It's official!

[Onestep2flt]

I think what is important, is that the FAs are getting $82m less then what you would have gotten. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TA an improvement over your current contract?

AA improved the contract and threw money at you, but the NO voters were smart enough to see it as a proy by the company, and the union? As what a plan to give you more money, better work rules, and more vacation. Those sons of b******.

I don't believe there was a ploy.  My point is that according to the protocol agreement you would see "improvements" to what you have regardless of outcome.  This is where it can become confusing.  While all the things you list are improvements to the agreement that AA folks are currently under, some are either no improvement at all or a loss for US folks.  Of course, this is further confused by the outcome of the vote as the US folks voted by a slim margin to pass the T/A.  This is completely backwards from what I thought would happen.  This is why I keep saying it was a deeply personal decision.  A lot of people claim that the people that voted no were just stupid and were just sticking it to everyone else.  While I am sure for some that was true, but it would be a huge mistake to believe that most of the people that voted no did not understand what the consequences of their vote was.  For some of those folks they could not just give away some of the things they were loosing for the sake of a pay raise.  I think this was most evident in the US voters.  I will not say they were right or wrong because I am just pointing out an observation from speaking to different folks that would even talk about it.  Generally speaking for US voters.  They are under a contract that is fairly new.  It was promised to be a "bridge to an industry leading contract should there be a merger".  What they were getting was a watered down version of what they already had.  While there were SOME improvements there were also little details that actually subtracted from the improvements.  Were these losses greater than the gains?  I don't know because it is different for each person.  They had to vote on what was known, not what they did not know. For them it was not just about the money.  Voting yes for them just went to legitimize an ill conceived document.  You are telling the company and the union, job well done when this is not how they felt.  
 
I do not disagree that there good reasons to vote yes.  At the same time a good argument can be made for voting no.  These folks have been told time after time you should never let go what you already have because you will never get it back.  Also, during previous contract talks the union stated time after time you can't compare what you are getting with this or that airline because the work rules there are different or they get paid that because they don't have this.  Now all of the sudden, they are told that you are giving up Delta plus 4%.  What???  Now all the sudden they are suppose to except something they were always told was not a fair comparison.  4% of what?  They are different, RIGHT? 
 
I don't have all the answers, but this mess extends far beyond your 16 votes that basically split you down the middle.

 

[usfliboi]

Still major misunderstanding about this whole process... i really find it odd that the union doesn't just allow a second vote... We have 83 million to lose....arbitration isn't the answer...

 

[galley princess]

About 5 pages ago, I advocated for a re-vote and got a particularly nasty and ill informed response from Mr. TX, however the reality is that there was a mention from DP in reference to a re-vote.  It was responded to by APFA saying that the membership voted and that would stand.  They effectively quashed it.  Then, DP released that the company would do what they said they would, and proceed to arbitration.  So if there was a chance for a re-vote, I think it's gone.  That the company is within their rights to proceed directly to arbitration isn't really at issue, but if they have an out, a way to give us a re-vote, it's not as if they'll lose anything.  They've given the pilots a great deal of latitude with their timeline, something that is reasonably pointed out as a reason for leniency on a re-vote.  If they had held the pilots to their timeline, they would probably be in the same situation we are.
 
A re-vote is not without precedent on the US side, although kind of squeegily, I have to say.  The current US contract was voted on 3 times.  This was allowed by the company and pursued by AFA.  They did shuffle things around a bit, and it was probably still under a "negotiating" umbrella, which is different than this case. 
 
This  is relevant because it goes to advocacy.  Whether or not it was agreed to go to arbitration, if a re-vote could happen under the "mediation" part of the agreement, why not?  What possible reason does APFA have to not pursue it?  If they've asked and been answered, I haven't seen a clear reading of that anywhere in writing.  The stuff they did ask for wasn't for a re-vote on the TA, it was for a re-vote on an arbitrated TA.  Different.
 
Finally, this is a big old WAG, but I get the sense that DP would like to have better relations with labor.  I think he would like the TA to go through, SOMEHOW, because it is a better life for most flight attendants and it would yield better, happier employees in the long run.  You could see a difference after the current US contract and that was unpopular when it went through.  People are happier when they are better compensated, and despite many views to the contrary I just do not think this bunch wants unhappy flight attendants. 
 
I do not currently drink koolaid, but on this I just think that if there was a way to persuade them to give us another chance, the company would do it.

 

[jimntx]

Won't it just be heaven when the LUS f/as get in charge at the union and will be able to show the rest of us how it's done.

 

[eolesen]

Finally, this is a big old WAG, but I get the sense that DP would like to have better relations with labor.  I think he would like the TA to go through, SOMEHOW, because it is a better life for most flight attendants and it would yield better, happier employees in the long run.  You could see a difference after the current US contract and that was unpopular when it went through.  People are happier when they are better compensated, and despite many views to the contrary I just do not think this bunch wants unhappy flight attendants.

Yes, I do think that's just a WAG.

Parker hasn't exactly shown himself to be particularly interested in keeping customers happy on anything other than price, so why would anyone believe he'd be willing to chase a non-quantifiable and somewhat questionable halo-effect by paying employees more?

 

[Onestep2flt]

Won't it just be heaven when the LUS f/as get in charge at the union and will be able to show the rest of us how it's done.

Not sure where this comes from.  I don't see where anyone is suggesting that in this conversation.  This conversation is about the fact that this was sold as a "industry leading contract".  For better or worse over 50% found that it was not the case for them. Regardless of who is "in charge" that result will not change the results here.  I think that you should focus on the current people who are in charge and remind them that they work for YOU and not the company which for every appearance that they are just going through the motions and not using all the resources that were placed before them.  
 
There is enough blame to go around.  What matters at this moment in time is that you keep focused on fixing the issues to why this failed.  Instead of the name calling (not saying you) people should have a real conversation with those that voted no and find out what would have changed their mind.  It will be different for everyone but a pattern should present itself.  This might not do anything for you in this matter but might rally everyone together for the next fight.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Onestep, I can't quote, copy or paste, so I'll do my best to paraphrase and get it all in.
 
I've seen references to discussions where Laura is alleged to have said she would not allow a revote and that the will of the majority must stand.  I've heard of these "four points" but have never seen anything definitive that convinces me either that Laura or DP refused this revote.  I do think a revote would be best.  We keep our money and people's right to vote yes or no is preserved.  I think it'd be a yes the second time around.
 
As for "throwing money at me to get me to say yes", I say, keep throwing it.  That's what it's all about.  Money is the reason I work, I'm not ashamed to say.  But don't anyone accuse me of not thinking work rules are important, too.  Remember, I've been doing this for 42.5 years, have worked under close to a dozen contracts and understand work rules all too well.  Which leads me to the following:
 
This was NOT a concessionary TA and was loaded with improvements.  In addition to money which would have given me $621 more for flying the same schedule in Dec that I flew in Nov, here's an incomplete list off the top of my head of work rule improvements:
1)  Sick leave - accrual from 3 to 4.5 hrs per month (granted, not all at the beginning and I know we once had 5, but a vast improvement anyway).  Gone is the 80 hr cap on domestic and 85 on international.  Total accrual from 1000 hrs to 1500 hrs with more money paid out if you quit or retire.
2)  Vacation - from 28 days to 35 with up to nine splits.  Great flexibility here:  Fly 3 on 3 off, take three days and miss a trip and get 9 days off, still leaving 32 days to play with.  Pick up trips on vacation (not for me, but flexibility for those who feel they have enough time off and want the bucks.  Vacation days paid at 4 hrs instead of 3 when PBS comes in (for almost all days)
3)  Far superior trip protection.  I'll leave off the details for brevity.  it's all out there.
4)  Better reserve.  Newhires on straight reserve for a year, then 1 on 1 off then 1 on 3 off.  Good compromise between socking it to newhires (as US and TWA did with straight reserve) and protecting the senior from having to serve.  Better standby.  12 hr sits instead of 24 (AA's reserve sucks big time.  I'll gladly loan my old TWA contract book to the union to see how it should be done)
5)  ETB and the way open time handled far superior to what goes on today.  On my last trip I worked #4 to LAX.  The day before #5 was open (FC galley) but I couldn't trade.  Reserve who was called out ended up trading with #3 because she couldn't do it.  Ridiculous restriction.
6)  Numerous little perks like being able to waive legal rest and pick up a pairing departing two hours after previous pairing comes in.  Not for me but could be great for commuters.  Last leg pickup another example.
 
This isn't meant to be a comprehensive list but you get the idea.  There was good money and many, many improvements.  A purser on international with a language could, effective next week, break $70k per year flying less than 90 hours per month and get expenses on top of that.  Not bad in my book.
 
As for US, the TA is essentially their redbook with a lot more money.  Better duty rigs.  Medical was inevitable:  all employees will end up on the same plan.
 
MK

 

[IORFA]

Nice job Mark. You said it right on! I can't understand the people who even suggest the TA was concessionary. It was a huge overall improvement.

 

[jimntx]

Not sure where this comes from.  I don't see where anyone is suggesting that in this conversation.  This conversation is about the fact that this was sold as a "industry leading contract".  For better or worse over 50% found that it was not the case for them. Regardless of who is "in charge" that result will not change the results here.

Well, let's start with the repeated "AAmateurs" comments on this and other threads by LUS f/as.  Or, the idea that any union officer who doesn't demand that they should ignore the agreements we made with the company during bankruptcy to get the merger approved is incompetent.  And, comments such as "it doesn't matter what the negotiations protocols say" (I'm assuming  you learned this idea from the history of your pilots demanding binding arbitration on the seniority issue and then refusing to accept the results of that binding arbitration.)  And, using the pilots negotiation extension as an argument for us when we are in a totally different stage of the contract process.  Evidently, the LUS idea of union work is to agree to something to get the process moving, but if you are ever called upon to comply those agreements, just say no.  There's all this talk about not trusting the company.  What about trusting the union members?
 
And, your comment about more than 50% found the contract not to be industry leading assumes that all of the NO votes were based on reason, thought and study of the issues.  A large number of the NO votes are known to be based upon the BS spread on Facebook--such as "the arbitrator will give us a better deal." (I've talked with a few of the geniuses who believed that lie.)

 

[Bob Owens]

The mechanics should go non Union and hope for mercy from Doug

In 2010 TA, why did the twu structure the pay as a one time pay out for OH and a raise for line?

If bob could tell us why the committee did it that way, it would be nice to hear from one of the negotiators. Of course I'm surprised Bob just didn't get us SWA contract with OH and a pension.

The committee just accepted the company's offer. The international -Don- said there will be no counter offer, no debate, take it or leave it. If I had Dons position  I  would have pushed for compensation like SWA from the beginning, not just accepted the company's position that we can no longer compare ourselves to them (Crandall used to always compare us to them).
 
By the time I'd arrived in 2009 they had already been in negotiations for two years and already had a table position. Hald the Line Local Presidents had their brown noses up Dons Ass.  Every time Fuel went up a penny Don would tell the committee how many millions that was costing the company, when it went down I'd make a point of asking Don how many millions was AA saving. Luckily for us Don is gone, but the damage he did we still have to live with, people such as yourself who don't believe we are worth what UPS mechanics earn, who are ok with giving up 25% of their compensation in one fell swoop but say its unrealistic to expect to get it back the same way. People who forget what happened in 2000 when mechanics at NWA did just that, and while profitable, the airlines were nowhere near as profitable as they are now. People like you who would go non-union and beg Doug for mercy. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Nice job Mark. You said it right on! I can't understand the people who even suggest the TA was concessionary. It was a huge overall improvement.

Improvement over what? Its an improved concessionary deal, still concessionary. 
 
If you start off with $10, concede $5 but then get back $3 you are still short $2. Whats even worse is if you start off with $10, give back 50% and then get a raise of 50% you are still short 25%. ($10-$5(50%of 10)=$5 x 50% =$2.50 + $5 =$7.50, which is 25% less than $10) You seem to think that just because you got a raise that the deal isn't still concessionary, it may be less concessionary than what you have but it adds an additional year to the deal. The company isn't just giving you this, they are getting synergies in return. You are making the same mistake US employees made and its why eight years after exiting BK they were at the bottom of the industry, in your case even below you when you came out of BK. Five years from now you guys would be at a distant bottom as well, not to mention the damage you did to other FAs in the industry where your contract would be the new benchmark. 
 
Another point, do you consider a Pay freeze to be a concession? I do. Because inflation eats away the value of our hourly wage. This company is earning billions, they not only shrunk the fleet and the workforce but they raised ticket prices. When they took the concessions they said they could not do what they are doing and our concessions are not needed for them to be profitable. Even if our compensation was restored in real terms AA would still be more profitable than ever before. 
 
 
The fact is the deal was rejected and you are going to arbitration. I've seen where the Yes voters are saying that the no voters voted through emotion and not logic, well its the Yes voters who are the ones who are acting all emotional now instead of logically accepting that this is how it went and strategizing how to get the best deal possible out of arbitration. Perhaps a deal that would provide better opportunities sooner rather than in the next decade. Seems like some are hoping it comes out bad so they can say "Told you so". You should be saying how what was agreed to can not extend beyond 2016, because how can an Arbitrator determine what the industry average will be when terms have not been written beyond 2016? Airlines have never been this profitable, wages have never in real terms been this low, its a perfectly sound assumption that workers throughout the industry will expect that their standard of living be restored. You should be unifying like you did in 1993, not being hysterical about whats already done, that only helps the company screw you because they see you are divided and willing to blame each other for what they are doing to you. So out of this maybe you would get a smaller bump now but be able to enter SECT 6 talks three years sooner than if the deal had passed, after the company has a few years of record profits under its belt and your peers have also negotiated contracts with profitable carriers. 

 

[Bob Owens]

It wasn't about avoiding bankruptcy per se.  The members voted against a contrac which the company said would keep us out of bankruptcy (which it didn't when the company decided they wanted even more of our pay and benefits).  The union did not allow a re-vote.  They re-opened the telephone voting for a period of time.  The bad feelings came from the fact that you could change a NO vote to YES, but you were not allowed to change a YES vote to NO.  The company also implied that if the contract was ratified, there would be no furloughs.  I was furloughed 3 months later.

Are you saying they Lied? 
 
Of course that was then, they wouldn't do that now.  Right?

 

[Bob Owens]

This is all so sad.  I'll bet none of the NO voters has read the APFA offer to the arbitrator that actually shows the loss of millions of dollars over the 5 year term (ie: a raise that is substantially less money per hour than the failed contract offered)  Every NO voter that I have spoken with cannot give any factual reason why they voted the way they did without getting emotional about their distrust of mgmt. or dislike for LG.  IDIOTS.  You can't fix stupid.  

5 year term. Record profits. Why would workers want a contract that would likely lock them in for the duration of an economic upswing for the industry? Don't know if you were here in the 90s, but if you were you obviously learned nothing. You are right, some things can't be fixed. 

 

[Bob Owens]

And, they are all convinced that the arbitrator will give us a better deal.

Do I think the Arbitrator is going to give you more money? No, but that doesn't mean you won't get a better deal. Like I said five more years is way too long, five years made that a bad deal.
 
I'll say it again, the APFA should argue for a term no longer than 2016. And that would be a better deal not only compared to the failed TA but also compared to what you have now. What will the company argue? They would have to argue that the extra years have value which was not recognized in your agreement. If they argue that there is value in the long term then they are basically saying that its concessionary, otherwise then why is there a need to discuss it? In BK they argued that they needed long term deals to get the financing to exit BK, well thats no longer a factor is it? 
 
The Union has an argument because historically the company has assigned contract values based on the whole term of the agreement which inflates the value, by arguing for a shorter term they are on paper giving the company a less expensive contract. In other words lets say the deal is a $500 million dollar contract over 5 years with roughly $100 million per year, well you can cut three years off the deal and call the same contract a $200 million dollar contract. You didn't lose $300 million because you have not negotiated terms yet, and the thing to remember is that contracts lock us in, but they do not lock the company in, if things did get worse the contract would not protect us from bankruptcy filings or the threat of one. If anything labor should seek annual contracts. This would provide us the opportunity to share in the upswings. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
 
This was NOT a concessionary TA and was loaded with improvements.  
 
Nov, here's an incomplete list off the top of my head of work rule improvements:
1)  Sick leave - accrual from 3 to 4.5 hrs per month (granted, not all at the beginning and I know we once had 5, but a vast improvement anyway).  Gone is the 80 hr cap on domestic and 85 on international.  Total accrual from 1000 hrs to 1500 hrs with more money paid out if you quit or retire.
 

 So thats 6.75 days per year. How does that compare to the industry? How does it compare to what you had in 2002?
Most ground workers get around 10.
 

2)  Vacation - from 28 days to 35 with up to nine splits.  Great flexibility here:  Fly 3 on 3 off, take three days and miss a trip and get 9 days off, still leaving 32 days to play with.  Pick up trips on vacation (not for me, but flexibility for those who feel they have enough time off and want the bucks.  Vacation days paid at 4 hrs instead of 3 when PBS comes in (for almost all days)
 

 
Ok, that looks pretty good, that would restore us to 2002. The question is how long does it take to get there and how does your progression compare to the rest of the industry and what you had in 2002?
 
 
What were the concessions, other than Medical which will likely run you at least $3k per year plus the deductibles and Copays if you actually use the benefits.   During our negotiations the company claimed the average worker consumed $10,000/year worth of medical services. What they didn't say was that by the time cost of coverage, copays and deductibles were factored in around $7000 of that $10,000 came out of the employees pockets.