why shouldn't they pay the same amount? they are and would be receiving the same benefits the union provides as the employed employees when they come back to work don't they? Just because they go inactive does it mean the union STOPS their representation and they continue at the point they ended with at the time they go inactive upon return? No.
And, exactly what benefits would those be? The only benefits I'm aware of are provided by the
company. As an AA f/a who was furloughed for 18 months, I can tell you that while on furlough I could hardly get the Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed to answer the phone. As soon, as they found out that you were on furlough, you got "Can I put you on hold for a minute?". That minute would last until they decided that you were not going to hang up in frustration and they might as well answer your call. I was once on hold for almost 30 minutes. (I have a cordless phone with a
very good battery.)
yeah I know they'll come up with the same ole sob tune of "but all those on furlough are ex-twa!"...if you want to go down that road then wouldn't it be viable to say that THEY brought it onto themselves with the selling of their voting block to the one who can promise them something in return and other shenanigans started by them.
So are you saying that bloc (not block) voting by a group of f/as--particularly if that vote is against the ruling party--gives the ruling party permission to punish the people who did not vote for them? Sounds familiar. Oh yeah, that's the way the Iron Curtain countries used to operate. And, the dictators in Southeast Asia and Africa operate today. Why not just have some of the senior f/as who never fly armed with machetes and let them take care of the "ex-TWA" problem once and for all? Yeah, that's the ticket. A final solution.
take at look at the STL Base elections, they got an invisible ex-twa guy to be their base chair...who the heck voted for him? Block votes, just another way for them to say F You APFA! after all they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a mockery of the APFA.
Blessed are the uninformed for they shall still comment on subjects for which they have no knowledge. I realize that your mind is made up and you probably don't wish to be confused with facts, but all bloc voting says--whether APFA voting, U.S. Presidential elections, or local dogcatcher--is that a group of voters have common interest. It happens all the times in democracies. Are you trying to say that the APFA is not a democracy? If so, you and I have found common ground, but not for the reason you think. The very idea that with 18,0000 members, a group of less than 25 will get to pick 2/3 of any future negotiating team is ludicrous and
seriously anti-democratic. That says the average f/a does not have the sense to vote the way we think they ought to vote; so, we'll just take that right to vote away from them. And, since AA f/as bring a whole new meaning to lazy and apathetic, they will get away with this power grab.
The APFA needs no help from the former TWA f/as to be seen as a mockery of a union.
As far as the
SLT elections...(You and the APFA really need to learn the correct terminology. The
station is STL, the f/a base is SLT. The STL f/a base was the former TW base when there were two f/a bases at St. Louis. The AA base was, and still is, SLT. If you look in DECS for open time for STL, you will never see anything. It no longer has any trips assigned to it.)
You might try arming yourself with facts before commenting. The SLT base chair, Tim, is not nor has he ever been invisible. It was a VICE-Chair that made himself invisible from the day he was elected. It was Tim, the base chair, who pushed to get the shenanigans of the APFA Elections Board looked at by the Department of Labor. Lo and behold, the DOL found enough questionable activity by the Elections Board to demand a new election be held. In a closely watched revote, the results were not even close. There were 4 candidates and Nena won with about 90% of the vote. Nena could not have been re-elected without major support from those "evil" former TW f/as.
I think the main reason the APFA officers and staff are so violently opposed to Minimum Threshhold Flying is not because it will reduce the "flexibility" of the senior flight attendants who never fly. It's because the APFA officers and staff might have to start flying (as working crew) again. On airplanes that have passengers on them! Horrors! 
