F/a's To Meet With Bronner

[BoeingBoy]

US Airways chairman to meet with flight attendant leaders

By Thomas Olson
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Days after sitting down with US Airways pilots leaders, Chairman David Bronner plans to host a similarly candid meeting with the airline's flight attendant leaders in Alabama on Thursday, union officials said Monday.

PIT Trib-Review Article

Jim

 

[ktflyhome]

"USAirways Spokesman David Castelveter said yesterday he was encouraged that the Flight Attendant Union had resolved to work with the the Company on cost concessions".

So, our Union is going to Bronner's turf. This should be very interesting. I can only hope that Perry Hayes and others who have openly voiced their opinions, stand by their convictions and "don't bend over".

 

[Fly]

May I suggest they bring the Soap on a Rope?

 

[PITbull]

Flight attendant union leaders, however, have already resolved not to consider concessions unless management makes clear what concessions it seeks, agrees to givebacks of its own, shares details of its new business plan, and tries to improve relations with labor.



Where does Castelveter get that AFA had resolved to work with the company on cost concessions?????????????

What part of the resolution does he NOT get? What part of the above article does he not quite understand? Does he need an interpreter?


He must have us confused with the pilots. Someone slap that man.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Damn , you need to brush up on math skills.

Dues: (using your figues) $35.00 x 5,500 x 12 = $2,310,000

However, what you forgot to calculate is the other 30,000f/a who belong to AFA, dues are not $35, but $39. And here's a big thing you forgot.....CWA, 750,000 members strong!

Me-too: You too, don't get it. Me-toos are provisions are some how linked? LOL.... Rigs are only a 3% penalty for U because the optimizer has reduced penalty time significantly.

Forces outside U: What you know of "Basic Laws of Economics " is just saying that line in every single one of your posts.

With regard to Dave and Dave...they are the villians. "Laws of Basic Humanities 101"

 

[usfliboi]

You continue to paint ANYONE who dares to disagree with you as Evil and a Villian. Maybe the real villian is Perry Hayes, Maybe HIS greed for the revenue stream generated by a successful US Airways is enough to make him sell out 5500 F/A's. UNIONS Are Businesses TOO!

Is he pure as the driven snow? I doubt it. I can't help but wonder what "perks" he recieves given the overwhelming number of female F/A's? See PITbull that's how character assination works. But you knew that because that's the union playbook. If facts fail to convince use rumors, lies and innuendo to make your case. Surprised you haven't sent an F/A into seduce the 2 Daves. See two can play the "Cast the other side as Evil"

Bob I can say I know Perry personally and he is a great guy and trys to do what is best. He is a smart guy and will do whats best for both union and company. He has a responsiblity to protect the f/a s and will do that . In the end assuring the viablity of this company will insure union jobs, all be maybe less than today. As a member of afa I can say we have given quite a bit however that will not and cannot be a part of todays solution. To stick your head in the sand and say we already gave dave, will not work . In the end I believe there will be honest good discussions and there will be a fair verdict for all of us. In my own opinion any thing that in the end that makes this company viable and able to compete and provide us with jobs will be the best outcome.

 

[Fly]

usfliboi Posted on Feb 24 2004, 07:35 AM

In my own opinion any thing that in the end that makes this company viable and able to compete and provide us with jobs will be the best outcome.

Isn't it a fact that children from abusive homes are loyal to their abusive parents and cling to them desperately if authorities try to remove the child? How many beatings must the flight attendants take?

Give me a break! You could PAY THEM for the privilege of employment and you wouldn't stop the bleeding. All the majors must find a new source of revenue besides the pockets of their already underpaid and work rule stripped employees. AFA must stand up and make this degrading of the flight attendant position cease.

Unfortunately, Piney is correct in that AFA IS a business and they, too, will whore us out to save their own hides. :rant:

 

[tim]

Is he pure as the driven snow? I doubt it. I can't help but wonder what "perks" he recieves given the overwhelming number of female F/A's? See PITbull that's how character assination works. But you knew that because that's the union playbook. If facts fail to convince use rumors, lies and innuendo to make your case. [deleted by mod]

Piney, your hate for unions is quite apparent whether you choose to admit as much or not.

No one spends the time you do calling to task all the shortcomings of unions and their leaders unless there is some personal agenda involved.

I have not been on the boards long posting, but I have been here reading for some time and know who thinks what, especially the top posters.

You badger the unions one week then you love them the next week. The hate card you play is your preferred anti union post though.

You are on the wrong forum to be bashing card carrying and in good standing union minded individuals and, I for one, will not sit by and watch you blast our unions and sit on the side lines being a meek little rabbit afraid of your possible come backs.

I feel there is a bit of jealously in your posts whether you admit it to yourself or the world!

For some reason you believe you can convert a unionist mind with all your ranting of this thing you call logical reasoning about how things are or should be.

I would love to have you aboard for one month Piney. I would love it to see if your attitude would or could be altered like you’re trying to alter employees that you have no clue about as you sit on the outside preaching your truly uninformed tedious rants.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Perry is a great, very intelligent guy. He stays in office because most of the LECP keep him there. He is NOT elected by the members. What you quite don't have a grasp of is Perry, unfortunately, can't vote on behalf of the MEC. Each local President (6) carry the vote to open a contract, keep it closed until amendable date, or bring out a proposal for a vote for the members. Perry has no vote at the table. He takes direction from the LECPs, just as the LECPs take direction from their members. AFA International has no say in how business conducted. As long as they adhere to the Constitution and Bylaws. There's also a thing called "rollcall", just like in Congress, an LEC President can elect to bring their votes from behind forward to change the outcome. The local Presidents do not like to do that because the bigger bases, when aligned, can change the outcome of an initial vote. Unless something is as important as this. A rollcall maybe used.

The LECPs can also motiion to have their members decide on opening contracts or keeping them closed and/or ratifiying an agreement. This time, the members will decide on the opening of agreements. Doesn't matter the relationship management has with the leaders or tries to have, the real gage will be what relationship, good, bad or indifferent, management has with the "rank and file".

If I were management, I would get busy repairing relationships ASAP.

 

[ktflyhome]

Tim: You couldn't have said it better. I was just reading all of this, along with others and the first thought going through my head was we have some schizophrenics or bi-polars among our midst. :blink:

Another thing, I am frankly sick and tired about reading about the Pit Steel Mills. or getting a History lesson. :down:

 

[BoeingBoy]

PineyBob,

"How can UAW, for example serve its membership when each company is unique and specific?"

Therein lies your mistake. Unlike the industries and unions you continually cite, an airline's unions are basically independent units under a national unbrella. Our pilots negotiate our contract - not ALPA national. Our F/A's negotiate their contract - not AFA national. When the negotiations are over, our pilots or F/A's decide to accept the deal or not - not the national union.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

BoeingBoy said: "Therein lies your mistake. Unlike the industries and unions you continually cite, an airline's unions are basically independent units under a national unbrella. Our pilots negotiate our contract - not ALPA national. Our F/A's negotiate their contract - not AFA national. When the negotiations are over, our pilots or F/A's decide to accept the deal or not - not the national union."

USA320Pilot comments: BoeingBoy, that's true for ALPA & the AFA, but not for the IAM.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

USA320Pilot,

You mean the IAM uses professional negotiators? What a novel idea.

The IAM members at U got to vote on their concession package during BK - that's more say than our MEC gave us.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

PineyBob,

I'll give you this nugget...

The ALPA national president has to sign off on the final product. While I don't know about the AFA and others, I presume it is true for them also.

However, under your "follow the money" thesis, the national union would never sign off on any contract that allowed furloughs since that would lower income from dues. Lowering pay/benefits to keep the maximum number of employees would be far perferable if the dues flow was all that mattered. Clearly not the case.

Jim

ps - in the spirit of full disclosure, ALPA dues are a % of income, not a flat amount.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

USA320Pilot comments: BoeingBoy, that's true for ALPA & the AFA, but not for the IAM.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

USA320Pilot,

I strongly suggest that you confine your concerns publically to what actually concerns you privately and personally. "your own welfare" as always.

Everyone including many of your own ALPA Brothers and Sisters are well aware that you would sell your soul the Dave and Dave , if it means you have the slightest chance of retaining your left seat in an Airbus...or keeping a salary in the 6 figure range coming in every year.

Unlike you...and those you send these less than subtle messages too...We are trying to defend "What's Right" "What's Safe" and most of all "What's been agreed too".

We do not have the luxury of losing 25% of our wages and benefits and still coming out far ahead of the national average income....So until you are in our shoes economically. I suggest that you kindly shut the buck up. Cuz we aren't listening to you now...anymore more than we did before.

Simply put....your "self serving agenda" is painfully obvious.....and nobody but nobody buys into your spirit of teamwork and shared sacrifice diatribe for the greater good. Our sacrifices will mean the difference on what goes on the table?...or what bill gets paid this month , or waits till next month? Your scarifices by comparison , unless you or those like you will not balance out the same. What will it cost you? Higher Insurance premiums maybe?..or maybe one less luxury item ? Until you are walking in the average employee's shoes..don't begin to think that you can influence how we think or how we are going to react to a company that has a history of being nothing more than thieves and liars.

Joe / Jane average here as seen with 20/20 vision what working with Dave will do..and thier is no reason on earth to assume that this time or the next time will net any results different than was the two previous "Give-backs" have provided to date.

U is telling a story about trying to be a unique balance of an LCC yet remaining a "Hub and Spoke Carrier" We have not been led smart enough or well enough to be one of those , what makes you or anyone think they can handle both? Do you have any historical presidence with this management that speaks differently on this?

Let me guess..blind faith is tied only to a lessor salary at the expense of the rest of us here? Tell me how wrong I am , when I say that you would sell us all out to keep 75% or better of what you have at present.