Possible Restoration of Lost Wages for Flight Attendants

[AdAstraPerAspera]

You could at least try to spell Laura Glading's name right...

 

[Bob Owens]

You could at least try to spell Laura Glading's name right...

My apoligies for the mistpellin

 

[diamondcutter]

You were asked this once and no response, I'll ask again what is the value of the DL fa's contract???

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

I'm sure he doesn't have a figure, and even if he did, how trustworthy would it be? I am confident that the total value of our contract is worth more than DL's in compensation, work rules, duty rigs, pay protections, and job protections, and that is good enough for me. 

 

[jimntx]

Uh, I think he was being sarcastic.  Let's not forget that DL f/as have no contract, period.  Yes, they get this benefit or that work rule, but they have nothing to guarantee that those things or even their job will be there tomorrow.  As long as DL violates no anti-discrimination laws, the f/a has no recourse if the company decides to fire/furlough him/her.

 

[IORFA]

Bob, the United/Continental language was part of the APFA's arbitration proposal and stipulated to by AA in the first 20 minutes of the arbitration proceedings. APFA has said it remains, it is your choice to believe it or not. Go read the arbitration proposal. It is only 2 1/2 pages. For some reason, people have a hard time believing what OUR union says and what is agreed to. If they belong to it or not.

 

[IORFA]

IMO, APFA now has 24 months to get an LOA regarding the "hard 40" changed back to the rolling 480 and an employment threshold. Just like they tried to do before to appease the malcontents.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, the United/Continental language was part of the APFA's arbitration proposal and stipulated to by AA in the first 20 minutes of the arbitration proceedings. APFA has said it remains, it is your choice to believe it or not. Go read the arbitration proposal. It is only 2 1/2 pages. For some reason, people have a hard time believing what OUR union says and what is agreed to. If they belong to it or not.

But thats it, I know it was in the award but I haven't seen anything post Dec 18th that says its in that agreement. If it is GREAT, you got the bird in the hand and the two in the Bush (assuming the aggregate includes Profit sharing at UA and DL) . All I'm asking for is something post 12-18-14, an LOA, LOM or the contract that says that it is. Even the statements from just the APFA are not really that clear.  I hope it is, I would enjoy  being wrong if thats the case, but 28 years at this place has made me skeptical. I just cant see Parker giving you the $80 million then allowing their profit sharing and negotiated wage increases to bring you up in wages to what they get with everything, especially since PS can change from year to year and he could be left with higher costs than them. Again, I would like to be wrong and maybe Parker isn't full of shyte and if my punishment for being wrong is I get $50/hr and my Holidays, Vacation, sick time and the same 401K as you guys then sign me up, they can keep the Profit Sharing if I get a fair wage but without it, and even with it, the wage at UA, US and DL is not a fair wage, those are wages set by a bankrupt companies with the assistance of the court system, not a market based wage of a profitable company like UPS or WN. 

 

[NYer]

I'm not denying it was in the award, I'm questioning whether or not its still in the deal the parties agreed to after the award. You still have not shown us anything that indicates with any certainty it is. And if that portion of the award is still in the contract then the "NO" voters were right, by voting "No" they did get a better deal, because they got the extra $80 million plus they got the "market aggregate" which was not in the TA. --You try so hard to make your "theories" come out correct, but this is ridiculous. I know you have to try and make your theory of voting NO come out ahead, but you're trying to hard to get that square block in the round hole. The "market aggregate" was the baseline, the minimum they'd get and it was a LOWER value than what they voted for. The TA had the "market aggregate" and another $80 million on top of that. =/
 
The vote NO, the $80M is taken away and they're left with the "market aggregate." minus some other language that was agreed to after the TA. Luckily, they got the $80M back but they lost some of the language they hoped for...like the "Hard 40."
 
You keep saying that because its an arbitrted award that it cant be changed, well do we in NY aircraft maintenance still have the Wallen decision determining our OT rules? NO , because in Negotiations it was agreed to set aside the award and put in new rules (which by the way has resulted in more OT bypass payments in the last two years than we saw in the ten years prior to that.). --Doesn't Fleet still operate under the Wallen decision. They fought to keep that and other Locals supported their arguments to keep it. If the AMT's don't have it was because it was negotiated away, voted on and passed. Or are you saying the Wallen decision was negated without any input from the AMT Local's and if that's the case, where is the lawsuit you guys are always eager to file?
 
The Flight Attendants at NWA got more equity after voting no. So they gave the same dollar value in concessions, but they got a better settlement . So in totality they did a little better. When the NWA mechanics voted NO back in 1999 they ended up with a much better deal two years later but we are talking about a 30% increase over the deal that was brought back and rejected. NWA was in BK with the Flight Attendants, NWA was profitable in the 90s when the mechanics rejected the TA. Which situation is AA in? The answer is the same as the NWA back in 1999 but around 10 times more profitable. --Good grief, the NWA flight attendants voted no twice and at the end they ended up with the concession they turned down and received Equity because they came to a consensual agreement. It was the same scenario faced by the APA. Equity is not a matter of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, it is part of the BK process and given to creditors in such a process. (with unions being classified as creditors). We got the same amount in Equity as the concessions, but with us you argued that if you add the concession over the 6 years we were completely duped and didn't receive nearly the same value we gave up. If you believe that for us, then it must the same for the NWA flight attendants. One can't be bad and the other good. If it's bad for us, then it's bad for them...if it was good for them, then it was good for us. Either way, one of your arguments is not valid.
 
It did happen with the Pilots, just ask them, they got language changes that they objected ,they made improvements that helped Junior pilots. They also walked away with 15% of the equity and gave much much less in concessions than we did. Our lawyers did a terrible job, bottom of the industry and the least equity per dollar of concessions, and thats not even taking into account the fact they did not challenge the valuation of our concessions where outsourcing was based on Domestic rates instead of the foreign rates that they ended up paying with most of the work they sent out. --They were offered the 13.5% Equity before they voted no, not after. They receive the bulk of that value because of their loses in the pension with their loss of the Plan B and their total cash out of their pension.
 
June 27th, 2012-APA: "Before the APA Board of Directors voted, APA’s advisers—including financial restructuring experts at Lazard and bankruptcy attorney Fil Agusti of Steptoe and Johnson—were emphatic in recommending approval of management’s final offer as a tentative agreement. In particular, our advisers focused on the significance of the provision that gives APA a claim in the form of a 13.5 percent equity stake in a newly reorganized American Airlines.
 
August 8th, 2012-Wall Street Journal: "The pilots union said its board was meeting Wednesday with the union leadership to discuss what comes next. It provided no explanation for why the deal failed. If the group had approved it, pilots would have received modest raises, furlough protection, a boost in the company-provided contribution to their 401(k) plans and 13.5% equity in the reorganized AMR.
 
November 16, 2012-AP: "The union said voting was expected to end Dec. 7. Like the proposal rejected in August, pilots would get raises and 13.5 percent of the stock in parent AMR Corp. after it emerges from bankruptcy. The union promised to release more details later Friday.
 
December 8, 2012-Chicago Tribune: "Pilots at American Airlines on Friday ratified a new union labor contract in a move that may help the airline emerge from bankruptcy protection and pave the way for a merger with US Airways, which reportedly has made a formal bid to combine two of the nation's largest carriers. The new pilot contract, among other terms, includes pay raises and a 13.5 percent stake in the company in exchange for allowing the airline to outsource more of its flying to regional jets and airline partners."
 
So now you are claiming that the "market aggregate" was in the TA as well? Funny because its nowhere in the highlights and thats a pretty big issue. --The 'market aggregate" is the baseline of the value to be received in arbitration. The arbitrator couldn't cut below that threshold which is the base of where negotiations began, their Negotiation Protocol Agreement is very clear on that issue.
 
 
Covered arbitration already. Arbitrated awards can be changed if both parties agree, just like Wallen and just like the $80 miliion, and possibly, probably like the "adjustment to the market based aggregate". You have not proven that its still in there. It's part of the arbitrated ruling. You're just sore because you said there was no way they could get the raises unless Parker got something in return and in your opinion it was the "market aggregate," which they still have in place. --The APFA's own communications confirms they still have the arbitrated agreement on the "market aggregate" in place. (I guess those types of communications don't seem to matter to a conspiracy theorist)
 
Ok the Negotiations Protocol Agreement, now you are claiming that since the NPA discusses an adjustment should UAL get a better deal that means its part of the APFAs new contract, a contract where the company agreed to set aside the wage decision and give the Flight attendants the extra money. The NPA is not an agreement that sets the terms of work rules, wages etc. It may be a contract but its not a Labor Contract, its an agreement that sets the protocol of how negotiations are to be conducted and that agreement said that if they dont reach a deal within the timeframe called for in the NPA that they go to arbitration and the arbitrator uses market based aggregate to determine the wage, that was repeated in the videos, but the NPA also adds that when UAL gets a contract that the market based aggregate would be adjusted accordingly. That really wasn't highlighted in the videos. --The intent of the parties is to bring the flight attentdants to the "market aggregate," which equaled $112M. The arbitrator's decision was to award the "market aggregate" of the $112M and to include the ability for the flight attendants to remain within that area in the event another legacy flight attendant group received a higher value. Luckily, the flight attendants were able to receive the other $80M in value they voted down AND they got to keep the arbitrated decision of maintaining the "market aggregate" in the event another flight attendant group surpasses them.
 
I understand you want to portray this as if they lost something because you thought they would, but they didn't. They got their raises and their got to keep their "market aggregate" language. Pretty good for a group that didn't have to burn the place down to get ahead.
 
Easier for you, all that spinning must be hard work. I have no problem saying I'm wrong, if I am you should have no problem proving it, just show me where it is in the new agreement that was struck on Dec 18. I have not seen anything from the APFA claiming it was still in there, only that the question was asked and answered that the intent was that a "market based aggregate" could only affect APFA wages in a "positive" way. --..."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 Flight Attendant JCBA, the only adjustments to our JCBA shall be upward changes to our JCBA wage rates..." --APFA
 
I'll say it again, I hope I am wrong, thats good for all of us if they got the increase and kept the market based aggregate that includes profit sharing. Where they get the wage increases and on top of that get the profit sharing that their peers get built right into their hourly wage, because thats a much better deal than the TA and the No voters were right, they did get a better contract by voting NO. --They didn't get anything that wasn't already in their failed TA and/or the Negotiating Protocol Agreement. As a matter of fact, they lost all the other agreement they had after the September 19 Tentative Agreement was announced.
 
Or are you claiming that the "market based aggregate", that included Profit Sharing, was in the TA as well as the current deal? If so, "SHOW ME". Don't bother with the NPA, thats a protocol agreement, not a labor contract. Show where either the NPA or the Market based aggregate is in the agreement. --the NPA doesn't matter? Don't bother with the NPA? It pretty amazing how you try to make your point by trying to eliminate the sources that are pertinent. The "market aggregate is part of the NPA and it also part of the abitrated decision. (arbitrated decision's are no good either?)
 
Should be easy if you are right, again, I hope you are, so maybe we both have to sit back and see whats there when it comes out before we can say whether I was right or not when I said that if Parker gives the money he will want the market based aggregate adjustment out. --And it's not. You like to play the "show me" game. Give us a comment from someone on either side that states the "market aggregate" is not longer viable because they got the raises and that the arbitrated decision is either modified or ignored.

 

[NYer]

Uh, I think he was being sarcastic.  Let's not forget that DL f/as have no contract, period.  Yes, they get this benefit or that work rule, but they have nothing to guarantee that those things or even their job will be there tomorrow.  As long as DL violates no anti-discrimination laws, the f/a has no recourse if the company decides to fire/furlough him/her.

 
 

But thats it, I know it was in the award but I haven't seen anything post Dec 18th that says its in that agreement. If it is GREAT, you got the bird in the hand and the two in the Bush (assuming the aggregate includes Profit sharing at UA and DL) . All I'm asking for is something post 12-18-14, an LOA, LOM or the contract that says that it is. Even the statements from just the APFA are not really that clear.  I hope it is, I would enjoy  being wrong if thats the case, but 28 years at this place has made me skeptical. I just cant see Parker giving you the $80 million then allowing their profit sharing and negotiated wage increases to bring you up in wages to what they get with everything, especially since PS can change from year to year and he could be left with higher costs than them. Again, I would like to be wrong and maybe Parker isn't full of shyte and if my punishment for being wrong is I get $50/hr and my Holidays, Vacation, sick time and the same 401K as you guys then sign me up, they can keep the Profit Sharing if I get a fair wage but without it, and even with it, the wage at UA, US and DL is not a fair wage, those are wages set by a bankrupt companies with the assistance of the court system, not a market based wage of a profitable company like UPS or WN. 

 
Bob is cute. An arbitration award is binding until it is changed. It has not been changed so if you want to convince everyone you were right in saying that Parker would only give if he could take, then do that. Show that it's been given away.
 
There has been no such statement from AAL, there has been no such statement from the APFA..to the contrary, the APFA reaffirmed their position and made it part of their Executive Committee Resolution which approved the raises negotiated after the arbitration award and made the point that the "market aggregate" is still a viable vehicle to modify their wages in the event they're surpassed.

 

[IORFA]

I doubt that CO/UA increase their F/A's enough to make it matter. Nor do I think they will have a contract, passed or not any time soon! I think Parker has that theory as well and could care less if it was kept in the agreement.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
Bob is cute. An arbitration award is binding until it is changed. It has not been changed so if you want to convince everyone you were right in saying that Parker would only give if he could take, then do that. Show that it's been given away.
 
There has been no such statement from AAL, there has been no such statement from the APFA..to the contrary, the APFA reaffirmed their position and made it part of their Executive Committee Resolution which approved the raises negotiated after the arbitration award and made the point that the "market aggregate" is still a viable vehicle to modify their wages in the event they're surpassed.

Guess we will have to wait and see what comes out. I cant prove that its out, never said I could, but you cant prove its in either. 

 

[Bob Owens]

I doubt that CO/UA increase their F/A's enough to make it matter. Nor do I think they will have a contract, passed or not any time soon! I think Parker has that theory as well and could care less if it was kept in the agreement.

I hope you are right about Parker but wrong about UA. I would like nothing more than to see real wages start to rebound across the industry. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 

I'm not denying it was in the award, I'm questioning whether or not its still in the deal the parties agreed to after the award. You still have not shown us anything that indicates with any certainty it is. And if that portion of the award is still in the contract then the "NO" voters were right, by voting "No" they did get a better deal, because they got the extra $80 million plus they got the "market aggregate" which was not in the TA. --You try so hard to make your "theories" come out correct, but this is ridiculous. I know you have to try and make your theory of voting NO come out ahead, but you're trying to hard to get that square block in the round hole. The "market aggregate" was the baseline, the minimum they'd get and it was a LOWER value than what they voted for. The TA had the "market aggregate" and another $80 million on top of that. =/
 
The vote NO, the $80M is taken away and they're left with the "market aggregate." minus some other language that was agreed to after the TA. Luckily, they got the $80M back but they lost some of the language they hoped for...like the "Hard 40."
 
You keep saying that because its an arbitrted award that it cant be changed, well do we in NY aircraft maintenance still have the Wallen decision determining our OT rules? NO , because in Negotiations it was agreed to set aside the award and put in new rules (which by the way has resulted in more OT bypass payments in the last two years than we saw in the ten years prior to that.). --Doesn't Fleet still operate under the Wallen decision. They fought to keep that and other Locals supported their arguments to keep it. If the AMT's don't have it was because it was negotiated away, voted on and passed. Or are you saying the Wallen decision was negated without any input from the AMT Local's and if that's the case, where is the lawsuit you guys are always eager to file?
 
The Flight Attendants at NWA got more equity after voting no. So they gave the same dollar value in concessions, but they got a better settlement . So in totality they did a little better. When the NWA mechanics voted NO back in 1999 they ended up with a much better deal two years later but we are talking about a 30% increase over the deal that was brought back and rejected. NWA was in BK with the Flight Attendants, NWA was profitable in the 90s when the mechanics rejected the TA. Which situation is AA in? The answer is the same as the NWA back in 1999 but around 10 times more profitable. --Good grief, the NWA flight attendants voted no twice and at the end they ended up with the concession they turned down and received Equity because they came to a consensual agreement. It was the same scenario faced by the APA. Equity is not a matter of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, it is part of the BK process and given to creditors in such a process. (with unions being classified as creditors). We got the same amount in Equity as the concessions, but with us you argued that if you add the concession over the 6 years we were completely duped and didn't receive nearly the same value we gave up. If you believe that for us, then it must the same for the NWA flight attendants. One can't be bad and the other good. If it's bad for us, then it's bad for them...if it was good for them, then it was good for us. Either way, one of your arguments is not valid.
 
It did happen with the Pilots, just ask them, they got language changes that they objected ,they made improvements that helped Junior pilots. They also walked away with 15% of the equity and gave much much less in concessions than we did. Our lawyers did a terrible job, bottom of the industry and the least equity per dollar of concessions, and thats not even taking into account the fact they did not challenge the valuation of our concessions where outsourcing was based on Domestic rates instead of the foreign rates that they ended up paying with most of the work they sent out. --They were offered the 13.5% Equity before they voted no, not after. They receive the bulk of that value because of their loses in the pension with their loss of the Plan B and their total cash out of their pension.
 
June 27th, 2012-APA: "Before the APA Board of Directors voted, APA’s advisers—including financial restructuring experts at Lazard and bankruptcy attorney Fil Agusti of Steptoe and Johnson—were emphatic in recommending approval of management’s final offer as a tentative agreement. In particular, our advisers focused on the significance of the provision that gives APA a claim in the form of a 13.5 percent equity stake in a newly reorganized American Airlines.
 
August 8th, 2012-Wall Street Journal: "The pilots union said its board was meeting Wednesday with the union leadership to discuss what comes next. It provided no explanation for why the deal failed. If the group had approved it, pilots would have received modest raises, furlough protection, a boost in the company-provided contribution to their 401(k) plans and 13.5% equity in the reorganized AMR.
 
November 16, 2012-AP: "The union said voting was expected to end Dec. 7. Like the proposal rejected in August, pilots would get raises and 13.5 percent of the stock in parent AMR Corp. after it emerges from bankruptcy. The union promised to release more details later Friday.
 
December 8, 2012-Chicago Tribune: "Pilots at American Airlines on Friday ratified a new union labor contract in a move that may help the airline emerge from bankruptcy protection and pave the way for a merger with US Airways, which reportedly has made a formal bid to combine two of the nation's largest carriers. The new pilot contract, among other terms, includes pay raises and a 13.5 percent stake in the company in exchange for allowing the airline to outsource more of its flying to regional jets and airline partners."
 
So now you are claiming that the "market aggregate" was in the TA as well? Funny because its nowhere in the highlights and thats a pretty big issue. --The 'market aggregate" is the baseline of the value to be received in arbitration. The arbitrator couldn't cut below that threshold which is the base of where negotiations began, their Negotiation Protocol Agreement is very clear on that issue.
 
 
Covered arbitration already. Arbitrated awards can be changed if both parties agree, just like Wallen and just like the $80 miliion, and possibly, probably like the "adjustment to the market based aggregate". You have not proven that its still in there. It's part of the arbitrated ruling. You're just sore because you said there was no way they could get the raises unless Parker got something in return and in your opinion it was the "market aggregate," which they still have in place. --The APFA's own communications confirms they still have the arbitrated agreement on the "market aggregate" in place. (I guess those types of communications don't seem to matter to a conspiracy theorist)
 
Ok the Negotiations Protocol Agreement, now you are claiming that since the NPA discusses an adjustment should UAL get a better deal that means its part of the APFAs new contract, a contract where the company agreed to set aside the wage decision and give the Flight attendants the extra money. The NPA is not an agreement that sets the terms of work rules, wages etc. It may be a contract but its not a Labor Contract, its an agreement that sets the protocol of how negotiations are to be conducted and that agreement said that if they dont reach a deal within the timeframe called for in the NPA that they go to arbitration and the arbitrator uses market based aggregate to determine the wage, that was repeated in the videos, but the NPA also adds that when UAL gets a contract that the market based aggregate would be adjusted accordingly. That really wasn't highlighted in the videos. --The intent of the parties is to bring the flight attentdants to the "market aggregate," which equaled $112M. The arbitrator's decision was to award the "market aggregate" of the $112M and to include the ability for the flight attendants to remain within that area in the event another legacy flight attendant group received a higher value. Luckily, the flight attendants were able to receive the other $80M in value they voted down AND they got to keep the arbitrated decision of maintaining the "market aggregate" in the event another flight attendant group surpasses them.
 
I understand you want to portray this as if they lost something because you thought they would, but they didn't. They got their raises and their got to keep their "market aggregate" language. Pretty good for a group that didn't have to burn the place down to get ahead.
 
Easier for you, all that spinning must be hard work. I have no problem saying I'm wrong, if I am you should have no problem proving it, just show me where it is in the new agreement that was struck on Dec 18. I have not seen anything from the APFA claiming it was still in there, only that the question was asked and answered that the intent was that a "market based aggregate" could only affect APFA wages in a "positive" way. --..."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 Flight Attendant JCBA, the only adjustments to our JCBA shall be upward changes to our JCBA wage rates..." --APFA
 
I'll say it again, I hope I am wrong, thats good for all of us if they got the increase and kept the market based aggregate that includes profit sharing. Where they get the wage increases and on top of that get the profit sharing that their peers get built right into their hourly wage, because thats a much better deal than the TA and the No voters were right, they did get a better contract by voting NO. --They didn't get anything that wasn't already in their failed TA and/or the Negotiating Protocol Agreement. As a matter of fact, they lost all the other agreement they had after the September 19 Tentative Agreement was announced.
 
Or are you claiming that the "market based aggregate", that included Profit Sharing, was in the TA as well as the current deal? If so, "SHOW ME". Don't bother with the NPA, thats a protocol agreement, not a labor contract. Show where either the NPA or the Market based aggregate is in the agreement. --the NPA doesn't matter? Don't bother with the NPA? It pretty amazing how you try to make your point by trying to eliminate the sources that are pertinent. The "market aggregate is part of the NPA and it also part of the abitrated decision. (arbitrated decision's are no good either?)
 
Should be easy if you are right, again, I hope you are, so maybe we both have to sit back and see whats there when it comes out before we can say whether I was right or not when I said that if Parker gives the money he will want the market based aggregate adjustment out. --And it's not. You like to play the "show me" game. Give us a comment from someone on either side that states the "market aggregate" is not longer viable because they got the raises and that the arbitrated decision is either modified or ignored.

 

More spin, never argued anything as far as their wage being based on Market aggregate, the arbitrated award had an adjustment to the market aggregate should UAL get a better deal that could be above the market aggregate used to determine current wages, the one thats $80 million less than what they got. IORFA may be right, maybe Parker figures that UA isn't likely to get a contract that will bring the Market aggregate $80 million more than it is today if Deltas likely match is not factored in as well. 
 
I dont need to show anything because I haven't made the claim, i said I bet he would take that out if he gave the money, but I didn't say he did. You are claiming that the adjustment from the award is still there and I was wrong, I said I haven't seen anything proving that. Still haven't. All I need is an LOA after 12-18-14, or contract reference that references the adjustment from the award and I'll say I was wrong. We did hear clearly the money was back in, however as far as the adjustment based on a UA deal that has not been clear. 
 
 

.."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 Flight Attendant JCBA, the only adjustments to our JCBA shall be upward changes to our JCBA wage rates..." --APFA
 
"As a matter of fact, they lost all the other agreement they had after the September 19 Tentative Agreement was announced."
 

So now you are saying they announced confirmation of their previous understanding of the award on the 18th and they lost the all the other agreement they had with the announced TA on the 19th?
 
Ok, since there has been no Highlight sheet of the TA we don't really know whats in it except the value is $190 million. 
 

Don't bother with the NPA? It pretty amazing how you try to make your point by trying to eliminate the sources that are pertinent. The "market aggregate is part of the NPA and it also part of the abitrated decision. (arbitrated decision's are no good either?)
 

How much was the award for? $110 million roughly, how much has AA agreed to, since the award in subsequent negotiations? Roughly $190 million. So which is it the Arbitrated award or what they negotiated after the award? Were these subsequent negotiations conducted according to the NPA? No, these were outside the rules of the NPA and all the provisions of the award are on the table, unless taken off the table by either party. Either party at that point had the right to walk away and live under the award that was put in place per the NPA. The NPA was over once the Arbitrator made his decision, it does not govern future negotiations, just that one. Now we have the arbitrated award and the new contract that was ratified by the APFA board. If the economy took a dump and the company approached the APFA about a contract that was below market aggregate they could not force the APFA to agree but the APFA could agree if they chose to. The NPA has been exhausted. It is no longer binding, some of the terms of the NPA may have been incorporated into the contract but its the contract that makes them binding, not the NPA. 
 
Arbitrated decision can be good, but any arbitration can be changed in subsequent negotiations, they are binding until both parties agree to something else, such as the $110 million going to $190 million, so far we don't know what else was changed from that arbitrated decision. Is the market based aggregate still part of the agreement? Yes, no argument, but thats different than the language that says that they will reconsider what that market based aggregate is should UAL get a better deal.  Still waiting for something that says it is, not all that complicated like you try and spin it into. 
 
So none of what you are saying proves that the award where they adjust the market based aggregate is still in there, I cant prove anything either until the APFA and company put out the agreement they signed. I will say that IORFA made a good point of saying that even if it was it wouldn't matter,  because the award only stipulated UAL and UAL alone would have to see an increase well in excess of $190 million to bring the aggregate up enough to affect the AA flight attendants.

 

[NYer]

More spin, never argued anything as far as their wage being based on Market aggregate, the arbitrated award had an adjustment to the market aggregate should UAL get a better deal that could be above the market aggregate used to determine current wages, the one thats $80 million less than what they got. IORFA may be right, maybe Parker figures that UA isn't likely to get a contract that will bring the Market aggregate $80 million more than it is today if Deltas likely match is not factored in as well. 
 
I dont need to show anything because I haven't made the claim, i said I bet he would take that out if he gave the money, but I didn't say he did. You are claiming that the adjustment from the award is still there and I was wrong, I said I haven't seen anything proving that. Still haven't. All I need is an LOA after 12-18-14, or contract reference that references the adjustment from the award and I'll say I was wrong. We did hear clearly the money was back in, however as far as the adjustment based on a UA deal that has not been clear. 
 
 
So now you are saying they announced confirmation of their previous understanding of the award on the 18th and they lost the all the other agreement they had with the announced TA on the 19th?
 
Ok, since there has been no Highlight sheet of the TA we don't really know whats in it except the value is $190 million. 
 
How much was the award for? $110 million roughly, how much has AA agreed to, since the award in subsequent negotiations? Roughly $190 million. So which is it the Arbitrated award or what they negotiated after the award? Were these subsequent negotiations conducted according to the NPA? No, these were outside the rules of the NPA and all the provisions of the award are on the table, unless taken off the table by either party. Either party at that point had the right to walk away and live under the award that was put in place per the NPA. The NPA was over once the Arbitrator made his decision, it does not govern future negotiations, just that one. Now we have the arbitrated award and the new contract that was ratified by the APFA board. If the economy took a dump and the company approached the APFA about a contract that was below market aggregate they could not force the APFA to agree but the APFA could agree if they chose to. The NPA has been exhausted. It is no longer binding, some of the terms of the NPA may have been incorporated into the contract but its the contract that makes them binding, not the NPA. 
 
Arbitrated decision can be good, but any arbitration can be changed in subsequent negotiations, they are binding until both parties agree to something else, such as the $110 million going to $190 million, so far we don't know what else was changed from that arbitrated decision. Is the market based aggregate still part of the agreement? Yes, no argument, but thats different than the language that says that they will reconsider what that market based aggregate is should UAL get a better deal.  Still waiting for something that says it is, not all that complicated like you try and spin it into. 
 
So none of what you are saying proves that the award where they adjust the market based aggregate is still in there, I cant prove anything either until the APFA and company put out the agreement they signed. I will say that IORFA made a good point of saying that even if it was it wouldn't matter,  because the award only stipulated UAL and UAL alone would have to see an increase well in excess of $190 million to bring the aggregate up enough to affect the AA flight attendants.

 
So many words designed to confound and confuse. An arbitrated award is binding unless changed. You claim it may have change so let's see the document, statement, blurb, gossip, rumor or whatever from the APFA or AA that would negate the arbitration award.
 
You've evolved your arguments from "show me" to to "show me after December 18th". You do that because that's the date the APFA had their Executive Meeting approving the raises given after the arbitration and at the same time confirming the arbitration language for the "market aggregate" still being binding on the parties.
 
"[SIZE=10pt]At the request of APFA National President Laura Glading and the Joint Negotiating Committee, American Airlines management met with APFA leadership in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area today to discuss the possibility of improving the arbitrated contract. Present at the meeting were members of the APFA Board of Directors and Executive Committee, American CEO Doug Parker, President Scott Kirby, and Executive VP Stephen Johnson. APFA raised the issue of bringing the value of the arbitrated contract up to that of the Tentative Agreement that was rejected in November – a difference of approximately $81 million annually. After extensive discussion, APFA is pleased to announce that our request has been granted and, effective January 1, 2015, the improved wage table from the Tentative Agreement will go into effect, which includes a top hourly rate increase from $50.17 to $53.52.[/SIZE]"

[SIZE=10pt]"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.[/SIZE]" --Leslie Mayo, APFA National Communications Chair December 18, 2014