It's official!

[Bob Owens]

Here is the full NPA. I can't believe that you have been commenting on this and have not even read it?

https://www.apfa.org/images/negotiations/negotiations-protocol-agreement-2014.pdf

Read it but its not in a form that can be cut and pasted. I do not see where it says what he claims it says. What I saw it says is "any outstanding disputes, including but not limited to ,,,,,,.
 
Nowhere do I see language that says they can't challenge the five year term or the 2018 term. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Market aggregate

Ok, "market aggregate, so the arbitrator will not give them the $84 million, now show me how that says they have to agree to a five year term  when both the other contracts become amendable by 2016? 
 
You can't say that there is no risk for the company in going to arbitration otherwise thats where they would have ended up in the first place. 

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Read it but its not in a form that can be cut and pasted. I do not see where it says what he claims it says. What I saw it says is "any outstanding disputes, including but not limited to ,,,,,,.
 
Nowhere do I see language that says they can't challenge the five year term or the 2018 term.

I agree with you that they can ask. The problem is that they have a T/A with the duration that was not in dispute.

They should have done a survey to see what issues would have changed a no to a yes, then took that to the arbitration in their position.

Thanks 700 for posting the arbitration position of the APFA.

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree with you that they can ask. The problem is that they have a T/A with the duration that was not in dispute.

They should have done a survey to see what issues would have changed a no to a yes, then took that to the arbitration in their position.

Thanks 700 for posting the arbitration position of the APFA

Ok see what you mean, (didn't see that document)  if the board accepts the APFA proposal for settlement then they would get profit sharing and if UAL gets a better deal the APFA  deal gets adjusted. It doesn't harm the UAL FAs because they can argue that its demands won't be a burden because AA, the largest carrier will have to match. I would have gone for the shorter term but the me too with UAL is a good settlement. In the end they could end up with more than the $80 million they are talking about. 

 

[usfliboi]

Thank you for your email.

The APFA Board of Directors met on November 19th and reaffirmed that the members have spoken and the balloting process must be respected. The results of the balloting will stand.

Please let me know if you have any more concerns or questions.

In Unity,

Jennifer


Jennifer Brissette
Assistant to President Laura Glading
Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA)
817.540.0108 ext 8750
Proudly Representing the Flight Attendants of American Airlines
Twitter: @apfaunity | www.apfa.org | Facebook: /apfaunity

 

[usfliboi]

I guess you still don't get it, the NPA is quite clear they can only figure out how to cut the money not change the duration or get gains.

I don't agree with 700 often however he is spot on...it amazes me how many folks are still I. Denial...

 

[usfliboi]

Interesting article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-finger/more-labor-troubles-at-am_b_6248310.html

 

[Bob Owens]

Interesting article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-finger/more-labor-troubles-at-am_b_6248310.html

Pretty good and spot on about profit sharing and the new reality where four carriers control 90% of the market, but one error is the FAs did not have strike as an option, these are not Section Six negotiations. The weapon they have is denying AA millions in synergies. 
 
With four big carriers controlling 90% of the traffic, they are an oligopoly, so fare wars and upstart competition will not be as much of a factor as they used to be, the big three are so big they can wipe out any upstart they want to by flying head to head at lower fares and jacking up fares where they don't have competition. 
 
Thats why we will never see a strike at the big three, so the best strategy when times are good is to get to impasse as quick as possible and get to a PEB. When times are bad, kick the can down the road. Workers should push for automatic Cola increases that are annual, no end date, so if you get bogged down you still get raises, like they do in the Rails.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Interesting article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-finger/more-labor-troubles-at-am_b_6248310.html

And lifetime A5 benefits.

Issued by e.

 

[commavia]

Interesting article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-finger/more-labor-troubles-at-am_b_6248310.html

 
Yikes.  A "screenwriter" from Houston.  Fantastic.
 
First, we start with his presumption to know how all flight attendants (and perhaps all airline employees?) perceive their compensation and risk tolerance:
 
"American Airlines has done it wrong. Unlike the other three big carriers that have profit-sharing plans with their employees, AA management has taken an us-versus-you approach that has alienated workers."
 
Did it ever occur to this guy that perhaps many AA employees don't view it as "wrong" to take certain pay increases in their paycheck as opposed to the potential for profit sharing?  Given all that has happened in the industry in general, let alone at AA in particular, does he honestly think that every AA flight attendant would have been happy to accept smaller wages in exchange for the chance at profit sharing?
 
But whatever credibility this guy may have had ends with:
 
"With no statistical backup, flight attendants were told that if they rejected the 'Tentative Agreement' they would be forced into arbitration and would receive $82 million annually less than the 'Tentative Agreement'." (emphasis mine)
 
First off, the "backup" would have been contractual, not statistical, and perhaps the arbitration protocol agreement wasn't clear enough?
 
The hilarity of this "article" then slips into pure delusion with:
 
"American Airlines will be profitable no matter who is at the helm. This structural dysfunction suggests it would take little more than trained monkey to run any of these airline boardrooms."
 
Everyone take note of AA's ensured profitability - no matter what happens in the world, and no matter who the CEO is - the next time there is a global security event, recession or a moron becomes CEO.
 
Finally, he concludes with more allegedly-unanswered questions to which the union has already provided ample answers:
 
"Why did she agree to binding arbitration, taking away the one true labor hammer, to strike? Flight attendants I have spoken to tell me details are scant as to why they are being told they will get $82 million less annually in arbitration."
 
Again - did this guy, let alone the "flight attendants [he's] spoken to," take a minute to look at YouTube?  I watched all of the union's videos, and I'm not even an APFA member.  On multiple occasions, and in multiple venues, Ms Glading explained quite clearly why the union(s) agreed to binding arbitration - because the creditors committee required it in order to get more clarity on labor cost projections in a merger scenario.  One can agree or disagree about whether the "get" of the merger was worth giving up the threat of a strike in any post-merger negotiations, but either way anyone who claims that they don't know about this reasoning is either willingly or unwillingly ignorant of the facts provided.

 

[WorldTraveler]

one would have to roll their eyes all the way to the back of their heads to not be able to recognize that the airlines have the best chance of profitability since deregulation - and probably even a whole lot before that.

it is simply incredible the amount of defense that AA fans and labor leaders give to trying to defend their notion that profit sharing makes no sense.

He got it right on the first sentence. "American Airlines has done it wrong." and could have stopped there.

and like so many other strategies, AA is one step behind the rest of the industry and two steps off center. with profound and repeated consequences.

at least it's predictable but incredibly sad nonetheless.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Yikes.  A "screenwriter" from Houston.  Fantastic.
 
First, we start with his presumption to know how all flight attendants (and perhaps all airline employees?) perceive their compensation and risk tolerance:
 
"American Airlines has done it wrong. Unlike the other three big carriers that have profit-sharing plans with their employees, AA management has taken an us-versus-you approach that has alienated workers."
 
Did it ever occur to this guy that perhaps many AA employees don't view it as "wrong" to take certain pay increases in their paycheck as opposed to the potential for profit sharing?  Given all that has happened in the industry in general, let alone at AA in particular, does he honestly think that every AA flight attendant would have been happy to accept smaller wages in exchange for the chance at profit sharing?
 
But whatever credibility this guy may have had ends with:
 
"With no statistical backup, flight attendants were told that if they rejected the 'Tentative Agreement' they would be forced into arbitration and would receive $82 million annually less than the 'Tentative Agreement'." (emphasis mine)
 
First off, the "backup" would have been contractual, not statistical, and perhaps the arbitration protocol agreement wasn't clear enough?
 
The hilarity of this "article" then slips into pure delusion with:
 
"American Airlines will be profitable no matter who is at the helm. This structural dysfunction suggests it would take little more than trained monkey to run any of these airline boardrooms."
 
Everyone take note of AA's ensured profitability - no matter what happens in the world, and no matter who the CEO is - the next time there is a global security event, recession or a moron becomes CEO.
 
Finally, he concludes with more allegedly-unanswered questions to which the union has already provided ample answers:
 
"Why did she agree to binding arbitration, taking away the one true labor hammer, to strike? Flight attendants I have spoken to tell me details are scant as to why they are being told they will get $82 million less annually in arbitration."
 
Again - did this guy, let alone the "flight attendants [he's] spoken to," take a minute to look at YouTube?  I watched all of the union's videos, and I'm not even an APFA member.  On multiple occasions, and in multiple venues, Ms Glading explained quite clearly why the union(s) agreed to binding arbitration - because the creditors committee required it in order to get more clarity on labor cost projections in a merger scenario.  One can agree or disagree about whether the "get" of the merger was worth giving up the threat of a strike in any post-merger negotiations, but either way anyone who claims that they don't know about this reasoning is either willingly or unwillingly ignorant of the facts provided.

 
Strike was never on the table as these were not sect 6, that he had wrong, and so did you. Absent the NPA the company could have sat it out till 2018. But they would have to keep two separate operations. 
 
Five more years and No Profit sharing? I would have voted no as well. Where were you in the 90s? You are still worried about the sky falling, you obviously have zero tolerance for risk, and you are in the wrong industry. 
 
Sometimes the two in the bush is worth taking a shot at, especially with some of the points he did get right such as four carriers having 90% of the market, and its a huge market.
 
AA could soon be a $50 billion year company with less employees earning lower wages than when it was a $20 billion a year company. I think we should expect more, and not add years to what they were able to steal in Bankruptcy. At the very least we should get Profit Sharing. 

 

[AANOTOK]

Simply pay me as much as the highest FSC in the industry and give me profit sharing as well.
(and of course restore my vc, sick bank, holidays, shift differential...)

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

 
Yikes.  A "screenwriter" from Houston.  Fantastic.
 
First, we start with his presumption to know how all flight attendants (and perhaps all airline employees?) perceive their compensation and risk tolerance:
 
"American Airlines has done it wrong. Unlike the other three big carriers that have profit-sharing plans with their employees, AA management has taken an us-versus-you approach that has alienated workers."
 
Did it ever occur to this guy that perhaps many AA employees don't view it as "wrong" to take certain pay increases in their paycheck as opposed to the potential for profit sharing?  Given all that has happened in the industry in general, let alone at AA in particular, does he honestly think that every AA flight attendant would have been happy to accept smaller wages in exchange for the chance at profit sharing?
 
But whatever credibility this guy may have had ends with:
 
"With no statistical backup, flight attendants were told that if they rejected the 'Tentative Agreement' they would be forced into arbitration and would receive $82 million annually less than the 'Tentative Agreement'." (emphasis mine)
 
First off, the "backup" would have been contractual, not statistical, and perhaps the arbitration protocol agreement wasn't clear enough?
 
The hilarity of this "article" then slips into pure delusion with:
 
"American Airlines will be profitable no matter who is at the helm. This structural dysfunction suggests it would take little more than trained monkey to run any of these airline boardrooms."
 
Everyone take note of AA's ensured profitability - no matter what happens in the world, and no matter who the CEO is - the next time there is a global security event, recession or a moron becomes CEO.
 
Finally, he concludes with more allegedly-unanswered questions to which the union has already provided ample answers:
 
"Why did she agree to binding arbitration, taking away the one true labor hammer, to strike? Flight attendants I have spoken to tell me details are scant as to why they are being told they will get $82 million less annually in arbitration."
 
Again - did this guy, let alone the "flight attendants [he's] spoken to," take a minute to look at YouTube?  I watched all of the union's videos, and I'm not even an APFA member.  On multiple occasions, and in multiple venues, Ms Glading explained quite clearly why the union(s) agreed to binding arbitration - because the creditors committee required it in order to get more clarity on labor cost projections in a merger scenario.  One can agree or disagree about whether the "get" of the merger was worth giving up the threat of a strike in any post-merger negotiations, but either way anyone who claims that they don't know about this reasoning is either willingly or unwillingly ignorant of the facts provided.

Is Tom her cousin?

 

[eolesen]

it is simply incredible the amount of defense that AA fans and labor leaders give to trying to defend their notion that profit sharing makes no sense.

Uh, who has ever said that profit sharing makes no sense?

Seems to me it's the one thing everyone here is in agreement over.

Recognizing it's a good thing and recognizing it's off the table for negotiations are mutually exclusive.
 

Yikes.  A "screenwriter" from Houston.  Fantastic.

Yep. This dufus surfaced last year writing hack pieces about AA management pre-merger, and from the way he writes, he's probably related to or in a relationship with an AA employee. But, bloggers don't need to disclose things like that.