It's official!
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- t/a results.
- Status
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA)
1 hour ago ·
Arbitration Update, continued: APFA and AA have stipulated to the $112 million per year above the current value of the combined contracts as market based in the aggregate. The outstanding items at dispute are the me-too clauses for health insurance and profit sharing as well as the request that increased wages be retroactive to December 2, 2014.
1 hour ago ·
Arbitration Update, continued: APFA and AA have stipulated to the $112 million per year above the current value of the combined contracts as market based in the aggregate. The outstanding items at dispute are the me-too clauses for health insurance and profit sharing as well as the request that increased wages be retroactive to December 2, 2014.
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
usfliboi said:
This doesn't not help the flight attendant's PR cause one iota.
The union's own leadership says they did better than expected in negotiations - negotiations governed by a protocol that the union, itself, willingly agreed to in order to oust the hated former management - and that AA's rank-and-file FAs got the opportunity to vote on an "industry leading" contract. To now have a group - even a small one - of FAs protesting about their "outrage" over the alleged "lack of fair bargaining" runs the risk of playing into the argument of "for the last decade, was AA management really the problem, or was it the union(s) being unreasonable all along?" Put another way, the FAs run the risk of analysts, etc. basically saying, "wow, we got it that they weren't happy when they were asked to take concessions, but now they're still not happy even when they get a great contract, so I guess the APFA is never going to be happen no matter what AA does." I'm not sure that's a perception that helps the FAs' cause.
Not saying that Laura & Co. are or are not correct in characterizing the contract as "industry leading," nor whether the company is or isn't negotiating in good faith, nor whether any perception of the FA group as acting reasonably or unreasonably is fair or not - but I think this is a definite PR problem for the APFA. Just ask the pilots what a huge PR boost it was for them when an APA officer implied that Arpey was a murderer and put up billboards on 183 implying AA's planes were unsafe.
My favorite quote from the above-linked "article" must be:
"Every major airline except for American and Spirit Airlines pay their employees."
Please allow me to be the first to sincerely apologize to every AA employee for being forced to work without pay.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #442
FWAAA can probably help them with their grammar but it makes sense if you read the sentence before...
"On profit sharing, CEO of American Airlines, Doug Parker recently stated “It’s just not the right way to pay 100,000 employees that don’t have that much impact on the daily profits.” Every major airline except for American and Spirit Airlines pay their employees. "
"On profit sharing, CEO of American Airlines, Doug Parker recently stated “It’s just not the right way to pay 100,000 employees that don’t have that much impact on the daily profits.” Every major airline except for American and Spirit Airlines pay their employees. "
Trust me I know it was a richer offer than what they had. But you did not answer the question at hand. Was the original offer "industry leading?" I totally understand that it was richer than what they had. However, was it really "industry leading?" I have to assume NOT as the NO voters have spoken when LG was touting and promoting that it was. And on a second note, I too agree with Bob O. that until the offer contract brings them up to or above where they were prior to all the concessions being granted, it is still a concessional agreement. AA is posting never seen before RECORD profits, and NOW is the time to get back what was givin up for AA to become profitable once again. Until that is done it is still concessionary to what they were getting prior to BK, period...FWAAA said:
swamt said:
Well, again, the union didn't "agree" to a "reduced contract" per se when they signed the negotiating protocol. As the APFA has said again and again to anyone that would listen, what they agreed to was binding arbitration that would produce a contract that was "market-based in the aggregate." The APFA didn't expect that the negotiated TA with the company would be worth - by both the company's and union's math - $80M+ more (annually) than "market-based in the aggregate."
Nonetheless, either way, the binding arbitration was apparently a required "cost of admission" for the APFA to get what they really wanted most of all - which was rid of Tom Horton & Co. As Glading, et al have explained, the creditors committee was unwilling to entertain any merger proposal(s) unless and until the unions agreed to a binding arbitration backstop that provided clarity and at least some degree of certainty on a realistic timeline for joint contracts post-merger, and a realistic estimate of projected post-merger labor costs.
So the union made the decision - rightly or wrongly - to accept binding arbitration coming out of the merger in order to get the merger itself.
swamt said:
Unfortunately it's people who talk a lot that don't know the realities of the situation, and then they vote on what they THINK it should be.
Swamt, the reality was, one of two options for th FA's
1) TA as it was,
2) arbitrated contract minus $82m
If more FAs would have listened to their union or AA, instead of the junior CEO's, and the know nothings they would be operating under a healthy pay raise today.
In 2003 after the mechs took the concessions, Del from AMFA said he would never accept a contract without a snap back clause like the TWU did. Well when UAL went BK, AMFA at UAL accepted a contract without a snap back clause. I'm still an AMFA guy, but there are realities and then there are the way we THINK it should be.
My opinion on whether the TA was "industry-leading" is irrelevant - not unlike your opinion or Bob Owens' opinion. Might as well ask which President is the "best President our country has ever had" type questions. "Tastes Great! Less Filling!"swamt said:
Regardless of whether it was "industry-leading," it was worth more than their current contract and it was worth more than their new contract will be worth. That's all that matters, since it was clear that there would be no second chances at negotiating something better than the TA should the TA be rejected. Their choices were A: a bunch more money or B: slightly more money ($82 million a year less than choice A).
In any event, 700UW thinks it's industry-leading. Laura Glading says it's "industry-leading." Several respected actual AA flight attendants who post here say it was "industry-leading." Who are we (you, me or Bob Owens) to argue with them? Hell, Bob Owens is so ignorant of the Flight Attendant TA that he had not read the TA or been to the APFA website to learn about it before pontificating about it here after the TA was rejected. The AA FAs were not far from the top of the industry when AA entered Ch 11 and they weren't far from the top after AA exited Ch 11. Bob Owens' constituents have been at or near the bottom of the industry for a very long time.
700UW said:
Every employee at AA, US, DL and UA works under a concessionary contract to this day, as all took large concessions before, during and after their respective bankruptcies. Among the older major airlines, your employer stands alone as having never (at least not yet) demanded and obtained wage and benefit concessions.swamt said:
As to being made whole for the 2003 concessions and the 2012 bankruptcy concessions - "restore and more" is never going to happen. I'm not saying that workgroups can never negotiate significant increases over what they have now - but if we take the high-water positions of the former pre-bankruptcy, pre-concession contracts and adjust for inflation since that high-water mark, it's very unlikely that the new contracts will exceed those figures. And as for recouping the lost income during the concessionary decade - that ain't happening either.
If the "no" voters rejected the TA because they disagreed with Laura Glading that the TA was "industry-leading," then they're guilty of doing what unionized workgroups do far too often: they made an emotional decision instead of basing their decision on the numbers. In part, that's why management runs roughshod over unionized groups far too often. Crandall, Carty, Arpey and Horton made financial decisions, not emotional ones. Right or wrong - they teach that at business schools. When you let your emotions get in the way, you generally make less advantageous decisions, costing you money. CEOs generally stick to the finances, and not emotions.
One big exception to that general rule: Arpey and his emotional/moral/philosophical objection to bankruptcy. Between May, 2003, and November, 2011, while he was CEO, he occasionally mentioned bankruptcy and it was clear from his comments that he was opposed to it. That was his big exception to the general rule of "ignoring emotions and sticking with the numbers." He rationalized his objection by arguing that avoiding Ch 11 and not terminating the pensions in 2003 would payoff for AA in the long run with happier employees. He missed that prediction by a mile, however.
- Status
