It's official!

[eolesen]

I suppose you could argue that point. However, that is not what the agreement actually says. It is spelled out in paragraph 4 and 5 in the protocol agreement. Mediation is suppose to settle disputes that arise in regard contract language. They seem to be accepting mediation as some sort of scheduling of what is going to be arbitrated. I don't see any self inflicted restraints laid out as to what is mediated. The company can say they will only discuss the color of the sky, but the languge is there that they must mediate (the contract) before arbitration.

 
Your answer above basically says it -- mediation is used to settle disputes that arise in regard to the contract language.
 
I can't think of any other situation where that situation would really apply, other than while crafting contract language prior to going out for vote.
 
In my opinion, the opportunity for mediation within the protocol ended the moment the two parties came to a tentative agreement.
 
You can keep wishing that the company will start tweaking the language and allow for a do-over, but it sure doesn't look that way.
 
Personally, if I were the negotiator, I'd consider that.  There's no sense risking an arbitration award that winds up eliminating any opportunity for labor peace for the next three to six years.  
 
But, I'm not making decisions at AA, and I'm sure that the current management considers labor peace to be over-rated...

 

[FWAAA]

Paragraph A5 of the protocol agreement is ambiguous; I don't know what is meant by the sentence "Prior to arbitration, the parties shall utilize mediation." Immediately prior to that is a detailed discussion of mediated negotiations and what happens if a TA is not ratified or if no TA is ever reached, and that calls for mandatory arbitration. Then, at the end of the paragraph is the lone (redundant, IMO) sentence that I quoted above. I think somebody screwed up by including that redundant sentence. An example of a poorly drafted agreement.

I doubt that Parker and Glading intended for that one short sentence to mean "mediated negotiations all over again until a second TA is reached and either ratified or rejected by the membership." A fair reading of A4 and A5 together leads me to think that the parties intended for one TA to be reached and either ratified or rejected - not that rejection would start the process all over again. If they intended for rejection to start a mediated do-over, they could (and probably would have) said so.

Apparently, that's management's take as well. The rejected TA took months of negotiations, and agreeing on a new one might take at least as long. Right or wrong, the parties agreed to arbitration if the TA was rejected.

 

[Onestep2flt]

 
Your answer above basically says it -- mediation is used to settle disputes that arise in regard to the contract language.
 
I can't think of any other situation where that situation would really apply, other than while crafting contract language prior to going out for vote.
 
In my opinion, the opportunity for mediation within the protocol ended the moment the two parties came to a tentative agreement.
 
You can keep wishing that the company will start tweaking the language and allow for a do-over, but it sure doesn't look that way.
 
Personally, if I were the negotiator, I'd consider that.  There's no sense risking an arbitration award that winds up eliminating any opportunity for labor peace for the next three to six years.  
 
But, I'm not making decisions at AA, and I'm sure that the current management considers labor peace to be over-rated...

I do understand what you are saying.  I also know what is going to happen during the arbitration.  That is spelled out in the protocol agreement.  I also have no delusions of grandeur that any mediation would bring significant changes.
 
Having said that, one has to read the agreement one more time.  As stated in paragraph 4 of the protocol agreement states that a mediator is used to facilitate a T/A.  Then you must look at this very carefully,  In paragraph 5 under steps if the T/A fails it says they "Shall" use mediation before arbitration.  While the intent might have been to state that the mediator will be used to reach a T/A that was already made clear in paragraph 4, thus not needed to be stated again.  Also remember that this is paragraph 5 under steps to take AFTER T/A failure.  This suggests two different uses of mediation.  First to reach T/A and then to work out disputes of language before going to arbitration.  Regardless of the intent, the language reads such that a GOOD attorney should be arguing foul on the company for not following the protocol agreement.  Instead, they seem to be siding with the company.   Your leader agreed that this language was there at the Miami roadshow. To not try to argue this ambiguity in the protocol language would be such a waste.
 
No matter what your vote was I think all can agree that you don't just crawl under a rock and hide.  You know the company goal is to sit and wait for the arbitration date.  This should not be the union position as well.
 
I know it was a monumental task to try to put the two groups together.  I know there is not a magical agreement that will make everyone happy.  I know there were people that voted no just to spite the union leadership.  I know that there were people that voted yes not because they thought it was good but rather they were afraid of an arbitration.  I also know that people voted yes because they saw improvements that worked for them.  There were also folks that voted no because they saw losses that the money did not make up.  This will be different for each individual.  This is very evident in the near even split between yes and no voters.  That is why I personally can not fault anyone for which way they voted.  At least the vote was a democratic process.  No matter what anyone thinks, people do what works for them.  I think all the judging of someone else's decision at this point is counter productive.  It would be much better to hold the company and the union to their agreement!    

 

[jimntx]

Once again...the union has already informed all of us that the company has specified that the only thing to be mediated is the protocol for the arbitration--and possibly, a specific list of items to be arbitrated.  If the union knows of some particular sticking points that caused people to vote NO, they can concentrate on those things in the arbitration arguments.  However, under the protocol agreements, the company doesn't have to do anything except insist that under the protocols and the law, the arbitrator find $92 million in the TA to remove from the final document.
 
Despite what some of your pseudo-union firebrands are saying out on the line, we do not get a do over on the contract itself or any further say in the contents.  We all agreed some time ago that a failure to reach a TA, or a TA rejected by the membership (which happened), would result in a sojourn in binding arbitration.  That means that no matter what the arbitrator decides, both sides have agreed to behave like grown-up people, accept the result as is, and move on.  We will then have (at least) 5 years to live with those results and maybe it will teach some of the new hires (I have no hope for the more senior f/as) to actually read the TAs in the future before deciding how to vote.

 

[eolesen]

There you go, Jim... confusing facts with emotions

 

[boston]

Yes to the question of a mediator being present during the negotiations, and if any remaining items were outstanding they would go to binding arbitration. The union was very clear and said they would use mediation to decide the protocol and what of the last items would go before the arbitrators. I agree that it is a contract, would I love to see the TA be put in place yes, however its an agreement between the 2 parties and its important to uphold that.

 

[bigjets]

do you think a deal that adds more time to the Bk agreement with no profit sharing is the best deal possible. In the meantime the company is reporting billions in profits. So sad to see such low self esteem.

The idea is to get the best deal possible, let's see who is right, I say the FA's would have done better with that TA and the extra $82m. And you say the FAs will do better with the arbitrator and or the company just giving them what they want.

Based on the fact that you have been wrong about everything I'm sure I'll win.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, I cant stress enough. A huge % of the membership at L/AA did not vote for any other reason than to send a message to the company and rectify the 2003 vote. I implore you to cruse the MIA terminal and ask the FAs what they understood regarding the process, and if they could articulate what they what would be acceptable? My husband ran into a friend of his who happens to be a FA from his hometown, the FA was proud of his vote and that AA is making money he said no to it, that was the only reason. Didn't matter about reserve, scheduling, training pay, double dipping on vacation, paid last seq of the month with pay and credit,
paid for trip if illegal thru no fault, moving expenses. 401k 9.9% contribution maintained 2018  for L/AA if over 50, little less for 40+,purser pay wide body Europe, Deep South&Asia $7.50 per hour, International over ride for those particular destination 3.75 an hour, $3 for all other Int destinations, $2 an hr for all speakers on the aircraft flying to their language destination, all vacations days paid- take a 2 week vacation or a toped out 35 day each day paid at 4.0 hrs of pay including speaker pay, split vaca 9 times.Just a few things in the TA.
 
They didn't like the like or understand the profit sharing equated to 50m, and it was built into the wages.
61m=DAL/UAL/CO worth
 
the combined 111m
additional value of 82m was obtained=193m
 
They didn't believe this wasn't sec 6, over and over it was heard...NO they can go back and negotiate more. They intrepid the "mediation" to mean if this rejected
mediation will be held to work out something better. There was a mediator at the table at all time, so that has already occurred, the word mediation to take place if rejected was to establish protocol, and what will be cut. As said and agreed to all signed off items are done deal.

I do not know how your language compares to your peers, but for me if the agreement adds more years and it does not include profit sharing its done. I would vote NO. It the added years and lack of any potential, actually extremely likely, upside. The average inflation is around 3%, meaning that in order for you to maintain where you are know you would need a 5 year contract with a 15% increase, thats just to lock you in at the post bankruptcy concessioonary rates you are at nowwww. With record profits why should that be considered acceptable?

I've said before that IMO Laura has done a pretty good job, but I agree with those who said they will not settle for a five year deal that may have slight improvements but is still in totality a carry over of 2003 and 2012 concessions. While it may be industry leading it is in fact industry stifling, it hurts the whole profession because it makes it that much harder for the current UAL Joint talks to produce meaningful gains(which in fact are partial recouperations. I understand the idea of the aggregate value, and since they are going by annual values I believe the Unions startegy shoukld be to cut the years, not only off the TA but off the current agreements which were made under very, very different circumstances. I just cant for the life of me understand why so many have accepted such reduced expectations and place such little value for what they do. Parker and his gang havenet reduced their expectations, in fact the more you give up the more they pay themselves. Didnt that 40 year old kid just buy himself the biggest house on the market in Dallas with your concessions?

 

[Bob Owens]

The idea is to get the best deal possible, let's see who is right, I say the FA's would have done better with that TA and the extra $82m. And you say the FAs will do better with the arbitrator and or the company just giving them what they want.
Based on the fact that you have been wrong about everything I'm sure I'll win.

And two years into the agreement when the company is bringing in $50 billion a year and your medical increases wipe out the paltry pay increases you would be the first one (perhaps under a new alias)calling for the heads of those who locked you into a five year deal.

Like I said before profits will wane by the fifth year. They will find places to stuff the money and all the other players will have increased their cut. The Feds will increase taxes, the Airport authorities will jack up landing fees, the banks will get the airlines to carry unneeded loans, with extrodidary covenenets and excessives fees onj top of usurous interest rates such as prior to 2003 when AA had a covenent on a Loan for $800 million that required they keep $1billion in cash. Long term contracts are never good for labor unless they have COLAs in them. This deal makes their current deal that much longer. I would argue that its unrealistic to expect them to accept an extension of a concessionary deal struck in Bankruptcy where only a portion of the savings from the new deal (through synergies) is shared with the workers and none of the profits.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Questions for anyone here that knows:

The FAs agreement for binding arbitration obviously locks them into a set number now.
Does it also lock in the length of contract?

Does the mechanic have a similar agreement that locks in both dollar amount and length?
Can the length be shorter?

If locked into a set amount, of course it would make sense to make the length less so you could then negotiate something better.

Does the binding arbitration for the FAs keep the length of contract or can it be changed?

 

[usfliboi]

Only economic issues are in arbitration ...with a cap with what arbitrator can award. That cap is 83 million less than what was in the rejected TA...my two sense will be that company will agree to let agreement stand at some point and either allow for a re vote or no vote at all. They have proven that they will not add more monies to the contract. In the last USAirways Ta that was voted on three times...no additional money was added just shifted around. In my humble opinion...you can take that to the bank!

 

[boston]

Bob, Its not that FA place little value on our worth, but we presented with door A or door B. L/US contract had much better flexibility. Both  good work rules and language.L/AA FAs had been wanting such flexibilities for a very long time and we were able to achieve this. We complemented each other. L/AA higher pay even in BK than L/US. L/UAL very good work rules, poor pay-less than AA. L/CO could be said their work rules are written on a napkin, however higher pay than L/UAL.
 
Some of would rather be in charge of our destiny than allowing an arbitrator to make the decision. I for one would also prefer to concentrate and focus on using accurate comparison with in my own work group. Worrying, using energy on what the pilots, TWU may reap does nothing but take your eye off the ball, your own ball. If I wanted to earn and receive benefits as the pilots, I would of followed in my fathers foot steps.

 

[jimntx]

Usfliboi, binding arbitration does not allow for another vote.  If it did, it wouldn't be binding.  The time to decide whether or not we like the TA has passed.  A majority said NO.  Despite the dither over the last sentence of Paragraph 5, the essence of Paragraph 5 is that if the TA is rejected (which it was), the two sides have agreed to put the issue to binding arbitration.  The arbitrator is constrained to "market aggregate" final awards.  As you have said, that means a whole bunch of money (there are currently 3 different figures floating around) must be removed from the TA, and the result becomes our contract for the next 5 years.

 

[nevergiveup]

Usfliboi, binding arbitration does not allow for another vote.  If it did, it wouldn't be binding.  The time to decide whether or not we like the TA has passed.  A majority said NO.  Despite the dither over the last sentence of Paragraph 5, the essence of Paragraph 5 is that if the TA is rejected (which it was), the two sides have agreed to put the issue to binding arbitration.  The arbitrator is constrained to "market aggregate" final awards.  As you have said, that means a whole bunch of money (there are currently 3 different figures floating around) must be removed from the TA, and the result becomes our contract for the next 5 years.

Anything is possible if both sides agree.  Hope our FAs reach an acceptable outcome. 

 

[swamt]

I do not know how your language compares to your peers, but for me if the agreement adds more years and it does not include profit sharing its done. I would vote NO. It the added years and lack of any potential, actually extremely likely, upside. The average inflation is around 3%, meaning that in order for you to maintain where you are know you would need a 5 year contract with a 15% increase, thats just to lock you in at the post bankruptcy concessioonary rates you are at nowwww. With record profits why should that be considered acceptable?

I've said before that IMO Laura has done a pretty good job, but I agree with those who said they will not settle for a five year deal that may have slight improvements but is still in totality a carry over of 2003 and 2012 concessions. While it may be industry leading it is in fact industry stifling, it hurts the whole profession because it makes it that much harder for the current UAL Joint talks to produce meaningful gains(which in fact are partial recouperations. I understand the idea of the aggregate value, and since they are going by annual values I believe the Unions startegy shoukld be to cut the years, not only off the TA but off the current agreements which were made under very, very different circumstances. I just cant for the life of me understand why so many have accepted such reduced expectations and place such little value for what they do. Parker and his gang havenet reduced their expectations, in fact the more you give up the more they pay themselves. Didnt that 40 year old kid just buy himself the biggest house on the market in Dallas with your concessions?

Yes he did.  12 million of the concessions went to purchase his new estate when he purchased his Dallas home.