APFA Constitutional Amendments
- Thread starter jimntx
- Start date
First of all, unless you have been furloughed, you will never ever know what it's like. Obviously, at your seniority, that's something you don't have to worry about. I'm not posting rumors. It's up to whoever reads my post to decide how they want to view the information. Furthermore, you don't have to read my posts if it bothers you that much. Have a good day.
TWskyliner
Senior
- May 20, 2005
- 280
- 48
Non
Nein
Nyet
Nej
Neen
Nein
Nyet
Nej
Neen
OneShotService
Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 20
- 0
I voted NO on all except referendum #3. You leave your flying status for management, you should not have rights to union meetings, etc...
Not me I voted YES on all four issues and most of the senior F/As are voting yes.
Not me I voted NO on ALL FIVE ISSUES and MOST JUNIOR F/As are voting NO.
Good to hear you atleast voted... most junior F/As dont even know there is a ballot out. So sad...
Same with the senior..not a big group to vote. And the senior will keep getting more junior thanks to the revolving door, seasonal work at AA.
Well senior is senior....
I think thats it for layoffs...... Now that the bottom of the senority list is the lowest paid F/As on the property, why would AA want to lay them off??? It only makes sense to keep the lowest paid F/As working and offer leaves to the highest paid F/As. That's how it's always been.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #132
No senior is not senior. As has already been pointed out, it doesn't matter how many years you have if there is no one below you on the list or in your base. That makes you JUNIOR. It's why I just flew with a DFW f/a who is on reserve with 21 or 22 years.
If the revolving door seasonal furloughs continue, maybe you will get to emulate the 29-year F/As at the US Airways base in PIT who were on straight reserve because they were the most junior f/as in the base.
If the revolving door seasonal furloughs continue, maybe you will get to emulate the 29-year F/As at the US Airways base in PIT who were on straight reserve because they were the most junior f/as in the base.
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
I voted yes on all issues except #2 about reducing the size of the negotiating committee. I don't like the idea of 2/3 of the negotiators being appointed and not elected.
As far as item #4 goes, although I don't like the idea of Military reserves having to pay dues while not active, I voted in favor of this issue. The fact that those former TWA radicals came out with a letter stating that they would SCAB and coerce their fellow TWA'ers to SCAB if we went on strike made me vote for this item. I don't trust them to be included in this forth coming strike vote. It is a shame that the language for this item included ALL members on unpaid status, however this can be changed in the future. The important thing for me now is to protect myself against those on furlough who have the power to affect any vote.
As far as item #4 goes, although I don't like the idea of Military reserves having to pay dues while not active, I voted in favor of this issue. The fact that those former TWA radicals came out with a letter stating that they would SCAB and coerce their fellow TWA'ers to SCAB if we went on strike made me vote for this item. I don't trust them to be included in this forth coming strike vote. It is a shame that the language for this item included ALL members on unpaid status, however this can be changed in the future. The important thing for me now is to protect myself against those on furlough who have the power to affect any vote.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #134
The important question you should ask yourself is...if there are only 1500 (actually less than this) former TW f/as left on the seniority list (some active, most on furlough) and there are over 16,000 f/as on the seniority list, which group is apathetic and lazy when it comes to voting if 1500 have the power to affect any vote? Or, is there a chance that maybe a number of nAAtives don't happen to agree with you? All that vaunted "unity" is evidently going to waste.
The reality is that the only reason the former TW f/as could affect a strike vote is because a lot of the super senior f/as have no intention of voting for a strike and risking their cushy situation in negotiations to end the strike. They don't even care (according to the ones I've talked with) if we even get a new contract any time soon. A new contract or a strike risks the possibility that the company will get minimum threshold flying out of the talks. Or, physical tests at EPTs to prove fitness for the job. (If it's shown that you can no longer open a widebody door in the event of power loss, there are those who might think it wouldn't be safe for you to be responsible for that door.) They know that a new contract is not going to substantially improve anyone's income status--especially the top of scale people; so, why bother?
If we strike and make pay increases the major issue, the company will go into bankruptcy, abrogate the contract we do have, and get the BK court to impose lower pay and draconian work rules on us. Not a winner for the super senior people. They might actually have to start working again.
(BTW, it's been my experience in life that being vindictive and spiteful toward other people has a way of invoking the "what goes around, comes around" phenomenon.)
Voting for a strike and actually striking are two different things. The vast majority will always for to strike. Like so many other things it is a barging tool.
There are physical tests, we always have routinely had to open a 767 door wit out the power. They do have to open a 737 and S08 door.
Yet most of the people who run for office are those senior people. Where are the JR ones who should be involved and learning? where are the JR ones who claim they want to make a difference? Answer, they are whining about it on the plane on web boards and yahoo groups wondering why somebody else hasn't stepped up and done something.
