It's official!
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- t/a results.
- Status
jimntx
Veteran
Here is a cut and paste from the APFA Negotiations Update Hoteline dated today:700UW said:
Special APFA Hotline - Negotiations Update - November 10, 2014
-----------------------------------------------------
The APFA Board of Directors and the Joint Negotiating Committee convened today via conference call to discuss the results of the T/A balloting and the road ahead.
APFA has asked the company to provide dates for mediation next week. Those dates will be announced as soon as they are set.
The Joint Negotiating Committee will be working with the APFA Board of Directors to determine the case APFA will present in arbitration, which is set to begin on December 3, 2014. As a reminder, the Negotiations Protocol Agreement (https://www.apfa.org/images/negotiations/negotiations-protocol-agreement-2014.pdf) guarantees the value of our arbitrated agreement:
Oh dear, it looks like there will be at least one mediation session prior to arbitration after all.
That's the thing about variable compensation like profit sharing. Once the company offers it (Horton offered everyone 15% first dollar profit sharing), never let it go, as you don't know how just how valuable it might eventually be. Negotiate the highest hourly pay you can, and then if the company is in fact highly profitable, then you win. Instead, the pilots sold 2/3 of theirs (and thanks to the me-too provisions, 2/3 of everyone's profit sharing) for slightly higher hourly pay.jimntx said:
And now, the word is that Parker wants to eliminate all profit sharing for all work groups (except, of course, for the highly paid executives). Whatta surprise. In the late 1990s, AA paid out $250 million to $350 million a year in profit sharing and now, the company is poised to be about four times as profitable as it was during that era. It's one of the only things where WT, Bob Owens and I agree on something: Never give up profit sharing for whatever beans management offers.
FWIW, Bob Owens has been predicting huge profits since the sec 1113 hearings.
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2006
- 2,269
- 571
I would like to believe that is true except for the irony of the pilots being negated for the last 7 years leaves me somewhat pessimistic.Phoenix said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #83
not only was I prepared to but I did... years ago.
the airline industry has been in consolidation mode for 6 years. Experts and execs themselves all said that consolidation would drive up profits.
I know you seem to think that AA is special and doesn't play by the rules that other carriers have to play by but DL's profits have been at the top of the legacy sector for several years; WN has rebounded handedly by eliminating one of the largest low fare competitors while B6 has been pressured by Wall Street for quite some time to get its revenue up.
most significantly, all one has to do is look at US to see that Parker was able to generate very handsome profits even in an environment that was far less conducive to industry profits than what exists now.
AA's unions just like so many members want to hold onto the past despite the overwhelming evidence that the industry has changed.
Bob Owens is right. EVERY AA union should be demanding profit sharing and there is something not the least bit right when AA unions - in harmony with AA mgmt. - have decided profit sharing isn't worth it while every other large airline has it and their employees are profiting handsomely because of it.
buying into Parker's line that profit sharing isn't worth it is just the latest chapter of how AA mgmt. has managed to manipulate AA labor to mgmt.'s benefit and labor's detriment.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
Slopoke said:
Terry Maxson lists 10 possible reasons, each one more ridiculous and irrational than the last.
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/11/lets-think-about-why-flight-attendants-turned-down-the-us-airways-american-airlines-contract.html/
1. The flight attendants looked at American Airlines Group’s earnings and thought they should get more.
2. The FAs looked at other airlines’ FA contracts and thought they should get more.
3. The FAs didn’t believe warnings that they would get less in arbitration than in the proposed tentative agreement.
4. The FAs didn’t understand that they would get less in arbitration than in the proposed TA.
5. The FAs understood the situation entirely but couldn’t vote for a contract they found unacceptable.
6. The changes necessary to merge the AA and US contracts disturbed enough language and protections from the old contracts to give many FAs a reason to vote against the contract. This one item could explain a lot of unhappy flight attendants.
7. Enough FAs thought that they could get the unacceptable parts changed in an arbitration decision.
8. FA contracts are so difficult anyway because there are so many constituencies within the work group — young starting FAs, mid-career FAs who want flexibility to care for aged parents or young children, mid-career and late-career FAs who are trying to maximize income; late-career flight attendants who are working minimum schedules, etc.
9. Anger at either AA management or Association of Professional Flight Attendants leadership translated into a “no” vote.
10. A certain percentage of the union membership will always vote “no” on a new contract, just as a certain percentage will always vote “yes.”
Art at ISP
Veteran
Doug Parker has a true disdain for employees and customers. He is the one who said that working for an airline is a job, not a career. He is also the one who tried to charge $2 for water on board.
It is no surprise that he doesn't want to give profit sharing to the rank and file. More for him and his executive team... He just doesn't believe it is necessary to have happy employees to have happy customers, thereby guaranteeing happy investors.
And for jimntx, I know Sparrowhawk well, and he and I have always advocated for the folks on the front line together....he was at my side during much of past 12 years since we started our little organization..
With regard to the FA group, I wish you all the best in arbitration, but fear you will indeed fare worse than you could have.
My best to you all.....
It is no surprise that he doesn't want to give profit sharing to the rank and file. More for him and his executive team... He just doesn't believe it is necessary to have happy employees to have happy customers, thereby guaranteeing happy investors.
And for jimntx, I know Sparrowhawk well, and he and I have always advocated for the folks on the front line together....he was at my side during much of past 12 years since we started our little organization..
With regard to the FA group, I wish you all the best in arbitration, but fear you will indeed fare worse than you could have.
My best to you all.....
kirkpatrick
Veteran
AdAstraPerAspera said:
Crash Pad DCA
Senior
jimntx
Veteran
I've been asking myself the same questions. The only one I'm fairly sure about is the last one. Yes, there has to be another vote. The TA was rejected by the voters. So, as i understand it, the intent of next week's mediation session(s) is to try and find a way to tweak the TA to make it acceptable to the voters and avoid arbitration. Problem with arbitration has always been that a good arbitrator tries to be as fair as possible to both sides. The intent is not to punish people for coming to you for help. The usual result is that neither side is really happy with the arbitrator's decisions.AirLUVer said:
I don't think that the company will "offer more" to sweeten the TA pot. There are non-money issues that people are upset about--for instance that ridiculous argument about what "might" or "could" happen with the non-APFA foreign flight attendants in South America. (Though that situation ain't gonna change. I promise you. Those f/as guarantee that we have access to certain profitable countries in SA.) The law is is the law in those countries just as it is here. When doing business in those countries, we have to comply with their laws. It doesn't matter that their laws may not agree with our laws unless it is something specifically prohibited by Federal law. And, if that is the case then our only choice is to cease doing business in those countries if complying with their law would be a violation of our law.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
jimntx said:
One of the negotiators put it to me this way:
The company is only concerned with the size of the pie (the total value of the contract). The company doesn't care how you go about slicing up that pie. That's APFA's job.
Some folks (particularly new hires close to the bottom of the pay scale, such as myself) feel that the largest slices of the pie are going to the most senior folks, who have already reached top scale, particularly intl ones who would be getting a fatter intl override and a big purser raise too, if you happen to be a purser. The junior folks were left asking, "what's in it for me?" and I could certainly empathize. Combine that with what sounds like a concessionary reserve system (they all hear the words "straight reserve for a year" and they panic) and all the negative rhetoric on social media, and you have new hires largely voting no.
With the negative balloting results at NYC and MIA, I guarantee you, the TA would have passed if it had more newhire support and was less engineered to get a "yes" vote from the most senior of the workgroup.
Of course I still voted yes, I'm not an idiot.
- Status
