Acc. To Delta: Combined FA Workforce "Most Likely" to vote again.

[700UW]

Danny the IAM Rep's at CO are all Current Flight Attendants part of District Lodge 142, they only handle FA issues, the Grand Lodge has a transportation dept that only handles airlines and railroad and the GLR who handles CO is a former TW FA.

The IAM does have specialized departments for each industry.

And put up CO's CBA against any AFA and it is equal to or better. And CO's FAs had to start from scratch as they were broken by Lorenzo.

 

[JakesWorld]

So many questions...

Yes, we have negotiated VERY ATTRACTIVE voluntary furlough programs. In fact, I negotiated one program with Richard Anderson around the time of 9.11 - in which the company allowed various length leaves AND provided PAID medical/dental coverages for the duration of leaves. That program saved 2400 FAs from layoff.

When you compare AFA to other unions (SWA CAL) you have to account for the fact that neither of those empolyees went through bankruptcy - their contracts have not been ripped apart by the faulty US bankruptcy code. At NWA, we have the added experience of being in all THREE types of union (an industrial union (Teamsters), then independant (PFAA) and now AFA). We know the vast differences between the three models and AFA wins hands down. Under the Industrial Union model (TWU, IAM, Teamsters), the organization does NOT have the specialized 'full-time" in-house experts in our industry. We spent 27 years in that model and we didn't realize how bad we had it, until we joined AFA. I'd encourage everyone to read this comparison; http://www.afafrontier.org/default.asp?id=48

I am extremely busy today -- so what other questions am I missing?

Danny

See post #22...

Jake

 

[JakesWorld]

/

Danny the IAM Rep's at CO are all Current Flight Attendants part of District Lodge 142, they only handle FA issues, the Grand Lodge has a transportation dept that only handles airlines and railroad and the GLR who handles CO is a former TW FA.

The IAM does have specialized departments for each industry.

And put up CO's CBA against any AFA and it is equal to or better. And CO's FAs had to start from scratch as they were broken by Lorenzo.

I would agree that CO has a better contract than any major/legacy represented by AFA.

 

[700UW]

And at CO they did take concessions a couple of years back as I was working for the District Lodge and was assigned to assist the CO NC during that process.

My role was in the communications and putting the package together after they agreed and dealing with CO's Inflight was a pleasure compared to dealing with US Airways' Labor Relations.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

/
I would agree that CO has a better contract than any major/legacy represented by AFA.

Danny has a major point: ALL major AFA-represented carriers filed for BK (US, UA, NW). I think it just happens to be a fluke. (you can't blame it on AFA; Delta filed too and of course we are non union.) It IS hard to compare airlines' operating under the BK code to those who did not (CO, SW, AA). What about Alaska? You seem to be familiar w/ other airlines' contracts; what do you think about theirs?

 

[Danny Campbell]

700UW:

I'm not too familar with the IAM structure. What I remember when they tried to convince us at NWA to merger with them (they were interviewed by our independant union) is that nearly 40% of dues money goes to the International and not primarily allocated or earmarked for the direct representation issues at the base level. I'm not familiar with how the services at the international are set up -- which is why they were not included in the comparison piece we did between TWU, IBT and AFA.

I do know, however, that the IAM, TWU and IBT are uniquely different from AFA - in that AFA's structure is a totally INVERTED triangle of power. See here; http://www.deltaafa.org/aefiles/AFA%20Structure.pdf

AFA structure limits the power of International Officers (who are spokespersons for the highest governing body, which is comprised of leaders at the BASES). In fact, the highest governing body in AFA is the Board of Directors - comprised of the Presidents from ALL LEC bases. For the most part, industrial unions allow for far too much power at the "top" - as we were an example of this when we were in the Teamsters; http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/774...amsters08.shtml

AFA does not give these kinds of powers to international officers - which is why our bargaining power really is in the hands of the members at each carrier (and the bases where the members work).

Again, I agree that the current CAL contract has more economic advantages than many of the current bankruptcy "re-organization" agreements we have. But, that has little to do with bargaining power - it has more to do with what our carriers could do under the bankruptcy code and the issuance of a series of 1113c motions. Historically, United (AFA) has always set the standards in our industry. Today, however, the best AFA contract is at Alaska - which is second only to the SWA FA contract.

 

[JakesWorld]

Danny has a major point: ALL major AFA-represented carriers filed for BK (US, UA, NW). I think it just happens to be a fluke. (you can't blame it on AFA; Delta filed too and of course we are non union.) It IS hard to compare airlines' operating under the BK code to those who did not (CO, SW, AA). What about Alaska? You seem to be familiar w/ other airlines' contracts; what do you think about theirs?

Luke

I would like to take a look at it, however it is password protected online and am unable to make a comparison. Also, according to AFA they do not compare a carrier such as AS with a major carrier. Each time I have made comments regarding AirTran I have been told that they are not that particular class (not sure if I phrased that right). On another note as 700UW pointed out this is a contract after Continental not only lost their union in the mid 80's and then a second trip to BK in '90. BK or not I still believe there are better choices than AFA. Whether we like it or not AFA can only do so much for anyone in this economic enviornment. As bad as the contracts are that UA, US, and NW have, each agreement was ratified by its Flight Attendants. Right now its all about survival, or at least that's what it seems.

 

[JakesWorld]

Danny

As you have not responded to my last post, I have another question/example for you. Lets say NW where to merge with AS. NW of course is much larger than AS and also has a larger fleet and diverse route network. Both airlines have bases in SEA, NW has international flying and AS has NO internatational flying in SEA (the only intl flying AS has is Mexico/Hawaii if you consider those intl). A 20 year NW F/A is holding NRT out of SEA and a 10 year NW F/A is on reserve (both hypothetical). A 21 year AS F/A never having flown intl is now able to outbid that 20 year NW F/A and with the seniority shuffle reserve now jumps to say 12 plus years. Can you honestly say that this is fair? This is the point a lot of DL F/A's are trying to make, date of hire is not always fair. While I don't think a 20 maybe 15 plus year F/A on either side should lose any seniority. I do think as we go lower down there needs to be some type of fairer process that is equal on both sides.

Also, if all the power is at the MEC level, why is that an MEC President cannot sign any agreements without the consent of the AFA President or Executive Board? If the power is concentrated at the local lever should it not be up to the individual MEC and LEC's making individual decisions for its airlines? The percentage of dues dollars for the local level is only 31%, 54 % goes to negotations/system board, legal, and administration. Negotiations are not an every day occurrence, system boards vary depending on grievence issues, and not sure about legal. These numbers don't seem that different to that 40% taken by any other international union. These numbers do look as though our dues dollars fund other carriers efforts too....

 

[Danny Campbell]

Jake -- Sorry -- I went back and read post #22.

The Star Trib article stated...

5 The usual suspects -- meaning good old Al Checchi and Gary Wilson -- are back on the scene as members of Delta's board of directors. Given all they have done for and to Northwest Airlines in the past, look for exciting days ahead.

I don't know how the author of the commentary obtained this information or whether he knows something the rest of us don't.

You wrote....if the NW F/A are reading something into this information then it is your union leaders and the AFA's responsibility to educate them on the facts...

I agree it is the responsiblity of AFA leaders to educate our members. But like any democracy, you can't "CONTROL" what people think or feel about issues. NWA FAs have some of the deepest merger scars of any FAs in the country. No matter what leaders say, they are going to hear what they want to hear - and those views are shaped by past experiences. Anything short of "date-of-hire" acceptance for many 'pre-merger" NWA FAs is seen as insulting and divisive. I've been flooded (again) today with emails on just this subject. Apparently, Delta's recent "Keep your options open" flyer is circulating around the internet -- and it causes a great deal of frustration and angst -- especially with the Hughes Airwest / Republic FAs.

You wrote...You also stated in post #8 how a group of DL F/A's would have no power to compel or reach a legal agreement on seniority integration, then what happened with WA/DL.

Totally DIFFERENT situation. Because Western FAs were not 35% of the combined membership, their representation rights were extinguished. That's (currently) not the case here. Also, at the time of the Western acquisition, there was no federal law requiring arbitration. That (also) has changed with the bill signed into law in Dec. 2007.

You wrote...we as DL F/A's have just at much right to sit at a table union or not to work with another F/A group regarding seniority issues.

There is a vast difference between sitting at the table and having the independant ability to call your "own" shots. Delta's lawyers are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to do anything that their "committee" tells them to do. They are free to take whatever position THEY (no you) think is best for the company. That is the lesson that many of the "Forum" members learned when they tried to operate as an 'autonomous' body. As long as there is no UNION, you have no choice - except to trust that other people hold your fate in their hands. If management thinks there is a tactical purpose for screwing Delta FAs (perhaps in the hope it will win the NWA FAs 'trust' in them -- so they let go of our contract), there is literally NOTHING any of you can do about it.

Finally, to your last point (in post #22) -- the only GUARANTEED way you can ensure that Delta FAs lives (specifically your seniority) will not be disrupted, is to vote for AFA. Otherwise, there is no GUARANTEE for any kind of fence agreement. Fence agreements protect what you have and allow for a systematic 'phase in' that doesn't screw people out of their bases or their choice of flying. NWA FAs are no going to be in a hurry to transfer to places like ATL (we have 200 - 300 FAs in the area, with various seniority levels). Most of OUR good flying is in DTW. A fence agreement keeps Delta FAs from coming in to our bases also -- so in the end (if we are ALL working under the came INDUSTRY-LEADING (hopefully) contract, the movement from base-to-base is going to be a complete washout.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Luke

BK or not I still believe there are better choices than AFA.

Then there's nothing I, nor anyone else, can do to change your mind. You never once admit one thing that might be favorable when Danny mentions it. It's kind of like you're playing that game "Gotychya". I admitted in my apology to you last week that in all earnestness, you had a point about the AFA/Delta newsletter comparing pay...they should have kept it all W2s or all W2s AND equity/stock payouts. But you seem to be unable to reciprocate that honesty in the debate..and admit even one good point about AFA..You could say something like "yeah, that's true, but I still thing we're better off without AFA." Danny brings up a valid point and you reply "See Post #22".
Because of that, I have decided (and I hope Danny does too) not to spend too much more time debating back and forth with you. I'm not saying I don't think you're entitled to your opinion or that I can' t respect that everyone should be able to express it, it just seems you're coming at it in a somewhat passive-agressive, gotchya, way and when people get like that, it's better to just move on.
I've been here almost 30 years (DL, not another airline). I remember what the old Delta used to be like. I honestly have to say that we are in an unprecedented time right now, I think even more so than during the BK. I feel vulnerable right now with no protection. You don't. That's fine. We each have to do what we gotta do and what I gotta do is vote YES in approx. 3 days.

 

[Danny Campbell]

Jake:

To your last question...(AS and NW example)...

In the scenario you describe above, the point you are missing is that the flying would not be COMBINED until AFTER there was a combined contract deal. Just like today at USAir/Am West, they are not flying on each other equiptment. Until they have a combined agreement, both groups remain separate. That's the advantage of our AFA merger policy.

Now, WHEN the two groups DO combine flying, there are ALL kinds of ways to protect FAs seniority in the CONTRACT LANGUAGE YOU AGREE TO. You can limit base transfers initially, you can have specific language in your contract that requires "base balancing". You can keep some bases closed - the options are almost limitless. AFA's professional negotiators have been doing just these kinds of protective contract provisions for many many years. In fact, they are far better at explaining it than I am. If these are real concerns of yours, you should talk to one of the 19 staff lawyers or professional negotiators that are on staff at AFA.

 

[JakesWorld]

Then there's nothing I, nor anyone else, can do to change your mind. You never once admit one thing that might be favorable when Danny mentions it. It's kind of like you're playing that game "Gotychya". I admitted in my apology to you last week that in all earnestness, you had a point about the AFA/Delta newsletter comparing pay...they should have kept it all W2s or all W2s AND equity/stock payouts. But you seem to be unable to reciprocate that honesty in the debate..and admit even one good point about AFA..You could say something like "yeah, that's true, but I still thing we're better off without AFA." Danny brings up a valid point and you reply "See Post #22".
Because of that, I have decided (and I hope Danny does too) not to spend too much more time debating back and forth with you. I'm not saying I don't think you're entitled to your opinion or that I can' t respect that everyone should be able to express it, it just seems you're coming at it in a somewhat passive-agressive, gotchya, way and when people get like that, it's better to just move on.
I've been here almost 30 years (DL, not another airline). I remember what the old Delta used to be like. I honestly have to say that we are in an unprecedented time right now, I think even more so than during the BK. I feel vulnerable right now with no protection. You don't. That's fine. We each have to do what we gotta do and what I gotta do is vote YES in approx. 3 days.

Luke

While I respect Danny Campbell's passion for his support of his union, at the same time I cannot agree with the information he and others have been passing. I am open to people opinions and in this case each time I have read something from AFA it has been less than 100 % accurate. Even with Danny starting a "rumor" that Checci/Wilson will be on the NW/DL BOD, their names were mentioned in a news article in an MSP paper. It did not even say that them joining the BOD was a possibility. AFA runs a pretty good P.R. campaign, I give them credit for that. I understand where you are at with 30 years and with all that has occurred the past few years and now the fears of a merger and the unknown. I respect that you will be voting yes. I on the other hand remain against it. Whatever happens then next few months or in the next year will happen no matter what I do or how I feel. If I lose seniority and am no longer happy with how the chips fall, its then time to move on. I am going to continue to post and question the AFA's remarks, as I think it only fair that both sides are shared. Best of luck to you....

 

[JakesWorld]

Jake:

To your last question...(AS and NW example)...

In the scenario you describe above, the point you are missing is that the flying would not be COMBINED until AFTER there was a combined contract deal. Just like today at USAir/Am West, they are not flying on each other equiptment. Until they have a combined agreement, both groups remain separate. That's the advantage of our AFA merger policy.

Now, WHEN the two groups DO combine flying, there are ALL kinds of ways to protect FAs seniority in the CONTRACT LANGUAGE YOU AGREE TO. You can limit base transfers initially, you can have specific language in your contract that requires "base balancing". You can keep some bases closed - the options are almost limitless. AFA's professional negotiators have been doing just these kinds of protective contract provisions for many many years. In fact, they are far better at explaining it than I am. If these are real concerns of yours, you should talk to one of the 19 staff lawyers or professional negotiators that are on staff at AFA.

So then even though the seniority list will be combined your seniority number is basically just a number, flying remains separate? NYC is our most junior base, 10 year F/A's fly pretty good intl trips even with date of hire and a combined list, the DL F/A's will continue with the intl flying and the NW continue with domestic, leaving everything except your seniority number status quo? Like I mentioned earlier a lot of this is a moot point. There is no way that we would have any type of contract before a merger or even after a seniority list is combined, what happens to our flying and F/A's?

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I don't think the powers-that-be at Delta are going to be too happy with "flying remaining separate" for FAs for very long.
Even in the press conference they talked about deploying just the right a/c to just the right markets. (They were responding to questions about the lack of commonality in the fleet). They may, for example, want to pull a 744 off of DTW-NRT and use it from ATL-NRT, (then perhaps put a 777 on the DTW flight.) It's one thing for them to deadhead/layover 3 NW pilots DTW- ATL, etc.. until they get their contract worked out but 14 or more FAs? I don't think so.....That expense would start to add up and they would lose flexibility. A major no-no to Delta.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Whatever happens then next few months or in the next year will happen no matter what I do or how I feel. If I lose seniority and am no longer happy with how the chips fall, its then time to move on.

You see, that's the difference between you and me. Call me a cockeyed optimist or naive but I'd like not to see myself as a "victim" any longer...that's why I'm voting YES.