AWA AA Slotted with US F/A's

[flybynite]

I would be cool if the former TWA f/a's got their DOH back.

 

[flybynite]

AA has people furloughed that were hired before the most junior at LCC and AWA. DOH of hire would work just fine for them.

DOH works just fine for me too.

 

[Onestep2flt]

Not having a contract has nothing to do with qualifying for M-B. All it takes is different unions representing the two sides or one side not unionized.


That is the question. Personally, I don't think it affects the east/west FA seniority integration - despite not having a combined contract, unless I'm mistaken there legally is only one FA group at US, represented by the AFA through a single MEC, and that one group has a valid combined seniority list.

Jim

The way you stated it is the way it was suppose to work. This is one of the rubs wheter right or wrong. The contitution requies that within 30 days of the merger with another AFA carrier that the international president was to call a meeting for the purpose of merging the MEC's into one. This is not how it was done. For better or worse this is not what took place. My opinion may differ from others, but I do believe that this is part of the overall issues revolving around the flight attendants. Zero communications with the membership on the subject, they just did it. You could argue many different ways as to how it is working out but I think the key is the lack of communications to or imput from the flight attendant group on the subject. The other question is what gives them the authority to disregard the constitution? I would think in order to change this it would take the entire body of represented AFA carriers to do so. I don't know so maybe others can shed some light.

 

[Toothy Grin]

What is behind your obsession with the flight attendants' rejection of that piece-of-s**t tentative agreement? Ostensibly, you are a pilot, but you've left your stinky droppings all over the message threads concerned with flight attendant contract issues, and your commentary always involves some aspect of "you flight attendants are a bunch of ingrates and morons to reject what Sweet Daddy Doug and Senor Flores agreed upon for you." You've made your position abundantly clear, so let me make this likewise. The East and West flight attendants are overwhelming united in our determination to see through the passing of an improved, fair contract, and if you'd ever had to live with our current one, Mr. USA320 Pilot, you would understand that the recent proposal did not satisfy even that modest criteria. I don't think any of us who voted no (and as you know, seventy-five percent is overwhelming) have even a scintilla of regret in its summary rejection, and your constant, needling you'll-be-sorry posts only highlight how completely out of touch you are. Our vote was not predicated upon a fear that the sky might be falling, that tactic may have worked eight years ago (even longer, of course, in the West), but not this time. However this AA business plays itself out, I don't think a single one of us has any regret about the powerful message we sent to Parker & Co. Even if we did end up in a compromised position vis-a-vis seniority (which I do not believe, just more fear mongering from bitter, petty company flunkies), I will never regret casting my "HELL NO!" ballot, nor do I believe would any of my co-workers. At some point, we had to stop operating from a compromised position of fear and subjugation, and we've found that point. Most of us have anyway--may I suggest that you and the guy who claims to be losing a thousand dollars a months since the flight attendant tentative agreement was ousted undertake a private chat where you can try to outdo one another with florid praise for the Parker posse and snippy commentary about idiotic flight attendants not knowing what's best for them.

The only snippy comments are coming from you.

Voting the TA down was stupid and for most part done with emotions that were supported by empty egos - thus all the commentary about "face slaps" "insults" etc.

We now find ourselves in the unfortunate position of wanting to negotiate further with a company that has no legal recourse to negotiate with the flight attendant group. Now what? Job actions? Those are illegal and don't think the company isn't used to looking for this to happen. They have historical flight information to show any court that it wasn't just a bad month of cancellations.

What about West scope? LPP's? LOL! What are you planning on doing about these issues? Oh yeah, nothing, just like you've done to create pay parity for the two flight attendant groups.

The only compromised position is the lack of thinking skills that apparently 75% of the fas utilized in making their decision on this TA. Oh, I know, so many fas spoke with attorneys and cpa, etc and received feed back that reflected their outrage. Too bad for the entire group nobody understood that theory works much differently than the real world - especially with a company that plays hardball extremely well. We were told at the beginning that there "this was it" yet somehow fas came back with rationalizations that "you don't buy the first car" and so on. Well actually, you do if you understand the market and what you are buying.

Oh and that overwhelming {add swoooning music} support between East and West will probably erode as when both sides have to fend for themselves...and as the West realizes more and more how screwed they are with out the scope the TA provided to them. What are you going to do to fix that issue? But wait, first things first, why don't you and your league of whatever tackle the pay parity issue first. LOL!!!

75% and the most the Union has been able to get the company to respond with is a watch me blow cigarette smoke rings up your nosehairs.

Minkoff, you're outtah gas...get off the road.

 

[damajagua]

If AA and US flight attendants agree to DOH, then they will get DOH. M-B only applies if the two groups are unable to agree to a method for integrating seniority, if I remember correctly. Now it would be really interesting to see if DOH would revert the former TWA FAs at AA to their original DOH.

No no and no.

The TWA transaction has NOTHING to do with the US deal at all.
TWA fa's DOH is April(not sure exactly of the month) 2001
And it will stay that way. Nice try though!!!

 

[USA320Pilot]

The US Airways and America West F/A's were represented by the same national union: AFA. They remain separate Locals today with separate contracts, equipment to fly, crew bases, and seniority lists. Even though the US Airways and America West MECs agreed upon a SLI, the seniority list has never been implemented as bound by the Transition Agreement because the majority of F/A's voted "no" on the TA.

Therefore, both F/A groups remain separate working on their current contracts with their current independent seniority lists.

Now if US Airways and American Airlines merge there is a new federal law called the McCaskill-Bond amendment, which governs airline merger SLIs, if the different employee group are represented by different unions. In this case AA's F/A's are represented by APFA and US Airways has two independent F/A groups both represented by AFA.

Click on the following hyperlink to read about the McCaskill-Bond SLI methodology, which will require negotiation, possibly mediation, and possibly final and binding arbitration to determine the new seniority list:

http://afaonevoice.o...NAL for WEB.pdf

In my opinion, there will be 3 parties to the McCaskill-Bond F/A SLI that will be ruled on by an independent AAA arbitrator. They are: APFA, AFA East MEC, and AFA West MEC.

If the parties all agree to DOH then that will be your SLI. If one or two of the MECs fail to agree on a SLI then there will be an arbitration, where the East F/A's could lose DOH, have a slotted list maybe 1 AA F/A, then 1 US Airways F/A, and 1 America West F/A, with a 1-1-1 integration.

In addition, in the pilots last final and binding arbitration George Nicolau looked at the two group's contracts and provided a higher seniority number to West pilots because they had a better contract than the East pilots.

In my opinion, not only did the F/A's lose the highest legacy carrier pay rates in the industry, the best duty rigs in the industry, the best hours of service in the industry, and the best scope in the industry, they ay have lost the East-West DOH SLI and now have to merge all three group onto one seniority list through final and binding arbitration with an unwilling partner. Why? the TA was rejected,which would have forced the implementation of the DOH list and the US Airways F/A's contract has less economic benefits, which could hurt their seniority integration.

 

[johnny kat]

The whole thing can turn into a pi##ing match very quickly. Why is it in the interests of the APFA to really care how the US east and west lists get merged? Why should the US west membership not see relative seniority as a way to better themselves in merger? The US east F/As stand to lose the most either way. The best that can be hoped for is a 1-1-1 merged seniority list. But, as we all know about the road to Hell being paved with the best intentions...

I have to agree, I too, am losing several hundred dollars per month and now may also lose seniority as a result of the ignorant 75%. And I am qualified to say so. I work the line and in talking to my fellow F/As both east and sometimes west most of these contract experts never even got around to reading the entire contract. Or looking at the comparison charts. The limited amount of knowledge about the T/A that was turned down comes down to a couple of things: SCOPE-most of the 75% have no idea what scope language was really about. Most do not know that the language had been improved upon and were relying on what some other person said instead of sitting down and paying attention with their own eyes. PAY-most of the 75% have very bad math skills. Nearly all of these folks never even used the calculator to see how much new cash they would personally receive. Nearly all stated well it wasn't really a raise. Well, to me it was a raise no matter how you look at it. Who cares if the company was doing a shell game? Cash is King, I can do a lot more with the cold hard cash and have more control over my own future with it.

I really feel bad for the west folks. Yea, yea we all heard about the insurance premiums that be required, and yes that was substantial...but...do you want to sit around waiting to get sick and use those "free" benefits or do ya wanna come to work and go home with substantially more than you were making?

I believe the union leadership has boxed themselves into an untenable situation of having mislead the membership because of their own internal political squabbles, and a uninformed F/A group. Now as the reality begins to set in the 75% are acting as if the money really did not matter because it was all about proving a point and taking a stand. Nevermind the nose missing from face.

I for one am waiting to see how this gets resolved, and I am very pi##ed off about the loss of several hundred dollars a month. I am hoping the company sees it in the best interest to help the process along before going down the merger road. If not then I guess the F/As have proven their worth and deserve what they get.

Oh yea, and then there is the survey...most of the F/As I have been working with haven't even bothered to get around to filling it out.

 

[Onestep2flt]

The US Airways and America West F/A's were represented by the same national union: AFA. They remain separate Locals today with separate contracts, equipment to fly, crew bases, and seniority lists. Even though the US Airways and America West MECs agreed upon a SLI, the seniority list has never been implemented as bound by the Transition Agreement because the majority of F/A's voted "no" on the TA.

Therefore, both F/A groups remain separate working on their current contracts with their current independent seniority lists.

I know you are posting opinion, and you had a lot more where that came from. However, I think it may be helpful if you read the following from the actual merger policy. I am quoting as I only have a copy but perhaps someone else can produce the link so that others can see for themselves what was actually suppose to take place.

"E. Merger of Master Executive Councils

1. Within thirty (30) days following the effective date of merger between the affected airline

corporations, the International President shall convene the Master Executive Councils of each

airline in joint-session for the purpose of merging the Master Executive Councils into a single

Master Executive Council, electing Master Executive Council Officers, and such other business

as is required under the circumstances. The International President or International President's

designee shall conduct such meeting until elections have been completed.

a. The terms of the Master Executive Council Officers elected shall be for the

remainder of the term of Officers on the surviving carrier. If a new corporate entity

is established, the merged Master Executive Council shall be assigned to Election

Group 1.

b. Local Councils at those bases where a duplication of Councils exists shall

continue in existence until the signing of a merged working agreement. The Local

Council Officers or their successors in such Local Councils shall likewise continue in

office until elections in the combined Local Councils are completed."

This is just part of section X regarding mergers. It spells out very clearly what is suppose to take place as it pertains to union structure, seniority lists and even negotiations. The only thing that was followed in this whole section was that they appointed two representitives from both carriers. Up until the no vote on the T/A there was NO meaningful communication with little to NO imput from members and possibly even union reps such as the reserve chairs regarding the negotiations. There might be a good argument as to why they did not follow their own policy, but I think a proper explanation of the proceedures they used to sidestep this policy was in order! I am not saying these proceedures don't exsist, they just need to be more upfront with the members on issues that have such profound effect on their lives. Again, according to established wrriten policy the seniority list do not need to be intergrated for this purpose.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Was there anything in the FA transition agreement about maintaining the two MEC's? Separate ratification votes on a joint contract or even something more specific concerning the MEC?

Without trying to look it up, I think ALPA had something similiar in it's merger policy (but I could be wrong) but left the two MEC's since the transition agreement called for separate ratification votes. Of course, sometimes these policies are written for the best case situations when everything goes smoothly. I doubt that in 2005/2006 anyone from either side's pilots or FAs thought that in 2012 there still wouldn't be joint contracts and for the pilots even a resolved joint seniority list.

Jim

 

[Onestep2flt]

Was there anything in the FA transition agreement about maintaining the two MEC's? Separate ratification votes on a joint contract or even something more specific concerning the MEC?


Jim

That is a good question. Does anyone have a copy of the transition agreement? It still does not explain why or how established written poilcy was not followed though. I just wanted to point out to 320 that by policy the seniority lists did not have to be joined for the MEC to merge. (by established policy)

 

[Onestep2flt]

Was there anything in the FA transition agreement about maintaining the two MEC's? Separate ratification votes on a joint contract or even something more specific concerning the MEC?

Without trying to look it up, I think ALPA had something similiar in it's merger policy (but I could be wrong) but left the two MEC's since the transition agreement called for separate ratification votes. Of course, sometimes these policies are written for the best case situations when everything goes smoothly. I doubt that in 2005/2006 anyone from either side's pilots or FAs thought that in 2012 there still wouldn't be joint contracts and for the pilots even a resolved joint seniority list.

Jim

Sorry to quote you a second time but I think I have the answer. I have not read it for myself so this is second hand but was read to me over the phone. This is what was quoted to me so caution is advised until someone can post the actual text.

It says the parties will continue to regognize each of the America West and US Airways MECs as to their authority and responsibility with respect to their respective collective bargaining agreements UNTIL the merger of the MECs. To me, unless something else is written that has not come to our attention they should have in fact followed the merger policy based on the bolded text. They did not indicate any other criteria other than until the merger of the MECs. I would think absent of any clear direction otherwise that the established policy should have been followed. Again, not saying whether right or wrong what was done only how it was done. I just want to point out it seems the union leadership is just doing what works for them to keep political peace with no imput from the membership.

 

[signals]

What is behind your obsession with the flight attendants' rejection of that piece-of-s**t tentative agreement? Ostensibly, you are a pilot, but you've left your stinky droppings all over the message threads concerned with flight attendant contract issues, and your commentary always involves some aspect of "you flight attendants are a bunch of ingrates and morons to reject what Sweet Daddy Doug and Senor Flores agreed upon for you." You've made your position abundantly clear, so let me make this likewise. The East and West flight attendants are overwhelming united in our determination to see through the passing of an improved, fair contract, and if you'd ever had to live with our current one, Mr. USA320 Pilot, you would understand that the recent proposal did not satisfy even that modest criteria. I don't think any of us who voted no (and as you know, seventy-five percent is overwhelming) have even a scintilla of regret in its summary rejection, and your constant, needling you'll-be-sorry posts only highlight how completely out of touch you are. Our vote was not predicated upon a fear that the sky might be falling, that tactic may have worked eight years ago (even longer, of course, in the West), but not this time. However this AA business plays itself out, I don't think a single one of us has any regret about the powerful message we sent to Parker & Co. Even if we did end up in a compromised position vis-a-vis seniority (which I do not believe, just more fear mongering from bitter, petty company flunkies), I will never regret casting my "HELL NO!" ballot, nor do I believe would any of my co-workers. At some point, we had to stop operating from a compromised position of fear and subjugation, and we've found that point. Most of us have anyway--may I suggest that you and the guy who claims to be losing a thousand dollars a months since the flight attendant tentative agreement was ousted undertake a private chat where you can try to outdo one another with florid praise for the Parker posse and snippy commentary about idiotic flight attendants not knowing what's best for them.

He's obviously a glass house dwelling stone thrower. He shouldn't call himself a union person because he doesn't really know what is right with his, e-hem, union, let alone others. At least the fas proved that they aren't going to be Scooter and Doug's puppets.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Sorry to quote you a second time but I think I have the answer.

I can see some logic to having 2 MECs as long as the two groups aren't integrated. Each side knows it's contract and past practice better than the other, so having 2 grevience committees to keep tab on compliance with the 2 contracts makes sense. Having a joint negotiating committee is no problem despite 2 MECs. Etc.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, I just can't see the AFA disregarding the single US/HP FA list that it's merger policy insisted on for the US/HP merger. It's not like the AFA changed it's DOH merger policy. A merger with AA wouldn't be a 3-way merger happening at the same time like Republic/Frontier/Midwest - US and HP as companies have been merged for 6-1/2 years. It's not like FAs and pilots don't have each have a single seniority list established - the official merged lists were determined years ago. I truly believe that both FAs and pilots will integrate with AA FAs and pilots using the combined US lists established years ago - 2006 I guess for the FAs and 2007 for the pilots. How the lists are merged is an open question since M-B became law after the US/HP merger and will determine how a potential merger with AA will be handled.

Jim