Afa Reaches Tentative Agreement

[openview]

Looks like a good TA allowing for needed changes, advancement and ability to compete with the competition. Which, without that, any agreement is useless. Congrats to afa, negotiating comm. Teddy, etc.

 

[Whatnow?]

:huh: Sorry but those who took voluntary furlough have had the opportunity to change their lives, move on and rebuild.Those who stayed in the trenches and waited deserve to be compensated. Im sorry for the vol furloughees, but thy went VOLUNTARILY, and are still on the senority list. Something must be said for those who "hung in there " Dont u think !!

[post="229691"][/post]​

I agree with that 100%....most of the VF people are and have been out for more than 2 years, the one's that were initially able to take 6 months off more than likely just wanted a break from the insanity! But I know personally quite a few that have been out 2-3 years that are doing quite well with other jobs and really not too many of them want to come back to work. If they do its because of the benefits like a better medical program than they are finding out there. They have been extending their VF's as long as the company will let them do it.

 

[firstamendment]

The deal also includes limited buyouts of up to $10,000 and an agreement by the union to allow US Airways to make no further contributions to its pension plan, replacing it in a few years with contributions to a 401(k) plan.

Complete Story

There is NOTHING said in the contract about "limited" buyouts. I have read it over and over. I think there will be a staggering of releases to retrain those coming back.

For me two points on vacation and sick.

1. If I'm sick...REALLY sick..I am not going to care about time amounts. I promise you the biggest complainers are the abusers...been there, done that.

2. I feel like I LIVE on a vacation...staggering days off will get me what time I need. If something HAS to give, better vacation time than my hourly wage. :huh:

I would rather not give anything, but I would also rather go back to the best of times contractually with 1 for 3 duty rigs, and all the other nice perks. Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen. h34r:

 

[USAirBoyA330]

I wonder how many people are actually going to take the $10,000 and how many will retire early with the $300 override. I wouldn't think over 1000 but I may be wrong.

 

[DCAflyer]

I wonder how many people are actually going to take the $10,000 and how many will retire early with the $300 override. I wouldn't think over 1000 but I may be wrong.

[post="230369"][/post]​

My prediction is about 1,800 will take the buyout. I think about half of the eligible people between 55 and 65 will leave.

Interestingly, even if 1,800 take the ten grand, that's a payout of only about half of what Wolf and Gangwal ended up with upon their departure... and less than four times what Siegel got.

 

[goodstew]

My prediction is about 1,800 will take the buyout. I think about half of the eligible people between 55 and 65 will leave.

Interestingly, even if 1,800 take the ten grand, that's a payout of only about half of what Wolf and Gangwal ended up with upon their departure... and less than four times what Siegel got.

[post="230389"][/post]​

I think any one with a brain will be lined up around the block to get out. Hopefully the company will have lots of slots availble and cattle prods around to manage the stampede.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Goodstew:

Without TA ratification there is no "buy out" provision, unless the company elects to provide one. Instead of a "buy out", the company could just layoff F/A's. In fact, the next company proposal could include out of seniority furloughs.

There is a precedent for out of seniority furlough language. After the RC4 precented ALPA members from voting on the September 6 proposal, the company's next offer eliminated most of the scope language and provided out of seniority furloughs.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[DCAflyer]

Goodstew:

Without TA ratification there is no "buy out" provision, unless the company elects to provide one. Instead of a "buy out", the company could just layoff F/A's. In fact, the next company proposal could include out of seniority furloughs.

[post="230428"][/post]​

Boys and Girls, can you say "CHAOS".

 

[DCAflyer]

Goodstew:

Without TA ratification there is no "buy out" provision, unless the company elects to provide one. Instead of a "buy out", the company could just layoff F/A's. In fact, the next company proposal could include out of seniority furloughs.

There is a precedent for out of seniority furlough language. After the RC4 precented ALPA members from voting on the September 6 proposal, the company's next offer eliminated most of the scope language and provided out of seniority furloughs.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="230428"][/post]​

In case you haven't noticed, not all labor groups on the property bend over when management comes-a-knockin. Some stand up to them, look them in the eye, and draw the line. Also, there is only one labor group on the property that has, over and over again, proven that they are ready, willing, and able to sell out their juniors in order to protect their own jobs.

I am afraid, my friend, that your words on this AFA subject are falling of deaf ears.

Best,
DCAflyer

 

[USA320Pilot]

DCAFlyer, do you really think the Courts, Congress or Bush Administration cares about the lame "CHAOS" threat?

This is about big business in a critical industry in financial distress. The story in the hyperlink below provides a balanced view of labor's chance to disrupt operations:

See Story

to ALPA MEC chairman Captain Bill Pollock, "You should also know that during the time that the Company was negotiating with the AFA, IAM, and CWA, the amount of cost savings the Company was demanding from each group increased during bankruptcy, as it did with ours."

Complete Story

DCAFlyer, a contract rejection will only make it worse for the F/A's, who should have learned from the failure of ALPA's RC4 to obtain the best deal possible. When would now be a good time to stop F/A bleeding or do you want the 21% pay cut to remain under the S.1113(e) order? In my opinion, "imposition" is more painful than "bending over", which could occur soon.

The good news: that could give those unions with new labor accords larger profit sharing checks.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[28yrsnojob]

vote no

 

[DCAflyer]

DCAFlyer, do you really think the Courts, Congress or Bush Administration cares about the lame "CHAOS" threat?

This is about big business in a critical industry in financial distress. The story in the hyperlink below provides a balanced view of labor's chance to disrupt operations:

See Story

to ALPA MEC chairman Captain Bill Pollock, "You should also know that during the time that the Company was negotiating with the AFA, IAM, and CWA, the amount of cost savings the Company was demanding from each group increased during bankruptcy, as it did with ours."

Complete Story

DCAFlyer, a contract rejection will only make it worse for the F/A's, who should have learned from the failure of ALPA's RC4 to obtain the best deal possible. When would now be a good time to stop F/A bleeding or do you want the 21% pay cut to remain under the S.1113(e) order? In my opinion, "imposition" is more painful than "bending over", which could occur soon.

The good news: that could give those unions with new labor accords larger profit sharing checks.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="230435"][/post]​

Oh, but we have learned from ALPA. We have learned that we collectively have more power as united front than if we cave into the company's "divide and conquer" mantra, for which ALPA clearly has a penchant.

And no, I don't believe the courts, congress, or the Bush administration cares about the CHAOS threat, lame or not, and I quite frankly don't care about them. But the Company clearly does care, because within days of CHAOS's ratification the company finally stopped playing games and upping its demand, and it finally came to what can only be described as the most pro-labor TA negotiated so far (which isn't saying much in and of itself, except that it does illustrate the magnitude of the threat upon the company's perception). So clearly the threat worked.

Regards,
DCAflyer

 

[USA320Pilot]

DCAflyer:

You're kdding right. The strike vote did nothing to adjust the process, except maybe cause more passengers to book away from the airline and reinforce the company maintain its posture for a $157 million annual concession, up from $116 million per year. What cuased the TA? The threat of "imposition".

By the way, what was the company's initial AFA cost cut target?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[DCAflyer]

DCAflyer:

You're kdding right. The strike vote did nothing to adjust the process, except maybe cause more passengers to book away from the airline and the company maintain its posture for a $157 million concession. What cuased a TA? The threat of "imposition".

By the way, what was the company's AFA opening cost cut target?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="230470"][/post]​

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that the pilots go running to CCY every time Bronner yells BOO. Another fact of another matter is that most pilots in this company will sell out their junior pilots, as they have time and time again. Hell, some pilots would sell out their own mother if it meant keeping left seat. The company knows this... it know the pilots' weaknesses, and knows how to exploit them, as it has done time after time after time!

I don't remember what the company's opening F/A target was and I quite frankly don't care because the truth is the number kept changing in negotiations. There is no reason to believe, assuming for the sake of argument, that had AFA capitulated by meeting the comapny's initial ask, that they would not have raised their ask. Be that as it may, we got a decent TA, our senior people can leave, if they so choose, and take with them very generous severance packages. (And I might add that if the company had taken this approach two years ago, and had it not yet again failed to hedge fuel costs, we might have rached that profit in 2003 that you said we would have!) Our furloughed people can enjoy the fact that someday they may come back and they will not be placed on some appalling C scale... would ALPA have gone to the mat for its furloughed people? The most they get is the daily message "...AND PLEASE REMEMBER WE HAVE ONE THOUSAND AND HOWEVER MANY PILOTS STILL ON FURLOUGH." That's it! That's all the furloughed pilots get and the remaining pilots don't give two squats about them. Their pay at MAA sucks, as does the F/A pay, but at least AFA negotiated a decent package for the Embraer division where people aren't making much less, hourly, than they would at mainline.

I can sit here and recite instance after instance where the company has plowed over the pilots, and similarly I can recite instance after instance where AFA took a stand, made a plan, stuck with it and stood up to the company. The result... a decent TA. I guess that must be the unique corporate transaction you've been searching for all these years! To the senior pilots, it is a unique transaction because it's something they never did.

If your grapes are so sour because ALPA doesn't stand up to the company, there is nothing I can do to change your thinking.

Good day,
DCAflyer

 

[Jennyann]

DCAflyer:

You're kdding right. The strike vote did nothing to adjust the process, except maybe cause more passengers to book away from the airline and reinforce the company maintain its posture for a $157 million annual concession, up from $116 million per year. What cuased the TA? The threat of "imposition".

By the way, what was the company's initial AFA cost cut target?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="230470"][/post]​

OK....Now you're really annoying. A good woman might be the answer.
God love her if she can stand you for 5 min.