DUI and his band of misfits seem to find the monies to compensate themselves, saying "STANDALONE" is ok, going into the DESERT and "1 WEEK" later getting 3 AGREEMENTS" PAY UP DUI! MM!
FA TA voted down
- Thread starter algflyr
- Start date
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
It has taken about 5 months for the parties to negotiate a second TA and to complete membership voting.
US Airways entered the NDA merger discussions with a 60-90 day communication black out period, which is expected to have a merger in principal announced or the two companies will cease consensual M&A talks. This announcement should occur between around November 1 through December 1. If an agreement in principal to merge is announced it could take another 45-60 days beyond the NDA exclusive merger negotiating period for Judge Lane to confirm a merger POR, which could happen in Q1 2013 or probably no later than February 15.
It appears it's unlikely US Airways and the AFA JNC will reach another TA prior to the merger POR being confirmed by the bankruptcy court, if the corporate combination proceeds.
The APFA's Term Sheet requires the union to file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date of the POR, where it is expected APFA will become the union for all of the F/As of the combined companies (AA, US Airways East, & US Airways West F/A's) because the AA F/A's have the voting majority. With their voting majority AA's F/A's could negotiate and decide the next contract for US Airways' F/A's.
Furthermore, the APFA Term Sheet provides a timeline for a JCBA. Specifically, shortly after the NDA black out period ends the parties will have 60 days to negotiate a JCBA. If the parties faile to reach an agreement an arbitrator will decide the outstanding aspects of the JCBA within 30 days. The F/A's wil lthen have the opportunity to vote on the JCBA and if the agreement is not ratified, it will go to a 3-member board of arbitration and a final and binding decision will rendered within 60 days.
Therefore, it appears US Airways' F/A's have only delayed getting a new contract. In addition, the rank-and-files "no vote" decision could have adverse effects on US Airways' F/A's seniority if AMR and US Airways execute a corporate combination. In their January 25 message every member of the US Airways & AWA MECs and the JNC said, "With the airline industry consolidating, locking in the improvements and protections contained in this TA is imperative."
Why? Because if a merger between AMR and US Airways proceeds US Airways' F/A's are not guaranteed DOH. And, a new federal law is now in place called the McCaskill-Bond amendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill because AA's F/A's and APFA stapled the TWA AFA F/A's to the bottom of the combined seniority list in their merger.
For more information on McCaskill-Bond click here:
http://afaonevoice.o...NAL for WEB.pdf
Furthermore, APA said, "AFA Q&A - www.ourafa.org - Merger Page"
Q. Wouldn’t we be better off if waited for the merger and had our change in control snapbacks kick in?
A. No. There are at least a couple of issues here. First, we don’t know if there will be a merger, or if there is, what it will look like – who the surviving management will be. And the longer we wait for a wage increase, the longer it will take to ever catch up. Second, the language in the contract in Section 30.O states in the event of a change in control the “Flight Attendant wage rates will snap back to the rates in effect on June 30, 2002.” The wage rates in effect on June 30, 2002 were $43.93. As you can see, we are better off with the $47.15 wage increase in the TA than with the East contract language.
Q. We keep dancing around the seniority issue with a possible merger with American. Where do we stand? Date of hire or fair and equitable? If we are slotted we could be in the bottom half or bottom 4th of the seniority list which in an economic downturn, we would be more likely to be laid off–that what worries me.
A. There’s no dancing. The AFA Constitution and Bylaws clearly affirms support for date of hire. Also, the two unions have put out a joint statement pledging to work together on integration issues, including seniority. Keep in mind that “fair and equitable” refers to a process and “date of hire” is one of the processes that is fair and equitable – the two are not mutually exclusive. Also, we have scope and LPPs to protections in the East contract which would be extended to cover West FAs if the TA passes.
Q. Did you get apfa to agree not to screw us over in reference to seniority like they have done to everyone else over the years?
A. Without commenting on your premise, the AFA and the AFPA released a joint statement on August 30, 2012. It is posted on the AFA website. The two unions have been discussing the consequences of a potential merger and have agreed to cooperate for the benefit of the FAs. Additionally, the McCaskill-Bond Amendment now governs airline mergers and provides that if different unions represent Flight Attendants, seniority integration must be done in a fair and equitable manner.
Q. Why isn’t DOH in a merger included in scope?
A. The short answer is that a contract between the AFA and US Airways cannot be binding upon a third party. Section 1.D states that the AFA merger policy applies if both Flight Attendant groups are represented by AFA. The AFA Constitution and Bylaws is the controlling document and references DOH.
In conclusion, by voting "no" the F/As may have just placed their seniority at risk if they enter "final and binding" seniority integration arbitration, which is now governed by federal law, by having their current contract's economics compared to the APFA Term Sheet in front of the Board of Arbitration.
How ironic it could be that US Airways' F/As next contract could be negotiated by a surrogate negotiating committee with a negative seniority decision for US Airways' F/As decided by an Arbitrator because of today's TA rejection by the rank-and-file.
US Airways entered the NDA merger discussions with a 60-90 day communication black out period, which is expected to have a merger in principal announced or the two companies will cease consensual M&A talks. This announcement should occur between around November 1 through December 1. If an agreement in principal to merge is announced it could take another 45-60 days beyond the NDA exclusive merger negotiating period for Judge Lane to confirm a merger POR, which could happen in Q1 2013 or probably no later than February 15.
It appears it's unlikely US Airways and the AFA JNC will reach another TA prior to the merger POR being confirmed by the bankruptcy court, if the corporate combination proceeds.
The APFA's Term Sheet requires the union to file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date of the POR, where it is expected APFA will become the union for all of the F/As of the combined companies (AA, US Airways East, & US Airways West F/A's) because the AA F/A's have the voting majority. With their voting majority AA's F/A's could negotiate and decide the next contract for US Airways' F/A's.
Furthermore, the APFA Term Sheet provides a timeline for a JCBA. Specifically, shortly after the NDA black out period ends the parties will have 60 days to negotiate a JCBA. If the parties faile to reach an agreement an arbitrator will decide the outstanding aspects of the JCBA within 30 days. The F/A's wil lthen have the opportunity to vote on the JCBA and if the agreement is not ratified, it will go to a 3-member board of arbitration and a final and binding decision will rendered within 60 days.
Therefore, it appears US Airways' F/A's have only delayed getting a new contract. In addition, the rank-and-files "no vote" decision could have adverse effects on US Airways' F/A's seniority if AMR and US Airways execute a corporate combination. In their January 25 message every member of the US Airways & AWA MECs and the JNC said, "With the airline industry consolidating, locking in the improvements and protections contained in this TA is imperative."
Why? Because if a merger between AMR and US Airways proceeds US Airways' F/A's are not guaranteed DOH. And, a new federal law is now in place called the McCaskill-Bond amendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill because AA's F/A's and APFA stapled the TWA AFA F/A's to the bottom of the combined seniority list in their merger.
For more information on McCaskill-Bond click here:
http://afaonevoice.o...NAL for WEB.pdf
Furthermore, APA said, "AFA Q&A - www.ourafa.org - Merger Page"
Q. Wouldn’t we be better off if waited for the merger and had our change in control snapbacks kick in?
A. No. There are at least a couple of issues here. First, we don’t know if there will be a merger, or if there is, what it will look like – who the surviving management will be. And the longer we wait for a wage increase, the longer it will take to ever catch up. Second, the language in the contract in Section 30.O states in the event of a change in control the “Flight Attendant wage rates will snap back to the rates in effect on June 30, 2002.” The wage rates in effect on June 30, 2002 were $43.93. As you can see, we are better off with the $47.15 wage increase in the TA than with the East contract language.
Q. We keep dancing around the seniority issue with a possible merger with American. Where do we stand? Date of hire or fair and equitable? If we are slotted we could be in the bottom half or bottom 4th of the seniority list which in an economic downturn, we would be more likely to be laid off–that what worries me.
A. There’s no dancing. The AFA Constitution and Bylaws clearly affirms support for date of hire. Also, the two unions have put out a joint statement pledging to work together on integration issues, including seniority. Keep in mind that “fair and equitable” refers to a process and “date of hire” is one of the processes that is fair and equitable – the two are not mutually exclusive. Also, we have scope and LPPs to protections in the East contract which would be extended to cover West FAs if the TA passes.
Q. Did you get apfa to agree not to screw us over in reference to seniority like they have done to everyone else over the years?
A. Without commenting on your premise, the AFA and the AFPA released a joint statement on August 30, 2012. It is posted on the AFA website. The two unions have been discussing the consequences of a potential merger and have agreed to cooperate for the benefit of the FAs. Additionally, the McCaskill-Bond Amendment now governs airline mergers and provides that if different unions represent Flight Attendants, seniority integration must be done in a fair and equitable manner.
Q. Why isn’t DOH in a merger included in scope?
A. The short answer is that a contract between the AFA and US Airways cannot be binding upon a third party. Section 1.D states that the AFA merger policy applies if both Flight Attendant groups are represented by AFA. The AFA Constitution and Bylaws is the controlling document and references DOH.
In conclusion, by voting "no" the F/As may have just placed their seniority at risk if they enter "final and binding" seniority integration arbitration, which is now governed by federal law, by having their current contract's economics compared to the APFA Term Sheet in front of the Board of Arbitration.
How ironic it could be that US Airways' F/As next contract could be negotiated by a surrogate negotiating committee with a negative seniority decision for US Airways' F/As decided by an Arbitrator because of today's TA rejection by the rank-and-file.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
USA 320,
Why do you post this. Even if a T/A was accepted, a merger of the two groups would STILL require a vote for representation, and a vote for a JOINT contract.
Isn't this what has been going on for the past 7 years with Am. West and US Airways?????????!!!!!!!!! If what your interpreation of the Q&A posted above is as you see it, then why didn't Am West automatically get the concessionary bk contract of US Airways f/as?????? Why all the negotiations for a joint agreement???? Why aren't the West and East plots automatically merged together.
You mis read what AFA wrote, and you put your own interpretation in there. You still post like some automated drone.
Stop spinning the information!!! Its gotten old.
One more thing you forgot to add to your spin...A merger with American Airline is on US Airways "wish list"..
AMERICAN AIRLINES DOES NOT WANT TO MERGE WITH USAIRWAYS OR ANY OTHER AIRLINE UNTIL THEIR EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD IS OVERRRRRR!!!!
What part of this non-interference, does your arrogant self not understand yet!
Why do you post this. Even if a T/A was accepted, a merger of the two groups would STILL require a vote for representation, and a vote for a JOINT contract.
Isn't this what has been going on for the past 7 years with Am. West and US Airways?????????!!!!!!!!! If what your interpreation of the Q&A posted above is as you see it, then why didn't Am West automatically get the concessionary bk contract of US Airways f/as?????? Why all the negotiations for a joint agreement???? Why aren't the West and East plots automatically merged together.
You mis read what AFA wrote, and you put your own interpretation in there. You still post like some automated drone.
Stop spinning the information!!! Its gotten old.
One more thing you forgot to add to your spin...A merger with American Airline is on US Airways "wish list"..
AMERICAN AIRLINES DOES NOT WANT TO MERGE WITH USAIRWAYS OR ANY OTHER AIRLINE UNTIL THEIR EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD IS OVERRRRRR!!!!
What part of this non-interference, does your arrogant self not understand yet!
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
PITBull,
PITBull asked: "Why do you post this. Even if a T/A was accepted, a merger of the two groups would STILL require a vote for representation, and a vote for a JOINT contract."
USA320pilot comments: PITBull, the proposed US Airways and AMR merger is not a traditional merger for labor. US Airways has reached a Term Sheet with AA's F/As that is ratified, which covers merger integration issues for single carrier status, contract ratification, and the seniority integration. This has never been done before in any US Airways merger.
Yes, a JCBA would require a joint vote, but AA has 16,000 F/As, which is more than double the US airways F/As. Unless I'm mistaken per the Term Sheet APFA and AFA do not have separate ratification rights. If the JCBA is not ratified than any outstanding items will be decided by a Board of Arbitration and taken out of the hands of the F/As.
APFA has the voting majority and will likely elect their union as the combined union for the 3 F/A groups per NMB guidelines. Seniority will be covered by McCaskill-Bond with no guarantee of DOH where economics will play a part in the seniority list integration and APFA has the voting majority.
There are two points that are different in the proposed M&A deal:
1. The APFA's Term Sheet requires the union to file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date of the POR, where it is expected APFA will become the union for all of the F/As of the combined companies (AA, US Airways East, & US Airways West F/As) because the AA F/As have the voting majority.
2. The APFA's Term Sheet provides a specific timeline for a JCBA. Specifically, shortly after the NDA black out period ends the parties will have 60 days to negotiate a JCBA. If the parties fail to reach an agreement an arbitrator will decide the outstanding aspects of the JCBA within 30 days. The F/As will then have the opportunity to vote on the JCBA and if the agreement is not ratified, it will go to a 3-member board of arbitration and a final and binding decision will rendered within 60 days.
THEREFORE, THERE IS NOT THE NORMAL JOINT RATIFICATION PROCESS LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MERGER.
Can you tell me one-point above where I'm wrong?
As far as Tom Horton's personal desire to not merge he does not control or own the company. The UCC and the other creditors own the company and will have more influence over the final POR. Furthermore, US airways has met with over 200 airline analysts, creditors, bondholders, and politicians; along with AMR's unions. Every person US Airways' management team has met with supports the merger. 100%!
This is one of the reasons why every MEC officer, MEC Rep, and JNC member recommended a "yes vote" when they said, "With the airline industry consolidating, locking in the improvements and protections contained in this TA is imperative."
I did not say that...every key member of both MECs said ratifying the TA was "imperative."
I don't know if a merger will proceed or not, but if it does it is highly likely today's TA decision could have an adverse effect on US Airways' F/As seniority just like it did in the US Airways-American West seniority list arbitration final and binding decision.
PITBull asked: "Why do you post this. Even if a T/A was accepted, a merger of the two groups would STILL require a vote for representation, and a vote for a JOINT contract."
USA320pilot comments: PITBull, the proposed US Airways and AMR merger is not a traditional merger for labor. US Airways has reached a Term Sheet with AA's F/As that is ratified, which covers merger integration issues for single carrier status, contract ratification, and the seniority integration. This has never been done before in any US Airways merger.
Yes, a JCBA would require a joint vote, but AA has 16,000 F/As, which is more than double the US airways F/As. Unless I'm mistaken per the Term Sheet APFA and AFA do not have separate ratification rights. If the JCBA is not ratified than any outstanding items will be decided by a Board of Arbitration and taken out of the hands of the F/As.
APFA has the voting majority and will likely elect their union as the combined union for the 3 F/A groups per NMB guidelines. Seniority will be covered by McCaskill-Bond with no guarantee of DOH where economics will play a part in the seniority list integration and APFA has the voting majority.
There are two points that are different in the proposed M&A deal:
1. The APFA's Term Sheet requires the union to file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date of the POR, where it is expected APFA will become the union for all of the F/As of the combined companies (AA, US Airways East, & US Airways West F/As) because the AA F/As have the voting majority.
2. The APFA's Term Sheet provides a specific timeline for a JCBA. Specifically, shortly after the NDA black out period ends the parties will have 60 days to negotiate a JCBA. If the parties fail to reach an agreement an arbitrator will decide the outstanding aspects of the JCBA within 30 days. The F/As will then have the opportunity to vote on the JCBA and if the agreement is not ratified, it will go to a 3-member board of arbitration and a final and binding decision will rendered within 60 days.
THEREFORE, THERE IS NOT THE NORMAL JOINT RATIFICATION PROCESS LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MERGER.
Can you tell me one-point above where I'm wrong?
As far as Tom Horton's personal desire to not merge he does not control or own the company. The UCC and the other creditors own the company and will have more influence over the final POR. Furthermore, US airways has met with over 200 airline analysts, creditors, bondholders, and politicians; along with AMR's unions. Every person US Airways' management team has met with supports the merger. 100%!
This is one of the reasons why every MEC officer, MEC Rep, and JNC member recommended a "yes vote" when they said, "With the airline industry consolidating, locking in the improvements and protections contained in this TA is imperative."
I did not say that...every key member of both MECs said ratifying the TA was "imperative."
I don't know if a merger will proceed or not, but if it does it is highly likely today's TA decision could have an adverse effect on US Airways' F/As seniority just like it did in the US Airways-American West seniority list arbitration final and binding decision.
You know your hairtransplants and desperation are well, just humorious, you have "NO DOG" in their fight, Let us revisit your UAL predictions, keep it up, we will roll them all out, respect their fight , their vote, My girlfriend let me vote for her, and she deserves my support as do the "MAJORITY" that voted down this TA!, You go PIT!
usfliboi
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,070
- Reaction score
- 270
What has gotton old is the bitter group from PIT who think we still are in the early eighties and tactics that did work then will work now.. The only way to stop this madness is for us to merge with AA and over ride the stupidity that many appear to have. We will not get more than we got from this company...NEVER! Not until we merge... I have contacted the union and ask that we have a re vote. If i were this company i would wipe it off and go for the merger and the hell with those who cant see what a buisness is and how it runs. Please dont give me crap about how this company has succeeded off the poor backs of us employees... I said it before when TA1 was voted down...Watch and learn! We got nothing more (or litte) in TA2 and it WILL NOT CHANGE! Some people dig their grave with a shovel...others use a back hoe... So enjoy the long commute to another base..The mentality that got you there is what put us here!
Isn't a "MERGER", out of only in control of a few? The emotional aspects of takeing control of ones life are up to each individual, the victim mentality will show in times like these. MUTATIS!
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
PTBull,
One more point...I find your insults while behind a keyboard illuminating. Here's the bottom line. If US Airways & AMR merge the F/As are nor guaranteed DOH, the F/A SLI will be governed by McCaskill-Bond, and a key area in previous pilot SLIs has been a contract economic comparison to help determine career expectation.
With a ratified TA US Airways' F/As would have been on par with APFA's F/As for the potential seniority integration. Now like US Airways' pilots, by not ratifying the MOU TA due to the BPR's bonehead move under the RC5s threat of "roll call", both US Airways' pilots and F/As have a far inferior contract to compare if the current agreements are used for an economic comparison by the two merger committees in front of the Board of Arbitration.
Do I like this? No, of course not. But, what's even sadder is that the vast majority of F/As don't even understand the serious SLI risk; not to mention the continuing loss of the time value of money because they did not attend a roadshow or even read the TA.
One more point...I find your insults while behind a keyboard illuminating. Here's the bottom line. If US Airways & AMR merge the F/As are nor guaranteed DOH, the F/A SLI will be governed by McCaskill-Bond, and a key area in previous pilot SLIs has been a contract economic comparison to help determine career expectation.
With a ratified TA US Airways' F/As would have been on par with APFA's F/As for the potential seniority integration. Now like US Airways' pilots, by not ratifying the MOU TA due to the BPR's bonehead move under the RC5s threat of "roll call", both US Airways' pilots and F/As have a far inferior contract to compare if the current agreements are used for an economic comparison by the two merger committees in front of the Board of Arbitration.
Do I like this? No, of course not. But, what's even sadder is that the vast majority of F/As don't even understand the serious SLI risk; not to mention the continuing loss of the time value of money because they did not attend a roadshow or even read the TA.
BungeeJumper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 46
HEY, GET A GRIP , THEY UNDERSTAND, THEY VOTED, AND what is funny, "YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND"!
Now who is insulting who? They voted, because "SELF SERVING YOU" don't like it doesn't mean squat, get a life! MUTATIS!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
US320,
US Airways does not have the right or perogative to provide term sheets to another airline f/a group for their vote and jam that ratification down US Airways f/a throat without their vote or negotiation.
Its unprecedented because its ILLEGAL and the f/as will either STRIKE or take it to court or both!!!!
AND BECAUSE THE SCOPE LANGUAGE IS POOR AT ONLY PROVIDES FOR SOME WAGE SECURITY IF FURLOUGHED DEPENDING ON YEARS OF SERVICE IS ONLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE T/A FAILED.
SO, THE F/AS AT US AIRWAYS ARE NOT BEHIND NOR DO THEY SUPPORT A MERGER OF AA IF THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT MERGER.
What planet are you on.
US Airways does not have the right or perogative to provide term sheets to another airline f/a group for their vote and jam that ratification down US Airways f/a throat without their vote or negotiation.
Its unprecedented because its ILLEGAL and the f/as will either STRIKE or take it to court or both!!!!
AND BECAUSE THE SCOPE LANGUAGE IS POOR AT ONLY PROVIDES FOR SOME WAGE SECURITY IF FURLOUGHED DEPENDING ON YEARS OF SERVICE IS ONLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE T/A FAILED.
SO, THE F/AS AT US AIRWAYS ARE NOT BEHIND NOR DO THEY SUPPORT A MERGER OF AA IF THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT MERGER.
What planet are you on.
CLT, WOW good for them!
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
PITBull,
I suggest you read the Term Sheet before you write your comments.
I believe, and I could be wrong, that the APFA Term Sheet provides specific language for single carrier status classification. And, there is a provision for APFA to be appointed the joint union without a vote if US Airways' F/As are less than 35% of the combined group. What's unclear is this could be a 3-way single carrier integration, which could hurt US Airways' F/As even more.
And, once the APFA becomes the CBA for all of the merged new company's Flight Attendants they will control the JCBA process because the two US Airways MECs will be illuminated.
By the way...US Airways' F/As are not the only employee groups with this issue...every US Airways employee group has this issue to deal with.
Simply put the single carrier classification, seniority, and the JCBA has a specific timeline to be completed per the Term Sheet and both the SLI & JCBA will be controlled by final and binding arbitration. The proposed deal is not a normal merger.
I suggest you read the document before you post your comments.
I suggest you read the Term Sheet before you write your comments.
I believe, and I could be wrong, that the APFA Term Sheet provides specific language for single carrier status classification. And, there is a provision for APFA to be appointed the joint union without a vote if US Airways' F/As are less than 35% of the combined group. What's unclear is this could be a 3-way single carrier integration, which could hurt US Airways' F/As even more.
And, once the APFA becomes the CBA for all of the merged new company's Flight Attendants they will control the JCBA process because the two US Airways MECs will be illuminated.
By the way...US Airways' F/As are not the only employee groups with this issue...every US Airways employee group has this issue to deal with.
Simply put the single carrier classification, seniority, and the JCBA has a specific timeline to be completed per the Term Sheet and both the SLI & JCBA will be controlled by final and binding arbitration. The proposed deal is not a normal merger.
I suggest you read the document before you post your comments.
L
luvn737s
Guest
Voting down something by 98 votes doesn't sound like a credible strike vote would be forthcoming. A little nutmeg sprinkled on top and it will be served back up and voted in because the NO voters realize they don't have the overwhelming numbers to go anywhere.
Now if you had a 80-20 No vote, then you'd be sending a unambiguous message.
Now if you had a 80-20 No vote, then you'd be sending a unambiguous message.
