Possible Restoration of Lost Wages for Flight Attendants

[AdAstraPerAspera]

So true. ^^

 

[aredeeyou22]

no, I am not ignoring those items... but many of them favor senior employees and a small subset of employees.

profit sharing is paid to ALL employees at the same percentage.

I can't fully cost out the benefit of the two contracts for each employee... but when the costs and benefits of the contract favor a subset of employees to the exclusion of the total group, then it should not be surprised that there will be those who don't believe they got the most fair deal.

and keep in mind, profit sharing is not just a DL thing. AA is the ONLY major airline that doesn't have it.

the industry in 2015 will likely be more profitable in the US than it has even been. All of the benefits of the AA contract become less and less significant in a very profitable industry where other carriers are paying large amounts of profit sharing.

A few things:
 
It does not matter so much what seniority the listed work rules "favor"; the point is that they are in the contract, they are of incredible cost, and the listed items are now better at AA than at DL.  You stated in reply # 87 that the AA contract, "still won't come anywhere close to keeping AA FAs at industry comparable compensation..."-  Without factoring in the pay premiums, vac pay, and trip protections to name a few, you are not making a true statement.  Many flight attendants place great value on the flexibility of the profession, and that extends to favorable work rules, not just compensation and variable profit sharing.
 
I am not saying that AA FAs do not deserve profit sharing, of course they do.  But that does not make the Delta FA package more valuable whatsoever.
 
The cost of the AA v DL package has been costed by the unions, and the Company, and the AA agreement is of more value.  Plus, the out wages that are guaranteed in the AA JCBA (DOS+12, etc), carry value as well.
 
I also will respectfully disagree that with the industry becoming more profitable, the AA contract will become "less and less significant".  Placing value in work rules and areas other than compensation is simply a different way of allocating the money.  Delta prefers to circumnavigate stronger protections for profit sharing; AA's FA union chose to inherit approximately 80% of the USAirways work rules, which are superior to any legacy carrier operating today.  All the legacy contracts are online- it is a simple comparison if you have the time.
 
I'm sure Delta prefers to pay in Profit Sharing; it allows it more control over FA productivity, rescheduling, and saves them on other things such as paying trip crew subs/ pay protections, and a higher minimum day when building the sequences.  
 
Just a different perspective, that's all.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm glad the FAs got their raise.  But the "No" voters do have a point.  Why was there a vote if the APFA leadership can override it anyway?  The leadership pushed hard for the TA, the membership (barely) said no, and the leadership basically said: "Too bad.  We know better than you, anyway, so we are going to ignore the results."
 
(I agree that the leadership did know better in this case.  But really, why vote at all, then?)

and the question still is why Parker could override the collective bargaining process to restore $80 million that the FAs voted against but he can't include profit sharing or other compensation that would provide 100% of the compensation that AA's direct peers would receive in profit sharing.

the disconnect is believing that the collective bargaining process can be selectively used for one thing but not another.

and, no, the AA/APFA CBA did not provide equal value to what DL FAs will receive in profit sharing.

The AA/APFA CBA value for profit sharing is a fraction of what DL FAs will receive - around $250 million this year.

There is nothing in the AA CBA that comes close to matching that value.

and the chances are very high that UA's profitability will begin to increase dramatically in the next year as they accelerate their network restructuring.

 

[aredeeyou22]

More dodging. So do you agree that language won in arbitration can be changed in negotiations? We had negotiated, ratified language changed with the stroke of Jim Littles pen-we lost profit sharing. 
 
Show me in the contract where there is an aggregate based wage adjustment. The NPA said if they don't reach an agreement there would be, but they did. Was the aggregate wage adjustment in the TA or Not? If so I don't see it in the contract agreement posted on their website. If such a letter came out afterwards then I would say they have it but I see nothing that leads me to believe its in the current agreement. I'll admit I can be wrong, but I'd like to see something. 

Does this help?  This is from an APFA release dated 12/18/14:
 
"In addition, APFA and AA confirmed the parties' previous understanding of language that already exists in the JCBA with regard to a possible wage adjustment once the UAL/CAL Flight Attendants achieve a contract. The parties confirmed that a joint United/Continental contract can only have a positive impact on our Agreement."

 

[aredeeyou22]

and the question still is why Parker could override the collective bargaining process to restore $80 million that the FAs voted against but he can't include profit sharing or other compensation that would provide 100% of the compensation that AA's direct peers would receive in profit sharing.

the disconnect is believing that the collective bargaining process can be selectively used for one thing but not another.

He could have offered Profit Sharing, but the union chose to put the value of the PS into wages (matching DL's in the next year, and guaranteed raises for the life of the contract), as well as superior work rules, pay premiums, and trip irrop protections.  Those things cost money, and exceed the value placed on the PS.  
 
Just another way to compensate, that's all.  Do they deserve PS?  Of course.  Do they have the value built into other areas?  I would say yes, by far.  Again, just another perspective.

 

[WorldTraveler]

show me where he could have put in profit sharing when he has repeatedly said he wouldn't offer it.

further, the value of profit sharing that brings AA FA compensation up to DL FA levels is far more than the value of the restored TA. It is not just another perspective or a rearrangement of the terms. PS comparable to DL levels is a significant increase in the value of the contract.

it is precisely because he knows that difference that is willing to take a level which should have been accepted in the first plus.

 

[aredeeyou22]

show me where he could have put in profit sharing when he has repeatedly said he wouldn't offer it.

further, the value of profit sharing that brings AA FA compensation up to DL FA levels is far more than the value of the restored TA. It is not just another perspective or a rearrangement of the terms. PS comparable to DL levels is a significant increase in the value of the contract.

it is precisely because he knows that difference that is willing to take a level which should have been accepted in the first plus.

He could've done whatever he wanted during negotiations. He said no PS, and the union secured the value in the work rules.  You disagree, that's okay.  I know many FAs who would disagree, because productivity and flexibility are a big part of the job for them- bigger than compensation. As I've stated, many work rules, pay premiums, and trip protection language are stronger at AA.  That costs money. A lot of money.
 
Again, I agree with you.  The PS is valuable, and will be more so in years to come. That doesn't mean the FA package at DL is more valuable because they have PS.  
 
You say that PS levels paid at the DL levels would be a significant increase to the AA contract, and I am arguing that the work rules, pay protections, etc, in the AA contract would increase the value of the DL work rules more significantly.  Delta knows this, which is probably why their CEO came out swinging about AA FAs not receiving PS. I would want to divert attention from the other valuable items that AA came out with, too.
 
AA put their eggs in a different basket.
 
I don't understand the last sentence.  

 

[aredeeyou22]

and the question still is why Parker could override the collective bargaining process to restore $80 million that the FAs voted against but he can't include profit sharing or other compensation that would provide 100% of the compensation that AA's direct peers would receive in profit sharing.

the disconnect is believing that the collective bargaining process can be selectively used for one thing but not another.

and, no, the AA/APFA CBA did not provide equal value to what DL FAs will receive in profit sharing.

The AA/APFA CBA value for profit sharing is a fraction of what DL FAs will receive - around $250 million this year.

There is nothing in the AA CBA that comes close to matching that value.

and the chances are very high that UA's profitability will begin to increase dramatically in the next year as they accelerate their network restructuring.

Parker can restore the $80m to the contract per the APFA Constitution because it is an improvement, and only has to be approved by the Executive Committee.  He could've added PS and any other compensation he wanted last Friday, along with the original TA wages, if he wanted to.
 
Yes, the AA/ APFA agreement is more valuable than the DL pay/ work rule package.  Outside companies were hired to cost the value of the legacy contracts to determine "market based in the aggregate" in relation to the Negotiations Protocol Agreement.
 
UA's profitability will hopefully accelerate, and they will receive a contract of higher value than AA.  In that case, AA FAs are due an upward adjustment in the base wages.  I am sure the unions at both carriers will be supporting each other in UA's efforts to secure an industry leading agreement. It's nice to see an industry on the mend.

 

[usfliboi]

More more more.... I swear if we mad 300 dollars an hour some would be unhappy...move on do your job or find another folks...for those who do...wow it's a good life!

 

[jcw]

and the question still is why Parker could override the collective bargaining process to restore $80 million that the FAs voted against but he can't include profit sharing or other compensation that would provide 100% of the compensation that AA's direct peers would receive in profit sharing.

the disconnect is believing that the collective bargaining process can be selectively used for one thing but not another.

and, no, the AA/APFA CBA did not provide equal value to what DL FAs will receive in profit sharing.

The AA/APFA CBA value for profit sharing is a fraction of what DL FAs will receive - around $250 million this year.

There is nothing in the AA CBA that comes close to matching that value.

and the chances are very high that UA's profitability will begin to increase dramatically in the next year as they accelerate their network restructuring.

 
Once again you have the facts wrong - Parker did not override anything - union approach him asked for it - he agreed union leadership voted on it - wrong facts by you as usual

 

[CMH_GSE]

Parker can restore the $80m to the contract per the APFA Constitution because it is an improvement, and only has to be approved by the Executive Committee.  He could've added PS and any other compensation he wanted last Friday, along with the original TA wages, if he wanted to.
 
Yes, the AA/ APFA agreement is more valuable than the DL pay/ work rule package.  Outside companies were hired to cost the value of the legacy contracts to determine "market based in the aggregate" in relation to the Negotiations Protocol Agreement.
 
UA's profitability will hopefully accelerate, and they will receive a contract of higher value than AA.  In that case, AA FAs are due an upward adjustment in the base wages.  I am sure the unions at both carriers will be supporting each other in UA's efforts to secure an industry leading agreement. It's nice to see an industry on the mend.

aredeeyou22, your posts on this have been most helpful, appreciate your insight.
I think you hit the nail on the head with DL management attacking the lack of PS To take light off the vastly different and better work rules at AA, they do cost the company money and some people do put more value on flexibility than overall pay.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, DL mgmt. is noting the differences because the APFA came out arguing that they had delivered an industry leading contract when it was obvious they undervalued profit sharing at DL.

Parker only validating the charade by saying he didn't believe in profit sharing because it was unfair to employees while he and other AA execs were touting how well AA would do financially.

You can't both argue that AA is going to do well and then say that AA employees shouldn't have profit sharing, esp. when the union costing didn't account fully for DL profit sharing - which wasn't even fully known at the time the APFA and AA agreed on a value for the contract. They couldn't have properly valued DL profit sharing because its value was not known.

Once again you have the facts wrong - Parker did not override anything - union approach him asked for it - he agreed union leadership voted on it - wrong facts by you as usual

yes, he overrode the collective bargaining process regardless of who asked for it.

 

[NYer]

no, DL mgmt. is noting the differences because the APFA came out arguing that they had delivered an industry leading contract when it was obvious they undervalued profit sharing at DL.

Parker only validating the charade by saying he didn't believe in profit sharing because it was unfair to employees while he and other AA execs were touting how well AA would do financially.

You can't both argue that AA is going to do well and then say that AA employees shouldn't have profit sharing, esp. when the union costing didn't account fully for DL profit sharing - which wasn't even fully known at the time the APFA and AA agreed on a value for the contract. They couldn't have properly valued DL profit sharing because its value was not known.


yes, he overrode the collective bargaining process regardless of who asked for it.

 
Traveler,
 
What is the value of the CBA for the flight attendants at Delta, including the protection it affords them?

 

[Bob Owens]

Does this help?  This is from an APFA release dated 12/18/14:
 
"In addition, APFA and AA confirmed the parties' previous understanding of language that already exists in the JCBA with regard to a possible wage adjustment once the UAL/CAL Flight Attendants achieve a contract. The parties confirmed that a joint United/Continental contract can only have a positive impact on our Agreement."

Not really. What exactly does that mean? The Resolution itself reads differently;
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WHEREAS, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on December 18, 2014, the Company and APFA confirmed the parties’ previous understanding that under paragraph 3 of the JCBA Award, when United/Continental reaches a [/SIZE]Flight Attendant JCBA, the only adjustments to our JCBA shall be upward changes to our JCBA wage rates; 
 
 

Okay, now that was their interpretation of what the company agreed to, I see nothing in the Contract and they have not posted a LOA, just a resolution which means less than nothing to the company.  They believe that the company agreed no matter what happens at UAL wages at AA will be adjusted up, and thats correct, its in the contract, 2% per year after this raise. I still see nothing about an aggregate based adjustment like what was in the award.
 
This statement is similar to what was put out about prefunding. The Union said flat out that we were to get the matching funds, the company stayed silent and let the Union tell everyone the agreement says they are getting the match but a year and a half later the company says?"Ahhh, No, you're not". 
 
So a year from now UAL gets a contract that beats yours plus it has profit sharing. The APFA approaches the company and says "we need to adjust these wages, UAL and Delta are way ahead of us and they are getting another month of pay through profit sharing", and Parker turns around and says "I don't think so". The Union says that "the company agreed that when  the UAL-CO contract goes through that the only adjustments to the AA contract will be upwards", Parker will say "And they are, 2%". 
 
I hope I'm wrong, because if the aggregate based adjustment is still in there, and we may not really know until after UAL gets a FA contract,(just like we didn't know for sure  the company was going to try and keep the matching funds for pre-funding till after the 1114 process was settled) that means the No voters were right, they got a better deal than the TA by voting NO, they got the raise plus they got the aggregate based adjustment. 

 

[NYer]

Not really. What exactly does that mean? The Resolution itself reads differently;
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
Okay, now that was their interpretation of what the company agreed to, I see nothing in the Contract and they have not posted a LOA, just a resolution which means less than nothing to the company.  They believe that the company agreed no matter what happens at UAL wages at AA will be adjusted up, and thats correct, its in the contract, 2% per year after this raise. I still see nothing about an aggregate based adjustment like what was in the award.
 
This statement is similar to what was put out about prefunding. The Union said flat out that we were to get the matching funds, the company stayed silent and let the Union tell everyone the agreement says they are getting the match but a year and a half later the company says?"Ahhh, No, you're not". 
 
So a year from now UAL gets a contract that beats yours plus it has profit sharing. The APFA approaches the company and says "we need to adjust these wages, UAL and Delta are way ahead of us and they are getting another month of pay through profit sharing", and Parker turns around and says "I don't think so". The Union says that "the company agreed that when  the UAL-CO contract goes through that the only adjustments to the AA contract will be upwards", Parker will say "And they are, 2%". 
 
I hope I'm wrong, because if the aggregate based adjustment is still in there, and we may not really know until after UAL gets a FA contract,(just like we didn't know for sure  the company was going to try and keep the matching funds for pre-funding till after the 1114 process was settled) that means the No voters were right, they got a better deal than the TA by voting NO, they got the raise plus they got the aggregate based adjustment. 

 
You must be trying to save face since you shared that if they get the raises, it MUST mean Parker took something else. Plainly, you were wrong. Just say it.
 
Well, the arbitration award specifically calls for the aggregate based adjustment:
 
 "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(S) 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."
 
2014 Negotiations Protocol Agreement: Section B(5)..."In the event that United implements an initial flight attendant joint collective bargaining agreement after the American JCBA is implemented, beginning no later than thirty (30) days after the initial United joint collective bargaining agreement has been 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."