US Airways has no plans to put more money into the Flight Attendant Agreement
- Thread starter PITbull
- Start date
Harry Callahan
Veteran
Along those lines, aren't the US pilots in a similar predicament, for the same reasons, if AA and US combine? Won't the extremely low pay and benefits of the US pilots (compared to AA's pilots) be a factor considered in an arbitration to combine the US and AA pilots? If failure to reach an agreement places the FAs at a disadvantage in a merger SLI, imagine the harm it will cause to the pilots.
Phoenix
Veteran
Phoenix
Veteran
The information in my earlier post was a fact. When union demagogues cannot discuss the facts they try to discredit the sender. The issue is simple: Many of US Airways' unions have and continue to hurt US Airways' employees. These unions are led by demagogues who have political leaders who appeal to the emotions and negotiating/TA ignorance of the less-informed members in order to gain power. Meanwhile, the rank-and-file continue to get hurt. So far US Airways' F/A's have an estimate of a $40 million economic loss, which is growing with the time value loss of money, the NMB warned the union if the TA was not ratified future negotiations would be "parked", and the AFA would maintain their current contracts for the indefinite future.
My problem is not with the rank-and-file. My problem is with the demagogue union leaders who did not inform the F/A's of this important development. Where is the transparency whether it's USAPA, the AFA, the IAM or other unions? In this case should the two MECs have let the F/A's know that if the TA was not ratified, that the NMB told the parties negotiations would be parked, and that there would be no new contract for a long period of time? And, should the MECs have told its members that a TA rejection could affect the F/A's seniority with a merger with AA similar in scope to the pilot's problem? Me thinks so...
At least people in this forum cannot say they were not warned of the problem because they were told of these developments before the AFA's vote...by me.
USA320Pilot
P.S. Losing a union election by two votes is not an issue. But, some people try to misrepresent information because they as demagogues cannot dispute the facts.
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] [/background]
My problem is not with the rank-and-file. My problem is with the demagogue union leaders who did not inform the F/A's of this important development. Where is the transparency whether it's USAPA, the AFA, the IAM or other unions? In this case should the two MECs have let the F/A's know that if the TA was not ratified, that the NMB told the parties negotiations would be parked, and that there would be no new contract for a long period of time? And, should the MECs have told its members that a TA rejection could affect the F/A's seniority with a merger with AA similar in scope to the pilot's problem? Me thinks so...
At least people in this forum cannot say they were not warned of the problem because they were told of these developments before the AFA's vote...by me.
USA320Pilot
P.S. Losing a union election by two votes is not an issue. But, some people try to misrepresent information because they as demagogues cannot dispute the facts.
[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] [/background]
Phoenix
Veteran
"I TOLD YOU SO." Would have been a lot more concise and efficient.
"I TOLD YOU SO." Would have been a lot more concise and efficient.
Phoenix, you're right. In fact, I could have written your comment about a dozen times during the past 28 years.
Phoenix
Veteran
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
Change your have to HAD, and we can call it a day. Hopefully at some point you will be able to distinguish who you were, and who you currently are in terms of the airline.
I WAS a very good football player when I was in HS, but I don't factor that to my life at this point.
Similar threads
