APFA to send AA's last best offer to members for a vote

[Hopeful]

And the ultimate bastardizing of the bk system...so much for "need".

I think most of us are aware by now of the BK process and procedure.
Even though the judge most likely will abrogate all contracts, he has to be aware of a more negative situation with respect to morale when that occurs. I'm sure the thought has corssed his mind, but at the end of the day, if the company has proved that it met all the requirements for abrogation, then abrogation it is.

 

[jimntx]

True, but they will have to do it in full view of the public and without our implied consent--which is what a yes vote is...giving them permission to screw us over again. There's not really that much difference between the term sheet and the LBFO as far as the flight attendants' LBFO.

Why should I concur with their thievery for 1.5% raise over 6 years? That's almost $0.62/hr at my current hourly rate!!! And, when you consider that they are taking away incentive pay which subtracts $100-$300 month from my take home pay (depending on how many hours I fly over 70), explain to me how this is going to be a raise.

I voted NO!

 

[bluebird]

By the way, the full LBFO specifies that people on the furlough list who take the early out must forfeit any recall rights. (Well, duh.) The important point is that the people still on the furlough list are eligible to take the $40,000.

The LBO is terrible. The Appendix HH “Special Early Out Bridge to Retirement Program” in 1995 offered a variety of payouts based on hours worked in the last year (leaves also affected eligibility).

That one came with full medical and unlimited passes.

 

[jimntx]

Well, this is specifically NOT a bridge to retirement. I called the union yesterday to ask about the differences between what the full LBFO says and what the union posted in the term sheet-LBFO comparison. I was told "you won't lose anything that you are currently eligible for." I asked what about someone who is 50 and has 30 years service. They are too young to draw the pension, do they lose it? The person I talked to repeated the above statement and added that that person would fall under the 50-55 rule for travel,etc. I think the implication is that if you have over 15 years, but are below age 50, ya get nuthin--other than when you turn 60, you can start drawing your pension.

By the way, I called for a friend who is out of town on vacation. I was specifically asking about the union statement that "anyone who applied for the VEOP would get it. The company is only restricting when you can leave" versus the actual text of the LBFO which says "Company will have the discretion to limit the maximum number of acceptances and determine when the flight attendant can separate based on operational requirements." The person I talked to was very dismissive to me in the "we know about that and we have an agreement with the company that the number of acceptances will not be limited" vein. I asked if that agreement was in writing. I got no answer.
We'll see.

 

[bluebird]

“Well, this is specifically NOT a bridge to retirement. I called the union yesterday to ask about the differences between what the full LBFO says and what the union posted in the term sheet-LBFO comparison. I was told "you won't lose anything that you are currently eligible for." I asked what about someone who is 50 and has 30 years service. They are too young to draw the pension, do they lose it? The person I talked to repeated the above statement and added that that person would fall under the 50-55 rule for travel,etc. I think the implication is that if you have over 15 years, but are below age 50, ya get nuthin--other than when you turn 60, you can start drawing your pension.”

That’s right. You pretty much need to stick around until at least 50 to receive any decent benefits. Then, at least, you may take advantage of the 50-55 rule.

“By the way, I called for a friend who is out of town on vacation. I was specifically asking about the union statement that "anyone who applied for the VEOP would get it. The company is only restricting when you can leave" versus the actual text of the LBFO which says "Company will have the discretion to limit the maximum number of acceptances and determine when the flight attendant can separate based on operational requirements." The person I talked to was very dismissive to me in the "we know about that and we have an agreement with the company that the number of acceptances will not be limited" vein. I asked if that agreement was in writing. I got no answer.

We'll see.”

There isn’t much thought put into this offer. The payout is moronic. You are left without your job (a great value) and without retirement benefits (why did we stay so long?). When you pay your taxes, goodbye lump sum. You’re left with maybe one dinner at Outback Steakhouse. I love that shrimp on the barbie--but come on!

 

[jimntx]

Well, be careful about thinking that you lose retirement benefits. You do not lose your pension. Much to the company's chagrin, once you are vested in a defined benefit pension plan like ours, you can draw a pension at the eligible age. That is Federal law. Granted, you would not get travel benefits, etc, but considering how hard it is for non-revs--even jumpseat-qualified commuters--to get on an airplane these days, I'm not sure how much you are losing there. After the storms at DFW on the 20th with all the cancellations, I worked a flight to COS on the 21st that had 79 non-revs on the standby list. Not one of them got on our flight because the revenue passengers were oversold by 10.

 

[bluebird]

Well, be careful about thinking that you lose retirement benefits. You do not lose your pension. Much to the company's chagrin, once you are vested in a defined benefit pension plan like ours, you can draw a pension at the eligible age. That is Federal law. Granted, you would not get travel benefits, etc, but considering how hard it is for non-revs--even jumpseat-qualified commuters--to get on an airplane these days, I'm not sure how much you are losing there. After the storms at DFW on the 20th with all the cancellations, I worked a flight to COS on the 21st that had 79 non-revs on the standby list. Not one of them got on our flight because the revenue passengers were oversold by 10.

Sure. That will happen. But what does an empty seat cost the airline? Nothing. The Early Out needs to include passes. It should look more like this but without the age restriction to get rid of more people. Bring back age + senority = 60, for example.

 

[jimntx]

Well what it should look like may be a nice exercise in daydreaming, but the LBFO is the Last Best Final Offer. It is what it is.

 

[bluebird]

Well what it should look like may be a nice exercise in daydreaming, but the LBFO is the Last Best Final Offer. It is what it is.

Right. Do you like it?

 

[jimntx]

As I posted earlier today, I voted NO. In fact, I went out to my mailbox, got the ballot, opened, sat down at my computer and voted NO before I did anything else. I read not only the comparison between the term sheet and the LBFO, I read the LBFO itself. I saw nothing in either document that would move me to vote YES.

 

[bluebird]

As I posted earlier today, I voted NO. In fact, I went out to my mailbox, got the ballot, opened, sat down at my computer and voted NO before I did anything else. I read not only the comparison between the term sheet and the LBFO, I read the LBFO itself. I saw nothing in either document that would move me to vote YES.

I’m with you, jimntx. I can’t image why FAs would vote yes on this terrible deal. I would rather make less money than loose the flexibility in our schedules like this.

I voted “no” as well.

 

[kirkpatrick]

What money? It will be eaten up in taxes. Do you think they’ll get many takers?

They will go. Of course the money is subject to taxation but that isn't the point. With the early out spread out over four quarters people can hang on as late as 3rd quarter 2013 and still get the 40k. The alternative is retiring without the 40k.

I conservatively place my own guess at 2000 minimum; the company thinks more. It will save the jobs of those of us at the bottom.

MK

 

[bluebird]

They will go. Of course the money is subject to taxation but that isn't the point. With the early out spread out over four quarters people can hang on as late as 3rd quarter 2013 and still get the 40k. The alternative is retiring without the 40k.

I conservatively place my own guess at 2000 minimum; the company thinks more. It will save the jobs of those of us at the bottom.

MK

Maybe you’re right and there are many FAs 50 and over who would take advantage of this. I can’t image anyone under age 50 doing so.

 

[bluebird]

...High time flyers can waive their 30-in-7, but the company can not make you do it...

That is going to be helpful for full and part-time FAs because with the new minimum hours to remain employed rule there will be many FAs who normally drop all of their trips now returning to work at least part-time schedules. I suspect most people will want to work, say, half of their line now until they can retire at 50 (if 50-55 rule remains).

I think you all are right that although they will need to hire more pilots, they should not need to hire more FAs because 1. scheduling will be more efficient and 2. FAs will be flying their own trips more.

Latest:

“The bankruptcy judge has made clear throughout this process that the most preferable resolution to labor contract negotiations is a mutual deal...” APFA Hotline

 

[nbmcg01]

Do you all trust an honest vote with the APFA? I certainly haven't seen one. RPA for example. National officer for example. STL Vice Chair for example. All challenged and challenge upheld by the DOL. (except for the RPA and God only knows why that wasn't overturned) There is no accountability for the votes.