Holly Hegeman FA smackdown!

[Mach85ER]

 
I would also point out that being union did not prevent them from being used beyond the scope of the side letter during the AA strike as well. Huge economic issue for all.

 
 
 
As far as I know, the foreign FA's cannot fly anything except to/from the AA international gateways, and would have limited ability to cover any more than
 few US to LA flights than they already fly.
 
They cannot under any circumstances arrive in MIA and fly onward to DFW, PHL or CLT.
 
Anyone considering that as a big issue for their vote was an abject fool.
 

 

[eolesen]

In practice, you're correct, but it's a contractual limitation only. It's also not the hill that AA would be willing to die for, for sure.

 

[IORFA]

They can only fly to/from MIA as well and to limited cities in central and South America. Their amount of flights is limited as well. I.E. Limited flights to Argentina as well. I see the stock is up. Investors like the fact our 8,196 financial wizards just gave back over $400 million!!!

 

[Mach85ER]

E,
 
I thought US labor law bars them from flying within the US domestic system. No Green Card no work?

 

[Onestep2flt]

They already used mediation, now it goes to arbitration.

Please read paragraph 5 of the protocol language a couple of times.  It is a separate issue regarding mediation.  Paragraph 4 states they are to use mediation to get to a T/A.  Paragraph 5 detail what will happen if it fails.  They "may" not of intended for it to read that way but is says they will use mediation before arbitration. That language should not be contained in that paragraph if that was not the intent.  Sloppy work.  Also, note that the APFA president confirmed the language at a Miami roadshow.  She also stated she would be pushing for it.  So, again, might not be their intent but that is what it reads.  Even the union would be smart to argue this point.  Why would they ignore it?  It is there, so utilize it. Any good attorney worth anything certainly would.  This is a missed opportunity otherwise.  Roll over and play dead I guess.
 
Not trying to argue with you but pointing out this is a legal document.  Said legal document has provision for mediation in the section that defines steps of what to do if T/A fails.  This is where poorly worded document can actually benefit the flight attendant group, so roll with it.

 

[wcs]

 

AA includes the cockpit jumpseat in the EOW of the aircraft. In the cabin, only the number of seats required by the operating crew are figured into the calculations.
 
 
 

Not True. All AA mainline flights use 2 cockpit crew members as basis for EOW. Exception is then added for jumpseat riders

 

[Onestep2flt]

Onestep, the process was agreed to long ago when AA was in BK and the unions wanted to assure the merger would take place.  They (all three major unions) agreed to binding arbitration in order to give the court the ability to predict labor costs so that wouldn't get in the way of the merger.  All the stuff about "market in the aggregate" was to insure we wouldn't be stuck with a less than industry standard contract from arbitration.  Without arbitration they would have been in negotiations for years.
 
True, we didn't have much of a choice, just as we had little choice between the 1113 term sheet and the LBFO which was 34% better.  But we did have a choice.  With the LBFO we made the right one.  Not so the second time.
 
MK

I understand and acknowledge what you are saying.  I have said I can't speak for the AA group as I do not know what took place during the bankruptcy.  Thanks for the history lesson.  The argument is there that they had no choice.  
 
The problem is the agreement they came up with to avoid an arbitration was a difficult pill to swallow for a lot of folks especially for the US side.  While they were getting a large DOLLAR heavy raise there are losses that will never be recovered with said dollar amount.  We all try to justify our position but the facts speak for themselves.  Problem is, you have the AA folks believing they got 80% of what the US contract is today.  Then you have the US folks looking at it and seeing a watered down version of their current contract.  They were left deciding if the losses justified the money gain.  There are a LOT of losses.  It is not just one thing.  I think flight attendants are smarter than that.  You have to look at the sum of it's parts to determine what is right for you.  Interestingly, it seems that the US side actually voted in a larger percentage for this than the AA side.  I truly believed it would pass and it would be the AA side that would pass it, so go figure.  I guess all the last minute intimidation turned things around all backwards.
 
Regardless, It is time to now dust off and move forward.  No time to be negative for those that made tough personal choices. For every good reason to vote for it there were just as many justifiable reasons to vote no.  The process regardless how it came into being, was a flawed one that created division.  Take what you learned and get together for the next fight.  That is with the company and not each other.

 

[700UW]

Please read paragraph 5 of the protocol language a couple of times.  It is a separate issue regarding mediation.  Paragraph 4 states they are to use mediation to get to a T/A.  Paragraph 5 detail what will happen if it fails.  They "may" not of intended for it to read that way but is says they will use mediation before arbitration. That language should not be contained in that paragraph if that was not the intent.  Sloppy work.  Also, note that the APFA president confirmed the language at a Miami roadshow.  She also stated she would be pushing for it.  So, again, might not be their intent but that is what it reads.  Even the union would be smart to argue this point.  Why would they ignore it?  It is there, so utilize it. Any good attorney worth anything certainly would.  This is a missed opportunity otherwise.  Roll over and play dead I guess.
 
Not trying to argue with you but pointing out this is a legal document.  Said legal document has provision for mediation in the section that defines steps of what to do if T/A fails.  This is where poorly worded document can actually benefit the flight attendant group, so roll with it.

Here is Lara's letters, says nothing about going to mediation before arbitration,  yet it clearly states they are preparing for binding arbitration:
 

November 9, 2014

To my fellow Flight Attendants,
 
Like many of you, I was devastated by the results of the T/A balloting today. It is extremely disappointing to see the improvements our membership was set to receive rejected by such a narrow margin. However, the APFA is above all a democratic organization and the will of the membership is paramount.
 
As has been made clear, the Negotiations Protocol Agreement requires that we submit the outstanding contractual issues to binding arbitration. This week, the Joint Negotiating Committee will begin preparing the case we will present to the arbitration panel. Although the NPA limits the value of the arbitration award to “market-based in the aggregate,” our team is going to do everything possible to protect our work group. The arbitration is set to begin on Wednesday, December 3rd. In the meantime, we are all going to put our heads down and prepare the best possible case.
 
What is most important to remember as we go forward is that we are one united work group with one united goal: to improve our lives and livelihoods. And improve them we will. The nature of the agreement we reached with management guarantees that we meet the pay and benefits of our peers at United, Continental, and Delta. While we cannot reach the value of the T/A in binding arbitration, no Flight Attendant will be harmed by the arbitrated contract.
 
As always, stay tuned to the APFA Hotline for important information and developments.
 
It has always been, and continues to be, an honor to serve the APFA membership.
 
In Unity,

Laura Glading
APFA President
[email protected]

There is no mediation and arbitration is already scheduled.
 

“Maybe some emotion got into the vote that shouldn’t have,” says Anthony DeMaio, a spokesman and lobbyist for the union. Arbitration is set to begin on Dec. 3.
 

 

[SparrowHawk]

For the Record, I sincerely hope the F/A's stand tall and fight, Fight all the way to the picket line if need be. I for one am long past tired of seeing Doug Parker profit off the backs of loyal workers who have endured 2 or 1 BK's, constant turmoil and now that the ship seems to sailing on a profitable course, "Sorry None Left For You". Count me in the Full pay until the last day camp as it is better to die on your feet then live on your knees.

 

[700UW]

They can't strike they are not in section 6 negotiations

 

[Bob Owens]

Laura has done a pretty good job so far.
 
I hope she uses this as an opportunity to argue that a much shorter term is needed, along with profit sharing. The  current six year deal was forged with an American Airlines that was in Chapter 11, not an American Airlines that was posting Billion dollar profits on a quarterly basis. An American Airlines that has nearly doubled its revenue compared to the one that went into C-11 three years ago. Even the deals at UAL and CAL were forged under the effects of a completely different industry and those contracts are going through the same process as it is at AA.  The fact is that 2/3rds of the APFA membership lacked enthusiasm for this deal and the majority that voted, voted against it despite efforts to get it passed. One has to wonder what percentage of the YES voters voted more out of fear than enthusiasm.
 
While the rejected TA may have been considered a good deal when airlines were not pulling down billions in profits on a quarterly basis it is not a good deal when they are. The fact is that despite the windfall the airlines are enjoying, workers are still working under terms meant to assist a struggling carrier, and on top of that the company no longer wants to provide profit sharing!!  This is unconscionable and obviously, unacceptable. If the company expects labor peace they have to be fair, and any deal that does not include a share of the profits is simply unfair. 
 
Two year deal that brings them up to their peers plus profit sharing. The company already got all the concessions they needed in Bankruptcy. If there are no profits then the company saves money, if there are then the workers get some of it. 
 
Isn't it amazing how in 2003 a Judge ruled that Profit sharing was an improvement and for ten years we never received a penny but now that they are set to make profits they don't want us to have profit sharing any more? These people are sick. 

 

[Bob Owens]

They can't strike they are not in section 6 negotiations

Exactly, and thats why the IAM shouldn't have rolled over and told their members that they would get the improvements in Joint talks. 
 
BTW Sparrowhawk never mentioned striking, he said fighting and picketing. 

 

[Vortilon]

They can't strike they are not in section 6 negotiations

 
As if the company really wants a bunch of pissed off flight attendants taking care of our paying passengers.  FAs can do plenty of damage without really having to go on strike. 

 

[kirkpatrick]

Onestep, I'm unable to backquote or even paste text into these replies, so let me try to hit a couple of points.  From other sites I gather that about a thousand LUS FAs never sent in cards to APFA, so not being members were not eligible to vote.  As it was, LUS voted yes at 55%.  It was LAA who voted it down at 52% no.  I see no evidence or numbers that indicate a higher percentage of LUS voted than LAA.
 
I'll also disagree that there were justifiable reasons for a no vote.  There might have been justifiable complaints about the TA, and indeed no TA is perfect, but when the outcome of a no vote is so obvious there is little justification to take less than what you reject.  Had there been a process to go back for more, maybe.  But to say "I don't like this so I'll take 82 million less" is nothing short of insanity.
 
Flight attendants aren't stupid, but they are often emotional.  The results bear that out.  Political Correctness prevents me from elaborating on that.
 
MK

 

[boston]

MK, yes the "If I cant have it, you cant have it". "This is pittance", and they throw it back at you. I was so embarrassed  for the ones who got up at the road show and said," throw us a bone". What
happened is awful, and for so many to take pride in the no vote, I wont ever get it,  not only basic brains but emotional intelligence, I doubt
some even posses this quality. But I'm convinced The proud the few from Eastern, cant wait for a second coming.