AFA Tentative Details Released

Onestep2flt

Senior
Sep 27, 2007
386
155
The point is that there are 2 or 3 FA's that post regularly in the pilot thread but have pointedly told pilots to stay out of FA issues and this thread in particular. While I recognize that this thread discusses issues of importance to FA's, the tentative does take a benefit away from pilots. You can be sure that if a pilot tentative is ever reached and it takes something away from FA's, those 2 or 3 will be among the first to comment about it and won't care that it's a "pilots" thread.

Jim

Well, a point well taken. Of course I tried to post in the pilot thread a couple of times, but I guess I don't have thick enough skin. I tried to share ideas and my thought as a non pilot observer but it seems if you don't take a position you just can't play there. I happen to feel personally that there is some merit in both sides to their argument. Neither party wishes to hear that though. As soon as you suggest such you are accused of treason!

As far as taking this away from the pilots, I had pointed that out. I really think the flight attendant union could have went to the pilots early on and discussed this. They dropped the ball.

That is why I said it is an important. It is something that the flight attendants should take into account as a whole. However, They do have many other considerations. I am afraid this issue might not even be taken notice of by some with the exception of a few here.
 
Feb 22, 2008
443
264
The pilots have to actually touch the holiday. The F/As could trip improve into the trip touching the holiday and it would drop. So if i had a trip Dec. 22-25 I could touch the 22nd and the trip would be gone. Now in this new T/A we have to touch the actual day. No lol there.

Amen. Yet another fine example of someone getting HALF the story and waving their pom poms first, before getting the facts. The idea is to read the contract before signing it.

AFTER it is ratified is TOO LATE.

Missthe727: Thanks for pointing out only one of the MANY concessions in the TA.

Educate yourself people The Devil is in the details (and fine print) Jerry Glass made sure of that fact.

Even USA320Pilot's protege usfliboi missed vetting that fact before posting inaccuracies to the masses. Shocking :(

No one can tell you how to vote.....they will try but get the facts please......not some someone's opinion that obviously has questionable reading comprehension.

Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah

Back on Topic.
 

BoeingBoy

Veteran
Nov 9, 2003
16,512
5,865
Well, a point well taken. Of course I tried to post in the pilot thread a couple of times, but I guess I don't have thick enough skin. I tried to share ideas and my thought as a non pilot observer but it seems if you don't take a position you just can't play there. I happen to feel personally that there is some merit in both sides to their argument. Neither party wishes to hear that though. As soon as you suggest such you are accused of treason!

As far as taking this away from the pilots, I had pointed that out. I really think the flight attendant union could have went to the pilots early on and discussed this. They dropped the ball.

That is why I said it is an important. It is something that the flight attendants should take into account as a whole. However, They do have many other considerations. I am afraid this issue might not even be taken notice of by some with the exception of a few here.
Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone posting anywhere (though you do need thick skin to venture into the pilot's thread). Heck, I've been told by pilots to move along since I don't have and "skin" in the game, being retired. I just thought it was both funny and hypocritical for a few that have been relatively active in the pilot thread to say pilot's shouldn't post in a FA thread. It was by no means directed at all, or even most FA's - only the few.

Jim
 
OP
usfliboi

usfliboi

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,070
270
Amen. Yet another fine example of someone getting HALF the story and waving their pom poms first, before getting the facts. The idea is to read the contract before signing it.

AFTER it is ratified is TOO LATE.

Missthe727: Thanks for pointing out only one of the MANY concessions in the TA.

Educate yourself people The Devil is in the details (and fine print) Jerry Glass made sure of that fact.

Even USA320Pilot's protege usfliboi missed vetting that fact before posting inaccuracies to the masses. Shocking :(

No one can tell you how to vote.....they will try but get the facts please......not some someone's opinion that obviously has questionable reading comprehension.

Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah

Back on Topic.


Maybe you shouldnt eat so much bread ..sounds like your bloated! Vote the way you wanna vote I could care less.. You deal with it afterwards! You are living in a glucose free world if you think the real world will feed you a better contract.... Unlike my hero... I bite back!
 
Feb 22, 2008
443
264
<<<<Maybe you shouldnt eat so much bread ..sounds like your bloated! Vote the way you wanna vote I could care less.. You deal with it afterwards! You are living in a glucose free world if you think the real world will feed you a better contract.... Unlike my hero... I bite back!>>>>

Not a big fan of bread. But, thanks for your concern. You might actually want to GOOGLE "Allergic reaction after drinking mass quantities of Kool Aid" or at the very least educate yourself on the subject at hand before pontificating profusely.

Nobody is feeding me anything - especially BS.

If you don't value your own self worth, and are more than willing to accept anything out of fear that's OK. Don't expect the rest of us to go along.
Negotiating out of fear has never obtained a "better" anything.

Being realistic with expectations, being informed, and simply refusing to roll over might. You get what you negotiate.
Besides, I would rather negotiate on my feet, than on my knees. Sorry you don't agree.

I could care less how "you" vote. I do care how ignorance and corporate cheerleaders are impacting the membership negatively. This group deserves better. This TA is what it is: concessionary. The facts speak louder than words. Demand the truth from the union leadership. It was sent out with a recommendation of "NEUTRAL" from PHX, PHL, and DCA and with a "NO" from CLT. Have you even read through it line for line yet? I am still finding massive ambiguity, loopholes, and diluted scope protections.

The company undoubtedly will provide hubris - we don't need the membership being fed misinformation by it's own members.
Read and comprehend this TA for yourself. Then attend the road shows and ASK questions. Only then can any of us make an educated decision.

When you read the WSJ and the headline reads "US AIRWAYS MERGING WITH_________( fill in the blank ) only then can you ASSUME we are merging with another carrier - NOT UNTIL.

I am sorry my post upset you so much you feel the need to "bite back". No thanks, I don't like to have my back bitten, my wife would get upset and I am not really into the whole SM thing.
Thanks anyway.....I think?

Annoying tiny dogs also like to bite. Usually due to a lack of education and training or when they are scared or confused......you know they bark, make a lot of noise, then pee on the floor.
What's your story?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

johnny kat

Senior
Oct 11, 2011
343
330
I just finished reading the entire T/A top to bottom and I just finished reading the comparison chart of all the other "legacy airlines" and overall we are no better or worse with this agreement (except DL is paid considerably less in most respects). I just have issue with the duration of 5 years, and it seems like we are being ask to drink the Jim Jones punch with a leap of faith about what PBS can do for us (lots of uncertainty about what kind of seniority it will take to hold what I currently am able to hold) and it seems we should be compensated just a bit more for this leap, also by the time we are fully into the tenets of this agreement most of the others will have negotiated better contracts (except AA and DL) with better pay. So in the end we will end up behind UA/CO, ahead of AA and DL(unless their mgmt. gives them a raise or more vacation or duty rigs out of the kindness of their hearts).

After all these years of struggle I can't say I am overly enthused with any of it. But I quess we will all have to vote our pocketbooks on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Onestep2flt

Senior
Sep 27, 2007
386
155
I just finished reading the entire T/A top to bottom and I just finished reading the comparison chart of all the other "legacy airlines" and overall we are no better or worse with this agreement (except DL is paid considerably less in most respects). I just have issue with the duration of 5 years, and it seems like we are being ask to drink the Jim Jones punch with a leap of faith about what PBS can do for us (lots of uncertainty about what kind of seniority it will take to hold what I currently am able to hold) and it seems we should be compensated just a bit more for this leap, also by the time we are fully into the tenets of this agreement most of the others will have negotiated better contracts (except AA and DL) with better pay. So in the end we will end up behind UA/CO, ahead of AA and DL(unless their mgmt. gives them a raise or more vacation or duty rigs out of the kindness of their hearts).

After all these years of struggle I can't say I am overly enthused with any of it. But I quess we will all have to vote our pocketbooks on this one.

Excellent post about PBS. It is more than Jim Jones. It is also Top Secret!! If you remember PBS is already in your contract. It was never implemented because Mr. Flores said it was a terrible idea and should never be implemented. Meanwhile there was some debate about this, but a new reserve system was implement when originally it would not take place until PBS. Skip foward a few years later and the same person is now singing the praises of PBS. What changed? Well, he says it is all about the vendor. There are a handful of vendors and now Mr. Flores sings thee praises because the company finally settled on the only worthy vendor. So who was this vendor? Well the folks out west could have told you three years ago. Mr. Flores refused to give out the vendor name until just a few months ago. In a top secret CIA looking document (read Hevily redacted) there was a several page handout at a union meeting that had every mention of the vendor name blacked out. His reasoning was if the vendor name was released they might raise the price on the company. O.k., So, appearently he thinks that there would be no letter of understanding with the terms of such contract already written out. The problem here is that there is more than one vendor. The other problem clearly laid out in your new agreement is the company can change the vendor with mutual concent. Said company might choose to dump you or might go out of business. Anyway, Mr. Flores has said this was the only vendor that made his list. If that is true you guys are doomed before you even start. Which by the way, will not be any sooner than at least 18 and possibly up to 24 months. Lots of stuff happens in that amount of time! They have known for seven years they would have PBS and it takes no sooner than 18 months to implement? I know things take time but this is not congress. That is not even taking into consideration as to whether it is even a good idea or not. And don' forget , this system is also tied to a new reserve system!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
OP
usfliboi

usfliboi

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,070
270
<<<<Maybe you shouldnt eat so much bread ..sounds like your bloated! Vote the way you wanna vote I could care less.. You deal with it afterwards! You are living in a glucose free world if you think the real world will feed you a better contract.... Unlike my hero... I bite back!>>>>

Not a big fan of bread. But, thanks for your concern. You might actually want to GOOGLE "Allergic reaction after drinking mass quantities of Kool Aid" or at the very least educate yourself on the subject at hand before pontificating profusely.

Nobody is feeding me anything - especially BS.

If you don't value your own self worth, and are more than willing to accept anything out of fear that's OK. Don't expect the rest of us to go along.
Negotiating out of fear has never obtained a "better" anything.

Being realistic with expectations, being informed, and simply refusing to roll over might. You get what you negotiate.
Besides, I would rather negotiate on my feet, than on my knees. Sorry you don't agree.

I could care less how "you" vote. I do care how ignorance and corporate cheerleaders are impacting the membership negatively. This group deserves better. This TA is what it is: concessionary. The facts speak louder than words. Demand the truth from the union leadership. It was sent out with a recommendation of "NEUTRAL" from PHX, PHL, and DCA and with a "NO" from CLT. Have you even read through it line for line yet? I am still finding massive ambiguity, loopholes, and diluted scope protections.

The company undoubtedly will provide hubris - we don't need the membership being fed misinformation by it's own members.
Read and comprehend this TA for yourself. Then attend the road shows and ASK questions. Only then can any of us make an educated decision.

When you read the WSJ and the headline reads "US AIRWAYS MERGING WITH_________( fill in the blank ) only then can you ASSUME we are merging with another carrier - NOT UNTIL.

I am sorry my post upset you so much you feel the need to "bite back". No thanks, I don't like to have my back bitten, my wife would get upset and I am not really into the whole SM thing.
Thanks anyway.....I think?

Annoying tiny dogs also like to bite. Usually due to a lack of education and training or when they are scared or confused......you know they bark, make a lot of noise, then pee on the floor.
What's your story?


Take time to read your contract. You sure did write a good bit saying "nothing"....Just because I feel the contract is a "fair" one doesnt mean I drink kool-aid..BTW that saying is soooo over rated....It means I am educated and understand how buisness works. I challenge you to make a list of pros and cons of our TA and you will then wonder why you took the time to even type a response to me!!!! Instead of typing out of emotion based on rumor bury yourself in a good book...I actually enjoyed the TA of US Flight attendants at Usairways! I am amazed you could actually defend you "NO" vote" other than just pure "uninformed"! Please attempt to run your house hold the way you want our company to run its buisness. You would lose you home and we would lose our buisness.

Please ..next time you attact someone for having a different opinion than yours....Keep it to your self..I am not interested! In the mean time...continue to read my hero's links and maybe you will become a little more educated. Ok I have spent enuff time on "it"!
 
Feb 22, 2008
443
264
Take time to read your contract. You sure did write a good bit saying "nothing"....Just because I feel the contract is a "fair" one doesnt mean I drink kool-aid..BTW that saying is soooo over rated....It means I am educated and understand how buisness works. I challenge you to make a list of pros and cons of our TA and you will then wonder why you took the time to even type a response to me!!!! Instead of typing out of emotion based on rumor bury yourself in a good book...I actually enjoyed the TA of US Flight attendants at Usairways! I am amazed you could actually defend you "NO" vote" other than just pure "uninformed"! Please attempt to run your house hold the way you want our company to run its buisness. You would lose you home and we would lose our buisness.

Please ..next time you attact someone for having a different opinion than yours....Keep it to your self..I am not interested! In the mean time...continue to read my hero's links and maybe you will become a little more educated. Ok I have spent enuff time on "it"!

I have taken a great deal of time to read the tentative agreement.....it's not a contract.....Yet. I am glad to see you can read, and post the cliff notes. You might want to read the details not high lighted.

Also no where in my post did I ever say I was voting "NO" - honestly time will tell. But the way things are going and the level of comprehension displayed by the membership - it will probably pass.
Based on what I have read so far (pending further clarification) - I probably wouldn't vote for it. Probably, for much different reason than you think.

To me, a very meager pay increase with (serious) erosion in the work rules department does not a good contract make, even if it provides pay parity to the West and Scope Protections (which they desperately need).

I am not taking anything at face value, especially the "improvements" just because the JNC says. What did the LEC's RECOMMEND?
BOTTOM LINE: This tentative agreement all depends on your seniority. It's great if your very senior, you just got thrown under the bus AGAIN if your junior, and if your like me somewhere in the middle - you fair no better than the junior members aside from a meager pay increase. And a lot of people are expected pick up the tab for pay parity and scope protections out West. This is the best the JNC (with a mediator present) could come up with? Really? Now the company wants it ratified yesterday?

Ask yourself why?

Merger speculation? Possibly - but considering Parker's track record in the department ...... doubtful although not out of the realm of possibility.
Still doesn't change the fact that now with the status of the FAA Re Authorization bill we are no more protected in a merger by ratifying this TA - than we are with the current one.

Click her to read

These aren't great economic times - but I can keep my financial house in order just fine with the current agreement. I would love a raise, but I am not willing to throw one substantial group (based on their seniority) under the bus simply for a meager pay increase and erode hard earned own work rules to get it. But that's just me. I wasn't expecting much more than I have now, I do refuse to pick up the tab for yet another merger. Period. Equal sacrifice = Equal gain. A lot more will be revealed when the road shows start - in the mean time do yourself a favor and read ALL the language.

Even though it might be old, I still like Kool Aid - just not the flavor currently being served.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
OP
usfliboi

usfliboi

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,070
270
I have taken a great deal of time to read the tentative agreement.....it's not a contract.....Yet. I am glad to see you can read, and post the cliff notes. You might want to read the details not high lighted.

Also no where in my post did I ever say I was voting "NO" - honestly time will tell. But the way things are going and the level of comprehension displayed by the membership - it will probably pass.
Based on what I have read so far (pending further clarification) - I probably wouldn't vote for it. Probably, for much different reason than you think.

To me, a very meager pay increase with (serious) erosion in the work rules department does not a good contract make, even if it provides pay parity to the West and Scope Protections (which they desperately need).

I am not taking anything at face value, especially the "improvements" just because the JNC says. What did the LEC's RECOMMEND?
BOTTOM LINE: This tentative agreement all depends on your seniority. It's great if your very senior, you just got thrown under the bus AGAIN if your junior, and if your like me somewhere in the middle - you fair no better than the junior members aside from a meager pay increase. And a lot of people are expected pick up the tab for pay parity and scope protections out West. This is the best the JNC (with a mediator present) could come up with? Really? Now the company wants it ratified yesterday?

Ask yourself why?

Merger speculation? Possibly - but considering Parker's track record in the department ...... doubtful although not out of the realm of possibility.
Still doesn't change the fact that now with the status of the FAA Re Authorization bill we are no more protected in a merger by ratifying this TA - than we are with the current one.

Click her to read

These aren't great economic times - but I can keep my financial house in order just fine with the current agreement. I would love a raise, but I am not willing to throw one substantial group (based on their seniority) under the bus simply for a meager pay increase and erode hard earned own work rules to get it. But that's just me. I wasn't expecting much more than I have now, I refuse to pick up the tab for another merger. Period. Equal sacrifice = Equal gain. A lot more will be revealed when the road shows start - in the mean time do yourself a favor and read ALL the language.

Even though it might be old, I still like Kool Aid - just not the flavor currently being served.


Again make a list of bad things vs good...Not sure what you could post "bad" According to my friend at alaska...most like the PBS... so not sure why anyone would see it as a negative. Remember ...mergers saved YOUR job and you didnt save the company based on your give backs! We have a paycheck with pretty darn good working conditions... Listen ...we can agree to disagree.... After all.....Its America.! Good luck in the future!
 

fatherabraham

Veteran
Sep 27, 2002
814
354
<<

I am still finding massive ambiguity, loopholes, and diluted scope protections.




GI,
This mgt team LOVES loopholes! The pilots had it in writing (Loa 93) that BK wages stop Dec 31, 2009. An arbitrator ruled that company had notes of contrary intent and pilots failed to provide same. Please protect your six........devils in the details!
FA
 

nic4us

Veteran
Jun 1, 2008
5,432
10,010
GI,
This mgt team LOVES loopholes! The pilots had it in writing (Loa 93) that BK wages stop Dec 31, 2009. An arbitrator ruled that company had notes of contrary intent and pilots failed to provide same. Please protect your six........devils in the details!
FA

No, the east pilots had in writing that their LOA93 wages became amendable on 12-31-2009. The arbitrator simply upheld what was plainly written in the LOA.

The reason I bring it up is it highlights the pitfall of attaching to the pilots contracts. For instance, the scope section of the AFAs TA contains language that says the minimum fleet shall be what is contained in the pilots transition agreement. Well, if the pilots ever get around to getting a joint contract, that transition agreement is going away, and that minimum will be modified by the pilots, i.e usapa.

The point, if I were the AFA I would not want anything in my contract tied to the inept usapa.

The solution would be to write their own minimum fleet criteria, rather than attach to the pilots contract language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people