apfa negotiations

[FrequentFlierCA]

Nancy is spot on. Trying to extract raises and restore pay and work rules in this economy is very short sighted. I am sure to some point the APFA feels the pressure, but those who feel there is a chance are living under a rock or in a dream world.

I think that's a healthy perspective, if an unfortunate one. As a passenger I'd like you all to be happy, well-paid employees. But with job and pay cuts continuing in all industries, striking for "restore and more" just doesn't make a lot of sense. Add in that your employer is burning cash every quarter just to stay in business, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

 

[MiAAmi]

Time is on our side. The contract is going to be for at least 5 years. We are negotiating for rates based on the future not whats happening today. The Recession will not last 5 years. The economy is already starting to see some light, as much as AA likes to focus on todays economy the contract that we agree on will be valid after the recesssion is over.

 

[FA Mikey]

AA is not focused on todays economy, they have always been focused on the future. They have always brought to the table the uncertainty of oil prices, low fare competition, and the falling business travel market. None of those will change drastically as the economy improves. AA continues to see the volatility in oil, SWA expansion, other sinking ship airlines selling seats for what ever they can get to pay this months bills, and a continued shrinking in the business travel market as its future. Unlimitedly with lower pay and lowered work rules, time is on their side not yours.

 

[Bagbelt]

I think it was short sighted of ALL of the unions on the property not to sign extensions in the range of 3-5 years with the following provisions. 1. COLA every Jan., not to be used in any negotiations to offset future raises. 2. No corporate bonus payments until all unions sign new agreements. Labor peace, some relief, and the end of seeing employee job loss fund the on going bonus plan.

If AA is in that dire financial trouble bonuses are inappropriate to begin with..

I agree that new hires will not have a defined benefit plan. But what is the offer to replace? A 401K? At what % of contribution match? Unfortunately there is only the inflammatory wording presented. Too little information. What else was offered? Return of furlough pay? Unlimited recall? Why would AA think the layover expenses would be less for a f/a? Pilots receive crew meals in-flight, f/as do not. If anything, f/as should receive more.

The timimg of this release is very suspect. Is the APFA fearful of unity within the ranks? This seem more of an attempt to inflame than to provide solid information.

It may seem inevitable, but why agree on no pension for new hires? How much is a garaunteed income and medical worth in later life? A couple of sick days? Within 10-15 years non- pension hires will be the majority, do you think they will go to bat for you? If that is given up and you are under 45, kiss it goodbye.

 

[eolesen]

It may seem inevitable, but why agree on no pension for new hires? How much is a garaunteed income and medical worth in later life? A couple of sick days? Within 10-15 years non- pension hires will be the majority, do you think they will go to bat for you? If that is given up and you are under 45, kiss it goodbye.

If you asked 100 people under 40 if they wanted a 401K match or a pension, chances are they won't even know what a pension is... A lot of those who do know the difference want the portability of the funds, especially if they're one of those who is likely to career hop over time.

I personally dreaded the idea of losing my pension when leaving AMR, but the upside was whatever I had in my 401K was able to be rolled into the new account or into an IRA. Now I can take out a loan on the combined value if necessary. Try doing that against a pension...

Even if the new hires don't have the pension, add 15 years to your age now. Don't know about you, but that's about the age I plan to be sitting outside the RV next to the ocean and playing the accordion...

 

[700UW]

The one thing you forget in a 401K its your own money that goes into it in a DBP you dont lose any money from your paycheck, its all paid by the company, no deduction like a 401k which reduces your earnings.

 

[s80dude]

APFA needs to be very careful about what they give up for future hires... it will be like B scale and eventually the new hires are the majority of the seniority list and any future contract will be about bringing them up to par, so in the long run we lose.

 

[kirkpatrick]

The one thing you forget in a 401K its your own money that goes into it in a DBP you dont lose any money from your paycheck, its all paid by the company, no deduction like a 401k which reduces your earnings.

The company pays into the 401k as well. How much would have to be negotiated. TWA was putting around 9% of my income into my 401k at the time of the acquisition, in addition to what I was putting in.

I think for a person just starting out the 401k is probably the better deal.

MK

 

[Maark767]

APFA needs to be very careful about what they give up for future hires... it will be like B scale and eventually the new hires are the majority of the seniority list and any future contract will be about bringing them up to par, so in the long run we lose.

I dont think we'll see new hires being the majority of the senority list for many many many years.
AA will grow someday but not like in the 80's and 90's. How big can AA get ??? Maybe 5k more emlpoyees..

 

[czerny]

It may seem inevitable, but why agree on no pension for new hires? How much is a garaunteed income and medical worth in later life? A couple of sick days? Within 10-15 years non- pension hires will be the majority, do you think they will go to bat for you? If that is given up and you are under 45, kiss it goodbye.

I'm 37 and I've been with AMR for 9 years, part of it with Eagle which has a matching 401K plan. The way I look at it is, a pension is a nice bonus--if it's there when I'm old enough to get it. I'm not counting on it.

 

[700UW]

It will be there, guess you never heard of the PBGC, my pension was terminated at US but I will still get one because of the PBGC, all though it will be reduced, ask those Enron people about their 401K which is not guaranteed what happened?

 

[HottootrotNyc]

As a F/A that came from an airline with just a 401K, to an airline with both a pension and 401K plane. I would be pretty pi ssed if anyone tried giving up pensions for new hires. They deserve it just as much as anyone else employeed at the company. If that were to ever happen here at CAL, I would have no problem voting to trade in those pensions for everyone for something else.

 

[nbmcg01]

It may seem inevitable, but why agree on no pension for new hires? How much is a garaunteed income and medical worth in later life? A couple of sick days? Within 10-15 years non- pension hires will be the majority, do you think they will go to bat for you? If that is given up and you are under 45, kiss it goodbye.

I don't agree with the loss of pension for newhires. I agree that this will be the end result in any TA presented.
TWA's f/a 401K was age weighted and the company contribution for me was 13-14%. Not bad. The beating I took with the stock market crash just about eliminated any change for retirement at any age for me. It is what it is..Of course, I can always live off of the $99 a month from my AA retirement.

As much as I love negotiations, I would not want to be in the APFAs negotiating position this round. Way too many variables.

 

[jimntx]

Here is the company's perspective on their work rules and compensation offer. I received this in an email from a friend.
( my comments in italics)

1. Increase the monthly schedule maximum to better align with what is standard in the U.S. airline industry. The current contract limits our monthly scheduling of flight attendants to no more than 77 hours domestically and 82 hours internationally. Almost every other airline allows a monthly schedule maximum of more than 90 hours. (I do not see AA f/as voting for any TA containing this provision in my lifetime, and I don't blame them. But then, I don't fly high time. It wouldn't make much difference to those that have to do the 100-120hrs/mo thing. Might make it easier for them. Fewer trips to pick up.)

2. Create a vacation plan that gives flight attendants who fly their monthly schedule maximum an opportunity to accrue additional vacation days. (Note that the actual amount/percentage of the accrual is unspecified. DANGER! DANGER!) Flight attendants who work 75 percent of the monthly schedule maximum would earn the same vacation time as they do now (for a 98 hour line, this would be 73.5 hours/mo. Imagine that.); those that work between 50 and 75 percent of their schedule maximum would receive less vacation (again, specifics missing); and those whose hours fall below 50 percent would receive no accrual, just like the 420 threshold works today (basically, if you fly less than 50 hours that month, no vacation accrual). (Might pass, but there would have to be a VERY sweet carrot in the bag (Pay raise?) to get the f/as to accept this stick. And, I think this provision is totally contingent upon acceptance of item 1.)

3. Preserve the existing defined benefit retirement plan for all current employees. New hires would be enrolled in a defined contribution plan, a 401(k), which would include a 5.5 percent company contribution match. Current employees would also have the option to transition to a defined contribution plan if they wish. A 401(k) plan provides many benefits, including the ability for employees to transfer their retirement fund in the case of a move or job change, to borrow against or withdraw their fund to assist in emergencies, as well as to bequeath their fund to beneficiaries – which is especially important for single employees.
(This will have no problem passing. The senior f/as won't think twice about eliminating a benefit for future f/as in order to maintain one of their own perks--particularly, if the company can make it look like this is the trade for a pay raise. I predict that even the f/as who started during the hated B scale days will vote for this.)

4. Continue to provide access to medical benefits for retirees, bringing the employee share of the cost in line with what is common for those few companies that continue to provide this benefit. Under the proposal, the company will pay 75 percent of the cost of this coverage. (I thought this was covered by the current prefunding deduction from our paychecks! I'm missing something here, but then insurance benefits were never my strong suit.)

5. Better align healthcare costs with the industry by asking flight attendants to pay 25 percent of the health insurance costs. Currently, the average flight attendant contribution is 8 percent for Indemnity plans, 12 percent for PPO/POS plans, and 22 percent for HMO plans. Flight attendants would continue to have a choice between health plans. (For instance, as a single employee choosing the PPO, I currently pay $38.26/mo for my coverage. Under this provision, I would pay $80/mo. It's not a burdensome increase for me, but f/as with dependents on their policies might see huge increases in their premiums--as in $200-$300/mo or more.)

And, friends and neighbors, their justification for not providing even an opener on pay rates...

The company has provided proposals and/or counterproposals on every article of the agreement except Article 3 – Compensation, which is contingent upon the agreements reached on productivity and work rules.
(In other words...we ain't even gonna discuss pay until we see how much of this other stuff you will swallow. And, they know that most AA f/as look only at the pay section of the TA before voting.)

 

[butchord45]

Thanks Jim for finally posting the whole offer and not just the inflammatory parts that the APFA chooses to edit and post.

Butch

Here is the company's perspective on their work rules and compensation offer.
( my comments in italics)

1. Increase the monthly schedule maximum to better align with what is standard in the U.S. airline industry. The current contract limits our monthly scheduling of flight attendants to no more than 77 hours domestically and 82 hours internationally. Almost every other airline allows a monthly schedule maximum of more than 90 hours. (I do not see AA f/as voting for any TA containing this provision in my lifetime, and I don't blame them.)

2. Create a vacation plan that gives flight attendants who fly their monthly schedule maximum an opportunity to accrue additional vacation days. Flight attendants who work 75 percent of the monthly schedule maximum would earn the same vacation time as they do now; those that work between 50 and 75 percent of their schedule maximum would receive less vacation; and those whose hours fall below 50 percent would receive no accrual, just like the 420 threshold works today. (Might pass, but there would have to be a VERY sweet carrot in the bag (Pay raise?) to get the f/as to accept this stick.)

3. Preserve the existing defined benefit retirement plan for all current employees. New hires would be enrolled in a defined contribution plan, a 401(k), which would include a 5.5 percent company contribution match. Current employees would also have the option to transition to a defined contribution plan if they wish. A 401(k) plan provides many benefits, including the ability for employees to transfer their retirement fund in the case of a move or job change, to borrow against or withdraw their fund to assist in emergencies, as well as to bequeath their fund to beneficiaries – which is especially important for single employees.
(This will have no problem passing. The senior f/as won't think twice about eliminating a benefit for future f/as in order to maintain one of their own perks--particularly, if the company can make it look like this is the trade for a pay raise. I predict that even the f/as who started during the hated B scale days will vote for this.)

4. Continue to provide access to medical benefits for retirees, bringing the employee share of the cost in line with what is common for those few companies that continue to provide this benefit. Under the proposal, the company will pay 75 percent of the cost of this coverage. (I thought this was covered by the current prefunding deduction from our paychecks! I'm missing something here, but then insurance benefits were never my strong suit.)

5. Better align healthcare costs with the industry by asking flight attendants to pay 25 percent of the health insurance costs. Currently, the average flight attendant contribution is 8 percent for Indemnity plans, 12 percent for PPO/POS plans, and 22 percent for HMO plans. Flight attendants would continue to have a choice between health plans. (For instance, as a single employee choosing the PPO, I currently pay $38.26/mo for my coverage. Under this provision, I would pay $80/mo. It's not a huge increase for me, but f/as with dependents on their policies might see huge increases in their premiums--as in $200-$300/mo!!!)