No agreement

[kirkpatrick]

New employees would not have a defined benefit.
Yes, this is not ideal but is it a deal breaker?

I have no problem with this. The nice thing about a 401k is that it's yours, not subject to contract changes (other than company matching) and it's portable. If I were starting out at 22 once again, I'd prefer the 401k over the DBP.

Increase projected lines to 95.

25% could be up to 95, rest at 92:30. This is to be phased in over 48 months from DOS. Not nice, but we all know we're going to have to bite the bullet a bit on schedule max. Let's hope an eventual compromise is a more palatable number.

Vacation and sick accrual:
This is where I would really fight against company proposal.

This is actually the part I have the least problem with. Those who fly very low time accrue less; those who fly normal schedules get increases. Someone at my seniority (over 25 yrs) would go from 28 days to 35 days vacation and from 3 hrs sick accrual to 4.

MK

 

[DallasConehead]

Despite Conehead's predictable response one post above, management is also not always wrong, lying, corrupt, evil, or out to get their way at any cost.

Despite your predictable response. You are wrong, management always does things that are stupid. I see it daily from the ones I work with. Most middle and upper management types consistently lie to the work force which makes them corrupt and evil.

 

[nbmcg01]

I have no problem with this. The nice thing about a 401k is that it's yours, not subject to contract changes (other than company matching) and it's portable. If I were starting out at 22 once again, I'd prefer the 401k over the DBP.

25% could be up to 95, rest at 92:30. This is to be phased in over 48 months from DOS. Not nice, but we all know we're going to have to bite the bullet a bit on schedule max. Let's hope an eventual compromise is a more palatable number.


This is actually the part I have the least problem with. Those who fly very low time accrue less; those who fly normal schedules get increases. Someone at my seniority (over 25 yrs) would go from 28 days to 35 days vacation and from 3 hrs sick accrual to 4.

MK

But not any for the lower numbers? No matter how long you've been flying? Hey, its your contract, not mine..lol

 

[jimntx]

Nancy, not sure what you mean, but we may be mixing two different concepts here. The vacation accrual will depend upon both company seniority AND hours flown. Sick leave accrual is the same for everyone based strictly upon hours flown.

On the vacation and the sick leave, the accrual is same for everyone who flies less than 540/yr (avg. 45/month) -- zero, none, nada, zilch. As it should be.

If you fly "normal hours"--540 to 739/yr (45-61.35/mo), you get the standard seniority-based vacation. In my case 14 days. If I flew 740-939/yr (61.40-78.15/mo), I would get an additional vacation day. If I flew 940/yr or more, I would get two additional vacation days. Which is not bad. 940 hours/yr is only 78 hours, 20 minutes a month, and they are talking about building lines up to 80 hours/mo as soon as the new contract is ratified. So, I would get 16 days vacation just for flying a "normal" line (assuming that I will ever hold a line again in this career). And, I would accrue 4 hours of sick leave each month, by flying a "normal" schedule.

My only question about that would be does that 940 mean actual hours aloft or does that include "guarantee" hours? Also, is that line or actual hours? Does time picked up during OSO or other delays count? For instance, over the course of the year, you hold lines which total 930 hours (avg. 77.30 month). However, due to OSO delays, you actually got paid for 950 hours over the course of the year. Do those hours count toward your 940 or not? I know that when counting toward 30-in-7 today, they only count hours aloft. Pay and credit hours do not count.

The sick leave doesn't matter that much to me, but I want those two extra vacation days.

The only addition I would have made to the contract if I were on the company side would be to include a provision that flight attendants would get paid lump sum cash for half their accrued sick leave upon retirement or departure from company employment. That would end (or, at least slow down) the practice of "burning" sick leave in prepararation for retirement. Don't misunderstand, I don't blame the flight attendants who do it. There are many who never abused their sick leave and have hundreds of hours in their bank. For them to get nothing in return for following the rules is unfair. Particularly, when there are flight attendants who get away with calling in sick because their nail appointment was changed to a day they were supposed to fly. 🙄

Oh, and don't forget as far as those 0-5 year people getting the shaft...remember until further notice there is no one even on the furlough list who has less than 9 years bidding or less than 5 or 6 years company seniority.

 

[nbmcg01]

Nancy, not sure what you mean, but we may be mixing two different concepts here. The vacation accrual will depend upon both company seniority AND hours flown. Sick leave accrual is the same for everyone based strictly upon hours flown.

On the vacation and the sick leave, the accrual is same for everyone who flies less than 540/yr (avg. 45/month) -- zero, none, nada, zilch. As it should be.

If you fly "normal hours"--540 to 739/yr (45-61.35/mo), you get the standard seniority-based vacation. In my case 14 days. If I flew 740-939/yr (61.40-78.15/mo), I would get an additional vacation day. If I flew 940/yr or more, I would get two additional vacation days. Which is not bad. 940 hours/yr is only 78 hours, 20 minutes a month, and they are talking about building lines up to 80 hours/mo as soon as the new contract is ratified. So, I would get 16 days vacation just for flying a "normal" line (assuming that I will ever hold a line again in this career). And, I would accrue 4 hours of sick leave each month, by flying a "normal" schedule.

My only question about that would be does that 940 mean actual hours aloft or does that include "guarantee" hours? Also, is that line or actual hours? Does time picked up during OSO or other delays count? For instance, over the course of the year, you hold lines which total 930 hours (avg. 77.30 month). However, due to OSO delays, you actually got paid for 950 hours over the course of the year. Do those hours count toward your 940 or not? I know that when counting toward 30-in-7 today, they only count hours aloft. Pay and credit hours do not count.

The sick leave doesn't matter that much to me, but I want those two extra vacation days.

The only addition I would have made to the contract if I were on the company side would be to include a provision that flight attendants would get paid lump sum cash for half their accrued sick leave upon retirement or departure from company employment. That would end (or, at least slow down) the practice of "burning" sick leave in prepararation for retirement. Don't misunderstand, I don't blame the flight attendants who do it. There are many who never abused their sick leave and have hundreds of hours in their bank. For them to get nothing in return for following the rules is unfair. Particularly, when there are flight attendants who get away with calling in sick because their nail appointment was changed to a day they were supposed to fly. 🙄

Oh, and don't forget as far as those 0-5 year people getting the shaft...remember until further notice there is no one even on the furlough list who has less than 9 years bidding or less than 5 or 6 years company seniority.

You and I will have to disagree about the 540 hrs.. But once again, it is your CBA not mine. What would you think about not designating days for either vacation or sick leave?

 

[Hopeful]

In general, how is this latest proposal being received by the members?

I have to wonder that if AA made this shift to structural increase, the same tactic will undoubtedly be applied to the TWU negotiations. Still not good enough for me.

 

[kirkpatrick]

My only question about that would be does that 940 mean actual hours aloft or does that include "guarantee" hours?

I would assume that since no change in how flight hours would be determined was mentioned, that it would be figured the same way the 420 is today. That is, reserves would get 75 even if they flew less, etc.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

You and I will have to disagree about the 540 hrs.. But once again, it is your CBA not mine. What would you think about not designating days for either vacation or sick leave?

As the contract stands right now someone who flies the minimum 420/yr (35/mo) accrues full vacation. I have no problem with a change that gives those who actually work more vacation than those who choose not to.

The vacation/sick leave thing you mention sounds like the Jet Blue system. You get a certain number of days and can use them as you see fit. If you use them all up being sick, bye bye vacation. There may be a way this could be made to work at AA, but we're working with tweaking the present system. No one seems interested in such a drastic change.

MK

 

[Hopeful]

The vacation/sick leave thing you mention sounds like the Jet Blue system. You get a certain number of days and can use them as you see fit. If you use them all up being sick, bye bye vacation. There may be a way this could be made to work at AA, but we're working with tweaking the present system. No one seems interested in such a drastic change.

MK

Not so good.
Let's say you have 4 weeks vacation. You're planning on a 2 week vacation in Europe in August. Tickets bought, hotel booked, etc. But earlier in March you get sick and are bedridden for 4 weeks.... That's it? because you get seriously ill? Your vacation is gone because of illness????????????????

Some system.

 

[nbmcg01]

Not so good.
Let's say you have 4 weeks vacation. You're planning on a 2 week vacation in Europe in August. Tickets bought, hotel booked, etc. But earlier in March you get sick and are bedridden for 4 weeks.... That's it? because you get seriously ill? Your vacation is gone because of illness????????????????

Some system.

You are going to have to think out of the box. I have found that the first thing out of anyone's mouth is , "We've always done it this way". That isn't going to work in this day and age. These were just examples of how negotiations don't have to be black and white. There should always be a lot of grey. The main thing is to not sign any agreement without the language in place. Many companies want to sign on the line and hash out the language later and with APFAs questionable negotiating note taking, intent will go right out the door. You cannot just think that because one part is ok there won't be snowball effect. Think about the 92-95 hr flying without leg per day or "sit penalty". You could be away from home 23+ days a month and flying 6 legs a day.

 

[nbmcg01]

Not so good.
Let's say you have 4 weeks vacation. You're planning on a 2 week vacation in Europe in August. Tickets bought, hotel booked, etc. But earlier in March you get sick and are bedridden for 4 weeks.... That's it? because you get seriously ill? Your vacation is gone because of illness????????????????

Some system.

You are going to have to think out of the box. I have found that the first thing out of anyone's mouth is , "We've always done it this way". That isn't going to work in this day and age. These were just examples of how negotiations don't have to be black and white. There should always be a lot of grey. The main thing is to not sign any agreement without the language in place. Many companies want to sign on the line and hash out the language later and with APFAs questionable negotiating note taking, intent will go right out the door. You cannot just think that because one part is ok there won't be snowball effect. Think about the 92-95 hr flying without leg per day or "sit penalty". You could be away from home 23+ days a month and flying 6 legs a day.

 

[dkdfly]

Just a reminder. The primary function of any union is job protection. Any work rule changes that will require fewer people on property resulting in furlough should be strongly discouraged in my view. I have 23 yrs with the company. I feel it is every f/a's responsibility to protect all jobs regardless of where you fall in seniority. Letting AA build lines to 92-95 hours will result in job losses. Not a good idea.

 

[eolesen]

The way I see it, the job of the union is to protect the craft/profession, and balance that with maintaining compensation/quality of worklife. I carried a craft union card (IATSE) before I entered travel 20 years ago. Technology made a lot of what we did as stage electricians obsolete, but we never saw our pay & benefits go down. Fewer of us were working, but those not working knew there'd be a good job waiting when the hall called us up.

The TWU is a prime example of protecting jobs (dues) at the expense of the entire membership. They protected a boat load of jobs, but let the compensation go to crap.

When I asked my ironworker brother in law about this a few years ago, he said he'd much rather be laid off for a couple years than spend the rest of his career making less money.

Which would you choose? Seriously. I know it depends on where you are in life and seniority, but in my view, being laid off is usually a temporary event. Working for less money is perpetual.

 

[damajagua]

I find interesting that AA is proposing a 2% raise
but they want us to pay close to $1600 additional
in health insurance......the 2% does not even cover
the rate of inflation never mind having to pay an
extra 25% premiun on health insurance.

With premium like that who needs health insurance
from your employer....Maybe what the public
option that obama is proposing is not a bad thing....
but that is off topic so I wont go into that.

 

[nbmcg01]

The way I see it, the job of the union is to protect the craft/profession, and balance that with maintaining compensation/quality of worklife. I carried a craft union card (IATSE) before I entered travel 20 years ago. Technology made a lot of what we did as stage electricians obsolete, but we never saw our pay & benefits go down. Fewer of us were working, but those not working knew there'd be a good job waiting when the hall called us up.

The TWU is a prime example of protecting jobs (dues) at the expense of the entire membership. They protected a boat load of jobs, but let the compensation go to crap.

When I asked my ironworker brother in law about this a few years ago, he said he'd much rather be laid off for a couple years than spend the rest of his career making less money.

Which would you choose? Seriously. I know it depends on where you are in life and seniority, but in my view, being laid off is usually a temporary event. Working for less money is perpetual.

Eric, it depends on what side of the layoff you're on.. I would rather take less pay and know someone has been able to keep their job.