Holly Hegeman FA smackdown!

[boston]

So BCFWYWF, Are you aren't you a FA, one post your confused about scope, and the above you refer to our side for weight and balance JS ect.
 
All Latin American Flight Attendants are American Airlines flight Attendants, and US based Flight Attendant often fly with them if operationally necessary,so will L/US when its when its all combined. In and out of MIA only.
 
To beat you to it, yes LAFA's flew into the US past MIA during the 1993 strike. They have yet to ever do it again.
 
Grasping at straws is so counter productive, and so exhausting. What union do you belong to or did belong to. The list is looooooooooooooooooooooooooong, and I've seen it who from L/US  and *&% that don't belong to APFA, so no voting for them unless last minute up. If you have nothing to do with AFA or APFA what your problem.

 

[boston]

Get the Facts, attend a roadshow, call the TA phone lines or ask questions at the fact rep tables at SFO,LAX,DFW,PHX,ORD,CLT,BOS,JFK,
or MIA (not sure about RDU) to get accurate answers and not hearsay.

 

[eolesen]

AA got them when AA bought the South American routes and keeping the foreign FAs was a wise political move for AA. There are fewer of them today than there were two years ago, and their numbers haven't been growing.

They are a holdover from the Braniff days. Many of the FA's back then were daughters of political appointees, and Braniff decided that it was cheaper to have foreign based FA's than to keep bribing the politicians. Eastern kept them on when they bought the route authorities in 1981, and AA decided it was a cheap price to pay in 1989.

I'm not an FA and don't know anything about your contract. When you speak of jumpseat, are you sayin that US doesn't include you in the weight/balance and AA does?

AA includes the cockpit jumpseat in the EOW of the aircraft. In the cabin, only the number of seats required by the operating crew are figured into the calculations.

My guess is that US's systems were too primitive to figure in the variability in crew staffing, so they just assumed it would be filled.

Get the Facts, attend a roadshow, call the TA phone lines or ask questions at the fact rep tables at SFO,LAX,DFW,PHX,ORD,CLT,BOS,JFK,
or MIA (not sure about RDU) to get accurate answers and not hearsay.

Yep. But that won't happen. If the naysayers push this into binding arbitration, try to remember all those who were spewing the fear, uncertainty, and doubt over the TA when the binding arbitration award comes out worse than what the TA had to offer.

 

[Onestep2flt]

So BCFWYWF, Are you aren't you a FA, one post your confused about scope, and the above you refer to our side for weight and balance JS ect.
 
All Latin American Flight Attendants are American Airlines flight Attendants, and US based Flight Attendant often fly with them if operationally necessary,so will L/US when its when its all combined. In and out of MIA only.8
 
To beat you to it, yes LAFA's flew into the US past MIA during the 1993 strike. They have yet to ever do it again.
 
Grasping at straws is so counter productive, and so exhausting. What union do you belong to or did belong to. The list is looooooooooooooooooooooooooong, and I've seen it who from L/US  and *&% that don't belong to APFA, so no voting for them unless last minute up. If you have nothing to do with AFA or APFA what your problem.

The point is. No matter how you explain it they still exist. They still make an end run around your scope. Does not matter that they are AA employees and have a union in their countries. Nope, they are not APFA flight Attendants and that is a run around the scope language. Does not matter that they don't fly here or there, or that they have not done it for years. What matters is what this side letter allows. It allows outsourcing of APFA member. This is not the case with the current US contract. So, play it how you would like. This is a very large concession for US side of the house. If this was not a big deal for the company it would not still be there in the form of a side letter they hope most won't read period!

Does not matter how you feel about any of the items we have discussed. Whether it be the jumpseat, deadhead language, insurance or no profit sharing. These are all concessions for the US side. Example, we discussed insurance and how it is a Cadillac plan based on current law. Intersesting little side letter in US current contract actually addresses this. IF the law affects the current plans then the company and the union will get together to make the needed changes. Then there will be discussions on the value of savings to the company. As it is with the T/A US side gets a one time taxed stipend to go to AA insurance. This is a loss to the US side because they will be placed onto AA insurance plan several years before the date which they possibly would have lost it under current law. I belive the savings to the company are going to be far greater than the $3000 one time payment that you will be getting.

The bottom line is you must look at the total sum of it's parts to determine if the T/A works for you. There are a few good things within. However, AFA always said you get what you negotiate, and if you give it up you will never get it back. The problem this time is APFA is saying they negotiated 193 million in improvements. Problem is I believe most of those improvement came in the form of hourly wage improvements. A big number for sure. You now must decide if the money and a few other carrots offset what you are indeed giving up.. Again, a personal decision you must make for yourself. I will not get caught up in telling someone else how to vote or call them names for their choices.

I believe you need all info good or bad to make an informed choice. Problem with roadshows and phone line is the union already voted to send it for a vote. IT MEANS THEY ALREADY ENDORSE IT! Their job at this point is to sell it to you. They will only discuss the bad news if you know about it and can ask it.  All they keep repeating is that they negotiated an industry leading contract.  This is something the flight attendants have to decide for themselves!  Yes or no it is your choice to make and nobody else.  Not a very democratic process otherwise!

 

[boston]

No, Latin American FAs are American Airlines F/As that are required to belong to their own county unions. AA get 6.6 & 9.9% 401k contribution,
US gets 3% contribution + 2.5% match and 1 time $3000, to bring L/US to about 8.5% in this category. Most F/As AA & US are getting the point its better to vote this in so we can be better positioned next time around when we do nego under sec. 6 ( how many yrs can that take???? ) Why would one wont to neo from a lesser starting point is beyond me, and just to say no to say no, isn't an answer.

 

[Onestep2flt]

I do not wish to argue with anyone on these matters.  I do want to point out a different point of view without calling folks on this board names because they bring up things that are not being talked about.  So, I am sorry if some feel offended that my views are not in line with the yes at all costs crowd.  I am well aware of what happens with a no vote.  Each flight attendant will loose around $258 in some value a month.  Most likely in the form of the hourly rate.  Pretty big loss.  However,  we don't even know where these numbers the union is throwing out came from.  What I think we need to see are actual line item values for the losses compared to the dollars. So, while there is a cost, sometimes you have to look at the whole package.  Again, I can not speak to AA folks because almost anything is better than what you have now.  For the US folks there will be loss whether you vote yes or no.  The thing about future opportunities and being better positioned for next time is a broken record.  This has been the mantra for the last how many contracts?  It seems to never actually come into being. The contract that the US folks are under is "The bridge to an industry leading contract in the event of a merger".  Amazingly, that is what they brought to you!!  Well, that is what they are telling you. 
 
For a lot of people the dollars will be just fine for them.  For others, the permanent losses might make them think harder on this issue. Of course, those folks were set up for failure with the forced arbitration.  Everyone has a different situation.  I would ask that everyone to read the actual agreement and not just the provided highlights.  Better yet, place the highlights packet in front of you.  Look up the actual sections in the contract.  I think some will be surprised by what is overlooked.
 
I keep saying and will continue to say that this is an individual decision.  There are good reasons to vote yes for some.  There are compelling reasons to vote no as well. 

 

[IORFA]

I'll take the current APFA contract over that mess AFA concocted for us air any day. While the current AFA contract has a few nice things, the money sucks and the entire thing is too onerous. The negotiating committee should have been proportional to each sides population. That way it would have been more APFA centric. Too much AFA filtered through. There is a giant reason AFA never was on our property. Anyone who brings up health care in this country is living in a dream world. Duh, everyone wants the Cadillac plan with the 100% payout. Problem is that some don't want to see that it is on the way out in almost every industry. For those that bring up the 401K match, they forget why we have it and what they got to off set it. Conveniently, I'm sure. We, AA, got it to help off set the pension freeze. AFA didn't get that for you. APFA, did get you $3000 to help offset the inevitable drop to our crappy insurance. The same plans that everyone at AA is on. So until I get the same $3000, no complaining about my offset for MY pension freeze. APFA did explain it, sorry you didn't understand.

 

[Onestep2flt]

I'll take the current APFA contract over that mess AFA concocted for us air any day. While the current AFA contract has a few nice things, the money sucks and the entire thing is too onerous. The negotiating committee should have been proportional to each sides population. That way it would have been more APFA centric. Too much AFA filtered through. There is a giant reason AFA never was on our property. Anyone who brings up health care in this country is living in a dream world. Duh, everyone wants the Cadillac plan with the 100% payout. Problem is that some don't want to see that it is on the way out in almost every industry. For those that bring up the 401K match, they forget why we have it and what they got to off set it. Conveniently, I'm sure. We, AA, got it to help off set the pension freeze. AFA didn't get that for you. APFA, did get you $3000 to help offset the inevitable drop to our crappy insurance. The same plans that everyone at AA is on. So until I get the same $3000, no complaining about my offset for MY pension freeze. APFA did explain it, sorry you didn't understand.

 

[usabusdriver]

They are a holdover from the Braniff days. Many of the FA's back then were daughters of political appointees, and Braniff decided that it was cheaper to have foreign based FA's than to keep bribing the politicians. Eastern kept them on when they bought the route authorities in 1981, and AA decided it was a cheap price to pay in 1989.


AA includes the cockpit jumpseat in the EOW of the aircraft. In the cabin, only the number of seats required by the operating crew are figured into the calculations.

My guess is that US's systems were too primitive to figure in the variability in crew staffing, so they just assumed it would be filled.


Yep. But that won't happen. If the naysayers push this into binding arbitration, try to remember all those who were spewing the fear, uncertainty, and doubt over the TA when the binding arbitration award comes out worse than what the TA had to offer.

 
eolesen,
 
While I cannot speak to the process at LAA, I can do so about LUS.  
 
At LUS all company jumpseat travelers are weight protected.  
 
This protection is gained NOT by adding the cabin and flight deck jumpseats to the aircraft EOW.  If you added the cabin and flight deck jumpseats to the EOW you lose the payload uplift possibilities of the aircraft when performance is limited and the seats are empty.  With two flight deck and two cabin jumpseats that would equate to 800 lbs of lost payload.  
 
At LUS the weight protection is derived by forcing load control to prioritize other payload to offset the performance penalty, ie freight fuel or pax.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yep. But that won't happen. If the naysayers push this into binding arbitration, try to remember all those who were spewing the fear, uncertainty, and doubt over the TA when the binding arbitration award comes out worse than what the TA had to offer.

If that was a sure thing then why did management agree to it? 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
eolesen,
 
While I cannot speak to the process at LAA, I can do so about LUS.  
 
At LUS all company jumpseat travelers are weight protected.  
 
This protection is gained NOT by adding the cabin and flight deck jumpseats to the aircraft EOW.  If you added the cabin and flight deck jumpseats to the EOW you lose the payload uplift possibilities of the aircraft when performance is limited and the seats are empty.  With two flight deck and two cabin jumpseats that would equate to 800 lbs of lost payload.  
 
At LUS the weight protection is derived by forcing load control to prioritize other payload to offset the performance penalty, ie freight fuel or pax.

Are you saying EO was WRONG?

 

[Bob Owens]

FWAAA, you did it again. You used LOGIC and COMMON SENSE. Stop it. It scares people on this board.

He also claimed I was wrong when I said that AA didn't need our concessions to be profitable and that in court the companies testimony revealed they expected to be earning nearly $3 billion a year in profits (without US).
 
He wants this deal to pass so AA can realize the synergies and he can make more on his stock holdings. He has zero concern over any Unionized airline employee.

 

[Bob Owens]

 Most F/As AA & US are getting the point its better to vote this in so we can be better positioned next time around when we do nego under sec. 6 ( how many yrs can that take???? ) Why would one wont to neo from a lesser starting point is beyond me, and just to say no to say no, isn't an answer.

Because your extended contract will lower the rest of the industry. 
 
Lets say you vote NO, and your language for arbitration allows you to bring in SWA as a comparator. SWA has been in negotiations for several years and they aren't going anywhere. Why? Because of your contract, UALs contract and what Delta pays. SWA is at the top of the industry. (I assume) So if all the other FAs are in negotiations now the last thing you want to do is ratify a deal that stifles those FAs from making gains. SWA FAs of course would be hit the hardest. Thats exactly what the IAM did with AA and a big reason why so many mechanics want nothing to do with them. You are agreeing to extend concessions from 2003 till 2020 at a time of record profits, and between you and the pilots thats where most of the $2 billion in synergies that AA wants is coming from. At the very least you should have Profit sharing since your agreement will have a considerable impact in generating almost $2billion more in profits for them on top of what they are already making. $82 million is not a fair share for the $5 billion/year AA could be generating in profits. 
 
Is that $82 million the annual value or over the five years? 
 
So if you bring in SWA into your determination of market rate and arbitration lands you mid point between UAL and SWA then UAL ( they in negotiations as well correct?) can swing mid point between AA and SWA and by 2018 all of you would be much closer together. So instead of waiting till 2020 to try and get where SWA is now you could shoot for and probably get there in 2018. If you agree to this and SWA ends up in a PEB they will likely be brought down and in 2020 despite all FAS being with a company thats earning billions every year and the real market rate for FAs will have declined.
 
I don't know what you agreed to, but why not at least try and get profit sharing back? 2003 to 2020 is a long time to be waiting to be in a better position. 

 

[AirLUVer]

Per the merger agreement only UA, CO, And DL will be used to build the floor of the arbitrated.

 

[eolesen]

Are you saying EO was WRONG?

Never claimed to know what the LUS process was -- just made a guess based on what I'd seen elsewhere regarding crew seats being included in the EOW and having worked with about half the load planning systems in use in North America.

If LUS is able to do it the same way as AA, great. It's one less thing for the automation teams to worry about. But it's still a methodology issue to be addressed, and one side won't be happy with the results.
 

Per the merger agreement only UA, CO, And DL will be used to build the floor of the arbitrated.

Oh, so Bob's assumption about WN being included was wrong, too?... Imagine that.

What I've heard from people better connected to the process is that in arbitration, wages might indeed wind up higher, but workrules will likely work out far better for the company.

Either way, the company will gain some flexibility that APFA has held back on compared to what's in place at UA and DL.