AFA Labor Thread Aug 27- Union Issues Here
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
flybynite
Veteran
I just got a new E-Line from the MEC. It's an JNC update and it also addresses some rumors going around.
FlightChic
Veteran
- Feb 18, 2007
- 954
- 0
I saw an email someone sent out that is hanging up in the crew room about contacting Mike if you are for or against staying with pilots. Then some f/as wrote comments on the sheet such as remember when we didn't fly with the same pilots years ago we will be sitting around the airport for hours waiting for pilots, we will have to fly an Airbus leg then a Boeing leg EW, then an airbus leg, etc. According to the email there haven't been very many people who have written Mike and told them that they do NOT want to split from the pilots.
Also, how would this impact our overnights? Would we still have long overnights? Would we be flying West coast turns all day long?
If we split from the pilots there better be some very clear language (I'm talking black and white - no room for creative interpretation by the company) that protects our work group from the abuse that many flight attendants are imagining.
Also, how would this impact our overnights? Would we still have long overnights? Would we be flying West coast turns all day long?
If we split from the pilots there better be some very clear language (I'm talking black and white - no room for creative interpretation by the company) that protects our work group from the abuse that many flight attendants are imagining.
flybynite
Veteran
Was that in the PHL crewroom?
I have written Mike about co-pairing with the pilots and I'm against separation. I've flown separate pairing and IMO it's a pain in the rear.
There is a section in the E-Line that addresses the fact that the FAA is rewriting the rules for rest requirements for the pilots. They don't know when the FAA will publish but they indicated it will be soon.
Now that is something that's about 50 yrs overdue.
I have written Mike about co-pairing with the pilots and I'm against separation. I've flown separate pairing and IMO it's a pain in the rear.
There is a section in the E-Line that addresses the fact that the FAA is rewriting the rules for rest requirements for the pilots. They don't know when the FAA will publish but they indicated it will be soon.
Now that is something that's about 50 yrs overdue.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
The FAA rewriting the rest requirement language is going to be a HUGE deal for flight crews. NOT in favor of USAirways either. Wait and see..... 
The absolute worst mistake we could ever make in the flight attendant work group is to agree to separate from the pilots. Any changes to the "Me Too" clause is a non-starter for me regardless of how much more money they want to give us. If we think our lives have gotten tougher because of the wacky reserve system, 70% sick pay, less vacation and all of the other concessions we've made in the past, vote out the "Me Too" and what positive remnants we have left of this job will be gone. The union shouldn't even have this issue on the table.
Seperate, Seperate, Seperate...
These aren't the 70's anymore. Things have changed and we must do the same. Trust me folks, there is life after the "ME-TOO"... Let us have the opportunity to negotiate our own contract without the coat-strings of the pilots. It's time to move on and make our own decisions....
Just my opinion...
These aren't the 70's anymore. Things have changed and we must do the same. Trust me folks, there is life after the "ME-TOO"... Let us have the opportunity to negotiate our own contract without the coat-strings of the pilots. It's time to move on and make our own decisions....
Just my opinion...
flybynite
Veteran
Hmm...what's with the 70's thing?
I'll not trust anyone that says..."Trust me". That sounds like a used car salesman's pitch.
There's too much at stake to have a knee jerk reaction about any of this.
And guess what? Not that much has changed. If anything.
We have always made our own decisions. Can't say that's always been true for the pilots. ALPA jerked them around for years.
Well there is a new sheriff in town where the pilots are concerned and the FAA is in play too.
I'd hold my horses on this.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
So do you follow the person who says "don't trust me?"
Or the person that says "i will vote my conscience and work for change that I believe will help us all?"
Or the person that says that"I will always tell you the truth to the best of my ability, but you may not want to hear it."
Who do you vote for, as in what kind of plank?
ebwgs,
Could you please list the protections that the "me too" clause gives us, that couldn't be easily negotiated into our contract? Remember, MF says that unless our work rules and protections are better than they are now, we won't separate from the pilots.
What "positive remnants" have the pilots kept for us? The rigs? Nope, they gave those away. Scope? Nope, they gave that away. Every E170 you see parked at the C gates and many of the CRJ's parked at F gates used to be our flying. Yah, they protected us alright. Protected many out of a job, and the rest onto reserve...
Everyone on the line keeps talking about how the fa's were so abused at Piedmont when they were separate. Mike is NOT going to move forward with this unless he has the protections in place! What's sad is that 90% of the senior people I have been flying with haven't even seen Mike's email on the separation, and don't even receive E-lines. It's borderline pathetic.
Let's think outside of the box here, and see what the Union can come up with. Unless you are content with this current working agreement for years to come....??
Amen. And, for what it's worth, FA's often make their own decisions by knowing their contract, even today! All by themselves! Pilots can be forced to work longer duty days than FA's can, and many don't even know that. The pilot "tells" them what they are being forced to do. They then walk out to the jetway, make a phone call, and inform the pilot that he will have to wait 1+30 for a new reserve crew to be called out, as we are out of time. We've been doing it for years. Pilots don't "protect" us anymore. This isn't the 70's anymore, you got that right....
ebwgs,
Could you please list the protections that the "me too" clause gives us, that couldn't be easily negotiated into our contract? Remember, MF says that unless our work rules and protections are better than they are now, we won't separate from the pilots.
What "positive remnants" have the pilots kept for us? The rigs? Nope, they gave those away. Scope? Nope, they gave that away. Every E170 you see parked at the C gates and many of the CRJ's parked at F gates used to be our flying. Yah, they protected us alright. Protected many out of a job, and the rest onto reserve...
Everyone on the line keeps talking about how the fa's were so abused at Piedmont when they were separate. Mike is NOT going to move forward with this unless he has the protections in place! What's sad is that 90% of the senior people I have been flying with haven't even seen Mike's email on the separation, and don't even receive E-lines. It's borderline pathetithe company will c.
Let's think outside of the box here, and see what the Union can come up with. Unless you are content with this current working agreement for years to come....??
IREST...
There is no such thing as a contractual issue benefitting the flight attendants--or any labor group for that matter--being "easily negotiated" into our contract. The "Me Too" clause, which has benefited our work group for many years, was borne out of hard work and tough negotiating on the part of our union. To assume that the company will "easily" accede to negotiating work rules and protections that will serve the best interests of the flight attendants as well as the company is a bit naive.
Have we lost some work rules as a result of the "Me Too"? No doubt we have. Are you contending that, if not for the "Me Too" that we would still be enjoying the work rules that we lost as a result of the "Me Too.?" Is it your contention that our union, if it were "negotiating for itself" as another poster put it, would not have negotiated away the 1 for 3 that was negotiated back in the 90s in a concessionary contract? Would we not have lost work rules during the post 9/11 "force majeure", pre-bankruptcy, post-bankruptcy butt kicking that we took? It's hard for me to believe that, if there were no "Me Too" that we'd still have those work rules.
If, as you noted, that the Piedmont flight attendants were "abused" prior to the US/PI merger, then that is enough information for me to make an educated position in favor of the "Me Too." If I know nothing else I know that history repeats itself. I'm not interested in west coast turns. Personally, I don't want to flirt with the possibility of deadheading to Europe and then turning around and working the flight back. I don't care if it is a 15+ hour one day.
I'm not disparaging Mike or any other union official on the JNC. They are hard working people and I do believe they have our work group's best interest at heart. And I guaran--damn--tee you this: If Mike does accomplish, as you faithfully noted in your post: "MF says that unless our work rules and protections are better than they are now, we won't separate from the pilots", that he will not have "easily" accomplished this amazing feat as you noted in your post. I really would rather not take a gamble on Mike performing miracles. I'd rather maintain the "Me Too" and not have to hope for a miracle. Just my point of view. And I hope we maintain the "Me Too."
Thanks for responding. Good debate. My thoughts....
I never said it was going to be easy, but I am definitely interested in exploring this idea. MF has already said that better work rules and protections are a must, or this idea won't fly with the JNC, let alone the membership. We have the final vote.
Have you seen the email from MF? In fact the company has already come up with some strong preliminary proposals. I am certainly not naive, and if the work rules are worse or the protections for us are not strong enough, we simply won't ratify the contract. I believe that shareholders are becoming more and more restless with these open contracts, and the company may be ready to deal, more so than before. We shall see.
Not at all, in fact I am sure there would've been concessions if we were separate. My point is, the pilots did nothing to protect us in the early 90's, and we didn't even have a vote. Therefore, it's a wash.
100% agree.
Why? From what I hear, the PI FA contract was horrible.... reserves were constantly abused, and there was no contractual language protecting FAs from some pretty dastardly scheduling. What does that have to do with a contract being negotiated 20+ years later? The past is the past.
And I am . That's the beauty of the FA corps. We all like different trips. Besides, you'll probably need 40+ years to touch those babies at USAir.
Huh? Even if we were separated with today's contract, the Company could not do this. Duty time limitations, night flying, etc, would prevent this. Do you think 'Europe turns' are a problem at DL, CO, or AA? (They're not, and they've been flying separate for years.)
Then we vote NO. So, you are content with the current working agreement until the pilots ratify? That'll be years. I am shocked that FA's are so against this idea without even seeing what is being proposed. Like they say, FA's fear change. I just didn't realize how much!
I would too, if you could convince me that we are greatly protected by the pilots.
I never said it was going to be easy, but I am definitely interested in exploring this idea. MF has already said that better work rules and protections are a must, or this idea won't fly with the JNC, let alone the membership. We have the final vote.
Have you seen the email from MF? In fact the company has already come up with some strong preliminary proposals. I am certainly not naive, and if the work rules are worse or the protections for us are not strong enough, we simply won't ratify the contract. I believe that shareholders are becoming more and more restless with these open contracts, and the company may be ready to deal, more so than before. We shall see.
Not at all, in fact I am sure there would've been concessions if we were separate. My point is, the pilots did nothing to protect us in the early 90's, and we didn't even have a vote. Therefore, it's a wash.
100% agree.
Why? From what I hear, the PI FA contract was horrible.... reserves were constantly abused, and there was no contractual language protecting FAs from some pretty dastardly scheduling. What does that have to do with a contract being negotiated 20+ years later? The past is the past.
And I am . That's the beauty of the FA corps. We all like different trips. Besides, you'll probably need 40+ years to touch those babies at USAir.
Huh? Even if we were separated with today's contract, the Company could not do this. Duty time limitations, night flying, etc, would prevent this. Do you think 'Europe turns' are a problem at DL, CO, or AA? (They're not, and they've been flying separate for years.)
Then we vote NO. So, you are content with the current working agreement until the pilots ratify? That'll be years. I am shocked that FA's are so against this idea without even seeing what is being proposed. Like they say, FA's fear change. I just didn't realize how much!
I would too, if you could convince me that we are greatly protected by the pilots.
"MF has already said that better work rules and protections are a must, or this idea won't fly with the JNC"
This issue shouldn't even be on the negotiating table. The fact that it is shows me that our union may be negotiating from a concessionary mentality.
"And I am . That's the beauty of the FA corps. We all like different trips. Besides, you'll probably need 40+ years to touch those babies at USAir."
Now this may very well be at the core of our disagreement on this issue. You obviously are willing to fly, for example, PHLLAXPHL turns and I'm not. It my be high time, but it's also high stress and high fatigue. It's also a safety issue. It best serves the safety interests of the public as well as the working crews to have cabin crews that are rested and alert. Period. But it's all about personal preference. If I fly from the east to the west, when I get to the west coast I prefer to go to bed than to go back to work. But that's me. And it may not be the 40 year flight attendants working those trips. If the company feels it behooves them to build trips that turn us around then it will do just that. If there is a preponderance of west coast turns then we'll all be working those trips.
Huh? Even if we were separated with today's contract, the Company could not do this. Duty time limitations, night flying, etc, would prevent this. Do you think 'Europe turns' are a problem at DL, CO, or AA? (They're not, and they've been flying separate for years.)
"Huh? Even if we were separated with today's contract, the Company could not do this. Duty time limitations, night flying, etc, would prevent this. Do you think 'Europe turns' are a problem at DL, CO, or AA? (They're not, and they've been flying separate for years.)"
You may very well be right. But why gamble? I don't want to wake up one morning and be surprised to learn that, by virtue of contract language, the company can legally impose that kind of flying on us. Just as, although it violates federal labor laws, the company can pay us 70% of our sick time because it was "agreed to"--Lord only knows by who--they will also impose if they can the most draconian work rules possible if we agree to let it happen. Regardless of what the other carriers that you mentioned are doing, our company has demonstrated that they will go to whatever lengths they can to extract the most onerous work rules and "lack of protections" they can to satisfy their constituencies. I may be wrong, but I think the flight attendant groups at those other airlines are entitled to 100% of their sick pay. If possible, our management will overreach.
"Then we vote NO. So, you are content with the current working agreement until the pilots ratify? That'll be years. I am shocked that FA's are so against this idea without even seeing what is being proposed. Like they say, FA's fear change. I just didn't realize how much!"
I'd rather have a tentative agreement that I can vote yes on. Why take the time negotiating a contract only to vote it down? Why not get it right the first time? Of course I'm not content with the current contract. But why should we make a future contract worse because we've grown impatient with the current one? Some flight attendants may or may not fear change. Change is good, but change for the sake of change can be a bad thing too.
"I would too, if you could convince me that we are greatly protected by the pilots."
Sadly, there is no such thing as being "greatly protected" by anyone in this business. It's the reality of not k=just the business but life in general. Thanks for the discussion.
This issue shouldn't even be on the negotiating table. The fact that it is shows me that our union may be negotiating from a concessionary mentality.
"And I am . That's the beauty of the FA corps. We all like different trips. Besides, you'll probably need 40+ years to touch those babies at USAir."
Now this may very well be at the core of our disagreement on this issue. You obviously are willing to fly, for example, PHLLAXPHL turns and I'm not. It my be high time, but it's also high stress and high fatigue. It's also a safety issue. It best serves the safety interests of the public as well as the working crews to have cabin crews that are rested and alert. Period. But it's all about personal preference. If I fly from the east to the west, when I get to the west coast I prefer to go to bed than to go back to work. But that's me. And it may not be the 40 year flight attendants working those trips. If the company feels it behooves them to build trips that turn us around then it will do just that. If there is a preponderance of west coast turns then we'll all be working those trips.
Huh? Even if we were separated with today's contract, the Company could not do this. Duty time limitations, night flying, etc, would prevent this. Do you think 'Europe turns' are a problem at DL, CO, or AA? (They're not, and they've been flying separate for years.)
"Huh? Even if we were separated with today's contract, the Company could not do this. Duty time limitations, night flying, etc, would prevent this. Do you think 'Europe turns' are a problem at DL, CO, or AA? (They're not, and they've been flying separate for years.)"
You may very well be right. But why gamble? I don't want to wake up one morning and be surprised to learn that, by virtue of contract language, the company can legally impose that kind of flying on us. Just as, although it violates federal labor laws, the company can pay us 70% of our sick time because it was "agreed to"--Lord only knows by who--they will also impose if they can the most draconian work rules possible if we agree to let it happen. Regardless of what the other carriers that you mentioned are doing, our company has demonstrated that they will go to whatever lengths they can to extract the most onerous work rules and "lack of protections" they can to satisfy their constituencies. I may be wrong, but I think the flight attendant groups at those other airlines are entitled to 100% of their sick pay. If possible, our management will overreach.
"Then we vote NO. So, you are content with the current working agreement until the pilots ratify? That'll be years. I am shocked that FA's are so against this idea without even seeing what is being proposed. Like they say, FA's fear change. I just didn't realize how much!"
I'd rather have a tentative agreement that I can vote yes on. Why take the time negotiating a contract only to vote it down? Why not get it right the first time? Of course I'm not content with the current contract. But why should we make a future contract worse because we've grown impatient with the current one? Some flight attendants may or may not fear change. Change is good, but change for the sake of change can be a bad thing too.
"I would too, if you could convince me that we are greatly protected by the pilots."
Sadly, there is no such thing as being "greatly protected" by anyone in this business. It's the reality of not k=just the business but life in general. Thanks for the discussion.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
I'm not in favor in my heart of hearts to split from the pilots BUT I also am not willing to sit around with this current contract for years to come. Even if we wait for the east contract to expire and are negotiating the damn thing can't be finished if we wait for the pilots and their "me-too" sections. I'm sorry but I cannot afford to sit around on this contract until the pilots finish. With that said, if the union doesn't show us work rules that benefit us and protect us it will be a "NO" vote by all. I don't honestly think Mike Flores is going to bring a proposal back to the membership knowing it will fail miserably. Say what you want about him but one thing he isn't is stupid. Ya know Itest it really IS scary how flight attendants are. My last trip all we heard on the van was about Piedmont, the screwing we'll receive, blah, blah, blah. NOT ONE of those flight attendants knew anything about Mike's email. AMAZING.
- Status
Similar threads
