OP
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
Of course there will be road shows in all the bases. Right now the language is being approved by the EC
Industry-leading TA reached!
- Thread starter AdAstraPerAspera
- Start date
OP
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #17
WorldTraveler said:
Right, because you have such an interest in contractual language that affects you personally in no way whatsoever.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,242
Some Numbers:
"The proposal has 2 percent pay raises for years 2, 3 and 4 and a 3 percent hike for the final year of the contract. Also, the pay ladder has been shortened from 15 years to 13 years, meaning that flight attendants will get to the top pay rate quicker. Of course, the flight attendant corps is very senior, meaning that many are already at that step."
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/union-sends-proposed-contract-to-american-airlines-flight-attendants-for-a-vote.html/
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/09/flight-attendants-to-get-pay-raises-but-no-profit-sharing-in-new-american-contract.html
"The proposal has 2 percent pay raises for years 2, 3 and 4 and a 3 percent hike for the final year of the contract. Also, the pay ladder has been shortened from 15 years to 13 years, meaning that flight attendants will get to the top pay rate quicker. Of course, the flight attendant corps is very senior, meaning that many are already at that step."
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/union-sends-proposed-contract-to-american-airlines-flight-attendants-for-a-vote.html/
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2014/09/flight-attendants-to-get-pay-raises-but-no-profit-sharing-in-new-american-contract.html
OP
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #19
Can anyone verify if the hourly compensation is better than DL and CO?
jimntx
Veteran
Interesting change to Reserve...straight reserve for first 12 months; then one on, one off for 3 years; then, one on, three off until clear of reserve. However, on call maximum of 12 hours/day, not 24. Improves or maintains ability to pick up flying above guarantee up to 12 days/month.
Something I don't understand...there will be only 12 days off/month which is a maintain/or improve point. If someone is picking up flying on their off days to the maximum of 12 days, doesn't that violate the FAA rule of not more than 6 straight days on duty since they finally ruled that sitting around on call was a day on duty? Or, will they be able to say that an on call day where not used is the same as a day off?
Something I don't understand...there will be only 12 days off/month which is a maintain/or improve point. If someone is picking up flying on their off days to the maximum of 12 days, doesn't that violate the FAA rule of not more than 6 straight days on duty since they finally ruled that sitting around on call was a day on duty? Or, will they be able to say that an on call day where not used is the same as a day off?
Still no profit sharing for the AA F/A's? Not good. And BTW folks, it is NOT an industry leading contract as far as pay is concerned. SWA F/A's are paid more per hour as well as Delta F/A's (I believe). Too many ifs ands or buts involved to actually reach the industry leading pay the company is boasting. Like I said before, wait for the fine print to come out to really see if it's industry leading or not, don't celebrate too soon. 2nd BTW, are they keeping the AA F/A's and the US F/A's at different pay scales? And other pay and benefits? I thought this was suppose to be the new JCBA? Doesn't sound very "Joint" to me, it has sepperation written all over it. What is your opinion of this Jimntx???
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #23
apples to applies is that DL and WN employees including FAs are gaining 10% or more in profit sharing per year.
when those companies are consistently profitable - and the chances are that AA will be - for AA employees NOT to participate in profit sharing means labor is leaving pay on the table.
industry leading can't be industry leading if it doesn't match the profit sharing that other carriers are getting on top of their pay rates.
Regarding SWA in the pay compression APFA want allowed to use it, no LLC. However I read somewhere that SWA last week turned the corner and no longer considered an LLC.
According to US F/A's profit sharing contributed about 2,000 a years and this new contract will add up with out profit sharing 6,000 increase. The language is about done and will be released very soon,and this new TA is very rich in work rules.
According to US F/A's profit sharing contributed about 2,000 a years and this new contract will add up with out profit sharing 6,000 increase. The language is about done and will be released very soon,and this new TA is very rich in work rules.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,242
The APFA is "boasting" the same thing so I would start my argument with them if in fact it is not industry leading.swamt said:
And, I would be curious to know how and if the prefunding match screwing was discussed. To me, leaving it up to an arbitrator (like the TWU has done) always runs a risk.
jimntx
Veteran
I think you are misunderstanding the uses of LUS and LAA terms in the highlights. The benefits/work rules/pay will be the same for all. They were just pointing out that in some case "LUS remains the same, AA to increase whatever" means that LUS had the better option; so, LAA f/as will increase to the LUS standard, and vice versa. From what I have seen so far there is little to no "this side will lose whatever to match the other side" kind of language other than the handling of reserve.swamt said:
With reserve there is a slight reduction for AA and a definite improvement for US. The first year of service being straight reserve is the same as LUS, but a reduction for LAA. Starting with year two, it is the current LAA system--3 years of one on, one off reserve (which currently at LAA starts immediately upon graduation), followed by one on, 3 off until senior enough to clear reserves. Starting with year two is a definite improvement for the LUS folks as they were straight reserve until senior enough to clear reserves. I imagine the current LAA new hires with less than a year of service will be grandfathered into the current system. I don't see them making people who already have a taste for non-reserve flying having to go back to straight reserve until they get a year of service.
One nice thing for everyone...upon completion of the merger integration, all bases will be open to all f/as--assuming an opening in the base in question. I just hope that "upon completion of merger integration" doesn't require settlement of the pilot seniority issue.
I think you meant to say LCC (Low cost Carrier)? This is not true, SWA is stil the king of LCC's. What they (media and new airlines) have done was created a third group titled ULCC's (Ultra Low Cost Carriers) Kelly has stated one time a while back that he would like to take SWA into the ULCC's tittle group, but that would be nearly impossible to do. That would be like AA, Delta, or UAL reducing enough cost, workers, and future BK's to get their airlines into the LCC's tittle group.boston said:
You need to make more clear of your response and the numbers you state, not quite understanding what you are saying about the 2,000 and 6,000 increases...
You are correct. Thx for clearing that up. Yes I was taking it wrong from the start. I'm glad I asked before spouting off first. Very glad to see there are no complicated fences and restrictions for the F/A's to bid any and all cities once merged as one. Might the group try to get PS added as a bonus to get the contract to go thru? Or could the group vote it down and say, "add in the __% of PS and we will pass it", Never know, but I think the union nego team should have already done this. Again thx for correcting me Jim...jimntx said:I think you are misunderstanding the uses of LUS and LAA terms in the highlights. The benefits/work rules/pay will be the same for all. They were just pointing out that in some case "LUS remains the same, AA to increase whatever" means that LUS had the better option; so, LAA f/as will increase to the LUS standard, and vice versa. From what I have seen so far there is little to no "this side will lose whatever to match the other side" kind of language other than the handling of reserve.
With reserve there is a slight reduction for AA and a definite improvement for US. The first year of service being straight reserve is the same as LUS, but a reduction for LAA. Starting with year two, it is the current LAA system--3 years of one on, one off reserve (which currently at LAA starts immediately upon graduation), followed by one on, 3 off until senior enough to clear reserves. Starting with year two is a definite improvement for the LUS folks as they were straight reserve until senior enough to clear reserves. I imagine the current LAA new hires with less than a year of service will be grandfathered into the current system. I don't see them making people who already have a taste for non-reserve flying having to go back to straight reserve until they get a year of service.
One nice thing for everyone...upon completion of the merger integration, all bases will be open to all f/as--assuming an opening in the base in question. I just hope that "upon completion of merger integration" doesn't require settlement of the pilot seniority issue.
