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

[jersey777]

I will bet that the dreaded transcon turn becomes the most senior trip in the case. Who wants to be on the property any more than absolutely necessary.

I do!!! I took this job for the layovers and being in Paris, Rome, London, Buenos Aires etc... I sure as hell did not take it for the sheer joy in working with the traveling public! If I wanted to be at home I would have a 9 to 5 job!
and worked for the weekends like most of this country.

 

[nbmcg01]

With the work rules you seem willing to put into place, those wonderful trips may be a thing of the past. How about a London turn from JFK? (lol) I would much rather do 9 transcon turns than 20 days of multi-leg, short layover trips for 20 days a month.

 

[jimntx]

Here is a scheduling scenario possible under the LBFO. Perfectly legal under the new rule.

Sept., 2012
1 24
2 24
3-5 15 hour trip
6 24
7-9 15 hour trip
10 24
11-13 15 hour trip
14 24
15 24
16-18 15 hour trip
19 24
20-22 15 hour trip
23 24
24 24
25 4-leg turn
26 24
27-30 DO

That is only 16 days of flying for a total of 80 hours. Of course, in actual operation a couple of those 3 day trips may become 4 day trips and two of those DOs at the end of the month will disappear. That's worse than working for a living. lol And, for the wonderful layovers, as has been made clear, the bias in the future will be for hotels near the airport. If you are in a hotel at Heathrow or MIA or LAX or LGA/JFK, how much good does it do to have a lay over in one of those fabulous cities?

 

[Blueweng48]

NEGOCIATIONS?
What do you not understand about BANKRUPTCY?
There are NO MORE NEGOCIATIONS!
The JUGDGE is going to rule this time on the ABROGATION OF THE CONTRACT!
VOTE YES!

 

[jason77]

Here is a scheduling scenario possible under the LBFO. Perfectly legal under the new rule.

Sept., 2012
1 24
2 24
3-5 15 hour trip
6 24
7-9 15 hour trip
10 24
11-13 15 hour trip
14 24
15 24
16-18 15 hour trip
19 24
20-22 15 hour trip
23 24
24 24
25 4-leg turn
26 24
27-30 DO

That is only 16 days of flying for a total of 80 hours. Of course, in actual operation a couple of those 3 day trips may become 4 day trips and two of those DOs at the end of the month will disappear. That's worse than working for a living. lol And, for the wonderful layovers, as has been made clear, the bias in the future will be for hotels near the airport. If you are in a hotel at Heathrow or MIA or LAX or LGA/JFK, how much good does it do to have a lay over in one of those fabulous cities?

Can you give us a scenario under the 1113.That way we can compare which one is better.

 

[silverbird007]

I think the nice long layovers are probably gone, I understand we have to compete with the LLCs, but i dont think AA needs to go as far as they want to go. Im expecting to have short layovers, long duty days, and i think the trans con turns are coming real soon. i hope they do go senior because i dont want them. I see the end of the good flying, flexible workrules, nice trips etc. I dont remember the union (APFA) asking anybody what we think about the USAirways merger. I guess they dont think we should have a say in our future. im not eligible for the early out. I hope alot of fas take it though. I just worked a 3 day trip, I think its going to be a yes vote. if not, then we are really up the creek

 

[bluebird]

“Preservation of work rules? Yeah, you'll be pay protected until fatigue-related IOD takes you off the insurance and payroll. You do realize that under the LBFO, there is nothing other than the "16 day on-duty cap" to prevent them from scheduling you, 3 on,1off, 3 on, 1off all month long?”

Commuters need the caps off of the work rules anyway. Most prefer to work back to back until they are finished for the month.

No one wants to spend their day off in their crash pad.

With the terrible early out, I suspect people with 15 years will go ahead and push through to work another decade or so until normal retirement.

It sounds like the hotels will not be as desirable in the coming years. We’ll all be “slam-clickers”, now.

Still, it’s not contract. We’ll eventually come to a reasonable agreement.

 

[bluebird]

I dont remember the union (APFA) asking anybody what we think about the USAirways merger. I guess they dont think we should have a say in our future.

I think they took a look at AA’s best offer

and US Air’s offer

and it was a no-brainer.

They’ve lost faith in AA management. Can you blame them?

They’ve taken a fine airline and they’ve run it into the ground.

US Air management may not be any better but they’d like to give them a shot.

They know how terrible this LBFO is. They're asking us to bite the bullet and agree to it so that they can try to get the merger through.

It sounds like a hail Mary pass when options are limited.

I changed my vote to “yes” by the way. I hope they know what they're doing.

 

[bluebird]

“I’m voting yes (mostly) because we need some seniority movement, I’m a 14 year fa, i could hold better lines 1 year out of training then i can now. Its time for a change.”

That’s what I don’t care for. It gets worse and worse as time goes on, not better with seniority as logic would suggest it should. But, it is what it is.

“When i hear fas who haven’t worked a trip in years something has got to give.”

They’ll have to work at least half of their schedules now. For that reason and with more efficiency, I can’t see the need for many new hires.

“I may end up leaving this job because i like dropping a trip or two every month and i know i may not be able to do that…”

You can still do that. In general, you must work at least half of your schedule to maintain employment.

“…The last thing I want is to merge with US Airways because their seniority will permanently keep me back to the bottom again…”

Does anyone know the average seniority of US Air FAs? Our union is strong, so that should not be a problem. They hosed TWA FAs.

 

[jimntx]

Can you give us a scenario under the 1113.That way we can compare which one is better.

Pretty much the same. I never said the term sheet was in any way better than the LBFO. Get over that thought. I'm just saying that a Yes vote is giving them permission to screw you over.

We gave in 2003 to keep the company out of bankruptcy. I ask you...where are we today? Did our sacrifices keep the company out off bankruptcy? Has the company honored the agreement they made in 2003 not to ask for more? Did the executives refrain from accepting bonusses to demonstrate their good faith and shared sacrifice?

What would lead you to believe if we give again, anything will be different down the road? They have no Plan of Reorganization. The "POR" is nothing but "let's take a bunch more from the employees and then maybe this stupid Cornerstone Strategy will work."

In my humble opinion, the word for people who vote yes is SUCKAH! I might have considered a yes vote if our sterling union had seen to it that a "no bonusses for executives until the airline is profitable for one year" clause had been written into the LBFO.

 

[kirkpatrick]

I think the nice long layovers are probably gone

There is no proposal to shorten layover times.

MK

 

[bluebird]

“I'm just saying that a Yes vote is giving them permission to screw you over.”

That is going to happen anyway--like the coming election—vote for the devil with the mask on or the devil with the mask off.

As a reminder—please don’t vote for either child-killer.

“We gave in 2003 to keep the company out of bankruptcy. I ask you...where are we today? Did our sacrifices keep the company out off bankruptcy? Has the company honored the agreement they made in 2003 not to ask for more? Did the executives refrain from accepting bonusses to demonstrate their good faith and shared sacrifice?

If you’d like an executive bonus, then apply for an executive job.

What would lead you to believe if we give again, anything will be different down the road?”

It won’t be.

When you voted for a Marxist,

you didn’t believe things would get better did you?

“…In my humble opinion, the word for people who vote yes is SUCKAH!”

It’s risky but the alternative is worse. Live a little. Take a gamble. Be grateful that you are employed.

 

[jimntx]

There is no proposal to shorten layover times.

MK

No one said there was. However, I think most people will agree that a "nice long layover" does not involve 17-18 hours in a Fairfield Inn on the edge of the airport with no place to eat nearby.

From the LBFO, page 6 (available for viewing on the Flight Service website)...
"16. Hotels: Eliminate the requirement to consider mutually acceptable facilities. Modify to give preference to airport hotels."

The company will no longer have to have APA or APFA concurrence in hotel selection. Think "which hotel is the cheapest."

 

[jason77]

Pretty much the same. I never said the term sheet was in any way better than the LBFO. Get over that thought. I'm just saying that a Yes vote is giving them permission to screw you over.

We gave in 2003 to keep the company out of bankruptcy. I ask you...where are we today? Did our sacrifices keep the company out off bankruptcy? Has the company honored the agreement they made in 2003 not to ask for more? Did the executives refrain from accepting bonusses to demonstrate their good faith and shared sacrifice?

What would lead you to believe if we give again, anything will be different down the road? They have no Plan of Reorganization. The "POR" is nothing but "let's take a bunch more from the employees and then maybe this stupid Cornerstone Strategy will work."

In my humble opinion, the word for people who vote yes is SUCKAH! I might have considered a yes vote if our sterling union had seen to it that a "no bonusses for executives until the airline is profitable for one year" clause had been written into the LBFO.

How is it the same under your scenario your 80 hour line would be worth 72hrs.You would have to work two more days for the same hrs.Also there is no 16 day schedule max in the term sheet they could give you 20 day lines.You are trying to compare the LBFO to our current contract, that is your problem our current contract is gone you either pick the LBFO or the term sheet its your choice.

 

[jimntx]

And, if you vote for the LBFO, you are stuck with it for 6 years. If they impose the term sheet, they have to continue negotiations under the RLA. And, even the NMB is going to become impatient after awhile. The company will have to start bargaining in good faith, for a number of reasons. You are commiting your future for the next 6 years to the care of people who couldn't organize a funeral procession. And, that with a "contract" that like our current one has holes you could drive a truck through.

Get back to me in 6 years and tell me how well the company honored this latest abortion of a "contract."