Possible Restoration of Lost Wages for Flight Attendants

[silverbird007]

I'll take my 9.9% monthly bonus ( into my 401K) and my stock equity (which I already cashed in) and DL can keep their profit sharing! Plus I prefer having my union thank you! If the Delta fas are happy, good for them!

 

[usfliboi]

Second verse same as the first....with every single CEO this company has had...and will always be...by nature .

 

[usfliboi]

A lot of talk on coulda woulda shoulda in bankruptcy ...unions are worthless when I company has declared bankruptcy...it how it was designed...

 

[NAPAUS]

I'll take my 9.9% monthly bonus ( into my 401K) and my stock equity (which I already cashed in) and DL can keep their profit sharing! Plus I prefer having my union thank you! If the Delta fas are happy, good for them!

Awesome response. Delta f/a's have NO protection and mgmt can do to them ( screw ) without any lovin. 

 

[kirkpatrick]

A few years ago a friend of mine was fired from Delta over some attendance issue and had no recourse whatsoever.  No union to help.  Only civil court, which is not an easy thing to do.
 
MK

 

[xUT]

How is it that every friggin' flight attendant thread gets highjacked by the forces of "Delta does it better" and "the TWU would have done it better."  Bob Owens if you could have done it better, WHY DIDN'T YOU?  All we ever hear from you is how everyone else but you did it wrong.  Yeah, woulda, coulda, shoulda.
 
I'm beginning to wish for a restricted forum where everyone has to apply for access to every forum and thread except the Water Cooler and Airline News.  Maybe we could isolate the DL and TWU viruses to their own forums/threads and eventually they would die out for the boredom of talking only to themselves.

Does the mean we will not see your whimsical whit on other threads as well?

 

[xUT]

The members voted the offer down in bankruptcy one.
 
Which triggered CEO Dave Siegel to send a letter to every US IAM employee in M&R, stating he would hold his own vote on the offer, and told everyone he would file to abrogate.
 
The decision to vote again was agreed to by the International and it passed by 57%.

 

[jimntx]

If it meant that we flight attendants would be able to have conversations about topics that only affect us without interjections from WT regarding the same repetitive Delta Uber Alles crap that he preaches, and Bob Owens would stop advising us on what we should have done and go do whatever for HIS union members instead, hell yeah I would give up access to other threads willingly.  Most of them are beyond boring anyway.  
 
Oh, and don't give the BS that every union contract affects every other union contract.  Unless your contract has a "me too" clause in it (and from what I understand DP is seriously allergic to such clauses), you have to negotiate everything you want.

 

[xUT]

If it meant that we flight attendants would be able to have conversations about topics that only affect us without interjections from WT regarding the same repetitive Delta Uber Alles crap that he preaches, and Bob Owens would stop advising us on what we should have done and go do whatever for HIS union members instead, hell yeah I would give up access to other threads willingly.  Most of them are beyond boring anyway.  
 
Oh, and don't give the BS that every union contract affects every other union contract.  Unless your contract has a "me too" clause in it (and from what I understand DP is seriously allergic to such clauses), you have to negotiate everything you want.

You always have Facebook...

 

[jimntx]

I pride myself on being one of the 3 people left in North America who does not belong, and has NEVER belonged, to Facebook.  I don't care about the pictures of your last vacation to Bogalusa, or your cousin's pilgrimage to Bob Wills grave site.

 

[AANOTOK]

I pride myself on being one of the 3 people left in North America who does not belong, and has NEVER belonged, to Facebook.  I don't care about the pictures of your last vacation to Bogalusa, or your cousin's pilgrimage to Bob Wills grave site.

I would be four!!

 

[Bob Owens]

and "the TWU would have done it better."   Bob Owens if you could have done it better, WHY DIDN'T YOU?  All we ever hear from you is how everyone else but you did it wrong.  Yeah, woulda, coulda, shoulda.
 

Dont recall ever saying that. Please show me where, in fact I've said the APFA has over the years done a pretty good job, Laura Gladding in particular. I have said that I would vote against a five year deal with concessions, minimal wage increases and no profit sharing when the company is reporting BILLIONs in profits. I've also said that I felt that the decision to support the merger was more emotionally driven than logically driven, it was coming either way, she didn't have to box herself in to sell it. She knew that the business plan as a stand alone carrier was projected to be very profitable, their numbers were around $3 billion a year in profits. Eliminating a competitor through a merger would only make those numbers bigger. The other creditors knew that as well but they outsmarted the Unions and sat back like they weren't really interested while the Unions fell over themselves with discounts for their members labor in order to sell the deal. If anything I've said the TWU did the worst job of all the Unions.   

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I would be four!!

Make that 5

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
 
...And in the arbitration award, the arbitrator specifically mentions the "market aggregate" agreement from the Negotiations Protocol as part of his award. The agreement between the parties is still good and you were wrong that Parker would take it in exchange for the extra raise.
 
 

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 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.)
 
 

 --It must be exhausting for you to continually try to find fault with everything. The market based wage adjustment is part of the Negotiations Protocol Agreement which came well before the Tentative Agreement. It was not tied to the Tentative Agreement being vote up or down, it was an agreement to try and ensure the "market aggregate" was maintained despite the timing of the UAL flight attendant agreement becoming effective and if that agreement would come about after a TA or an arbitration. They flight attendants didn't gain anything by voting no, as opposed to the voting yes for the TA. 
 
Your long standing opinion that voting no yields a better return has yet to be shown in real world conditions. It didn't happen with the NWA flight attendants or mechanics, it didn't happen with the APA pilots at AA, and it didn't happen with the APFA at AA.
 

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. 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
 

 --Nothing except the arbitration award and the Negotiations Protocol Agreement, neither of which were tied to the Tentative Agreement vote. Nothing in the arbitration award walked back the signed agreement on the market based adjustment, to the contrary, it specifically calls for that agreement to remain in place. 
 

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.
 
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. 
 
 
 
 

Keep trying to dance around the fact you were wrong about Parker taking the wage adjustment in order to give out the raises. It's easier to say you were wrong.
 

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. 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.   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.
 
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. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Make that 5

Guess Jimntx is wrong again!
 
Sorry Jim, I have nothing against Laura Gladding, I think in totality she has done a good job representing the Flight Attendants and everybody is human. I think she allowed emotion to set aside logic in trying to get rid of Horton and as a result made a deal with the other creditors that confined the APFA as far as regaining what has been lost since 9-11. The other creditors played the unions, they wanted the merger more than we did, there was ZERO downside for the other creditors, eliminating a major competitor could only make their equity more valuable and they have seen thir value increase way beyond the 100% they already got, mergers always present problems for Unions, disagreements and culture clashes cause divisions that management gets to exploit on top of the fact that we were the only ones who lost in BK and the stock would have to hit around $600 a share for us to really be made 100%. 
 
Dont know if you were here in the 90s. The APFA earned the respect of everyone when they struck during a recession no less. Crandal called FA's things I cant put on this website but they stood United. As a result they weathered out the decade better than we did. The TWU on the other hand did a horrible job. Despite all the concessions the TWU has not struck since 1969. The early 90s was a period of recession. But the later 90s was a boom. Our union came back with a 6 year 6% contract, with a host of other concessions where all we got was job security. Job security in a booming economy. We sat out the boom as inflation cut away at our buying power. We lost 12% in real earnings. The company was pulling in record profits. Discontent boiled over a few times, management pleaded with us saying that we would get a fair deal in the next round and they "couldnt" change the contract. 
 
To me its Deja Vu. I see battered and beaten workers agreeing to bad deals when the company can easily afford much, much better deals, and I see them agreeing to long term bad deals. I see workers giving away an opportunity that does not come along often enough. Time will tell if my perspective is right or wrong.