Hot off the AFA66 presses...........

[Chicken or Beef??]

So after reading the arbitrators ruling I find the paragraph that says this.

...So the grievance was won but the company has to do nothing because the grievance had no penalty if the company didn’t change the policy back.

Do you think the company will change the policy for a few West FA flying on West metal? NO

Start another grievance and another 10K down the drain.

Uh, you didn't go down far enough...

THE AWARD



1. The Company violated the Agreement by the series of changes it made to the employee pass program following its merger with US Airways in September 2005.

2. For remedy, the Company is ordered to return to the pass policies as existed for Flight Attendants prior to the changes made in September 2005.

DATED: April 7, 2008
Santa Monica, California
FREDRIC R. HOROWITZ, Arbitrator :angry:

 

[sharonstoneseat]

And your class one buddy must not have clued you in on the facts surrounding the pass travel grievance. The pass travel grievance was filed because the company arbitrarily CHANGED something that was IN OUR CONTRACT. You can't do that, that is what negotiations are for and everyone on here knows that. It WAS not filed because people whined. In fact, most can live with the seniority based system because you know where you stand. The company didn't want to negotiate, they had a timeline on settling the non-rev issue and they didn't want any one's contract to get in the way....east or west. So, they went with the majority and rolled the dice as far as an arbitration. They lost. You should get your facts straight.

Filing a grievance is a voluntary act. They did file it because people whined and I do wish that Gary had been strong enough to tell the whining minority that most can live with the seniority system and that this grievance was a waste of everyone's time. Union officers are elected to use their judgment to choose their battles wisely especially juring JOINT negotiations.

So let's see if the new officers are willing to p*ss off their group of friends and stop this annoyance of asking the AFA for the seperate voting majority needed by West to ratify. Another colossal waste of time. They need to spend their energies getting to know and work with their East counterparts and the common goals that need to be pursued. The sooner we get rid of the West contract as it stands the better, and please don't start bleating at me about your damn concern for your 5 months vacation and the ability to drop down to zero when others can't make a decent living under this contract.

If they can't play well with others and see a very big picture they shouldn't have this job they wanted so badly. So I encourage them to come to a quick understanding that with the industry changes that happen everyday (Frontier today) that they need to get the bar raised in a hurry. More and larger mergers are on the horizon and the AFA is never going to set the precedent of the separate voting blocks. We need to look at ourselves as one flight attendant group and wanting separate voting just plays into the idea of separate groups and....... separate pay scales.

I strongly suggest that they uncross their arms and become knowledgable of things outside of their familiar sphere. Embracing change is not always comfortable at the onset but in this industry right now, that is environment. Think Darwin here and make the most of it.

 

[cactusflyer]

Oh, so it's okay to let the company just change things we have in our negotiated contract willy nilly? I don't think so. Trust me, if the company had implemented first come first serve the east would have filed their own grievance before the ink was dry and they would have been justified in doing so. Every eastie on this thread gets why the grievance needed to be filed. IT WAS ABOUT THE CONTRACT, and to not have filed a grievance over a portion of our contract that was wrongfully diminished would have violated the unions duty of fair representation. While I agree efforts should have been put in to OTHER arbitrations first, that is the MEC's call.

Before anyone starts implying that the newly elected officers are unwilling to work with anyone or get to know anyone why don't we wait to pass judgement until they've actually taken office. Has anything, other than the voting agenda item, given any indication of their unwillingness to work with others? No. I ask you to point to a specific example that shows they are unwavering or uncompromising. It might also interest you to know that initially, Gary had no problems with that agenda item. Dorene has already worked closely with east members not only on safety issues but the seniority thing too. Considering the years of service Lisa and Dorene have with the company, I believe they, as well as every other FA that reads this board are keenly aware of the obstacles facing our industry. I wasn't aware any of us got 5 MONTHS vacation. I'm sure you meant 5 weeks. To those that have it, great (I don't). The east is very aware of our vacation and would love nothing more than to inherit it. Neither side can be too quick to just toss out an entire agreement. Both sides have good things and we need to work together to try to get as many of those things as we can in a combined agreement.

Again, they haven't taken office and won't until July 1st. So, lets at least wait until July 2nd before we gather the cheerleaders and start a pep rally rooting for them to fail, shall we?

 

[The Bagfather]

I didn't read all the post here so pardon me if I'm repeating
anything.

The part about the ruling that I thought was brilliant was the
statement to the effect that changing boarding priority
for junior to senior or visa versa does not in itself add to
the overall package.

The old west guest pass was IMO preaty worthless. But
what I miss the most is the campanion fare. $20.00
plus tax implication. You could take as many people with you
as you had flexi passes.(or was it two per person)

As was pointed out above committed partners an designated
travelers are different. The main difference practically
speaking is there is a tax implication on the designated
traveler.

It warms my heart to see such a fair and just ruling handed out.
And I think it does have implications as far as future collective
bargaining. How much? Well maybe just a little. But a victory
none the less. Good luck to all on future negs. BF

 

[Skyward]

As was pointed out above committed partners an designated
travelers are different. The main difference practically
speaking is there is a tax implication on the designated
traveler.

There is a tax implication on both.

 

[flybynite]

Oh, so it's okay to let the company just change things we have in our negotiated contract willy nilly? I don't think so. Trust me, if the company had implemented first come first serve the east would have filed their own grievance before the ink was dry and they would have been justified in doing so. Every eastie on this thread gets why the grievance needed to be filed. IT WAS ABOUT THE CONTRACT, and to not have filed a grievance over a portion of our contract that was wrongfully diminished would have violated the unions duty of fair representation. While I agree efforts should have been put in to OTHER arbitrations first, that is the MEC's call.

Before anyone starts implying that the newly elected officers are unwilling to work with anyone or get to know anyone why don't we wait to pass judgement until they've actually taken office. Has anything, other than the voting agenda item, given any indication of their unwillingness to work with others? No. I ask you to point to a specific example that shows they are unwavering or uncompromising. It might also interest you to know that initially, Gary had no problems with that agenda item. Dorene has already worked closely with east members not only on safety issues but the seniority thing too. Considering the years of service Lisa and Dorene have with the company, I believe they, as well as every other FA that reads this board are keenly aware of the obstacles facing our industry. I wasn't aware any of us got 5 MONTHS vacation. I'm sure you meant 5 weeks. To those that have it, great (I don't). The east is very aware of our vacation and would love nothing more than to inherit it. Neither side can be too quick to just toss out an entire agreement. Both sides have good things and we need to work together to try to get as many of those things as we can in a combined agreement.

Again, they haven't taken office and won't until July 1st. So, lets at least wait until July 2nd before we gather the cheerleaders and start a pep rally rooting for them to fail, shall we?

The East MEC did file a grievance back in Feb 07 because it changed the boarding priority from DOH to year of hire.

 

[hpflygirl]

I have to agree the main point here is not whether we go back to fc/fs or keep doh for non-rev travel. It's the fact that the company is being shown they cannot just change what is in our contract on their whim. I'm sure if the company would have won this battle we would have seen them attempt to force us to take the crummy UHC Choice Plan instead of having the option to choose which program we prefer. It would save the company a ton of money and cost us individually a lot more.
As for returning to 40 guest passes as opposed to 8....I don't see it happening. But as far as the cost it really doesn't make a lot of difference in some cases. One of my oldest friends lives in Los Angeles and her elderly mom lives in PHX. When I had 40 guest passes she would use one each month to come out and check on her mom for about $50. each way. When we changed to 8 passes I put her on as my reg. guest. Now the charge for the same flight is $131. rt each time....and I pay the tax on that. She just used one of my buddy passes so she could bring her daughter with her and the charge for the rt was the same $131. only she is paying for that instead of it being added to my pay each time she travels. No savings there.
I also agree that bringing our pay up to what the east f/a's receive and giving the east f/a's full dh pay now would be worth letting this go by the wayside. I've been here long enough the doh policy doesn't usually affect me too much...once in awhile, but not often. Pay wise it would not benefit me much either...but it would help those in the 10 year bracket a lot.

 

[MOC A320]

Uh, you didn't go down far enough...

THE AWARD



1. The Company violated the Agreement by the series of changes it made to the employee pass program following its merger with US Airways in September 2005.

2. For remedy, the Company is ordered to return to the pass policies as existed for Flight Attendants prior to the changes made in September 2005.

DATED: April 7, 2008
Santa Monica, California
FREDRIC R. HOROWITZ, Arbitrator :angry:

I read this too. The grievance and the ruling have no consequences if the company just follows it's policy.
Do you think the company will change the policy all together or just for the West Flight Attendants for West metal? Ha Ha Ha NO

 

[legacy-to-LCC]

I read this too. The grievance and the ruling have no consequences if the company just follows it's policy.
Do you think the company will change the policy all together or just for the West Flight Attendants for West metal? Ha Ha Ha NO

well, take another swig of the parker kool-aid, because, it would violate more than one contract if they extended the "first come" policy on EAST metal.

HP Envy=we only have 24 years of existence...so, let's re-define doh. pathetic.

 

[sharonstoneseat]

While I agree efforts should have been put in to OTHER arbitrations first, that is the MEC's call.

Has anything, other than the voting agenda item, given any indication of their unwillingness to work with others?
No. I ask you to point to a specific example that shows they are unwavering or uncompromising.

I wasn't aware any of us got 5 MONTHS vacation. I'm sure you meant 5 weeks.

Both sides have good things and we need to work together to try to get as many of those things as we can in a combined agreement.

Again, they haven't taken office and won't until July 1st. So, lets at least wait until July 2nd before we gather the cheerleaders and start a pep rally rooting for them to fail, shall we?

We agree then, bad call and waste of time. By the way here are some quick numbers. If the West union had spent their time getting pay parity when US/AWA merged the operations certificate, even I, as a lowly reserve would have made $4800 more in 2007. There were leverage points at that time but no one saw them because they were too busy lamenting the loss of FCFS. No amount of paper passes or rushng to check in to beat out the senior mamas will compensate for the fact that I can't spend that money on my vacation vs. working through my vacation to make ends meet. They had a window of opportunity and they missed it.

Their unwavering and uncompromising attempts for the voting agenda tells me where there priorities are and who their constituancy is. It is the specific example and it is a big indicator.

No, I meant 5 months but we will do those numbers at another time.

So tell me again how supporting a separate voting agenda facilitates working together?

They will have every opportunity to listen to the entire membership and prove that it is not just about the old guard at AWA by July 2. As of this writing the only entity that has improved my income is profit sharing and A pay, neither of which are components of the West contact (from that I get lowest pay in the industry and tagging)so don't expect any reverence for the sanctity of the contract. If you think I or others have any desire to be separate from the hand that feeds us you are wrong. Right now all of this glee alleging that Back to the Future non-rev rights and separatist votng procedures is an effort for unified improvements for everyone is an insult to our intelligence.

We will see.

 

[Furloughd4now]

As for returning to 40 guest passes as opposed to 8....I don't see it happening. But as far as the cost it really doesn't make a lot of difference in some cases. One of my oldest friends lives in Los Angeles and her elderly mom lives in PHX. When I had 40 guest passes she would use one each month to come out and check on her mom for about $50. each way. When we changed to 8 passes I put her on as my reg. guest. Now the charge for the same flight is $131. rt each time....and I pay the tax on that. She just used one of my buddy passes so she could bring her daughter with her and the charge for the rt was the same $131. only she is paying for that instead of it being added to my pay each time she travels. No savings there.

Hp, with all due respect, while it is very nice that you were able to support your "friend" and help out so they can see their parent, WE as U are not here to support your friend's lifestyle. Your friend should live closer to their elderly Mom. In addition, what U charges you is not in direct proportion to its "actual" cost to shuttle our friends, family, and even ourselves around God's Green Earth. (or at least the Northen Hemisphere section of it)

It's a great perk, but somewhere, something's gotta give even if it is "just a bit". I am way more interested in receiving an income to which I and my fellow US comprades can live with and with work rules that support that. THEN we can and should talk about additional benefits that we ALL can receive.

Flight benefits are a priviledge. Too many people like yourself, take advantage of that simple fact. (and this has NOTHING to do with senority) I do not know about you, but the ability to pay rent and maybe, perhaps have some money for food and a some days with my family is a higher priority. Flight benefits are ALMOST equally important but again, a priviledge, not a right.

For you Ranters ... DON'T GO THERE h34r: and have a nice day

 

[TheNewLowFare]

I really don't understand why Gary even bother with this! It was a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY! A lot of us were getting used to the seniority based boarding and at least now we know where we fall in when non-revving. He could have used his energy on getting PAY PARITY . I'm so glad he got booted out of the office!

 

[ggiby]

Only Budddy passes and OAL are subject to excess baggage fees.

I don't think so.... my child had to pay excess bag fees and over weight fees when I was sending him home for the summer from college.... to the tune of 200.00
:down:

 

[ggiby]

I really don't understand why Gary even bother with this! It was a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY! A lot of us were getting used to the seniority based boarding and at least now we know where we fall in when non-revving. He could have used his energy on getting PAY PARITY . I'm so glad he got booted out of the office!

I have a question???

what is the pay parity difference???

I thought we were pretty much on the same pay scale...???

I know that the West f/a's have more vacation days.... but thought the pay is the same???

 

[Skyward]

I don't think so.... my child had to pay excess bag fees and over weight fees when I was sending him home for the summer from college.... to the tune of 200.00
:down:

February 28, 2008 FAQs

Q. You've told us that employees and dependents traveling are exempt from the
new baggage policy. What about registered guests and guest pass travelers?

A. Employees and any eligible family members listed on their profile aren't subject to
excess or overweight bag fees. Neither are guest pass riders traveling with the
employee. The only non-rev passenger subject to these fees is the unaccompanied
guest pass rider (SA7P status).