It's official!
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- t/a results.
- Status
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Then if the APFA leadership has agreed to the "calculator" then arbitration should be easy for the Company. Would an arbitrator seriously side with the Company (or would the Company want to) take a punitive approach to rejection of the TA? Did Parker really say that he would pull back on the Hard 40, the pay rates, etc... or was that a tactic to get the vote through the membership by the APFA leadership? Could the Company instead make the argument that why should they give more (aligning with logic that the calculator is correct or agreed to) and there is no basis for more than what they have offered? The APFA leadership would then be able to claim that they won a victory by at least holding on to what they negotiated that was above market rate (in the APFA leadership's opinion).
Why not??? I blame the union 100% for not including any airline (including cargo/if they had F/A's) in the comparo. But what will also come with that is the other LCC's with much lower pay. I was hoping you guys came to an agreement, but not my place to say how someone should vote out of my class and craft, good luck to you all...IORFA said:
swamt said:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems pretty logical to me why the company and the creditors wouldn't want to agree to the inclusion of Southwest in the "industry aggregate" comparison - because Southwest's higher pay is also (at least apparently) accompanied by higher productivity and different work rules. But if all sides agreed the arbitrators would be both incapable and/or unwilling/unable to deal with non-financial contractual provisions (like productivity and work rules) in their ruling, the company didn't want to expose itself to the chance that the arbitrator would side with the union on Southwest-type pay, and then the company would still be stuck with the non-Southwest-type work rules.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #51
You assume APFA didn't want to include WN. I'm sure they would have included them if AA agreed as well. Just saw that the stock is up after our 8,196 financial wizards at AA gave back over $400 million dollars. Investors LOVE it!swamt said:
jimntx
Veteran
Is there something about the phrase, the market aggregate, that you do not understand? The arbitrator is constrained by both law and Negotiation Protocol to award nothing above the market aggregate. The union is the first to say that the TA is worth $92 million (or $82 million depending on your source) more than an arbitrator can legally award. So, the arbitrator will have to find at least that much to cut from the TA. If it goes to the arbitrator the company automatically saves that overage amount, and we don't know that the arbitrator will award the union the maximum he/she could award.Overspeed said:
AA-MRO.COM
Senior
- Mar 12, 2012
- 425
- 472
Cant they just pull the twu revote until the outcome is a yes....
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #54
nearly all airlines and the broader market are up as well; lower oil prices drive higher airline stock prices and oil is lower today.
jimntx
Veteran
"Oh, alert the media." Who in the airline business didn't know that? However, it would be easy enough to convert the WN trips formula to an hourly rate. For instance, if the single trip pay is $50, and HOU to PHX is 4 trips, that is $200 gross. If that flight takes 2.5 hours, then the hourly rate is $80/hr. And, WN could be included in the calculation easily. Now that is an extreme (and inaccurate) example, but you see what I mean. However, I think the APFA agreed to use only UA, and DL (for the most part) in the comparison. There is a certain amount of snobbishness on the part of the union when it comes to being compared to WN's f/as in any way.700UW said:
jimntx
Veteran
Accidentally hit enter before completing my response. See response #57 below.
jimntx
Veteran
You do realize that contracts must be read in sequential order. Yes, paragraph 4 requires mediation to reach the TA. Paragraph 5(which comes after Paragraph 4) introduces the possibility that the members reject the TA, and specifies that binding arbitration is now required. However, it then restates that prior to arbitration, mediation is required. This is mediation to overcome the vote rejection issues. The first mediation if needed is to simply reach a TA in the first place.700UW said:
I'm hoping that we get lucky and in the 2nd mediation the company re-offers the TA as a LBFO, and the union agrees to submit it for a vote. If the membership still votes it down, then they deserve whatever they get.
- Status
