Back to your love affair with the VEOP, I looked at what the company has out there again. It clearly states that there will be reduced or no furloughs depending on acceptance volume and potentially new hires with in a year. Sounds like they plan on accepting a lot if people want them. It also CLEARLY states no raises if not voted in. This would be the Term sheet/LBFO comparison on AA FLT SVC.
AA/APFA LBFO Poll
- Thread starter care2purchasefood?
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
Yeah, I love that stipulation that if they can hire in the first 12 months there will be no furloughs. And,everyone is quoting that. Well, duh! If there is even one person on the furlough list, they can't hire. I wonder how much the union gave up for that "concession."
jimntx
Veteran
Yeah, and back in 2003 "Pull Together, Win Together" sounded like the executives planned to share in the sacrifice, didn't it? Instead of looking at the comparison table between the term sheet and the LBFO, try looking at the actual LBFO which is also available on the AA FLT SVC website.
From the LBFO, page 1...
"The company will have discretion to limit the maximum number of acceptances and determine when flight attendant can separate based on operational requirements."
I know what the company and the union say. The sentence above is what the LBFO says. I don't have a love affair with the VEOP. As you say, I'm not even eligible. But, if there is a discrepancy this big on page one of the document, what other gotchas are hidden in the rest? We've been down this path before. "Oh, you didn't think we could change so and so? Well, maybe you should have read the agreement more closely before voting."
Fortunately, I don't have to stick around for the bloodbath. You vote how you want. I'll vote how I want. And, regardless of which option goes into effect, if the work situation becomes intolerable, I can just retire. And, don't start that I need to "think of other flight attendants who don't have that option." Maybe, you all could have thought of me and several thousand other flight attendants who got furloughed so that you wouldn't have to take bigger pay cuts.
The APFA proved in 1993(??? I can never remember the date. It was before my time. lol) that they were capable of calling the company's bluff and winning. Since then it seems that the attitude has become "well the TA is better than a sharp stick in the eye." Except for the 2001 contract, and we saw how long that lasted.
The company is trying to turn the career of flight attendant back into a temporary job where young men and women of good families and freshly-minted college degrees do the job for 4-5 years until they've seen the world or gotten sick of the long hours and the short layovers. Since the law no longer allows restrictions like "under 32, must be attractive, etc" they have to find another way to get flight attendants to leave before the company has to deal with health issues, retirement plans (DB or 401K or whatever), pay raises, and so forth. Using the "lesser of two evils" form of voting choice enables this goal.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
Help me understand who these people are (by employment type etc). If they are active employees, aren't their union dues payroll deducted?
jersey777
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 73
I'll try to answer that question. Dues are payroll deducted. Anytime a flight attendant goes on unpaid status such as furlough, voluntary leave, medical leave etc....they are no longer receiving a paycheck so are not paying dues. The APFA policy is that all flight attendants must pay dues regardless of on active status or not because the rational is that the APFA is still representing flight attendants as a whole whether is be through presidential grievances, section 6 negotiations, bankruptcy representation, etc...
The APFA direct bills the flight attendant for dues when they go in dues arrears. One frequent problem is that addresses for many flight attendants are not current unless the flight attendant notifies the union of an address change....American Airlines does not provide addresses to the APFA. Even if a flight attendant is one month in dues arrears they are not eligible to vote.
I would assume the reason for the extremely large number of F/A in dues arrears is due to recent furloughs and the many, many voluntary leaves that have been taken over the last few years. Also, with an average age of 52, it would be my assumption that there are several hundred out right now on medical leave because there are a slew of conditions that prevent us from flying....medications, injuries, illness, etc...
Flight attendants can be terminated for not paying back dues but it is an extremely lengthy process. Flight attendants are also allowed to go on a payment plan to become dues current.
Just a note, I have a friend that is rather junior and most likely he will be furloughed if we vote this down. He is one month in dues arrears because he took a month leave. I told him to just pay the $40 bucks and vote!
jersey777
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 73
I think you what you are referring to regarding the limit of the number of people able to take the early out only applies to the timing which runs between 4Q2012 thru 3Q2013. It does not limit the number who can take it. If you look at attachment A, line 1 states:
"All flight attendants, including those on a leave of absence and those on the furlough list who have at least fifteen(15) years company seniority as of July 1, 2012, shall be eligible to participate in the VEOP."
I've not seen this stipulation you talk about. Where is it? I would like to see it. All I see is that AA talks about potetentially hiring within a year IF enough f/a's take the early out. How is that a concession? If for example sake they really want to furlough 2300, and 2500 take the early out. Then they will be short 200. I'm fairly certain that a good chunk of people on the furlough list will take the money and run. Trying to duck the APFA's creditors, and not come back. That would allow AA to hire a few. I really believe, IF it passes, there will be closer to 3000 f/a's take the early out. You still haven't corrected your false statement on receiving raises if the term sheet is forced on us.
I have not voted as of yet and will not until we see how the company reacts to whatever the result of todays TWU and tomorrows APA tabulation. Much of how I vote will depend on how those votes go and the subsequent reaction, or not, of the company. We have a luxury of time here which unlike 2003 was not the case.
I don't post much on this blog but i do read it very frequently. And while I appreciate and respect anyones' vote I am leaning towards yes. I'll be at the ORD roadshow tomorrow and do have a set of questions for the panel. As a matter of fact since there are many folks on this blog who know a whole lot more than I, here are a couple of those questions which I may as well throw out here:
1) In attachment I, page 19 of the LBO, "settlement considerations" section 6 'Bankruptcy protection'. It's 2 paragraphs and to my understanding it says that the company retains the right to submit a subsequent Motion for relief, rejection or modification of this TA or this 'This letter of agreement'. Does this mean that if this LBO passes the company may still modify that LBO at will if certain economic or business conditions arise?
2) Same attachment, page 20 of the LBO, section 4 'Indemnification'. Does this verbiage indicate the company will assist APFA up to 50% of it's legal fees if it's members file a law suit against the union as a result of the passage of the TA? Or is this a rather rudimentary and common clause in ch 11's and only applies to the unions' cost in presenting it's case in court?
3) If the TA is voted down and Lane allows the company to reject, can the company reject/modify ANY part of the CBA it chooses or is it restricted to only those items (sections of the contract) it has listed on it's filed 1113 petition?
I appreciate Jims' position and I respect his choices what ever they are. And that goes for any other F/A as well. But I've been here for 35+ years and have learned the hard way, the expensive way, that whatever the the company or a company spokesperson says is probably 90% inaccurate and 50/50 an outright lie. Going all the way back to when Crandall was found guilty of price collusion with Braniff to the Sr. VP of Employee Relations stating on TV during the summer of '93 that F/A's were making in excess of $60,000, and I have the old VHS tape to prove it, this company has never ever seen it's employees as an asset. I can live with that after all these years because I know different, we in fact are.
But we are now dealing with an entity we've never had to cope with before, a bankruptcy court. And that, frankly, changes everything. While no pilot CBA has ever been abrogated (to my knowledge anyway), there has always been a settlement before abrogation, that is not the same for F/A's and Mechanics and Ground Staff who have frequently seen CBA's tossed in the shredder. Having been witness to the outright disgust those in Centerport have shown towards the line employees during fairly good times I really do not want to see how they will respond if Lane gives the go ahead for abrogation.
Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.
I don't post much on this blog but i do read it very frequently. And while I appreciate and respect anyones' vote I am leaning towards yes. I'll be at the ORD roadshow tomorrow and do have a set of questions for the panel. As a matter of fact since there are many folks on this blog who know a whole lot more than I, here are a couple of those questions which I may as well throw out here:
1) In attachment I, page 19 of the LBO, "settlement considerations" section 6 'Bankruptcy protection'. It's 2 paragraphs and to my understanding it says that the company retains the right to submit a subsequent Motion for relief, rejection or modification of this TA or this 'This letter of agreement'. Does this mean that if this LBO passes the company may still modify that LBO at will if certain economic or business conditions arise?
2) Same attachment, page 20 of the LBO, section 4 'Indemnification'. Does this verbiage indicate the company will assist APFA up to 50% of it's legal fees if it's members file a law suit against the union as a result of the passage of the TA? Or is this a rather rudimentary and common clause in ch 11's and only applies to the unions' cost in presenting it's case in court?
3) If the TA is voted down and Lane allows the company to reject, can the company reject/modify ANY part of the CBA it chooses or is it restricted to only those items (sections of the contract) it has listed on it's filed 1113 petition?
I appreciate Jims' position and I respect his choices what ever they are. And that goes for any other F/A as well. But I've been here for 35+ years and have learned the hard way, the expensive way, that whatever the the company or a company spokesperson says is probably 90% inaccurate and 50/50 an outright lie. Going all the way back to when Crandall was found guilty of price collusion with Braniff to the Sr. VP of Employee Relations stating on TV during the summer of '93 that F/A's were making in excess of $60,000, and I have the old VHS tape to prove it, this company has never ever seen it's employees as an asset. I can live with that after all these years because I know different, we in fact are.
But we are now dealing with an entity we've never had to cope with before, a bankruptcy court. And that, frankly, changes everything. While no pilot CBA has ever been abrogated (to my knowledge anyway), there has always been a settlement before abrogation, that is not the same for F/A's and Mechanics and Ground Staff who have frequently seen CBA's tossed in the shredder. Having been witness to the outright disgust those in Centerport have shown towards the line employees during fairly good times I really do not want to see how they will respond if Lane gives the go ahead for abrogation.
Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.
jimntx
Veteran
A great many of the people who are dues arrears are former TWA f/as. While they were all on furlough, the APFA was not liking how they were voting--specifically for base chair at St. Louis. So, the APFA passed a new rule that furloughed people must be dues current in order to vote, and when recalled from furlough must pay all dues that accrued while they were on furlough before they could vote as active f/as.
jimntx
Veteran
The actual LBFO states that the company may at its discretion (i.e., without union permission) limit the maximum number awarded AND the date of separation. It doesn't matter what you think it means. In court the words are all that matters.
Oh, by the way eligible to participate is not the same as getting it. I am eligible to participate in any International proffer that comes along. Whether or not I hold that proffer is another issue entirely. People, look at the actual words. The company is leaving its options open to screw you over even more once you are locked into a 6 year agreement.
jimntx
Veteran
The actual wording can be found on PAGE 1 of the document comparing the term sheet and the LBFO. The gotcha phrase is "reduced or no furloughs based on early out acceptances, with high early out acceptances requiring new hires within the first year." Now I have a little experience in reading contracts. The company is free to use that sentence in several different ways since the APFA didn't insist on specific wording. (emphasis mine on the bolded word)
But, it's a moot point. As I said, the company can't hire anyway if there are people on the furlough list; so, why is it even being discussed. People keep bringing it up as if this were some victory for the APFA.
As far as the pay raise issue, you are correct. But, that is another example of misreading what is actually there--my misreading this time. Difference is, if I misread it, it's not going to cost you any money if the company decides two years into the contract that they have found a loophole. And, there are loopholes in that LBFO that you could drive a semi with trailer attached through.
jimntx
Veteran
You are correct on all 3 points. As usual, the devil is in the details.
Point is that if enough leave, AA plans to spread out the departures so IF they need to they can start to recruit for new hires. Problem with your logic to me is that yes there are holes in the LBFO, but there are bigger holes and canyons in the term sheet to me. I would prefer to get a pay raise, 401k match and possibly some profit sharing. I prefer to be rewarded a little instead of screwed a lot. To each his/her own. I am still amazed at how much misinformation is out there and it just keeps coming. People just don't see the need to get correct information or are they able to comprehend the English written language. Most of the time the complainers and purveyors of false hoods are the ones that have yet to read the term sheet/LBFO or attended a road show.
Ord78, at the road show re question 3, the lawyer said nothing precluded AA from changing things for the worse if the term sheet was forced on us. He said they would fight, but would probably lose. No contract, we are at will employees and AA can almost do what they want. If AA can show let's say oil increased, they most likely would be able to get more costs cuts from us with no contract. Sounds awesome huh? Add that to your no pay raise, no 401k match and no profit sharing. AA would love all that. Just so we can show them to shove. Well, they will shove it right back 10 fold if given the chance.
jimntx
Veteran
And, you think that if the price of oil goes up and they need more money, you will still get your pay raises and your 401K? I find that level of naivete refreshing in someone your age. There is a very simple solution to that. There's already precedent for it. It's called Bankruptcy #2 or #3. Whatever is necessary to abrogate the "new" contract--now known as the LBFO. If the comment about people who don't read the documents or go to the road shows was directed at me, for your information I have read the actual LBFO in full, not just the comparison to the term sheet--which is what the company and the union want you to read. And, I've been flying. Perhaps I should demand that they hold a roadshow on a day that is convenient for me.
As I said, the LBFO is another "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" document. Of course, you'll get your pay raise. And, anybody who wants the VEOP will get it. Don't worry that the written document doesn't say that. We (the APFA) have an agreement with the company. And, we all know that the company always honors its unwritten agreements, don't we? From what I've seen over the past 12 years, they don't even honor their written agreements if they think they can get away with it.
Oh, and they don't even need the price of oil to go up. All they have to do is claim that they made a rounding error when calculating the cost of the pay raises, or the VEOP, or the 401K and they need to eliminate that part of the agreement in order to remain a going concern. If they make the better argument, the judge has no choice except to concur. The primary purpose of bankruptcy court is to preserve the organization as a going concern above everything else.
As I said, the LBFO is another "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" document. Of course, you'll get your pay raise. And, anybody who wants the VEOP will get it. Don't worry that the written document doesn't say that. We (the APFA) have an agreement with the company. And, we all know that the company always honors its unwritten agreements, don't we? From what I've seen over the past 12 years, they don't even honor their written agreements if they think they can get away with it.
Oh, and they don't even need the price of oil to go up. All they have to do is claim that they made a rounding error when calculating the cost of the pay raises, or the VEOP, or the 401K and they need to eliminate that part of the agreement in order to remain a going concern. If they make the better argument, the judge has no choice except to concur. The primary purpose of bankruptcy court is to preserve the organization as a going concern above everything else.
