F/A agreement, list the concessions

[Onestep2flt]

Wow! Guys conspiracy therories are just rampant..Amazing! Just know the contract and voice any concerns concerning mis types etc to the union!

I know you were not referring to me specifically. However, you must reread my post. I stated very clearly that I did not believe anything that I pointed out was meant to deceive. Moreover, after seven years, a joint negotiating committee made up of how many people and a supposed " staff" attorney you would think that somebody would proof read it before it gets sent out! There is no room for error in this legally binding document. One word can spoil the whole agreement as it can affect every section after. Hey, I am not the greatest speller as evident in some of my posts. But seriously, in this case it matters. Is it not amazing why they were not corrected by your company at least? Oh, that might be because a poorly written agreement is easier to poke holes in and use creative interpretation .

What you are calling conspriracy here, most call common sense!

 

[usfliboi]

I know you were not referring to me specifically. However, you must reread my post. I stated very clearly that I did not believe anything that I pointed out was meant to deceive. Moreover, after seven years, a joint negotiating committee made up of how many people and a supposed " staff" attorney you would think that somebody would proof read it before it gets sent out! There is no room for error in this legally binding document. One word can spoil the whole agreement as it can affect every section after. Hey, I am not the greatest speller as evident in some of my posts. But seriously, in this case it matters. Is it not amazing why they were not corrected by your company at least? Oh, that might be because a poorly written agreement is easier to poke holes in and use creative interpretation .

What you are calling conspriracy here, most call common sense!

I agree the "I'S" should be dotted and "T's" crossed..

 

[N965VJ]

I'm starting to wonder if AFA is using the same spellcheck as Tempe; there were a bunch of typos in AFA's transcript of testimony before a House Subcommittee last summer.

 

[galley princess]

So I did read the reserve section, and I have mixed feelings about it.

I was surprised to find that I like the idea of RAPs. I really thought it was a lousy idea at first, but given the Career Reserve reality at US, clearly something has to be done about the hours involved. I also think that the knowledge that the call will end after twelve hours with a relief of twelve hours will ameliorate the often psychological heaviness of being on a leash.

I also like that they would use technology a bit more, as reserves will enter preferred bids each day via the PBS. (At least that's how I interpreted it, I could be wrong)

I think it's crap that the days off stay at eleven, they should have gone to the twelve a la AWA.

As written, it's LTO in "Bucket Drag", I am not confident that if you're available for four days, and there are 4, 3, 2 and 1 day trips to cover that you'll hold the 2 day you want, and instead be assigned the 4 day.

Fundamentally, I had pretty low expectations of what could be done about reserve. Once LTO was allowed at US, it would be all but impossible to get rid of, however this "aggressive" nonsense is truly objectionable and again reflects how the union holds seniority valuable to lineholders and not reserves. At the very least the senior reserves should be given the option of flying to time out.

So I believe that Sparrow asked if the reserve system would be better? My answer, yes, but not by much.

 

[700UW]

Wow! Guys conspiracy therories are just rampant..Amazing! Just know the contract and voice any concerns concerning mis types etc to the union!

John John is correct, there are problems with the post merger CBA Fleet and the Company have signed a few years back and it actually caused an issue with them not getting a 2% raise.

It wasnt a new CBA John, it is the current one.

 

[galley princess]

In my first post, I neglected to even mention the most glaring concession.

They got the separation from the pilots. A HUGE mother of a concession. FOR NOTHING. AGAIN.

Do I particularly care about flying with the pilots? No. Does that mean that I do not recognize it as a card in our deck? No. Is the card now stomped on and in the trash?

Yes.

I guess I'll be the first one to say this.

I'm voting no.

This TA is for five years. That translates to seven basically. Three raises in seven years? Try that on management and watch their response. Huge amounts of changes could be coming, or nothing could change at all, but US getting away with paying lower than industry standard and walking away with significant work rules for free? Not with my vote.

Regarding the "vote my pocketbook" post, I recognize the value of that statement. However, as I see it, after I pay for losing my scheduling system, significantly change how I fly, recognizing that everyone can now count themselves as an "extra" rather than one of at least two or three on a trip and kiss goodbye any option of flying lead and making the extra $6.50/ hr because it is now a fenced off position, my pocketbook is looking better with the status quo.

You're talking about $5/hr for CONCESSIONS. In a contract that had no business HAVING CONCESSIONS. Been there, done that, 2001, 2002?

I agree with whoever posted that this TA heavily favors the senior, (with the exception of the lead f/a program, since they're going to lose big on that) shafts the junior and for those of "middle seniority", we will probably lose the most. PBS has too many variables to really know how it will play out, but it is clear that such targeted bidding, pure seniority looks to be brutal.

This TA is shoddy work, and if we were paying professional negotiators, they'd never dare bring this to the membership.

 

[FlyUs]

In my first post, I neglected to even mention the most glaring concession.

They got the separation from the pilots. A HUGE mother of a concession. FOR NOTHING. AGAIN.

Do I particularly care about flying with the pilots? No. Does that mean that I do not recognize it as a card in our deck? No. Is the card now stomped on and in the trash?

Yes.

I guess I'll be the first one to say this.

I'm voting no.

This TA is for five years. That translates to seven basically. Three raises in seven years? Try that on management and watch their response. Huge amounts of changes could be coming, or nothing could change at all, but US getting away with paying lower than industry standard and walking away with significant work rules for free? Not with my vote.

Regarding the "vote my pocketbook" post, I recognize the value of that statement. However, as I see it, after I pay for losing my scheduling system, significantly change how I fly, recognizing that everyone can now count themselves as an "extra" rather than one of at least two or three on a trip and kiss goodbye any option of flying lead and making the extra $6.50/ hr because it is now a fenced off position, my pocketbook is looking better with the status quo.

You're talking about $5/hr for CONCESSIONS. In a contract that had no business HAVING CONCESSIONS. Been there, done that, 2001, 2002?

I agree with whoever posted that this TA heavily favors the senior, (with the exception of the lead f/a program, since they're going to lose big on that) shafts the junior and for those of "middle seniority", we will probably lose the most. PBS has too many variables to really know how it will play out, but it is clear that such targeted bidding, pure seniority looks to be brutal.

This TA is shoddy work, and if we were paying professional negotiators, they'd never dare bring this to the membership.

Thank you. Well said

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

In my first post, I neglected to even mention the most glaring concession.

They got the separation from the pilots. A HUGE mother of a concession. FOR NOTHING. AGAIN.

Do I particularly care about flying with the pilots? No. Does that mean that I do not recognize it as a card in our deck? No. Is the card now stomped on and in the trash?

Yes.

I guess I'll be the first one to say this.

I'm voting no.

This TA is for five years. That translates to seven basically. Three raises in seven years? Try that on management and watch their response. Huge amounts of changes could be coming, or nothing could change at all, but US getting away with paying lower than industry standard and walking away with significant work rules for free? Not with my vote.

Regarding the "vote my pocketbook" post, I recognize the value of that statement. However, as I see it, after I pay for losing my scheduling system, significantly change how I fly, recognizing that everyone can now count themselves as an "extra" rather than one of at least two or three on a trip and kiss goodbye any option of flying lead and making the extra $6.50/ hr because it is now a fenced off position, my pocketbook is looking better with the status quo.

You're talking about $5/hr for CONCESSIONS. In a contract that had no business HAVING CONCESSIONS. Been there, done that, 2001, 2002?

I agree with whoever posted that this TA heavily favors the senior, (with the exception of the lead f/a program, since they're going to lose big on that) shafts the junior and for those of "middle seniority", we will probably lose the most. PBS has too many variables to really know how it will play out, but it is clear that such targeted bidding, pure seniority looks to be brutal.

This TA is shoddy work, and if we were paying professional negotiators, they'd never dare bring this to the membership.

I am glad atleast one person gets it - hopefully the pom pom squad gets it before its too late.

From what I have read so far - thumbs down

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The interesting part of your agreement seems to be "WEALTH DISTRIBUTION"! How funny! Cost Neutral to "TEMPE" IE raise in HEALTH BENNIES but equaled by a pay increase, PBS and less vaca and sick, offset by the ability to furlough and scheduling for the company, my bet YOU VOTE YES, 400 F/A's furloughed and "TEMPE" reduces it's cost, what an insult!

 

[bigbusboy]

While I am sure it will be corrected before you vote, this should be of major concern if it is not:


Disclaimer:
This copy of the new US Airways Tentative Flight Attendant
Single Agreement is not in its final format and may contain
paragraph reference and typographical errors.

Hey, I have been told there are quite a few of those in the agreement you have now so be careful!

Also, don't forget this deal was struck for a reason. Your company needs you for something. There are a couple very small changes to look like they would help you in a merger with another airline but read carefuly. You have to ask yourself who it is the company wishes to merge with.

Under successorship it is basically cut and paste form your current agreement (as is a lot of this new agreement). However just a subtle change in the wording which at first seems better then you realize there is a slight issue. Again, not a lawyer and I don't know law regarding mergers but this is a seniority issue. This was clearcut in you case with the current merger because you were both represented by AFA. It was written "By the association" it now reads like the following:

2. two states that in event you merge with another airline not represented "By the union" It goes on from there.

3. Number three states if you merge with someone who is represented "by the union" It also goes on from there.

It does not define union as the association which at first looks better because you assume any union. Read it carefully, is it just a technical change or meant to deceive you into thinking you are protected if you merge with any union carrier? I am sure it is not meant to be deceptive. I would question why it was written that way though. I do not have a clue of the enforceability of such a statement but I might write it to say "respresented by a union". Otherwise by default, you would be under paragraph one as the airlines under the rumors AA has an internal union and not represented "by the union" or delta which is not represented at all.

I am sure there is nothing hinky to the above but it just makes you wonder.

Nowhere in my copy of 280 pages of printed text does it say your dislcaimer, but there may be typos...nobody is perfect. But my real issue is with your referal to the definition of "union." This, in fact, is clearly defined in Section 2. II. ""UNION" as used in this Agreement shall mean the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA."

 

[galley princess]

Nowhere in my copy of 280 pages of printed text does it say your dislcaimer, but there may be typos...nobody is perfect. But my real issue is with your referal to the definition of "union." This, in fact, is clearly defined in Section 2. II. ""UNION" as used in this Agreement shall mean the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA."

Which means nothing if US merges with AA and we are outnumbered by APFA. Best case scenario: Slotting.

BTW, the union referenced the United contract, and helpfully put a link for it, check out United's raises, --PER CONTRACT ANNIVERSARY, (ie, not 18 months apart) not quite the little chart that only shows the first year.

And, their reserves get 78 hours guarantee.

Anybody else starting to feel like they're at a used car dealership?

Seriously, I get that people are desperate for a raise, but read this thing and do the math. There is no raise here, they've actually taken money, shuffled it and you end up with less!

 

[etops1]

RSV should get at least 80 hrs Guarantee .

 

[jimntx]

Hey, look on the bright side. If AA and US do merge and the APFA prevails, then it looks like you will get the Delta reserve system. The term sheet from the company (which they will probably get most of, one way or another) calls for 3-6 days each month of reserve for those subject to reserve. They are getting rid of full month reserves even though we only have to serve reserve 3 months/year. And, looks as if we are going the PBS route also with a single f/a corps--no more domestic and International separation.

Of course, I shall probably be furloughed by then so I won't be subject to any of it.

 

[Onestep2flt]

Nowhere in my copy of 280 pages of printed text does it say your dislcaimer, but there may be typos...nobody is perfect. But my real issue is with your referal to the definition of "union." This, in fact, is clearly defined in Section 2. II. ""UNION" as used in this Agreement shall mean the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA."

It is possible they finally put out the final version so you may not have it in your 280 pages. I however cut and pasted it right from the last page. I certainly would not make it up. You are right nobody is perfect and typos do happen. But, this agreement was drafted by two different groups of flight attendants, a supposed AFA attorney, your company and all of there high priced lawyers. Are you telling me among these folks they can't put a proper document out for review without all these seemingly minor mistakes. It was already made mention that such an error caused on of your groups not to receive a raise due to them. It just takes one word OR misspelling to change the meaning of something. Yes, I am a lousy speller as evident in some of my posts, but I have enough sense to let someone proofread my work if it is something important.

As far as the definition of "union" you just proved my point. You may be right of the definition in Section 2. II. That is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the labor protective provisions paragraph 2 and 3. With some exceptions like your new PBS and reserve this agreement is mostly cut and paste. A few words changes here and there. These two paragraphs are important because they state what happens in a merger regarding seniority. Where "the union" is used in you old agreement states "the association". Might not sound like a big change because the results will actually be the same regardless. That being said, a flight attendant reading 280 pages in a short time and trying to decide how to vote might look at that and believe that those two words actually mean "A Union". What do I mean here? Well, here is what it says:

"In the event the Company is merged with another airline whose Flight Attendants are
represented by the Union, the Flight Attendant seniority lists shall be merged in accordance
with the AFA merger policy".

Your current agreement says the same thing EXCEPT where it says "the union" it says "the association". Small change for sure, but why? Is there a technical reason? I really have no idea. I do know if I were going to make an effort to change two words I might say "A UNION". Now, I do not know the legalities or the enforceability of such a change but if I was going to bother at least make it mean something that adds protection. Can you see the difference in my change. The agreement says THE and I said A. That little change makes a huge difference. I am trying to protect with the A. At least stating the association in this context leaves no doubt at all what is meant. The merging carrier must be AFA for this clause to be in acted. What did changing this to "the union" do? I am not wrapped up in this just asking a valid question. There is an obvious change and I am just a wondering kind of person.

This is a legally binding document. Rest assured your company will waste no time utilizing any spelling error or subtle wording change to there advantage. This stuff happens every day in contract disputes worldwide. So yes, minor typos in this document need to be fixed and flight attendants should have the final draft without a disclaimer to study before they vote on it.

By the way, I just had a friend with access check. As of today the disclaimer still exists. I am not shouting conspiracy or anything else. Just asking for folks to read this for yourself, ask questions for yourself and vote for yourself. Don't vote yes or no based on something I or anybody else says. HOWEVER, at least read and understand what you are voting on!

 

[jimntx]

"In the event the Company is merged with another airline whose Flight Attendants are
represented by the Union, the Flight Attendant seniority lists shall be merged in accordance
with the AFA merger policy".

Your current agreement says the same thing EXCEPT where it says "the union" it says "the association". Small change for sure, but why? Is there a technical reason? I really have no idea. I do know if I were going to make an effort to change two words I might say "A UNION". Now, I do not know the legalities or the enforceability of such a change but if I was going to bother at least make it mean something that adds protection. Can you see the difference in my change. The agreement says THE and I said A. That little change makes a huge difference. I am trying to protect with the A. At least stating the association in this context leaves no doubt at all what is meant. The merging carrier must be AFA for this clause to be in acted. What did changing this to "the union" do? I am not wrapped up in this just asking a valid question. There is an obvious change and I am just a wondering kind of person.

I might suggest that the term "the union" was used deliberately since it has been pointed out that elsewhere "the union" is defined as the AFA. AFA has a stated DOH merger policy. In the case that the other represented group is represented by AFA, end of discussion, case closed. However, if for instance the merger is with AA, Federal law requires that a representation election be held to determine which union will represent the combined f/a corps when the two groups are represented by different unions (the same would apply if you were to merge with Southwest because their f/as not represented by AFA). The results of the election will determine the method of combination to be used.