APFA demands a re-vote

ArtTang

Advanced
Feb 14, 2003
221
0
Fly high, you are high if you meant this with any sincerity:

AMR should simply file ch11 and file for abrogation of the contracts ASAP. Courts will recognize that the contracts are a hinderance to the company turning around and dismiss executive retention programs as what they are...smart business!

Flyhigh
 
APFA''s John Ward has demanded a new vote from start to finish. Too many irregularities occured and the union cannot justify certifying the vote as it stands. Visit apfa.org
5/18 9 pm edt
 
Right on, No Contract, we can legally walk, then you will be left with what? See you in the unemployment line!
 
----------------
On 4/18/2003 8:09:47 PM ArtTang wrote:



APFA''s John Ward has demanded a new vote from start to finish. Too many irregularities occured and the union cannot justify certifying the vote as it stands. Visit apfa.org
5/18 9 pm edt

----------------​

ArtTang;

As a REAL union man(stuck in a SHI*TY COMPANY UNION)(TWU), I hope to GOD your right.

All I want to see, is a FAIR, and FLAWLESS election, where every APFA member''s voice is heard !!!!!!!!

In Brotherhood,
NH/BB''s
 
AMR should simply file ch11 and file for abrogation of the contracts ASAP. Courts will recognize that the contracts are a hinderance to the company turning around and dismiss executive retention programs as what they are...smart business!
 
This is John Ward's latest hotline update:

This is APFA President John Ward. Today is Friday, April 18.

As I'm sure you know, a majority of the APFA Board on Monday determined to extend by an additional day the balloting on the Restructuring Participation Agreement. I'm well aware that this decision has been a controversial one. In making this decision, it was the intent of the APFA Board of Directors to do the right thing for the membership. Those who supported extending the balloting did so because they felt it was the fairest thing to do under the circumstances that existed. Similarly, and there is no doubt in my mind, those who opposed the extension did so because they, too, believed it to be the right way to go.

I would ask that we all step back and take a deep breath. It saddens me greatly to see the membership so divided. The APFA membership was faced with a situation that, unfortunately, was without any happy endings. On the one hand, acceptance of a concessionary agreement the likes of which no one could have envisioned in their worst nightmare. On the other, certain bankruptcy and the real likelihood of having something worse crammed down our throats by a bankruptcy judge. It was a a lose-lose situation. Management would love nothing more than to bust this Union. Let's not permit ourselves to do it for them. It serves no purpose to turn against each other at this time.

It was announced yesterday that the Company had established a supplemental pension trust, otherwise known as a Supplemental Executive Retirement Program (SERP) for its top 45 executives and had also offered a cash retention bonuses to the top six. I sent a letter to CEO Don Carty today condemning both the SERP and the retention bonuses and expressing my outrage that the Company had indicated to the press that the Union groups had been briefed on these programs. Carty then sent me a letter apologizing for failing to fully brief APFA on these and announcing that they were canceling the retention plan. No doubt, this cancellation is only a result of the fact that they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Based on these latest revelations and on a number of other factors, including Management's unwanted intrusion into the balloting process during the one-day extension, I sent Carty a second letter today notifying him that APFA intends to reballot the membership on the Restructuring Participation Agreement.

Both these letters to Carty can be found on the web site, along with today's press release and much additional information relating to this subject.

APFA remains committed to doing everything possible to enable this Company to avoid a bankruptcy filing while protecting the best interests of our membership. That necessitates that our members be given a fresh opportunity to vote on the proposed terms in an untainted environment.

Please stay on the line for the remainder of this week's message; thank you for calling.

Does anyone think it has anyting to do with this Letter?


VIA FACSIMILE

April 18, 2003

Mr. John Ward, President
Association of Professional Flight Attendants
1004 Euless Blvd.
Euless, TX

Re: Re-vote

Dear John:

I just received a telephone message that you now wanted feedback from the Board of Directors concerning a possible re-vote. Is this for real?

Let’s recap what has happened. On April 15, 2003, the voting period expired. The TA was turned down. Thirteen of the Directors voted to extend the voting. It was extended to April 16, 2003. To no one’s surprise, especially in light of what transpired when the Union turned over the voting process to American Airlines, the vote changed to a ratification of the TA.

A resolution was presented and subsequently withdrawn that would have reinstated the April 15, 2003 results. You announced the vote count to the world.

Last night, I sent a facsimile letter to you with a copy to the Board of Directors and Executive Committee requesting that an Emergency Board of Directors meeting be convened for the purpose of re-instating the April 15, 2003 results. I receive word from Linda Lanning that it was “too late†because you had already signed off on the TA.

As stated before, whether you will admit it publicly or not, you had knowledge of the pension issue before the final vote. It was posted on the Union bulletin by one of your members on April 15, 2003, prior to the resolution to extend the vote count.

Now, you are asking for a consensus from the Board as to whether or not its members want to call for a re-vote in its entirety?

Answer the following questions first:

(1) First of all, did you or did you not sign off on the TA?

(2) Secondly, if a re-vote is approved by the majority of the Board, will American Airlines accept the results of the re-vote if the vote is now NO?

(3) If not, what legal action would you take, if any, to force American Airlines to accept the re-vote? What action will you take when American Airlines begins implementation of the new Tentative Agreement?

(4) What procedures would you put in place for the re-vote? From what I have heard from Flight Attendants, AAA has conducted what can only be called questionable voting practices. (I am being kind here because I believe that there may be both civil and criminal violations).

(5) Has American Airlines indicated that it will file for bankruptcy if you announce a re-vote?

(6) If so, what legal procedures do you have in place for that scenario?

I don’t want a re-vote. What I want – and wanted – was a certification of the vote count that closed on April 15, 2003.

I would also like answers to the questions I raised in my letter to you. This is not a game. I will not engage in fruitless exercises. I will be very blunt here. I do not trust your motives. If you are looking to raise this issue – only to salvage your Presidency, I think you’re 3 days too late.

Sherry Cooper STL Base Chair

cc: APFA Board of Directors
APFA Executive Committee

Or this one:


VIA FACSIMILE

April 17, 2003

Mr. John Ward, President
Association of Professional Flight Attendants
1004 Euless Blvd.
Euless, TX
Re: TA Ratification

Dear John:

It should become increasingly clear to those who supported the vote count extension that there is a ground swell movement beginning from the rank-and-file. Most of us were advised by our members of the senior management pension problem before the vote ended on April 16. Perhaps you were too busy campaigning for ratification that you failed to notice that extremely important development. Had Greg and I been allowed to participate in the telephone conference, we would have been more than happy to tell you.

It has now been reported that TWU is considering not signing off on the Agreement based on this information. I have yet to hear any official position from the leadership of this organization. The silence is deafening.

I know that you do not care to hear this but when I was part of negotiating team at TWA, we had copies of senior management pensions which we used to negotiate improvements to our own pension plans. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. As you may recall, there was a resolution that was defeated which would have set up committees to review various items. I was asked by some of you (privately) if I would agree to participate in the pension and bankruptcy committees if they were established. I agreed to do so. This would have been an obvious item to ask for and review. You have made it extremely obvious that you did not care to listen to anything I might have to say or offer. If this weren’t so tragic for the membership, I would find it amusing. I can assure you that I do not find any humor in this situation.

I restate my opposition to the Board resolution of April 15, 2003. Thirteen of you elected to ignore a valid count and turned over the election process to American Airlines. Please let me know how you intend to explain to your membership why they should take pay cuts and continue with an underfunded plan while senior management uses that money to indirectly fund its own.

I am waiting.

Please accept this letter as a formal request to call an Emergency Board of Directors meeting.


Sherry Cooper – STL Base Chair
 
AA should just declare chapter 11 immediately, and let the court give the unions even worse paycuts than they already have.

In BK, the judge doesn''t care about anything other than what makes business sense, and AA''s union contracts don''t make business sense in today''s economy.

It''s amazing that so many of you aren''t smart enough to realize this.
 
flyhigh, AAObserver,

For the compAAny to previal under Sect. 1113, they have to be able to prove that "good-faith" negotiations occurred.

With the failure to provide all relevant financial data, they cannot meet that standard.

Ref:
http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/view.asp...4-0E2719E1E6BE}

Post:
"The SERP was acknowledged by the company to have been created in 1985 but never funded until October of 2002. The company now claims that the SERP was funded at the same time as the other pension funds. However, the Company did not acknowledge actual minimum funding of the pension plans until December when they announced that the plans would be funded with shareholder equity resulting in an additional 1.1 Billion dollar charge for YE02. What was used to fund the SERP in October, cash or shareholder equity? The reason that funding the SERP and then failing to report it, like the funding for the other plans was done, is that this is material information. Failure to dsiclose material information regarding the financial condition of the corporation, and statements made subsequent to the disclosure could reasonably be viewed as "bad-faith" negotiations. Under Sect. 1113 of the bankruptcy code, before a RLA contract can be voided; good faith negotiations had to have occurred.

In short: Little may not be able to sign the agreement becuase he has stated that the failure to disclose the SERP funding constituted a material breach of the agreement to provide ALL RELEVANT FINANCIAL DATA---bad faith. If the TWU signs off on the deal, they open themselves up for a bit of ugly business since by their own statements say they are aware of the deception."
 
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030419/american_la...ml

After learning of the plan for a new round of voting by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, American said it stood by the results of the earlier vote.

"American Airlines has a valid, ratified agreement with the APFA," said a company spokesman, Bruce Hicks. He said the company would not comment further.

- So, what gives? Can there be another vote? (I know there can be, but can the new vote be enforced or is the "ratified agreement with APFA" the done deal?)
 
ATTN: AAOBSERVER---What makes business sense...in the big--LONNNNG--turn of the wheel of time---is to treat ALL with respect and dignity. I am well aware that there are HUGE issues for the co. to consider as in: a/c leases--airport expansion commtiments....etc. etc. At the same time--disrespecting and strongarming others will eventually lead to failure. --Even for the best...even for the "special in the air"!

As former TWA--(laid off just short of my goal of early out)---I thought I'd seen it all! The latest psuedo concession "negotiations" --processions -- and revelations have been appalling! Give for the need...not for the greed!

The golden rule is everlasting. Why continue to test it?
 
OK, the company pulled a bonehead move. But,they recinded the bonuses. If John Ward is stupid enough to lead his troops into a situation where the comapany declares bankruptcy, he and his followers deserve what they get. He really needs to look before he leaps. In the last two years, his leadership skills have been suspect, but now he is really showing that he doesn''t have the right stuff to lead his union.
 
----------------
On 4/19/2003 7:26:51 AM FA Mikey wrote:

No revote. The vote was decided by the membership on April 15,2003. Let that vote stand. 9842 NO, 9309 yes.

----------------​


"533 in 2003"
"533 in 2003"
"533 in 2003"

533 voters said "NO", on 4/15/200

NH/BB''s
 
----------------
On 4/18/2003 11:52:20 PM Hatu wrote:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030419/american_labor_4.html

After learning of the plan for a new round of voting by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, American said it stood by the results of the earlier vote.

"American Airlines has a valid, ratified agreement with the APFA," said a company spokesman, Bruce Hicks. He said the company would not comment further.

- So, what gives? Can there be another vote? (I know there can be, but can the new vote be enforced or is the "ratified agreement with APFA" the done deal?)




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

In other words the company is backing off on opening the contracts. Wasnt the ratified agreement signed in 2001?

Will they take the same position with the mechanics?
Maybe the company realized that in BK court it will come out that AA has had concessions in place for over 20 years that their competitors did not have such as (in the mechanics case) Cross utilization, Part time, push-backs, deicing, outsourcing, unpaid lunch, loss of first year towards pension and benifits, employee funded retirement health benifits, OSMs, etc. Hell if the judge sees this the first thing he will do is fire the incompetant management team that despite all these concessions still ended up before him!
The only problem is that the TWU would be hesitant to admit that they gave away so much, so they might not bring it up.