It's official!

[usfliboi]

I still can't believe the misunderstanding of the this process. MK hasn't seen where Laura refused a revote that Doug has said he would be fine with? Are you guys not members of apfa? Are you not getting the updated hotline messages from the union?

 

[johnny kat]

The NO voters are already being singled out.  And when asked to clarify why they voted NO none of them can give a lucid response without becoming emotional on the subject.  Most F/As I know voted yes and are simply fed up with the resounding ignorance and stupidity of these people.  This is causing a lot of jumpseat turmoil.  Most of the big mouth NO voters have begun to shut up with their ignorant uninformed rants.  Every time I look at these folks I am reminded why my salary is less than what it could be and to be frank I have no use for any of them. 

 

[FWAAA]

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.

The legacy US FA contract was ratified in early 2013 and becomes amendable in 2018, IIRC. The legacy AA FA bankruptcy contract was ratified in mid-2012 and becomes amendable in mid-2017, IIRC. You're argued repeatedly that the combined contract should be for no more than two years. Is it typical for combined CBAs in mergers like this to have a shorter term than the term of either of the combining workgroups?

Sure, two year contracts would be better than five or six years, but the company and the FAs already agreed on five years. The arbitration panel is limited in their discretion - the company and the FAs agreed in 2013 on the parameters of the arbitration. While there's a remote possibility that something else may happen, it's likely that the arbitration panel will simply impose the agreed-upon TA (five year term) but with about $400 million less in pay raises in the aggregate ($80 million a year for five years).

 

[bigjets]

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. 

 
Thanks for the info, and I do appreciate the work and the sacrifice the local leaders have done.
 
I do believe we deserve UPS wages, but I think that is a fight we won't win. I do think getting better then Delta is something that is attainable based on Delta is our nearest competitor and AA offered the APFA better then Delta contract.

 

[Bob Owens]

The legacy US FA contract was ratified in early 2013 and becomes amendable in 2018, IIRC. The legacy AA FA bankruptcy contract was ratified in mid-2012 and becomes amendable in mid-2017, IIRC. You're argued repeatedly that the combined contract should be for no more than two years. Is it typical for combined CBAs in mergers like this to have a shorter term than the term of either of the combining workgroups?

Sure, two year contracts would be better than five or six years, but the company and the FAs already agreed on five years. The arbitration panel is limited in their discretion - the company and the FAs agreed in 2013 on the parameters of the arbitration. While there's a remote possibility that something else may happen, it's likely that the arbitration panel will simply impose the agreed-upon TA (five year term) but with about $400 million less in pay raises in the aggregate ($80 million a year for five years).

 
Whats typical about this whole deal? The fact is they could ride it out the full length of the original contract and not get the synergies they need to reach their objectives. The US FA could keep their good medical and I believe our FAs have better medical than we have. 
 
Sure both sides agreed to 5 years but as you pointed out with $400 million more on the table. The fact is the FAs turned this contract down, the question is why? I doubt it can be argued that they turned it down because they didn't want the extra money. If the Arbitrator is supposed to base his award on industry aggregate how can he predict what industry aggregate will be beyond 2016? Just as he is confined by the amount he can award the FAs should also argue that the same language confines the term unless he awards language like the IAM once had that said they stay 1% above what everyone else gets. 
 
We ratified a deal in 2001 that wasn't supposed to become amendable till 2005, but we ended up with a new deal in 2003. Its got to work both ways or eventually it won't work at all. 

 

[johnny kat]

Does anyone really believe the arbitrator is going to pull a rabbit out of his A@@ and suddenly give the F/As a better deal than what was already agreed to by the union and the company?  Just go ask the pilots what they think of arbitrators.  We don't see them asking for an arbitrator and they are negotiating in part to avoid what the f/as have just done to themselves.  As they should.  The only reason I can glean from the f/a no voters is something vaguely about health insurance premiums going up, profit sharing and how they hate the company and Laura Glading before they go into their "victim" tirade and "lets stick it to the man" rants right after the "we don't need no stink'n pay raise" cause we're stupid chants.
 
Why on earth would the company want the f/as' to have a re-vote?  When the other work groups are also coming along the same path.  The company has no reason to back track on this and appear weak in front of the other groups just to help the poor dumb f/as out.  As much as the f/as may want a re-vote at this point it is unlikely it will happen.  The f/as have done it to themselves.  I wish the arbitrator would save us from ourselves but I live in reality unlike the NO voters.  No one to blame here but ourselves.

 

[Bob Owens]

There were lots of pay protection in the contract that AA does not have. Which is part of the massive front end.

Massive? How much of a massive pay cut did you give in 2003? You do realize that if you take a 9% pay cut, then get a 9% raise that you still end up with a pay cut right? Do the math. $50/hr x 9% =(-)$4.50 or a new wage of $45.50, $45.50 x 9% = $4.09 + $45.50=$49.59.  The higher the percentage the greater the loss. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Thanks for the info, and I do appreciate the work and the sacrifice the local leaders have done.
 
I do believe we deserve UPS wages, but I think that is a fight we won't win. I do think getting better then Delta is something that is attainable based on Delta is our nearest competitor and AA offered the APFA better then Delta contract.

Just because you may not win doesn't mean you shouldn't try. So the worst that happens is you end up a few pennies above Delta, but if thats what you are aiming for then its more likely you will end up with less. In reality we should be aiming above UPS. 

 

[bigjets]

Just because you may not win doesn't mean you shouldn't try. So the worst that happens is you end up a few pennies above Delta, but if thats what you are aiming for then its more likely you will end up with less. In reality we should be aiming above UPS.

Or we can do it your way where you will not accept reality and be so far apart from AA that we will be garenteed of a arbitrated substandard contract.

As far as the APFA TA, you keep saying what they should have done, and what AAs finances will be 2 years from now, but the BIG fact you seem to ignore is that the VOTE was for one of two options.

The TA as it was or an arbitrated contract minus $82m.

That was it plane and simple, and your kind of thinking will cost each FA thousands of dollars and maybe work rules.

 

[AirLUVer]

Massive? How much of a massive pay cut did you give in 2003? You do realize that if you take a 9% pay cut, then get a 9% raise that you still end up with a pay cut right? Do the math. $50/hr x 9% =(-)$4.50 or a new wage of $45.50, $45.50 x 9% = $4.09 + $45.50=$49.59.  The higher the percentage the greater the loss.

Bob you don't get paid the same as flight crews. There are lots of other pay related items that you don't get as someone working in the plane.

Pay protection that AA had negotiated in this contract is probably worth on the upwards of $25 - $50 million dollars per year to the union.

If a FA has a trip that cancels all or part of, the FA know has entitlement to pay for the entire value of the trip. For instance I have a four day trip that is worth 22 hours of pay, if I show up for the first flight and it cancels once I arrive at the airport and the scheduler doesn't have something else for me to do, I get paid for my four day trip. If all they have is a single day turn around I get paid my four day trip. I do have to remain reasonably available to get pay protected, but if I do and nothing gets offered to me I still get paid.

This pay protection only happens now for the last trip of the month, if the TA had been voted in, I would be getting that for my entire schedule.

 

[usfliboi]

Still amazes me that people somehow think we will ever get wages of pre 2000.....

 

[kirkpatrick]

We would have under the TA.  But not with inflation figured in.
 
MK

 

[Bob Owens]

Still amazes me that people somehow think we will ever get wages of pre 2000.....

It amazes me that despite record breaking Billion dollar profits some are willing to accept less. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Or we can do it your way where you will not accept reality and be so far apart from AA that we will be garenteed of a arbitrated substandard contract.

As far as the APFA TA, you keep saying what they should have done, and what AAs finances will be 2 years from now, but the BIG fact you seem to ignore is that the VOTE was for one of two options.

 

No I keep saying what they should do now. I didn't comment on the APFA contract until the voting was pretty much done, the only thing I said was I would never vote for a five year contract (which extends the BK contract) without profit sharing. 
 
Look at this for what it is, 9% followed by three 2% raises. As you know the raises we get are quickly absorbed by increases to our medical and don't even keep us at pace with inflation. Factor in the average inflation (3%) over 5 years and you can subtract 15%, or pretty much everything they got, their standard of living will be the same as it is now, while the company is earning billions.They have a wage that is comparable at the moment to their competitors but no profit sharing, all the wages in this industry were structured around profit sharing. Delta FAs are likely to see an additional 15% added to their compensation through profit sharing. 
 
Show me an arbitrated contract under the RLA that has been substandard. 

 

[eolesen]

Show me an arbitrated contract under the RLA that has been substandard.

Again, you seem to be confused about this being a Section 6 negotiation. This ain't a PEB, where politicians get to drive the result.