A contract for US FAs must be completed prior to any new merger deal.

[im back..!!]

AFA said: "A contract for Flight Attendants at US Airways must be completed prior to any new merger deal."

USA320Pilot comments: Why and who is going to force US Airways to do this? There are no negotiations scheduled and the NMB is not involved to my knolwledge. I love the tough talk and false bravado with nothing the F/A's can do about the current situation.

As I indicated earlier the F/A's may have screwed them self big time by rejecting their TA. Maybe the F/A's should ahve listened to Mike Flores, Deborah Volpe, and the rest of their JNC because now they have a worse set of cards to play with the upcoming AA SLI per McCaskill-Bond.

Furthermore, the time value of money keeps counting day-by-day with the F/A's losing more and more money.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plz tell us why they might have a worse set of cards..? Is there doh seniority not set in stone? does it need a combined contract to make it so?

inquiring minds want answers to these type questions.....can you enlighten us?

 

[USA320Pilot]

I'm back asked: "Plz tell us why they might have a worse set of cards?"

USA320Pilot comments: The US Airways-AA F/A seniority list integration will be covered by the McCaskill-Bond amendment. If the process goes to final and binding arbitration one major component is the financial position or contracts of the unnion members. In the case of the US Airways-America West arbitration the Arbitrator took into account the East pilots made less than the west pilots, which hurt the east pilots. According to the AFA Presidents and JNC, " How do we want to be positioned for a merger? With wage rates $5-8 dollars below AA and open contracts or with better wage rates and work rules locked in?" In my opinion, Mike Flores and Deborah Volpe reccomended the F/A's ratify their TA and one reason was due to the pending merger.

I'm back asked: "Is there doh seniority not set in stone?"

USA320Pilot comments: Nope. For the US Airways-America West merger the F/A's were guaranteed a DOH SLI because both locals were part of the same national union with the same merger policy. However, the US Airways F/A's are represented by AFA and the AA F/A's by APFA; therefore, your new SLI will be conducted by the new federal law governing airline employee seniority integrations called the McCaskill-Bond amendment. APA told its members today, "Airline industry seniority integrations are now governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which became law in 2007. McCaskill-Bond requires a “fair and equitable” integration of seniority lists and includes a provision for a negotiated settlement between the parties. If the integration cannot be settled within 20 days, either party may refer the dispute to a neutral arbitrator, who must render a decision within 90 days."

I'm back asked: "does it need a combined contract to make it so?"

USA320Pilot comments: Yes. A joint contract would have assured that the US Airways-American West DOH SLI would be complete, but even though the F/A's created a joint seniority list it has not been implemented. It's unclear what will happen now because I don't remember a merger happening with two unions not integrated from a previous merger and then a third merger occur. And, this time we now have the McCaskill-Bond amendment to consider.

I'm not sure any legal mind knows the ultimate answer to the F/A seniority integration. Here are some key points:

1. What we do know is the F/A's do not have a completed seniority integration per the Transition Agreement.

2. The AFA leaders indicated the F/A's could be worse off if US Airways merged with another company and the TA was ratified.

3. The APA told its pilots "seniority may go to expedited arbitration. Expect percentile in type over any DOH (aka DAL/NWA)."

Not only due to the Time Value of Money and losing about $1,000 per month and working more days than required by the TA, US Airways' F/A's may have hurt their potential seniority integration with AA's F/A's because they did not listen to Flores, Volpe, and the JNC.

 

[nycbusdriver]

The AFA should take the APFA contract along with the agreement Parker signed regarding the merger and set it on the bargaining table tomorrow as their proposal to the company. How could the company reject it and maintain any credibility with the AA labor groups? If they're not willing to give the AFA what they are supposedly offering the APFA, then everyone will know they are lying through their alcohol-soaked teeth.

It could even be ratified with implementation contingent on the legal consummation of the AA-US merger. No wiggling out this time, Doogie!

When does the balloting start? I bet it would pass in a landslide!

 

[galley princess]

This site has become all but irrelevant to F/As, but as I do check it from time to time to see if anything is new regarding the airline, it has become increasingly painful to read some of the drivel posted here by individuals who have neither the knowledge nor sense to refrain from posting about the FA contract.

-If a merger happens, DOH was left open whether US f/as had voted in a new contract or not. APFA is bigger. They outnumber US f/as. They don't have AFA's DOH rule (see TWA f/as, oh forget it, they were furlouged). Due to that abomination, the Mcaskill-Bond amendment was passed. Sans McB, contract or not, we would be truly screwed, kinda like the pilots. With McB, we're only slightly screwed. That's reality. Nothing changes that.

-If US f/as had passed that inferior, concession ridden nonsense we would be sitting on a 5 year prison sentence. Trapped in ANOTHER concession ridden contract, kinda like what is happening to WEST f/as right now. As it is, we can be parked by the NMB, but not forever. And unlike WEST, we will not remain trapped in a bankruptcy grade contract waiting for a "merger contract" with AA, should a merger happen. We are already on the road to self help, as pothole strewn as it might be. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons, a different EAST mindset, contract differences etc, but a major fact is that AWA has already demonstrated a bad faith and bad bargaining history with US f/as already. An arbitrator cannot help but see that AWA has managed to trap WEST in a 12 year mess, paying 1989 wages and would LOVE to do again on a larger scale to all US f/as. Had US f/as voted in that TA, there would be no real argument for getting out of it. They ran out EAST's bankruptcy contract and they would have run out that 5 year abomination as well. If anyone thinks that the current managment wouldn't run three companies under one name if it saves them a nickel, I suggest you consult your US history.

-Also, if US f/as had voted in that concessionary waste of paper, the Change of Control language would no longer be there. I personally think it's a long shot, however dependent on court interpretation, the chance is there that with a merger that clause can be activated. Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg shot, but it's ours and better there than not.

Finally, I have better things to do than explain a defunct TA and its abysmal negatives to posters who are drunk on Cactus koolaid, however, I can only wonder at the incredible naivete of thinking that ANY "endorsement" by ANY union rep would be considered good cause for voting yes on an agreement. Trotting out "their JNC recommended voting in the new TA" as support for an argument that US f/as have made a mistake? US f/as read the TA, consulted lawyers and pored over the details. 90% made their decision, 75% did their math.

Second guessing any of us is truly arrogant, not to mention, this little sideshow is simply a company infested propaganda fest.

 

[Onestep2flt]

This site has become all but irrelevant to F/As, but as I do check it from time to time to see if anything is new regarding the airline, it has become increasingly painful to read some of the drivel posted here by individuals who have neither the knowledge nor sense to refrain from posting about the FA contract.

-If a merger happens, DOH was left open whether US f/as had voted in a new contract or not. APFA is bigger. They outnumber US f/as. They don't have AFA's DOH rule (see TWA f/as, oh forget it, they were furlouged). Due to that abomination, the Mcaskill-Bond amendment was passed. Sans McB, contract or not, we would be truly screwed, kinda like the pilots. With McB, we're only slightly screwed. That's reality. Nothing changes that.

-If US f/as had passed that inferior, concession ridden nonsense we would be sitting on a 5 year prison sentence. Trapped in ANOTHER concession ridden contract, kinda like what is happening to WEST f/as right now. As it is, we can be parked by the NMB, but not forever. And unlike WEST, we will not remain trapped in a bankruptcy grade contract waiting for a "merger contract" with AA, should a merger happen. We are already on the road to self help, as pothole strewn as it might be. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons, a different EAST mindset, contract differences etc, but a major fact is that AWA has already demonstrated a bad faith and bad bargaining history with US f/as already. An arbitrator cannot help but see that AWA has managed to trap WEST in a 12 year mess, paying 1989 wages and would LOVE to do again on a larger scale to all US f/as. Had US f/as voted in that TA, there would be no real argument for getting out of it. They ran out EAST's bankruptcy contract and they would have run out that 5 year abomination as well. If anyone thinks that the current managment wouldn't run three companies under one name if it saves them a nickel, I suggest you consult your US history.

-Also, if US f/as had voted in that concessionary waste of paper, the Change of Control language would no longer be there. I personally think it's a long shot, however dependent on court interpretation, the chance is there that with a merger that clause can be activated. Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg shot, but it's ours and better there than not.

Finally, I have better things to do than explain a defunct TA and its abysmal negatives to posters who are drunk on Cactus koolaid, however, I can only wonder at the incredible naivete of thinking that ANY "endorsement" by ANY union rep would be considered good cause for voting yes on an agreement. Trotting out "their JNC recommended voting in the new TA" as support for an argument that US f/as have made a mistake? US f/as read the TA, consulted lawyers and pored over the details. 90% made their decision, 75% did their math.

Second guessing any of us is truly arrogant, not to mention, this little sideshow is simply a company infested propaganda fest.

This is a very well spoken response to all the usual FUD that gets spewed here. I don't think passing an inferior contract was going to be any saving grace. Whether it passed or not there is risk. I don't believe the flight attendants are blind to that fact. A 90% vote with a group that can can usually can't even get 40% says quite a bit. It was not like a possible merger was a secret. Your management has made no secret that they have a love afair with consolidation. Flight Attendants spoke very clearly they were willing to take the risk instead of excepting something just because you might be merging with someone.

Don't lose focus people! You may or may not merge with somebody. Remember when you were merging with United. That was a done deal according to some of the same posters that are now telling you that you are all doomed! Remember you were also merging with Delta as well. They ended up keeping Delta there Northwest! Could this one go through? Yes it could, but you should not just roll over and play dead now. Focus on the here and now! Right now you are trying to complete a merger that is still not complete after more than seven years. Focus on that while keeping in mind the possibility of another merger.

You have a long road ahead but please don't listen to those that say you "srewed" yourself.

 

[BLT]

3. The APA told its pilots "seniority may go to expedited arbitration. Expect percentile in type over any DOH (aka DAL/NWA)."

I guess no one has informed the APA that DOH is the gold standard. Don't those rookies at American know anything?

 

[Dilligas]

This site has become all but irrelevant to F/As, but as I do check it from time to time to see if anything is new regarding the airline, it has become increasingly painful to read some of the drivel posted here by individuals who have neither the knowledge nor sense to refrain from posting about the FA contract.

-If a merger happens, DOH was left open whether US f/as had voted in a new contract or not. APFA is bigger. They outnumber US f/as. They don't have AFA's DOH rule (see TWA f/as, oh forget it, they were furlouged). Due to that abomination, the Mcaskill-Bond amendment was passed. Sans McB, contract or not, we would be truly screwed, kinda like the pilots. With McB, we're only slightly screwed. That's reality. Nothing changes that.

-If US f/as had passed that inferior, concession ridden nonsense we would be sitting on a 5 year prison sentence. Trapped in ANOTHER concession ridden contract, kinda like what is happening to WEST f/as right now. As it is, we can be parked by the NMB, but not forever. And unlike WEST, we will not remain trapped in a bankruptcy grade contract waiting for a "merger contract" with AA, should a merger happen. We are already on the road to self help, as pothole strewn as it might be. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons, a different EAST mindset, contract differences etc, but a major fact is that AWA has already demonstrated a bad faith and bad bargaining history with US f/as already. An arbitrator cannot help but see that AWA has managed to trap WEST in a 12 year mess, paying 1989 wages and would LOVE to do again on a larger scale to all US f/as. Had US f/as voted in that TA, there would be no real argument for getting out of it. They ran out EAST's bankruptcy contract and they would have run out that 5 year abomination as well. If anyone thinks that the current managment wouldn't run three companies under one name if it saves them a nickel, I suggest you consult your US history.

-Also, if US f/as had voted in that concessionary waste of paper, the Change of Control language would no longer be there. I personally think it's a long shot, however dependent on court interpretation, the chance is there that with a merger that clause can be activated. Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg shot, but it's ours and better there than not.

Finally, I have better things to do than explain a defunct TA and its abysmal negatives to posters who are drunk on Cactus koolaid, however, I can only wonder at the incredible naivete of thinking that ANY "endorsement" by ANY union rep would be considered good cause for voting yes on an agreement. Trotting out "their JNC recommended voting in the new TA" as support for an argument that US f/as have made a mistake? US f/as read the TA, consulted lawyers and pored over the details. 90% made their decision, 75% did their math.

Second guessing any of us is truly arrogant, not to mention, this little sideshow is simply a company infested propaganda fest.

How refreshing to read an intelligent post that is based on reality. Well done.

The FA's voted NO and should be supported by all organized labor at US until they have a contract they judge to be fair.

I respect the US FA's decision, however I do not feel US now needs or particularly wants a contract settlement from any of the current groups negotiating... they are betting the farm on winning the hearts and minds of AA employees and giving promises never offered to US groups. All of their focus and attention will be on the AA merger. Why negotiate with unions that will be out the door in a year or 18 months when the companies combine. They've dragged everything out for years now, what's a little longer when your ultimate prize is so close?

 

[USA320Pilot]

This site has become all but irrelevant to F/As, but as I do check it from time to time to see if anything is new regarding the airline, it has become increasingly painful to read some of the drivel posted here by individuals who have neither the knowledge nor sense to refrain from posting about the FA contract.

-If a merger happens, DOH was left open whether US f/as had voted in a new contract or not. APFA is bigger. They outnumber US f/as. They don't have AFA's DOH rule (see TWA f/as, oh forget it, they were furlouged). Due to that abomination, the Mcaskill-Bond amendment was passed. Sans McB, contract or not, we would be truly screwed, kinda like the pilots. With McB, we're only slightly screwed. That's reality. Nothing changes that.

-If US f/as had passed that inferior, concession ridden nonsense we would be sitting on a 5 year prison sentence. Trapped in ANOTHER concession ridden contract, kinda like what is happening to WEST f/as right now. As it is, we can be parked by the NMB, but not forever. And unlike WEST, we will not remain trapped in a bankruptcy grade contract waiting for a "merger contract" with AA, should a merger happen. We are already on the road to self help, as pothole strewn as it might be. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons, a different EAST mindset, contract differences etc, but a major fact is that AWA has already demonstrated a bad faith and bad bargaining history with US f/as already. An arbitrator cannot help but see that AWA has managed to trap WEST in a 12 year mess, paying 1989 wages and would LOVE to do again on a larger scale to all US f/as. Had US f/as voted in that TA, there would be no real argument for getting out of it. They ran out EAST's bankruptcy contract and they would have run out that 5 year abomination as well. If anyone thinks that the current managment wouldn't run three companies under one name if it saves them a nickel, I suggest you consult your US history.

-Also, if US f/as had voted in that concessionary waste of paper, the Change of Control language would no longer be there. I personally think it's a long shot, however dependent on court interpretation, the chance is there that with a merger that clause can be activated. Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg shot, but it's ours and better there than not.

Finally, I have better things to do than explain a defunct TA and its abysmal negatives to posters who are drunk on Cactus koolaid, however, I can only wonder at the incredible naivete of thinking that ANY "endorsement" by ANY union rep would be considered good cause for voting yes on an agreement. Trotting out "their JNC recommended voting in the new TA" as support for an argument that US f/as have made a mistake? US f/as read the TA, consulted lawyers and pored over the details. 90% made their decision, 75% did their math.

Second guessing any of us is truly arrogant, not to mention, this little sideshow is simply a company infested propaganda fest.

Galley Princess,

The AFA TA was not a concession and provided the F/A's more money in different forms. In addition, Mike Flores and Deborah Volpe; along with the JNC recommended the deal because they said it was the best you could get. Now you don't have a new contract and you do not have an integrated seniority list, which will undoubtedly hurt the F/A's when you likely enter your first non DOH SLI.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. This was discussed during the ratification voting and you were advised by your union's leaders that a TA rejection could hurt you in a merger. Furthermore, the CoC only takes effect if US Airways is acquired; therefore, the CoC clause does not apply in US Airways' proposed AMR takeover.

I believe having better pay and benefits and taking a bite out of the apple is better than taking no bite out of the apple. Now you have no new contract discussions scheduled, the NMB is not very invloved, and you could face the McCaskill-Bond SLI in worse shape than necessary. That's not FUD or Monday morning quaterbacking...that's echoing what your union leaders warned you about.

I believe the F/A's may have made ahuge mistake, which I predicted during the voting.

Since the TA's rejection I have asked what are the F/A's going to do next and nobody has answered the question. I wonder why?

 

[Phoenix]

Galley Princess,

The AFA TA was not a concession ...

You think thousands of FAs are wrong, and they don't even know who you are. B)

 

[Harry Callahan]

I guess USA320 know's more than the fa's
Harry

 

[nycbusdriver]

I guess USA320 know's more than the fa's
Harry

Of course he does. Just ask him.

 

[im back..!!]

I'm back asked: "Plz tell us why they might have a worse set of cards?"

USA320Pilot comments: The US Airways-AA F/A seniority list integration will be covered by the McCaskill-Bond amendment. If the process goes to final and binding arbitration one major component is the financial position or contracts of the unnion members. In the case of the US Airways-America West arbitration the Arbitrator took into account the East pilots made less than the west pilots, which hurt the east pilots. According to the AFA Presidents and JNC, " How do we want to be positioned for a merger? With wage rates $5-8 dollars below AA and open contracts or with better wage rates and work rules locked in?" In my opinion, Mike Flores and Deborah Volpe reccomended the F/A's ratify their TA and one reason was due to the pending merger.

I'm back asked: "Is there doh seniority not set in stone?"

USA320Pilot comments: Nope. For the US Airways-America West merger the F/A's were guaranteed a DOH SLI because both locals were part of the same national union with the same merger policy. However, the US Airways F/A's are represented by AFA and the AA F/A's by APFA; therefore, your new SLI will be conducted by the new federal law governing airline employee seniority integrations called the McCaskill-Bond amendment. APA told its members today, "Airline industry seniority integrations are now governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, which became law in 2007. McCaskill-Bond requires a “fair and equitable” integration of seniority lists and includes a provision for a negotiated settlement between the parties. If the integration cannot be settled within 20 days, either party may refer the dispute to a neutral arbitrator, who must render a decision within 90 days."

I'm back asked: "does it need a combined contract to make it so?"

USA320Pilot comments: Yes. A joint contract would have assured that the US Airways-American West DOH SLI would be complete, but even though the F/A's created a joint seniority list it has not been implemented. It's unclear what will happen now because I don't remember a merger happening with two unions not integrated from a previous merger and then a third merger occur.

And, this time we now have the McCaskill-Bond amendment to consider.

I'm not sure any legal mind knows the ultimate answer to the F/A seniority integration. Here are some key points:

1. What we do know is the F/A's do not have a completed seniority integration per the Transition Agreement.

2. The AFA leaders indicated the F/A's could be worse off if US Airways merged with another company and the TA was ratified.

3. The APA told its pilots "seniority may go to expedited arbitration. Expect percentile in type over any DOH (aka DAL/NWA)."

Not only due to the Time Value of Money and losing about $1,000 per month and working more days than required by the TA, US Airways' F/A's may have hurt their potential seniority integration with AA's F/A's because they did not listen to Flores, Volpe, and the JNC.

-----------------------------------------------------
Then if you use the same analogy with the pilots of USAIRways, whats the reason we have to use the nic.?

 

[usfliboi]

-----------------------------------------------------
Then if you use the same analogy with the pilots of USAIRways, whats the reason we have to use the nic.?

Oh I have a feeling our cronies who ousted Flores will make sure we have an agreement prior to any merger... You can smell the fear in their emails... Will the contract be much better than what was offered...I bet not... Doup P said 15% and we chose what way we wanted to achieve it...They will mix it up again and call it brand new!

 

[nic4us]

This site has become all but irrelevant to F/As, but as I do check it from time to time to see if anything is new regarding the airline, it has become increasingly painful to read some of the drivel posted here by individuals who have neither the knowledge nor sense to refrain from posting about the FA contract.

-If a merger happens, DOH was left open whether US f/as had voted in a new contract or not. APFA is bigger. They outnumber US f/as. They don't have AFA's DOH rule (see TWA f/as, oh forget it, they were furlouged). Due to that abomination, the Mcaskill-Bond amendment was passed. Sans McB, contract or not, we would be truly screwed, kinda like the pilots. With McB, we're only slightly screwed. That's reality. Nothing changes that.

-If US f/as had passed that inferior, concession ridden nonsense we would be sitting on a 5 year prison sentence. Trapped in ANOTHER concession ridden contract, kinda like what is happening to WEST f/as right now. As it is, we can be parked by the NMB, but not forever. And unlike WEST, we will not remain trapped in a bankruptcy grade contract waiting for a "merger contract" with AA, should a merger happen. We are already on the road to self help, as pothole strewn as it might be. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons, a different EAST mindset, contract differences etc, but a major fact is that AWA has already demonstrated a bad faith and bad bargaining history with US f/as already. An arbitrator cannot help but see that AWA has managed to trap WEST in a 12 year mess, paying 1989 wages and would LOVE to do again on a larger scale to all US f/as. Had US f/as voted in that TA, there would be no real argument for getting out of it. They ran out EAST's bankruptcy contract and they would have run out that 5 year abomination as well. If anyone thinks that the current managment wouldn't run three companies under one name if it saves them a nickel, I suggest you consult your US history.

-Also, if US f/as had voted in that concessionary waste of paper, the Change of Control language would no longer be there. I personally think it's a long shot, however dependent on court interpretation, the chance is there that with a merger that clause can be activated. Loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg shot, but it's ours and better there than not.

Finally, I have better things to do than explain a defunct TA and its abysmal negatives to posters who are drunk on Cactus koolaid, however, I can only wonder at the incredible naivete of thinking that ANY "endorsement" by ANY union rep would be considered good cause for voting yes on an agreement. Trotting out "their JNC recommended voting in the new TA" as support for an argument that US f/as have made a mistake? US f/as read the TA, consulted lawyers and pored over the details. 90% made their decision, 75% did their math.

Second guessing any of us is truly arrogant, not to mention, this little sideshow is simply a company infested propaganda fest.

"on the road to self help"????

Think again.

The AFA, thanks to the east, is on the road to being parked alongside their bad faith negotiating usapa pilots. AWA managed to "trap" the West AFA in a 12 year deal because the east AFA helped hold them down.

 

[USA320Pilot]

-----------------------------------------------------
Then if you use the same analogy with the pilots of USAIRways, whats the reason we have to use the nic.?

The pilots elected USAPA has has one union leadership body, which is why USPA will always be DFR if they can get the company to alter the Nicolau Award.