Mid Atlantic FA Law suit

[xoxo]

In May of 2003 who was the PHL rep? Was it Luther?

There was a VF offered in Dec. 2 of 2002 (that was VF 2) and then another was offered with a release date of June 1, 2003. I don't remember anyone being forced on an INVOL. between those dates, or at anytime than on or before Dec. 2, 2001. You should have contacted the MECP atthat time which would have been Perry Hayes.

I can't remember any furloughs in PIT. I do remember the VFs creating holes in the bases and Pittsburgh f/as were being forced out of base, TDY etc...to fill the holes.

Nonetheless, for the sake of this thread and the MAA post, being INVOL furloughed gives no rise to justification for an MAA litigation.

I am not sure who it was at the time. I think it was a guy, not to sure. But, yes, I knew what they did was not right and so did a few others. But, who were we, just some junior invols trying to hang on to our jobs for another month. We would have been furloughed in June anyway. That was the date they had told us, but then we got the letter. Everything seems to be backward at U and MAA included was also the same way. I am glad it is over with and i am back.

 

[donttouchthebeauty]

In another post above you state: But i wasn't furloughed in 2001 I was furloughed after 2001, and i wasn't struggling to come back at all,
Beauty,

I thought you said you were furloughed AFTER Dec. 2001. You couldn't have gone to MAA without being considered "furlough status" from mainline. No active mainline f/a could opt to go to MAA without being on " Involuntary furlough status". The only INvoluntary furloughing occured on or before Dec. 2, 2001.

What exactly is your motive here, and who are you? You claim to be a fa/ that was furloughed after Dec 2001. If that is the case, you were or had to be on involunary furlough TWICE. Once from mainline on or before Dec. 2, 2001 and once from MAA when they started to send the fleet to Republic.

Put your cards on the table and stop pretending to be someone that you are not.You were furloughed Dec. 2001. That makes you currently on "FURLOUGH STATUS FROM MAINLINE", which has nothing to do with being on INVOLuntary furloughed from MAA.

And you ARE a furloughee from 2001 from mainline.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop talking in circles!

Oh really pitbull, you are grossly mistaken! You are just a little bit upset b/c you have been called out once again... It was 2003 for me and no I wasn't furloughed from MDA either I quit - after my obligated time. You obviously don't know too much about this like you claim or you would know when people were and weren't involuntarily furloughed. Just goes to show who we had "running" the show and claims to know it all doesnt really know everything after all.... My point is proven... And I am not still on furlough status from mainline, but I am sure you wish I were... Check IT sister!!

Sorry sweetie..but this time you are wrong. I was active and got my letter on April 14th 2003 that I was being involuntary furloughed as of May 1st 2003. I was still active and flying right up until April 30th 2003.

Thanks xoxo, just goes to show who had your back at the time. Not the Pitbull!! Hell she doesnt even know the furlough dates. ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[nyprincess]

In May of 2003 who was the PHL rep? Was it Luther?


I can't remember any furloughs in PIT. I do remember the VFs creating holes in the bases and Pittsburgh f/as were being forced out of base, TDY etc...to fill the holes.

We were all displaced to PHL...Then furloughed!

 

[twicefurloughed]

We were all displaced to PHL...Then furloughed!

I believe they are arguing about mainline furloughs in 2003, not Mid-Atlantic. a very long argumentative thread

 

[Zarah]

At the time Pitbull's responsibility was in PIT and she had her hands full there, so it is understandable that she would not have dates commited to memory for events that did not directly impact her base of responsibility.

 

[PITbull]

I don't remember any furloughs on mainline that were INVOLUNTARY other than those in Dec. 2001 and November 2001.

If there was another involuntary furlough on mainline in May of 2003, I can not recall it. We had around 3,400 voluntary furloughs in 4 years. These kinds of programs were to prevent any forced furloughs. These furloughs were offered every 6 months starting Dec. 2001. In addition, there were f/as retiring every month on an average of 18 to 33 per month. And with the ERI incentive in 2005, there was an additional approx. 300.

Since some of you on here posting were effected out of PHL, how many were there that were not saved by the voluntary furlough that were forced out in May and June that were still active on the property?

I'm curious because I don't remember anyone calling me telling me that they were being involuntarily furloughed in 2003. We had 9 voluntary furloughs throughout 4 years. In addition we had approx 1200 f/as that took a VFLR between release dates in 2005 and 2006...this July 1 2006 being the last one.

Anyone who took the VFLR for this year, 2006 was not eligible for unemployment because the company is in "recall mode". There were many of us that left the company voluntarily, in the thousands. The most junior f/a that was INVOL furloughed that I had on my list was from the Sept. class of 99. So those of you who were invol furloughed in 2003 must have been the first to be recalled to AWA.

If you are back flying, I would suspect you are happy that AFA members met the concessionary demands...otherwise, there would have not been any recalling.

 

[nyprincess]

I believe they are arguing about mainline furloughs in 2003, not Mid-Atlantic. a very long argumentative thread

Really...Cause that's what I'm talking about too....
WE were displaced to PHL from PIT then furloughed in May 2003...It was because we were all in PHL that you didn't know what was going on.

 

[nyprincess]

It was because we were all in PHL that you didn't know what was going on.

This part was for Pitbull

 

[Zarah]

AFA US Airways MEC E-Line for April 9, 2003


In this E-Line
Involuntary Furlough/New Sick Policy Update

Involuntary Furlough/New Sick Policy Update

INVOLUNTARY FURLOUGHS

This is an update to the information which follows on the April 8th Hotline. The numbers of flight attendants who will be involuntarily furloughed has increased. The numbers the Company provided previously were active flight attendants. To reduce the total number by the active flight attendants, additional flight attendants who are inactive will also be involuntarily furloughed. The new numbers are 261 furloughs in May and 629 in June. We still expect the class of August 15, 1999 to be the most senior involuntarily furloughed and not the entire class.

AFA US Airways MEC E-Line for April 8, 2003


In this E-Line
Message From MEC President Perry Hayes
Voluntary Furlough 5 Awards
Voluntary Separation (VSIP) Clarification From Inflight
Displacement Update

Message From MEC President Perry Hayes

FURTHER STAFFING REDUCTIONS

The Company notified AFA on April 7, 2003, of further staffing reductions. It makes no sense that the Company has hired additional employees in Labor Relations in the past few weeks, and filled the VP-Inflight Position and added other positions in Inflight while our numbers are diminishing and while the service on the aircraft is being reduced. Evidently, the "talent" of the leadership in Inflight & Labor Relations must be diminishing as well since it now requires more of them to manage fewer employees who are providing less service than in the past. It appears that the cash infusion the Company recently received will not be used in any way that will be beneficial to the flight attendants.

Here is the bad news:
For the month of May, both the PIT-LGW and PIT-FRA flights are cancelled. Please refer to Page 12-13, Paragraph 17 for ITD trip guarantee.

As far as staffing of aircraft in the ITD's for May, there are no changes.

Domestic aircraft staffing will be at FAA minimums, with few exceptions. If a flight attendant signs in for his/her "D" trip and if the A, B, and C blockholders on that trip are all signed in for their trips, then that trip would be staffed above the FAA minimum. If, however, the A, B, or C flight attendant calls in sick or trip-improves, then the Company will not be filling that vacated position and the trip will go out with only three flight attendants.

San Juan and Santo Domingo will be staffed with the FAA minimum plus one LOD/O flight attendant.

For June, all aircraft will be staffed with the FAA minimum, including ITD flight segments. The 767 in the ITD will be staffed with five (5) flight attendants. The A330 will be staffed with eight (8) flight attendants plus one (1) LOD/O flight attendant on flight segments that require a LOD/O.

These staffing reductions will result in additional involuntary furloughs. It appears that there will be 125 involuntary furloughs on May 1 and an additional 354 on June 4. These additional furloughs take into consideration the 411 flight attendants awarded Voluntary Furlough 5 (VF5). By the Company's calculations, the upcoming furloughs will affect flight attendants in the class of 08/15/1999. In addition, displacements will occur beginning May 1st.

http://www.afausairways.org/Eline/archive_03.htm

 

[PITbull]

Thanks Zarah for pulling that E-line. I did not remember that we had 1 involuntary furlough beyond the Dec. 2001 due to managment securing even more cost savings from the f/as by reducing staffing to FAA minimums.

My apology. What I remember is displacements out of PIT to PHL. But the E-line does trigger my memory of furloughs that effected PHL. There were only 400 f/as that took the VF and not enough to save the additonal 500 plus created from the FAA min staffing.

 

[DCAflyer]

DCflyer,

You are correct again...we will have to agree that we disagree. AFA didn't work itself in...the company was using our furloughees and they had first priority to these jobs vs. hiring off the street. If the f/as on furlough wanted a different union, they could have solicited another union to come in. Keep in mind, that in order to start with no union there had to be hiring from the furloughees and off the street, according to a hiring process done by the company. Believe me, the company wanted to hire off the street. And if MAA would have been around for years, eventually, the company would have had to hire off the street to fill the positions of this growing division. They may have enventually decided to sell it off. The fear that many of us had on mainline and the pilots as well is that the company could have started to convert much of the domestic flying over to MAA. Eventually the furlough list would have gotten bigger and mainline could have been separated just to handle international flying. That was our fear of the entire concept from the get-go. And we believe that the company may have been heading in that direction. The bad part for the company is that they couldn't operate the airline and most of the decisions were controled by the creditors.

Like I said...I was accused many times by management and AFA that I wouldn't be happy unless their was a strike on the property...if I would have had the support of the f/as...your damn straight that I would have taken us to the strike zone. But there was not enough support from the membership to HALT everything and go on strike risking a judge imposed contract.

Many of these f/as who are junior on this board would have been singing a different tune if they had 15-20-30 years in the company. Losing a pension and those penison credits is a big deal, huge. Hard for the likes of Beauty boy to comprehend it. I venture to say that if you are still flying in 20 years, you better hope you have some funds in your 401K, otherwise you'll be flying with a walker before you can retire from this job..that's if the company and junior f/as don't make it so bad for you that it pushes you to jump ship; like they try to do with senior folks today.

PitBull,

My recollection is that it was actually written into the agreement (either first or second restructuring agreement) that AFA would represent the MAA flight attendants. Written in! I suspect that clause is not legal and would be thrown out in arbitration if the MAA flight attendants had pushed the issue. At our inital base meetings after recurrent, the first thing that our rep did was hand out the dues deduction form. We were immediately billed for the $50 fee if we had not paid it when in the Boeing/Airbus Divsion (like it or not, I'm gonna keep calling it that!). It was absolutely pre-decided for the MAA flight attendants that AFA was our union. Again, we could have pushed the issue, and perhaps we should have. Very few people were happy with our union leadership at the time, but our entire MAA careers were a whirlwind. Coming back, followed by quick growth and new aircraft/routes, follwed by entering Chapter 7 version II, followed by an abrupt halt in aircraft deliveries, followed by rumors that we would be sold off, followed by rumors of the MAA merger, followed by a brief period of hope by the news that Doug Parker wants to "keep the 170s in mainline," followed by confirmation that the 170s were, indeed going to Republic, followed by their "offer" to let us apply for positions making even less money, unpaid initial training, probable rebasing, etc., followed by formal merger announcement, followed by our pathetic retension offer, followed by mass exidus, followed by commencement of aircraft and sim transfer... all within two years! There was little time to think about, much less act upon, decertifying AFA and bringing in fresh union blood.

But I digress. Let me ask you a hypothetical question.

What if:
(1) The company furloughed 2,000 people, then
(2) Called the union in to negotiate a restructuring agreement, then
(3) In the course of negoatiations, an a T/A was made betwixt the union and the company that, in exchange for future aircraft deliveries, non-furloughed people would make $40.00 and hour and returning furloughees would make $17.00 an hour and significantly reduced benefits, per diem, and work rules.
(4) Furloughees, being "inactive employees" are not entitled to a vote.
(5) The active employees ratify the agreement.
(6) The company buys new aircraft and recalls furloughees pursuant to paragraph (3).

Do you believe that the agreement affecting the furloughees is legal?

 

[PITbull]

DCflyer,

It was written in so that AFA could represent the f/as who would be either hired or offered jobs to MAA. AFA is a union business and when there is an opportunity to represent a group of employees, AFA will do just that. It was the concessions (cost savings to buy a/c) from the AFA members of mainline that gave rise to MAA in the concessionary contracts. It makes sense that AFA would be the representing union.Same for all the representing unions at MAA.

If you are asking me to answer your hypothetical question...my answer is YES. It is legal. The only distinction between an involuntary furloughee and hiring off the street is the invols have contractual rights to recall and company seniority accural (not longevity) in the CBA. Involuntary furloughees are not dues paying members and are not active to vote or hold union office. Same with retirees. They can not vote on the contracts as they are not active or dues paying members even if the subsequent contracts effect their medical (which did occur in concession #3).

I am on a VFLR. I have recall rights, however, because of the type of furlough I am on...I am not permitted to pay union dues according to the International and their interpretation of the constitution. (I tried, and they sent my dues back).

So, if their is some other type of negotiations that may effect my status, I would not be permitted to vote on it even though it may effect me.

The provisions of the American Eagle contract that was voted as part of concession #2, along with the new LTO system, cut in vacation, cut in medical benefits for mainline, increase in medical contributions for mainline is what the active f/as voted and ratified. ($26 million more $$ extracted from the f/as group) in light of the fact that 3 months prior, the f/as had just ratified $78 million in concessions #1. Did I vote for it personally, answer NO. Did the LECP of PIT write out to PIT members between Dec. 23, 2002 and Jan. 5, 2003(4 PIT E-lines) AGAINST it, absolutely!

Did it ratifiy anyway...YES. MAA actual negotiations commenced 10 months later on Oct. 23, 2003. First class training for MAA commenced in Feb. 2004.

As an aside, some of those very f/as (even who post on these boards) who happen to be involuntarily furloughed in May of 2003 and June of 2003 (approx 500) had the opportunity to vote on concession #2 as well as be offered a job to MAA if THEY CHOSE.

You may not have had that opportunity as an Involuntary furloughee if you were furloughed Dec 2, or before in 2001, but many on that involuntary furlough list HAD the opportunity to vote on MAA American Eagle provisions as well as it becoming a "division" of mainline if they were active f/as in 2002.
And from what I am reading from "xoxo" and "beauty" on these boards they were active f/as that were invol furloughed in May and June of 2003...some of the f/as who became invols subsequent concession #1 and concession #2 obviously, voted on BOTH those contracts that gave rise to MAA, the LCC within a carrier.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[xoxo]

As an aside, some of those very f/as (even who post on these boards) who happen to be involuntarily furloughed in May of 2003 and June of 2003 (approx 500) had the opportunity to vote on concession #2 as well as be offered a job to MAA if THEY CHOSE.

You may not have had that opportunity as an Involuntary furloughee if you were furloughed Dec 2, or before in 2001, but many on that involuntary furlough list HAD the opportunity to vote on MAA American Eagle provisions as well as it becoming a "division" of mainline if they were active f/as in 2002.
And from what I am reading from "xoxo" and "beauty" on these boards they were active f/as that were invol furloughed in May and June of 2003...some of the f/as who became invols subsequent concession #1 and concession #2 obviously, voted on those contracts that gave rise to MAA, the LCC within a carrier.

Wouldn't you agree?

I voted...NO!!!!!

 

[PITbull]

That makes two of us....but you did vote on both contracts... the majority voted to ratify.
The comment was not how you voted, but that you had the opportunity to vote while active on the property, both contracts.

Here's a question.

How many of those 500 involuntary furloughees that were furloughed May and June of 2003, who voted on both those contracts that gave rise to MAA took the jobs in MAA, when offered? There were only approx 278 fa/s who flew at MAA. So, could it have been 50%? 40%? Maybe 100%?

I am sure AFA could find the payroll numbers of f/as that were still active on mainline who voted on both contracts and then subsequentely involuntarily furloughed and went to MAA by their own choosing.

 

[xoxo]

PITBULL
There was also a large amount Jan 1st 03 that were involuntary too. Everyone at MAA was involuntary. Or eventually went from vol to invol. But we all were invols but some were not around for a vote. I was only there for the 1st consession vote. The second happened later after I left. I dont remember voting a second time. I would have been ok with it all (MAA) if they would have done what they said and had it on a seperate certificate.