It's official!

[bigjets]

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.

 
 
This is why you scare me, and the company hopes you're part of negotiations again. Not only do you not realize that no matter what happens the FAs are getting a five year, and no matter what they are leaving $82m on the table, lets say the arbitrator gives the FAs profit sharing the profit sharing won't make up the money it left on the table. You want to giveaway $10 to make $5.It's not all a one way street either, ask a flight attendant if they want Delta's work rules, they will tell you NO, do they want to pay what Delta FA's pay for health ins, NO, do they want to make more then Delta FA's, YES, but now they will not because of the ill informed and guys like you saying they can have it all and throwing out info you pull out of your arse.
 
Yes we all deserve better, but it's time to live in the real world, Nobody gets everything they want, you get the best deal possible.   

 

[swamt]

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.

Jim, there are others out here saying there is an option to use mediation prior to arbitration.  Since I am an outsider it is getting rather confusing on what the true next step is.  I really wouldn't think the co would be foolish enough to pull something back already offered, but I have seen the mechanics union do all kinds of stupid things while working with AA.  If it were me I would ask tell the company to throw in a 401K match and go back to the original date and throw it out for another vote.  If the company does pull the 82 million and forces this thru AA will have many, many years of very bad relations with their up front and very visible employees who deal with each and every single passenger on a personal basis every single day, it would not be smart to piss these employees off.  Jim I truely hope you guys can work this one out with the company, good luck to you all.

 

[jimntx]

swamt, others have posted this info, but we'll go over it again.
 
1. The mediation prior to arbitration is under question.  Some say we've already done that part in getting the contract to the TA stage.  As I understand it (don't make me swear in court) a mediator was present at all times during the negotiations leading to the (then) rejected TA.  Others (and I include myself in that group) say that mediation is required after the rejection and before the arbitration.  After all the sentence requiring mediation prior to arbitration is the last sentence in the paragraph requiring binding arbitration if a TA is rejected or the negotiators state that they can not reach a Tentative Agreement.
 
2.  The company agrees with me to an extent.  However, they have notified the union that the only thing to be mediated prior to arbitration is a list of things to be discussed in arbitration.  If the union wants to avoid arbitrating the entire TA, the company is willing to limit the "topics for discussion" when each side is presenting its case to the arbitrator.  (And, let's remember, the company can pay its lawyers longer than the union can pay its lawyers.)  Details of the TA are not on the table for the mediation sessions.  It's not like we can say during mediation, well lets remove the Hard40 and put in a minimum number of hours to maintain employment, but have the hours calculated on a rolling 12-month period.  That sort of issue will NOT be discussed in the mediation.  If the union wants to discuss it, it can be a topic to present to the arbitrator.
 
3.  As I see it, the company intends to take the position (as I would if I were they) that the only job for the arbitrator is to remove sufficient money from the TA to make it match market aggregate.  How much that is is anyone's guess.  The union said that the rejected TA was worth more than $92 million over market aggregate.  Others say it is $82 million.  I've also seen 84 and $88 million.  Take your pick.  In any case a huge amount of value must be removed from the TA to bring it down to market aggregate.  The law and the negotiation protocols are on the company's side this time.  I wouldn't budge an inch in their position.
 
4.  The f/as have no right to be pissed off if they don't like the arbitrator's decisions.  Tough noogies.  They asked for it.
 
P.S.  We already have 401-K matching.  It replaced the frozen pensions.  If the TA had passed, the percent matched was to increase.  I'm guessing not increasing (or even eliminating) the matching percentage might be one of the ways to get the TA down to market aggregate.
P.P.S.  The company has been pissing off the f/a corps for years--they've gone out of their way to reach that goal several times during my vast career of almost 13 years with no ill effects.  Do you suppose that there is a masochism gene dominant among the f/as?  And, you must remember that the only two things that f/as truly hate are the way things are and change.  They are going to be pissed off regardless.  

 

[galley princess]

I basically agree with Jim, although I would comment:
 
1.  Mediation prior to arbitration is the one chance for the company to be wise, and the flight attendants humbled.  Forget the relinquishment of the hard forty- that's LAA's penance, not to mention a pretty indefensible cost, and let the TA take effect intact.  Flight attendants say "thank you" and labor relations continue to circle the bowl, rather than be completely flushed.  Highly unlikely.
 
2.  Trajectory at this point is straight to arbitration.  The arbitrator guts compensation and 401K match to get the 82 million.  The LUS flight attendants lose the 3K, thus ensuring dismal labor relations and intra- union hostility as the LAA flight attendants retain their 9% match because it was in their bankruptcy agreement. They're 24,000 and US is only 8000 and well you know that's just how things go.  It's $24 million after all.  Shades of TWA.
This outcome is basically a  certainty.  Brace for impact.
 
3.  See #2.  From the company's perspective, this misery was self inflicted and I agree.  That will be the response for the next five years.
 
4.  Ahh sorry, disagree with this one.  The LAA flight attendants voted this down.  LUS narrowly approved the TA.
 
P.P.S  :  Uh huh.

 

[galley princess]

There is one new development here that is relevant.  Apparently the pilots have an Arbitration clause as well, and their due date was today but has been extended.  This negates the idea that the company will not be lenient with one group so as to not allow another group to think they can challenge parts of their contract.  This is the second time the pilots have been given more time.  If Ms. Gladding has any sense she will be pointing this out OFTEN to the company.
 
At this point, most flight attendants with half a brain would meekly take the TA, and tiptoe away.  The TA is the best of a mediocre post bankruptcy contract and a bankruptcy contract.  It was a step in the right direction.  Did it return what was lost?  No.  That ship sailed, folks.  Either get off the lifeboat, or figure out how to make it work.  As it is, we were going to get a new lifeboat, but it got thrown back, and now we're stuck with the one that has been patched and leaks.

 

[jimntx]

I basically agree with Jim, although I would comment:
 
1.  Mediation prior to arbitration is the one chance for the company to be wise, and the flight attendants humbled.  Forget the relinquishment of the hard forty- that's LAA's penance, not to mention a pretty indefensible cost, and let the TA take effect intact.  Flight attendants say "thank you" and labor relations continue to circle the bowl, rather than be completely flushed.  Highly unlikely.
Problem:  If you read the output from the union, the company has already said that the only thing to be mediated this time around is to decide the issues the 2 sides will present to the arbitrator rather than try to arbitrate the entire TA.  The company has not covered itself in glory in the past by "doing the wise thing."  And, from what I have observed, I would say that applies to company management whether from the LAA or LUS side of the aisle.
 
I was just using the Hard40 as an example of contract detail issues that the company has said they will not mediate in the pre-arbitration phase.  (P.S.  I personally like the idea of the Hard40.  If you want to call yourself a flight attendant, you should be expected to fly on occasion.)  As far as I'm concerned, more occasions than not.  You can't tell me that a flight attendant who works once or twice a year (or less in the case of a number of the LAA f/as) is not a safety issue in an emergency.  I rarely fly the 757 (not senior enough to hold it).  When I do fly it I have to drag out my manual--not so hard since it became the tablet, but nevertheless--I have to refresh my memory as to commands, location of safety equipment, etc.
 
2.  Trajectory at this point is straight to arbitration.  The arbitrator guts compensation and 401K match to get the 82 million.  The LUS flight attendants lose the 3K, thus ensuring dismal labor relations and intra- union hostility as the LAA flight attendants retain their 9% match because it was in their bankruptcy agreement. They're 24,000 and US is only 8000 and well you know that's just how things go.  It's $24 million after all.  Shades of TWA.
This outcome is basically a  certainty.  Brace for impact.
 
 
3.  See #2.  From the company's perspective, this misery was self inflicted and I agree.  That will be the response for the next five years.
I agree also, but I don't think the arbitrator will "gut" compensation, however, it will be less than what the TA offered.  I think you're roster numbers are a little high for the LAA side, but using them (total of 32,000 f/as) and your $82 million number, the arbitrator has to reduce TA cost by $2562.50 per f/a.  I see the lead and galley f/a supplements going away, except for Purser and International (as it's pretty much always been).  A reduction in vacation time, etc.  That sort of thing.
4.  Ahh sorry, disagree with this one.  The LAA flight attendants voted this down.  LUS narrowly approved the TA.
I don't believe that I ever mentioned either side as being responsible for the NO vote.  It was pretty obvious that it came from the LAA side of the house.  After all these years of none of them reading past the page in a TA where the pay chart was placed (strategically page 1 or 2), why did they decide to start caring about work rules, et?.  And, are you telling me that LUS flight attendants have always been happy with their work lot in life?  I know some of you already.  Have to call BS on that.  LOL  When I said there are only two things that f/as hate--how things are and change--I was speaking of f/as in general.  I've traveled all over the world, and our crankies are not unique.  If FAs never came to work and still got all benefits and pay, they would complain about having to walk to the mailbox to collect their paycheck.  As far as being/staying pissed off for the next 5 years over something you (nor I) can do anything about?  Isn't that like drinking poison expecting it to kill the other person?   (Maybe I missed your point.  It happens.)
 
In response to your last post I would have to say that the company knows they can train my replacement in 6 weeks or less ( in a staffing emergency).  Not so with the pilots.  They're a little harder to come by.  DP and company are thrilled we are going to arbitration because we've laid almost $100 million on the table with a note that says "please take this back.  We don't want it."  And all DP and company have to do is assist the arbitrator in reducing the TA by that amount.  They can then say, :"We were just obeying the Negotiation Protocols agreed to by the union before negotiations even started."  (P.S. If I were in DP's shoes I would do exactly the same.  Business is business.  This is not about whether or not we are all on each others Christmas card lists.  In business, if an employee group gives back $100 million that you agreed to pay them, you quietly and graciously (as your mother taught) say, 'Thank you", and use the money for something else.)
 

 

[jimntx]

Duplicate post.

 

[Duke787]

I don't understand why you'll keep saying "if the company was smart they would just give the FA's the TA "

The FA's voted down the TA knowing that it would go to arbitration, the union and the company both said that. The no voters and the ones that didn't vote got what they wanted, an arbitrator to decide your contract. I think that was a foolish decision but that's what the majority wanted.

For the NO voters, maybe an arbitrator will give you:

work rules where you don't have to work months on end, or

make you better paid then delta (maybe the arbitrator will call DP and say, give the FA's an extra 5% to make sure they get paid more then delta FA's).

Give the FAs profit sharing

Give you more vacation

See doesn't that sound silly

Hopefully the TWU wont throw money back at the company, that would be very rude.

 

[Black Magic]

The key to this would be to know how long the arbitrator would lock this contract in for.  If it is for 1-2 years which will most likely be the case as they have to rule on current economic conditions now then the FA's will be better off with that result imo.  Here's why..
 
You have to remember back that it was Doug Parker who started the whole recent airline industry consolidation with the America West/US airways merger, that would be just a warm up and then he made a play for Delta, United, and finally got his wish to be emperor of AA. His vision was that industry consolidation was KEY to take back the airline industry to increase profits by higher ticket fares through reduced competition.  His dream has become a reality and now ALL 3 remaining legacy carriers are in the most ripe positions to see the most record profits ever!  The largest are yet to come and I would imagine be in the next couple years.  It's a good time to be a airline employee..
 
DP and gang are trying to hoodwink the labor groups into voting for what might seem semi-lucrative contracts now but are locked in for at least 5-6 years.  Trust me, these contracts are going to be small beans compared to what AA and other legacy carriers can afford to pay its labor in the next year or two.    

 

[kirkpatrick]

Black Magic,  as far as "locking the contract in" there's no dispute as to the duration.  Profitability looks pretty good right now but that could change very quickly.
 
MK

 

[jimntx]

.DP and gang are trying to hoodwink the labor groups into voting for what might seem semi-lucrative contracts now but are locked in for at least 5-6 years.  Trust me, these contracts are going to be small beans compared to what AA and other legacy carriers can afford to pay its labor in the next year or two.    

OK, and then what?  So, we may see some record profits over the next year or two?  Then what?  The history of the airline industry has not included multiple examples of 5 and 10 year winning streaks for anyone other than WN.  And, even they eventually stopped at 17 straight years without a losing quarter.
 
Let me opine a "then what."  At the next downturn in the economy where the companies would start moving those traveling employees back to coach from F/C, DP would simply file bankruptcy again (BK court tends to be stacked in the organization's favor over employees or other creditors--the idea is to save the company so that the employees still have jobs and there's a chance the creditors will get paid), get himself a set of bankruptcy-defined labor contracts, shed some unprofitable routes and contracts, and then award himself a bonus.
 
For those of you who've been around US Airways for awhile, does any of that scenario sound familiar?

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12953703/1/could-it-be-that-delta-enjoys-the-contract-squabbles-at-american.html
 
"What we're always proud about and what sets Delta off as a totally different company than United and American is our profit-sharing," Anderson said in his weekly telephone message to employees.
 
"For Delta people who have already received an early payment on their 2014 profit-sharing and, come February, will get the remainder of what is expected to be a total of more than $1 billion in profit-sharing paid to our employees, that means 15% on top of what your W2 would otherwise be," Anderson said. "So essentially, it's a 15% pay increase. No other airline is even coming close to that number.
 
"Some airlines don't have any of this and are proud of the fact that they don't have it," he said,....

 

[bigjets]

Wishful thinking for a two year contract. Even if the arbitrator gives a 2 year deal, doesn't mean AA won't delay contract negotiations for years, the FA's turned down the industry leading contract, it won't be easy to negotiate something better. I'm sure the APFA would agree.

 

[Mach85ER]

There is one new development here that is relevant.  Apparently the pilots have an Arbitration clause as well, and their due date was today but has been extended.  This negates the idea that the company will not be lenient with one group so as to not allow another group to think they can challenge parts of their contract.  This is the second time the pilots have been given more time.  If Ms. Gladding has any sense she will be pointing this out OFTEN to the company.
 

 
I believe you are incorrect.
 
APA is currently at the stage before your membership vote and currently negotiating. APFA negotiated a TA with AAL and your BOD passed it to the membership for the vote.
 
APA has yet to negotiate a TA and the BOD has yet to turn down a final offer or send one to the membership for a vote. In fact, we were asked for the extension by the company who claimed they were tied up with your negotiations. At the last minute last week, AAL finally passed a few bullet points for review, not even close to consider for a TA.
 
Any extensions will be pre-TA, not post-TA which is APFA's situation.

 

[AANOTOK]

 
I believe you are incorrect.
 
APA is currently at the stage before your membership vote and currently negotiating. APFA negotiated a TA with AAL and your BOD passed it to the membership for the vote.
 
APA has yet to negotiate a TA and the BOD has yet to turn down a final offer or send one to the membership for a vote. In fact, we were asked for the extension by the company who claimed they were tied up with your negotiations. At the last minute last week, AAL finally passed a few bullet points for review, not even close to consider for a TA.
 
Any extensions will be pre-TA, not post-TA which is APFA's situation.

If your contract is turned down by the members, do you then have a Arbitration clause?