It's official!

[JFK Fleet Service]

So, what do the Facebook commandos have to say about their deftly negotiated pay cut?
 
Trumpeting their phyrric 'victory'?

 

[WeAAsles]

So, what do the Facebook commandos have to say about their deftly negotiated pay cut?
 
Trumpeting their phyrric 'victory'?

That's exactly what it was. An effort on Facebook to blow up the TA and paint Glading in a bad light. The effort was spearheaded by members who want the seat she currently holds and people fell for it rather than watching all the video's that the APFA put out to explain things.

Too bad.

 

[Bob Owens]

We should have accepted it as it was.   There was no need to attempt to get a shorter term. 
 
Quag, we're locked in now for five years.  The "market aggregate" no longer means anything.  It doesn't matter at this point what anyone else gets.  It will "sting" for longer than five years since our next contract will start from a lower floor.
 
MK

Thats not what the decision says.
 
 



[SIZE=12pt]"In [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the event United implements [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]an [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]initial flight [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]attendant [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]joint [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]collective bargaining agreement after the American JCBA is implemented, the company and the certified collective bargaining representative(s) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flight [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]attendants in the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]service of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the Company shall determine how the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]initial [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]United [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]joint [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]bargaining [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]agreement affects the [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]"market-based [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]aggregate" [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]analysis for the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]JCBA. [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Such [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]determination shall be conducted in [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]accordance [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Section [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]B(S) [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]of the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]zor4 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Negotiations Protocol Agreement Among American Airlines, Inc., [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]US [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Airways, Inc., [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and the Association of Flight Attendants. [/SIZE]

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

We should have accepted it as it was.   There was no need to attempt to get a shorter term. 
 
Quag, we're locked in now for five years.  The "market aggregate" no longer means anything.  It doesn't matter at this point what anyone else gets.  It will "sting" for longer than five years since our next contract will start from a lower floor.
 
MK

 
MK: I was referring to this section of the award:
 

3. In the event United implements an initial flight attendant joint collective bargaining agreement after the American JCBA is implemented, the company and the certified collective bargaining representative(s) of the flight attendants in the service of the Company shall determine how the initial United joint collective bargaining agreement affects the "market-based in the aggregate" analysis for the American JCBA. Such determination shall be conducted in accordance with Section B(5) of the 2014 Negotiations Protocol Agreement Among American Airlines, Inc., US Airways, Inc., The Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and the Association of Flight Attendants.  

...Paragraph B5a of the Protocol requires that  a UAL JCBA, if subsequently agreed to, would trigger an adjustment to the AA JCBA.

 

[bigjets]

Exactly, they should have argued for a shorter term not to sweeten the pot. A shorter term contract would have left a more open field for the AFA at ual

You know it's a NEGOTIATION, that means there was a team of corporate negotiators. It wasn't as if the apfa wrote their contract then told AA to sign here. Done deal. Your way accept less then delta so UAL will get less. Do you think maybe AA wants 5 year contracts so they know what their labor costs are 5 years out.


Does bob go to the store and say, this gallon of milk should cost a $1, then throws a dollar on the counter and walks out.

 

[Bob Owens]

You know it's a NEGOTIATION, that means there was a team of corporate negotiators. It wasn't as if the apfa wrote their contract then told AA to sign here. Done deal.


Does bob go to the store and say, this gallon of milk should cost a $1, then throws a dollar on the counter and walks out.

Obviously you don't know what negotiations means, and I guess you never bought a home or a car either. If you did then you likely overpaid. Some transactions are take it or leave it, like when you go to buy a gallon of milk, or wages and work rules when you work Non-union in the airline industry, others are negotiable, such as wage and work rules when you have a Union or you buy a house or a car. 
 
You are basically saying that Unions should act like non-union and just accept whatever the company says. In that case you are right, you don't need a union, my question is why haven't you gone into management? 

 

[bigjets]

When you buy a car, do you say I'll take this $20k car for $10k and walk out or do you negotiate. You provide a weak argument, probably why we have the contract we have. All talk on the forum, nothing out of the negotiating table.

Plenty of advise for the apfa who have been successful in negotiations, and then there's you and the twu, I'm sorry it was the other union presidents or the ATD. If you had an actual track record of success instead of what I would have done, this would be a different back and forth.

 

[Bob Owens]

When you buy a car, do you say I'll take this $20k car for $10k and walk out or do you negotiate. You provide a weak argument, probably why we have the contract we have. All talk on the forum, nothing out of the negotiating table.

Plenty of advise for the apfa who have been successful in negotiations, and then there's you and the twu, I'm sorry it was the other union presidents or the ATD. If you had an actual track record of success instead of what I would have done, this would be a different back and forth.

When I can I negotiate, you are the one who used the milk as an example of how to conduct negotiations. When I was at the table I put out plenty of info, perhaps your little mind cant remember that. Either way there is little point in continuing discussion in this direction. 
 
 
Instead of debating the issues you decide to attack me for things that neither you or I control and talk about negotiating over a gallon of milk. My point is simple, the Flight Attendants should have sought a shorter term. Getting locked into a long term deal in itself is a bad deal. I've repeated this over and over again. Thats my opinion, your response to that was the milk reference and the bad deal we got which according to you is my fault. Ok believe what you want, how does that change whether or not the APFA should have sought a shorter contract vs sweetening the the NPA?  Show me something where it says that they couldn't have asked for a shorter term? You seem to have some vested interest in seeing long term deals, well do you? If so, why? You have already revealed you don't want a union, if thats the case then why haven't you gone into management? For all we know, since you post under an alias maybe you are. But instead of going there why not just stick to the issue?

 

[bigjets]

You easily distracted from reality.

FA had a vote for one or two options
A) $193m deal
B) $112m deal

You advocated against TA now all FAs lose out. I don't want that to happen to us.

 

[NYer]

Even if this deal had passed over the next five years AAs labor costs would have been lower anyway. Do you think that the FAs at Delta will have their wages frozen for the next five years? As soon as your raises went in they would have recieved just as much, plus had profit sharing on top of that. Too bad you voted aganst Profit Sharing and for such a long contract. I know, you were scared, Ebola, a War in the Middle East , etc, etc could have caused the industry to collapse and despite the fact that twice the company has used Bankruptcy, once before the amendable date of the contract, to get concessions you still believe that a five year deal would protect you.

 
All your hypothesis come with the caveat that real life issues aren't even considered. The APFA, the APA and TWU will have contracts that take us to or past the 6 year mark of the Plan or Reorganization. The cost certainty is something the Creditors wanted before agreeing to this Merger. That is the reason the unions has the negotiations process already agreed to and as a part of the merger agreement.
 
You also advocated we vote against the BK agreement because of the 6 year commitment, like that was a negotiable item. I understand you need to continue with your anti-establishment persona, but it's getting more and more ridiculous and the conditions around you change.

 

[NYer]

Obviously you don't know what negotiations means, and I guess you never bought a home or a car either. If you did then you likely overpaid. Some transactions are take it or leave it, like when you go to buy a gallon of milk, or wages and work rules when you work Non-union in the airline industry, others are negotiable, such as wage and work rules when you have a Union or you buy a house or a car. 
 
You are basically saying that Unions should act like non-union and just accept whatever the company says. In that case you are right, you don't need a union, my question is why haven't you gone into management? 

 
You see bigjets, according to Bob all you need to do is ask for something and you'll get it. I'm sure he is one of a few people in this country that was able to get a mortgage for 23 years at an interest rate he sets or he's bought a car at the price he says...maybe he even goes by a toll plaza and tosses then the value he believes it should be. Bob doesn't care about hoe things work, he just likes to make the arguments of what "should be" in order to get the approval from his constituents. Nothing is ever won with his tactics and he's voted no for every contract that has come across his desk. He even wanted to turn down the BK TA because it was a 6 year contract as mandated by the Creditors who actually run the process. As a matter of fact, it is probable that all groups will have CBA's that run the course to 2018 or beyond, the 6 year threshold of the Plan of Reorganization approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court.

 

[NYer]

When I can I negotiate, you are the one who used the milk as an example of how to conduct negotiations. When I was at the table I put out plenty of info, perhaps your little mind cant remember that. Either way there is little point in continuing discussion in this direction. 
 
 
Instead of debating the issues you decide to attack me for things that neither you or I control and talk about negotiating over a gallon of milk. My point is simple, the Flight Attendants should have sought a shorter term. Getting locked into a long term deal in itself is a bad deal. I've repeated this over and over again. Thats my opinion, your response to that was the milk reference and the bad deal we got which according to you is my fault. Ok believe what you want, how does that change whether or not the APFA should have sought a shorter contract vs sweetening the the NPA?  Show me something where it says that they couldn't have asked for a shorter term? You seem to have some vested interest in seeing long term deals, well do you? If so, why? You have already revealed you don't want a union, if thats the case then why haven't you gone into management? For all we know, since you post under an alias maybe you are. But instead of going there why not just stick to the issue?

 
One of the negotiations "tactics" was to believe that it was better for mechanics if the airline liquidated and that was a better outcome than a CBA within the BK process. In 2008, we needed to push back because it was "restore and more", vote no. In 2011, we needed to push back because they would never be allowed to file BK with $4B in cash, vote no. In 2012, we needed to push back because 6 years was unacceptable and it was better for the airline to liquidate because we'd do better by someone picking up the assets like Pan Am and Easter. (you didn't mention Northwest...hmmm). You thought it was a victory for the APA to vote no because they would never abrogate...well, abrogate they did. They came back with the same 17% cuts as before their abrogation. Today, the APFA needed to fight for less of a time line, even though we are still under the POR and the Creditors are still in charge.
 
The solution is to always say no. Doing that is what brings a better outcome.....That's not what recent history has shown us.

 

[Black Magic]

All your hypothesis come with the caveat that real life issues aren't even considered. The APFA, the APA and TWU will have contracts that take us to or past the 6 year mark of the Plan or Reorganization. The cost certainty is something the Creditors wanted before agreeing to this Merger. That is the reason the unions has the negotiations process already agreed to and as a part of the merger agreement.
 
You also advocated we vote against the BK agreement because of the 6 year commitment, like that was a negotiable item. I understand you need to continue with your anti-establishment persona, but it's getting more and more ridiculous and the conditions around you change.

So the unions at AA already made 5 year deals with DP and gang "just in case we can't get an agreement reached?!" Not a very bright move by the unions imo.

 

[NYer]

So the unions at AA already made 5 year deals with DP and gang "just in case we can't get an agreement reached?!" Not a very bright move by the unions imo.

 
The merger was negotiated within BK. The only way the creditors were willing to go along with the merger within the BK process was to have assurances of the costs moving forward. They wanted to avoid what happened in US and UA and make sure they got the best return possible. Everyone seems to forget that we are still working within the Plan of Reorganization, which is a 6 year plan. Those costs certainties and any deals moving forward would have to comply with those agreements made in BK for the merger to take place. Couldn't have one without the other.
 
I don't believe anyone can make a credible argument that we'd better off coming out of the BK as a stand alone and not agree to certain conditions in exchange for the merger as it took place.
 
I mean, the flights attendants have been arguing about whether to take $112M or $193M over their current contracts. We're supposed to be locked in for 6 years, but because of the merger we can make gains quicker and in the current positive market conditions. Who knows how much longer they can last. We saw how quickly this industry can change from one day to the next.

 

[Duke787]

All your hypothesis come with the caveat that real life issues aren't even considered. The APFA, the APA and TWU will have contracts that take us to or past the 6 year mark of the Plan or Reorganization. The cost certainty is something the Creditors wanted before agreeing to this Merger. That is the reason the unions has the negotiations process already agreed to and as a part of the merger agreement.
 
You also advocated we vote against the BK agreement because of the 6 year commitment, like that was a negotiable item. I understand you need to continue with your anti-establishment persona, but it's getting more and more ridiculous and the conditions around you change.

Well said