chapter 11 and the company decides EVERYONE needs to contribute to its survival, is THAT fair? If the company says we need to save $1 Billion dollars and that if each employee group gives the same percentage, then they will each have given based on how lucrative their respectivie contracts are, is THAT fair?
If not, then I am not sure where I went wrong!

If I make $200K (which I do not!) and agree to q 10% paycut, it costs me $20K. If you make $50K (which I am sure you will tell me YOU do not!) and give 10%, you give $5K. I make four times as much as you, and contribute four times as much back to the company. And this is NOT fair? How?

It strikes me as somewhat disingenuous at this time of cuts to all be trying to be cut less than the other employees, because when it comes to raises, we ALL want the same as the guy who is getting the highest percentage!! Where did this logic suddenly lose its appeal?? Hey, the pilots got 4%, WE want 4%! Hey, the mechanics got a 2% bonus, WE want a 2% bonus! But when the boot is on the other foot, and the CUTS are coming down, it's all, Hey, THEY have all the money, go get it from THEM!

Well, THEY might have MORE of the money because what THEY do is a LOT more difficult to do, be trained for, and to qualify for than what others do!

And, as for all the other sacrifices made by the AFA in this endeavor, it would be interesting to note that the pilots ALREADY gave up the 12 hour Downtown layover in C2K...one of those bargaining chips we valued less than some of the other QWL issues, and that pilots have NEVER received points for uniforms, etc.. etc.. You see, we have ALWAYS valued pay and retirement benefits above almost everythign else, because we know we are married to this company if we are EVER going to make any money and have a decent retirement at Age 60. We also know that most of us will never get the chance to even be a major airline pilot until we are in our early to mid thirties, so it essentially makes our careers only 25 yrs long. Trying to nurture a 25 year career, with expectations of living at least that long AFTER retirement is NOT easy, especially when most of us have sacrificed years in the military or about a hundred thousand dollars in the civilian ranks, followed by years of sub-$20K pay checks at the commuters!

You see, we all come from a different place to get here, and this might have colored our vision of what exactly fair is. However, when it comes to sharing sacrifices, I did not see the AFA doing that during the 90s, and apparently they intend to continue that trend into the new millenium. On the other hand, I know a few thousand pilots who contributed to the ESOP to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars, who now see their investment in the single digits, and who are now being asked to share an inordinate amount of the burden of this cut as some kind of pennance for being well paid for two year. Well, I, for one, think it is divisive and will only serve to alienate even more employees against each other.

As a pilot, I stand to lose my current fleet and seat and be forced into the position I had years ago. It will be a 37% pay cut, if ALPA's fair share turns out to be the 20% we keep hearing. I am just wondering how ANYONE in their right mind can say that MY share of this company's current predicament should be TEN TIMES that of a flight attendant, and consider it fair.

Fair - adjective: free from dishonesty and injustice.

mancityfan

 

[Bear96]

[blockquote]

As a pilot, I stand to lose my current fleet and seat and be forced into the position I had years ago. It will be a 37% pay cut, if ALPA's "fair share" turns out to be the 20% we keep hearing.

[/blockquote]

Let's at least compare apples and apples here. The equivalent to a pilot's seat change for F/As is to be forced from international back to domestic flying-- which will be happening to many of us soon, with all the announcements made this week about pulling out of some international cities and downgauging in others (and probably more announcements to come). That pay difference alone is about 10%, which now brings us to about a 13.6% paycut for many of us, including me, assuming this 3.6% paycut item becomes reality.

[blockquote]

I am just wondering how ANYONE in their right mind can say that MY share of this company's current predicament should be TEN TIMES that of a flight attendant, and consider it "fair."

Fair - adjective: free from dishonesty and injustice.

mancityfan
----------------
[/blockquote]

Well when you consider the average pilot makes five times the average F/A, and your 37% paycut is only 2.7 times as big as my 13.6% cut, and when you consider my pay is contractually industry average and yours is industry leading, all in all it seems pretty fair to me.

Of course if you ultimately don't like the final proposal you have to vote on, feel free to vote NO and we can both go look for jobs elsewhere. I'll probably find one paying at least as much as, if not more than, what I make now.