It is $82 million annually. Some of the f/a misinformation machines couldn't ever get that right. Which is on top of the other $111 million annually that the t/a increased. As was answered earlier, to reiterate. WN is NOT a comparator in the arbitration process.Bob Owens said:
Holly Hegeman FA smackdown!
- Thread starter AdAstraPerAspera
- Start date
Thats unfortunate but according to one of your peers there isn't the spread between SWA and AA with the FAS as their is with the mechanics. Its around 40% with us.IORFA said:
Still think you guys need to get Profit Sharing, and no five year term. Its not a good comparator when you are comparing your future deal to UALs past amendable deal. Hopefully that point will be brought up in arbitration and at the very least knock the term down to allow you to set terms based on a current agreement in the near future instead of five years from now.
Well I did say "if'. Didn't assume anything as far as that, but I will admit I was wrong in assuming that the difference between the SWA FA agreements was wide like it is for the mechanics agreement. Unlike you I appreciate the opportunity to learn.eolesen said:Oh, so Bob's assumption about WN being included was wrong, too?... Imagine that.
Still say I believe AA will be a $50 billion a year company with a 10% margin within a short time frame and the FAs should get a piece of those Profits (as we all should).
Thats bad. I guess in their zeal to get rid of Horton they struck a bad deal with Parker. Hopefully they can argue that since those agreements are also in jcba talks (UA and CO) that they really can't determine a floor for now or going forward.AirLUVer said:
I need to correct earlier statements, the UAL agreement becomes amendable per sect 6 in 2016 and the CO agreement becomes amenable next month. Big difference is CAL enters Sect 6 in a month.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
There were several bad deals struck in the rush to get rid of Horton.Bob Owens said:
Maybe not you, Bob, but this is what you collectively asked for...
And now that it's been rejected by just 16 votes, we'll all get to see what happens with arbitration.
Onestep2flt
Senior
- Sep 27, 2007
- 386
- 155
Listen people, it is what it is. Your president backed you into a corner by agreeing to punitive terms is how I see it. Then your president changed terms of T/A in the middle of voting to try to swing some AA folks to her way or the highway mentality. That appears to have backfired somewhat. I still thought it was going to pass with flying colors right up until she twisted some arms of other labor leaders to say it was the best deal. While it might have been the case in this situation, it is the process of the protocol that made it that way. That issue rests with your leadership!
Now, instead of just saying that half the flight attendants were stupid and whatever else you are thinking you should try to figure out what the issue is brush yourselves off and move forward.
Again, this was a deeply personal and difficult decision for all to make. I know for a fact that a lot of yes voters voted that way because they felt they were given no other choice. It was not because it was a good T/A but rather the process chosen by your leadership set you up for failure. Some of the no voters voted the way they did because of that very reason. They don't want to send a message to the company or the union that they will except something because of the alternative put before them. This was not all about the DOLLARS for them. This was not willingly giving up things they already had that are just as important or more so than the DOLLARS. Otherwise, you can expect more of the same in future contracts.
Now what needs to be done is read paragraph 5 from the protocol agreement one more time. if it is not ratified it will be sent to arbitration. Read the last sentence though, it states; "Prior to arbitration the parties shall utilize mediation." This is in the paragraph for what happens in the case it does not ratify. This is separate to utilizing mediation to facilitate negotiations towards a T/A in paragraph 4. From my understanding this was presented at the Miami Roadshow and the president stated that that was true. She also stated she would push for it. No need to push when that is part of the protocol agreement! To this point you should be holding them to the protocol. Now, I am aware this is still not going to bring about the outcome that those that voted yes want but it is one more chance to determine what went wrong in all of this. As far as only negotiating the economics portions, I would only ask this question. Is not EVERY section of the contract economic? I have not seen a contract which has things within that do not contain some sort of economic value. The L6 side letter for the use of foreign nationals. It is not in the "economic sections" but to the US flight attendant has a huge economic impact. If it did not have any economic value then the company it would not be there and those folks would be on the APFA seniority list. Some folks have pointed out that they have their own union and are "employees" of AA. That is not the point. Point is this side letter has an economic impact. I would also point out that being union did not prevent them from being used beyond the scope of the side letter during the AA strike as well. Huge economic issue for all.
I wish everyone well. It is time now to get beyond the bickering and move forward. Now is the time to hold the company and the union to their own agreement which requires mediation before arbitration!
Now, instead of just saying that half the flight attendants were stupid and whatever else you are thinking you should try to figure out what the issue is brush yourselves off and move forward.
Again, this was a deeply personal and difficult decision for all to make. I know for a fact that a lot of yes voters voted that way because they felt they were given no other choice. It was not because it was a good T/A but rather the process chosen by your leadership set you up for failure. Some of the no voters voted the way they did because of that very reason. They don't want to send a message to the company or the union that they will except something because of the alternative put before them. This was not all about the DOLLARS for them. This was not willingly giving up things they already had that are just as important or more so than the DOLLARS. Otherwise, you can expect more of the same in future contracts.
Now what needs to be done is read paragraph 5 from the protocol agreement one more time. if it is not ratified it will be sent to arbitration. Read the last sentence though, it states; "Prior to arbitration the parties shall utilize mediation." This is in the paragraph for what happens in the case it does not ratify. This is separate to utilizing mediation to facilitate negotiations towards a T/A in paragraph 4. From my understanding this was presented at the Miami Roadshow and the president stated that that was true. She also stated she would push for it. No need to push when that is part of the protocol agreement! To this point you should be holding them to the protocol. Now, I am aware this is still not going to bring about the outcome that those that voted yes want but it is one more chance to determine what went wrong in all of this. As far as only negotiating the economics portions, I would only ask this question. Is not EVERY section of the contract economic? I have not seen a contract which has things within that do not contain some sort of economic value. The L6 side letter for the use of foreign nationals. It is not in the "economic sections" but to the US flight attendant has a huge economic impact. If it did not have any economic value then the company it would not be there and those folks would be on the APFA seniority list. Some folks have pointed out that they have their own union and are "employees" of AA. That is not the point. Point is this side letter has an economic impact. I would also point out that being union did not prevent them from being used beyond the scope of the side letter during the AA strike as well. Huge economic issue for all.
I wish everyone well. It is time now to get beyond the bickering and move forward. Now is the time to hold the company and the union to their own agreement which requires mediation before arbitration!
OP
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #98
That was actually one of the most well-reasoned thoughts I have read since the TA rejection, although I think you are being way too optimistic about mediation.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
Onestep, the process was agreed to long ago when AA was in BK and the unions wanted to assure the merger would take place. They (all three major unions) agreed to binding arbitration in order to give the court the ability to predict labor costs so that wouldn't get in the way of the merger. All the stuff about "market in the aggregate" was to insure we wouldn't be stuck with a less than industry standard contract from arbitration. Without arbitration they would have been in negotiations for years.
True, we didn't have much of a choice, just as we had little choice between the 1113 term sheet and the LBFO which was 34% better. But we did have a choice. With the LBFO we made the right one. Not so the second time.
MK
True, we didn't have much of a choice, just as we had little choice between the 1113 term sheet and the LBFO which was 34% better. But we did have a choice. With the LBFO we made the right one. Not so the second time.
MK
jimntx
Veteran
Some people just want to hold on to the ridiculous foreign flight attendant argument on the basis of "could be/maybe/never can tell what might happen" supposition. None of the dire predictions outlined here has happened in over 40 years. Yes, they "could" be used to fly trips in the U.S., but then after 5000 years of fighting among those Semitic first cousins, peace "could/maybe" break out in the Middle East, but it's highly unlikely.
These f/as are there because at the time, there was no other way to do business in those countries. If the head of the military junta's daughter was a flight attendant at the predecessor airline, if you wanted to fly those routes, you had to give jobs to daughter dearest and her friends. It's still true in some of those countries. Some of these f/as have never worked for anyone else. Do you suggest just firing them and losing those very profitable routes for the sake of union solidarity? You would also eliminate a number of IMA and IDF flight attendants at the same time.
Different countries have different laws. To do business in those countries we have to comply with their laws. Try not to be the classic "Ugly American" (famous book and movie in the 50's) and go around saying that "if that ain't the way it's done in Podunk, North Carolina, it's wrong."
These f/as are there because at the time, there was no other way to do business in those countries. If the head of the military junta's daughter was a flight attendant at the predecessor airline, if you wanted to fly those routes, you had to give jobs to daughter dearest and her friends. It's still true in some of those countries. Some of these f/as have never worked for anyone else. Do you suggest just firing them and losing those very profitable routes for the sake of union solidarity? You would also eliminate a number of IMA and IDF flight attendants at the same time.
Different countries have different laws. To do business in those countries we have to comply with their laws. Try not to be the classic "Ugly American" (famous book and movie in the 50's) and go around saying that "if that ain't the way it's done in Podunk, North Carolina, it's wrong."
The way I see it at this point. Our best bet to possibly keep what they offered is to demand profit sharing. Even though it is a red herring and wAAy over valued by the no voters. One group of morons in LAX used their calculator and decided it would be $18,000 per employee. His calculator was seriously broken. That is like 30% of base wages for a topped out F/A. Not going to happen, ever. If Parker really wants to get rid of profit sharing, have the arbitrator give us what they offered with a penalty or 2 to show the other unions that there really are consequences to saying no. Penalty one, make the hard 40, 45. Penalty 2, add at least one pay step back or both. Penalty 3, still no profit sharing. Nothing stopping AA from agreeing to have the arbitrator give us more than they need to, to keep peace. They, AA, still win in the end and we, Apfa, still lose out on $$$. That means there is no vote needed to implement as well.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
"Rearranging the furniture" they call it. It was the impending merger which shocked them into voting yes so they'd have a contract to start with.
That's what our "mediation" will be. Deciding how to arrange how to extract 82 mil from pay, sick leave, vacation, 401k and medical benefits.
MK
That's what our "mediation" will be. Deciding how to arrange how to extract 82 mil from pay, sick leave, vacation, 401k and medical benefits.
MK
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sun Country Airlines after first NMB Mediated session- Latest: CorvetteMan