It's official!

[Kev3188]

Truth!

 

[bigjets]

Question for bob Owens,

Would you have recommended the FAs TA for a yes vote or a no vote?

Not what you would have done, not what should have been done but on what was in the TA. , figure LG would have the best interest of the FAs at heart, based on how well she has done for the FAs in the past as compared to how well the twu has done for us. Figure she got what she could.

I'm sure you more then anybody can confirm, in negotiations just by saying I'm bob Owens this is what we Should do, isn't the same plan the aa negotiators have in mind. Just a yes or no would be great.

 

[Bob Owens]

Two kinds of people at this airline:  People who will do anything to prove they are right in their cause.  And people who want to make some money for their labor and have a better life for them and their family.
 
Bob Owens, which type are you?  Sure it sounds great to pontificate on and on about what the f/as should be getting but in reality the f/as are not even getting what was offered thanks to their stupidity.  Plain and simple.  The no voters misunderstood what this vote was all about from the beginning.  This was not section 6 as most of the no voters misunderstood even while being told so by the company, APFA, and the UCC from the very beginning of this merger.
 
This was an agreed on process by which a merger would take place.  Everyone knew it but some people didn't understand or chose to ignore what this vote was really about.  It was about the 2 choices:  Choice A which was a better paying choice or Choice B which was not better paying but one where you could voice your opinions about the state of affairs in this merger and industry knowing full well that if you chose the B option it would result in less money for you and your family because of the word "AGGREGATE".
 
And then we come to the group that just were too lazy or dumb to even vote this one time, which was probably the most important ballot they would have ever cast in their airline career.  There is no words that come to mind to adequately express how I feel about these people except to say, let's weed them out and get rid of them, because they bring nothing to the table for this enterprise and are probably just hear to get a paycheck regardless of how small.  And could care less about their fellow employees.

I'm here for the money like everyone else. But I look a little further down the road than today, I try to look at what I'm getting into, not just the bait on the hook. To me the extra year is the deal killer. The fact that the deal doesn't even provide profit sharing is the icing on the cake. 
 
You guys are looking at today, and basing your decision on the last ten years, not the five years going forward where things will be very different, the next few years will be like the late 90s, on steroids. You seem to be oblivious to the record breaking profits being posted each quarter and all the projections going forward, or the nearly $50/share stock price. Having been in this industry over 30 years I've seen several cycles and I see labor making the same mistakes again and again. Yes each cycle is different but have similar traits, this time they are going in as a more consolidated industry than ever before, look at History, not just the airlines, but other industries, such as the rails, oil, and even banking. While its certainly very complicated they all go through similar growing processes of over-expansion and hyper competition till a few survivors emerge and obtain somewhat stabilized profitability where the next biggest threat comes from competing technology. For the next several years this industry, where 90% of the market is controlled by just four carriers, is likely to enter an era of prosperity like its never seen before. Ebola, SARS, more strife in the Middle East , etc isn't going to change that and if it did your long term deal would not protect you. 
 
Cheap fuel ironically makes the investment in new aircraft more expensive, and even without $60/barrell oil the airlines would still be pulling down Billion dollar profits. 
 
All a long term deal does is hogtie labor for the term of the agreement as far as compensation. 
 
I was against the merger from the start, or rather I was against Labor taking the position to push the merger. Mergers result in fewer overall jobs not more and its not our function to determine who mismanages the company, if we want a say in who they hire then negotiate seats on the board, the Creditors Committee took advantage of the APFAs eagerness to get rid of Horton and got you to agree to bad terms to make it happen.
 
The Creditors Committee , including whoever sat there from the APFA was aware that as a stand alone company AA was expecting to show profits of $2.8 billion a year. They knew that a merger, which would eliminate another competitor would likely result in increased profits across the industry as a whole (so most of these Creditors such as Boeing, would benefit not just from their holdings and business with AA but other carriers as well). For the Unions going after Horton was an emotional response, the Creditors Committee Capitalized on it and got the Unions to agree to bad deals to make those other Creditors even richer.
 
AA is looking for Billions in synergies with the merger and you are getting an average wage increase of 3% over 5 years. You are right, these  aren't section six, so why agree to keep yourself out of real negotiations for an extra year? 
 
Despite the fact that these aren't Section 6 talks the company does have an incentive to not ride out the old contracts till 2018, they want the synergies to maximize the profits. 
 
Unlike some I don't dump all this on Laura Gladding, my understanding is that the APFA has a negotiating committee and they do the negotiating with her as a spokesperson, like the Pilots. So when they came back with this agreement, she pretty much had to back it. I do think that all the Unions were too eager to get rid of Horton and they were all suckered by the rest of the Creditors Committee who saw their eagerness and took advantage of it.
 
We all got screwed in BK, however when all is said and done and in 2018 and we take a look back, after the emotions subside that got you guys in this jam in the first place, and the math shows that after factoring in the Profit sharing that was in the BK settlement that your total earnings  (unless you are a purser) with what was in the rejected TA would have been no more than what you would have earned under your BK contract, except you are stuck with this one a year longer, I suspect your point of view will have changed. I've said before that we make our decisions based on the information available at the time, and what you have learned through life experiences, so I say remember the 90's when we agreed to long term concessionary deals and missed out on the greatest expansion in US History.  Five years is a long time to be locked into any deal.
 
You guys have a Union that you control, there is no governing body of people who are not Flight Attendants at AA appointing decision makers who sit above the people you elect. You always have a choice. Your peers chose not to accept this deal, sometimes people have trouble articulating a complex response so they throw out what they can easily write out, I suspect that many felt that is deal, was unacceptable for deeper reasons than they throw out on Facebook 

 

[Bob Owens]

  Not voting IS a vote.  It is voting "I don't care."  And, by default, it is also voting NO.

 
Or Yes depending on whether the vote passed or failed. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, this was a industry leading contract base on the comparators that were allowed.  The only airline that was left out was WN.  When you include the International Override pay and the other Premium Pays, this was an even better contract.  Yes some other companies give better VC accrual, but other companies don't have the same pay protections.  All put together, it is a better contract than DL/UA/CO.  

A better contract than what they will have for the next five years? The problem with saying its industry leading is its too long. The idea in labor is to leapfrog avery two years or so where each group gets an industry leading contract, which in the end, at best keeps you at pace with inflation. This deal was too long. 
 
How do the deals compare when Profit Sharing is added in (Profits based on this year at their respective carriers) and what about the majority of Flight Attendants that fly Domestic without premiums? Keep in mind you can only use figures up to 2016, you cant compare your 2019 pay to their 2016 pay. 

 

[johnny kat]

Bob Owens, your points are well taken. Believe me when I tell you I wish the f/a group had been able to get ps and a shorter contract term. But this deal was already in the cards long before the details came out. So what did we get?...well we got a deal with the devil in order to consummate this merger. Anyone who has dealt with Parker knows that he is fair but tough and usually his first offer is the best offer. Just ask the LUS group that voted three different times on the last contract (which took 7 yrs to negotiate) before they got essentially the same contract albeit shuffled around here and there.

So, this was all about a second bite at the apple as AFA called it. At the very beginning the f/as were told that this was how it was going to be. In essence everyone knew all along that because this was a different breed of cat agreement that this would be the transition agreement (5 yr term) to get to regular section 6 negotiations. long after the merger dust settled.

Everyone I know on property disliked the idea of this process but at the time everybody was looking forward to a merger that would improve our lot. So, it was a deal with the devil that everyone understood in black and white.
Then as time went by the misinformation started to get around (I have heard some doozies).

But the bottom line was with the 83 million factored in for profit sharing we were within 2 percent of what DL has been paying out on average for profit sharing and slightly higher wages. When you consider the work rules that the f/as enjoy here it is very very likely this contract was industry leading, maybe not industry leading in 2 yrs but industry leading nonetheless. This was the deal take it or leave it.

Now that the f/as turned down the first best deal, we will have the lesser deal. AA management now gets to show the world and more importantly the other groups on property that they dealt realistically and consistently with the f/as but for what ever reason the f/as took a worse deal. They offered a fair deal and it was rejected so now they will use the f/as as the example for the other groups as to what not to do when it comes time for them to take the vote. Just go and ask the pilots, they are paying very close attention to the f/as. That is why they are continuing to negotiate for 15 percent ps and a three year term. They are trying to get away from the arbitrated version because they watched the f/as get hosed.

 

[AirLUVer]

A better contract than what they will have for the next five years? The problem with saying its industry leading is its too long. The idea in labor is to leapfrog avery two years or so where each group gets an industry leading contract, which in the end, at best keeps you at pace with inflation. This deal was too long. 
 
How do the deals compare when Profit Sharing is added in (Profits based on this year at their respective carriers) and what about the majority of Flight Attendants that fly Domestic without premiums? Keep in mind you can only use figures up to 2016, you cant compare your 2019 pay to their 2016 pay. 

 
Some of your statements shows me that you never even read any of the new contract or many posts in regards to what this contract had.
 
Premium pay was TRIPLED for wide body pursers, It was added to all other flights at almost the equivalent rate that AA currently pays it's pursers.  The Pay Protection that was brought in from the Legacy US contract is potentially worth 10's of millions per year.  And the pay was up to 4K per year greater than DL.  Potentially equivalent to 10K dollars more per FA than DL based on an 85 hour average month, for base pay plus premium.  DL's profit with their hedge losses will probably drop their windfall PS check to closer to 10K next year, so all in all pretty equal there, not included all the pay protections

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Some of your statements shows me that you never even read any of the new contract or many posts in regards to what this contract had.
 
Premium pay was TRIPLED for wide body pursers, It was added to all other flights at almost the equivalent rate that AA currently pays it's pursers.  The Pay Protection that was brought in from the Legacy US contract is potentially worth 10's of millions per year.  And the pay was up to 4K per year greater than DL.  Potentially equivalent to 10K dollars more per FA than DL based on an 85 hour average month, for base pay plus premium.  DL's profit with their hedge losses will probably drop their windfall PS check to closer to 10K next year, so all in all pretty equal there, not included all the pay protections

Are you a Purser or International FA? If so then maybe it was a better deal for you than those who aren't.
 
Saying the Premium pay was tripled doesn't really mean anything. If they tripled our night shift differential it would go up to 6 cents/hour. 
 
Delta is Non-union so I would more closely watch the Union deals out there, one is amendable this year and the other is Amendable next year. Delta can only be looked at for a snapshot, not for future terms. The Unionized FAs in the comparator group are currently also negotiating a JCBA but have been out of BK longer so their FA's are not still shell shocked and likely have higher expectations, especially with billions in profits rolling in. Did your Union get with them to find out their table positions? Delta will do as they always do and up their compensation just enough to keep the Union out.  Thats my problem with a five year deal. Your long term deal limits their ability to make gains that you could leapfrog off off in the next round of negotiations. Did the Pay Protection in the TA adjust your pay if the UAL/CAL FAs get a deal where their base hourly rates match or surpass those at AA? Was that pay protection through out the five year term or only for a limited duration? If so I didn't see that, I saw that in the proposal to the Arbitrator and the the protocol agreement if the TA was rejected but I didn't see that in the TA. 
 
I only read the highlites that were posted and some of that was stuff that doesn't pertain to us so I cant comment on that, but from what I saw with things that are across all contracts such as wages, vacation, sick time Health benefits and the length of the contract I didn't see a good deal. 

 

[AirLUVer]

IFS/AFS Purser pay went up from around $2/flight hour, to $7.5 flight hour.  They added $2.50-$3.25 per hour for domestic, which did not have any additional pay before.  Yes this only affects about 1/5 or so of the work force.  But it is a significant pay increase for those at AA that were not getting this additional pay before. International Override also increased quite a bit, and so did per diem.
 
All of this is staying in the contract too, the arbitrated agreement is going to lose regular pay and only from the top out pay.
 
The unions should NEVER have given up profit sharing in the Bankruptcy, if that is the sticking point now.  Contract was to be available for early opening, and still should be.  Then again, every contract in the world is up for early opening, just the economics of it will cause one side or the other to try to defer openings until the economics tilt in their direction as far as negotiations go.

 

[Duke787]

Bob you say you look further down the road.

Well in 2010 you looked further down the road and said the 2010 TA was a deal we shouldn't vote in.

If we would have gone with my line of thinking, each mech would have $40k in cash alone, not to mention more sick and VC time, and we would be making $40 an hour now. You looked down the yellow brick road, I looked down reality lane.

You have a righteous view of how a contract should be, but being righteous doesn't pay the mortgage.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens, your points are well taken. Believe me when I tell you I wish the f/a group had been able to get ps and a shorter contract term. But this deal was already in the cards long before the details came out. So what did we get?...well we got a deal with the devil in order to consummate this merger. Anyone who has dealt with Parker knows that he is fair but tough and usually his first offer is the best offer. Just ask the LUS group that voted three different times on the last contract (which took 7 yrs to negotiate) before they got essentially the same contract albeit shuffled around here and there.

So, this was all about a second bite at the apple as AFA called it. At the very beginning the f/as were told that this was how it was going to be. In essence everyone knew all along that because this was a different breed of cat agreement that this would be the transition agreement (5 yr term) to get to regular section 6 negotiations. long after the merger dust settled.

Everyone I know on property disliked the idea of this process but at the time everybody was looking forward to a merger that would improve our lot. So, it was a deal with the devil that everyone understood in black and white.
Then as time went by the misinformation started to get around (I have heard some doozies).

But the bottom line was with the 83 million factored in for profit sharing we were within 2 percent of what DL has been paying out on average for profit sharing and slightly higher wages. When you consider the work rules that the f/as enjoy here it is very very likely this contract was industry leading, maybe not industry leading in 2 yrs but industry leading nonetheless. This was the deal take it or leave it.

Now that the f/as turned down the first best deal, we will have the lesser deal. AA management now gets to show the world and more importantly the other groups on property that they dealt realistically and consistently with the f/as but for what ever reason the f/as took a worse deal. They offered a fair deal and it was rejected so now they will use the f/as as the example for the other groups as to what not to do when it comes time for them to take the vote. Just go and ask the pilots, they are paying very close attention to the f/as. That is why they are continuing to negotiate for 15 percent ps and a three year term. They are trying to get away from the arbitrated version because they watched the f/as get hosed.

Well you guys are a different breed than us, I don't know of any AA mechs other than PHL that were in favor of this merger. This was Jim Littles baby.
 
Still cant relate to how you keep holding up Delta as the example when you and UAL/CAL are the ones who are really writing their deal. Its always been that way. Whatever you get will get them a few pennies more to keep the Unions out. Think about that, your main selling point is to compare your contract to a Union Busting deal? 
 
Sure the pilots are watching, but the reality is they cant get enough pilots and are in the best position to make gains.  They are already getting a decent chunk of profit sharing with their 15% equity, not a paltry 4% like us. The pilots will get a better deal than the FA's , perhaps they wont call it profit sharing, it may be options for shares instead. But one thing you can be sure of is the pilots wont lock themselves into a five year deal where AA is earning billions and they are locked out of getting a share of that in exchange for a deal that puts them slightly ahead of non-union pilots today. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob you say you look further down the road.

Well in 2010 you looked further down the road and said the 2010 TA was a deal we shouldn't vote in.

If we would have gone with my line of thinking, each mech would have $40k in cash alone, not to mention more sick and VC time, and we would be making $40 an hour now. You looked down the yellow brick road, I looked down reality lane.

You have a righteous view of how a contract should be, but being righteous doesn't pay the mortgage.

Yes and I said we need to demand a release upon rejection of the contract. The Union already had the Strike Vote in place.  That would have most likely landed us in a PEB and we probably would have had a deal before Christmas of 2011. The International refused to move forward probably because the mechanic group was the only one that stood to make gains in a PEB, the other TWU groups on the property didn't lag their peers like we did. Yes the company would have won the ability to outsource more OH, which they got anyway, and our headcount would likely be exactly where it is today. 
 
We were the first Union to reject a TA and not proceed with the process. I don't recall the NMB ever telling a Union that they would not be released after their members rejected a TA that came out of four years of negotiations and two years of NMB mediation. AA had around 20% of the market, that certainly qualifies as a Transportation emergency more so than in 1997 when the pilots were released and went on their 6 minute strike before going before a PEB. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
The unions should NEVER have given up profit sharing in the Bankruptcy, if that is the sticking point now.  Contract was to be available for early opening, and still should be.  Then again, every contract in the world is up for early opening, just the economics of it will cause one side or the other to try to defer openings until the economics tilt in their direction as far as negotiations go.

 
The Unions didn't give up PS in BK, they gave it up for Parker. That was the company's argument in BK court on the very first day, they claimed that we would be getting everything that we gave up back with the Profit Sharing. That was how I came up with their projection to be earning $2.8 billion a year in profits. 
 
So are you a Purser?
 
How about the rest of you Yes voters that are saying that all your peers that voted NO are stupid?
 
Jimntx, are you a purser or entitled to one of those premium pays as well?
 
To me its sounds like the 1/5th is saying the 4/5s should be ok with signing a long term deal that may or may not put them slightly ahead of Non Union Delta and not getting profit sharing because the top 1/5 is getting a  higher hourly rate than their peers at other carriers. 
 
Reminds me our negotiations when Steve Luis was pushing a deal where CC got a $5/an hour premium but everybody else got next to nothing because in his words "Crew Chiefs do all the work anyway". 

 

[FWAAA]

The Unions didn't give up PS in BK, they gave it up for Parker.

The APA traded away 2/3 of their 15% profit sharing in 2012 during the 1113 negotiations for a small percentage increase in hourly payrates and other concession reductions. On a faulty assumption that they'd negotiated an "improvement," the me-too clause imposed that "improvement" on everyone else. So by mid-2012, AA's employees went from 15% first dollar profit sharing to a paltry 5%.

The unions have since traded away their remaining 1/3 (5%) of their profit sharing to Parker.

 

[Bob Owens]

The APA traded away 2/3 of their 15% profit sharing in 2012 during the 1113 negotiations for a small percentage increase in hourly payrates and other concession reductions. On a faulty assumption that they'd negotiated an "improvement," the me-too clause imposed that "improvement" on everyone else. So by mid-2012, AA's employees went from 15% first dollar profit sharing to a paltry 5%.

The unions have since traded away their remaining 1/3 (5%) of their profit sharing to Parker.

I stand (partially) corrected.