NON REV

Its not over till the fat lady sings...

AFA 66 ---> :p :up:

PLEASE WATCH FOR A SPECIAL EMAIL UPDATE FROM AFA ON WEDNESDAY REGARDING USAIRWAYS MANAGEMENT'S VIOLATATION OF THE AFA CONTRACT BY DIMINISHING OUR PASS-TRAVEL LANGUAGE AND BENEFITS.

AFA IS CALLING ON YOUR SUPPORT NOW!


Pass Travel Change Announced

"The current Company policy as it relates to flight attendants and their eligible dependants shall not be reduced or discontinued during the life of the agreement" -Section 27-Q-2 of the AWA/AFA Collective Bargaining Agreement



During Section 6 negotiations, management proposed to rewrite Section 27-Q-2 of the agreement, in order to eliminate their legal obligation of maintaining a benchmark level of pass benefits and change it to one that gave them the unilateral ability to alter the pass travel policy at the company’s discretion. AFA negotiators stood firm and would not accept any proposals that reduced or diminished the benefits associated with pass travel.



Yesterday, management altered the company's pass policy and change the policy to a mish-mashed, ill-conceived, and reduced policy that is a violation of our collective bargaining agreement.



It does not matter how you stand on the issue of First Come-First Serve or Date-of-Hire for non revenue pass travel, the issue is simply this; the company has chosen to ignore the status quo and violate a section of our contract. And to rub salt in the wound, they didn't even have the common decency of informing the unions, prior to yesterday's announcement, of their decision.



In a conference call yesterday afternoon with AFA International President Pat Friend and Associate General Councel Ed Gilmartin; MEC President Gary Richardson discussed management's actions and belief that by taking a unilateral approach - outside negotiations -, the Company has altered the status quo working conditions of the flight attendants and is in violation of Section 2, First and Seventh and Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA").



AFA will continue to evaluate and pursue any and all course of action necessary to compel management to comply with the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


US AIRWAYS AFA

NON REV BOARDING METHOD

During yesterday's State of the Airline presentation Doug Parker revealed the Company had made the decision regarding Date of Hire vs. First Come First Serve for non revenue boarding. Although the new policy is weighted toward seniority, the policy is, in effect, a hybrid version of both of the former policies.

The new policy is based on YEAR of hire rather than true date of hire.

The Company will be switching from SABRE to the former America West SHARES reservation system on March 3, 2007. The new policy will take effect on that date as well.

The SHARES system will sort non revenue boarding in the following manner:

First - Priority Code (SA1, SA2, SA3, etc)
Then - Within each Priority Code by the YEAR of Hire
Then - By time of check-in if there was more than one employee with the same year of hire on the list

In other words, time of check-in breaks the tie if more than one employee with the same year of hire is listed for a flight.

The policy allows for check-in twelve 12 hours prior to departure on the hub or four (4) prior to departure at an airport.

The Company states the reason the decision was made to use the year of hire instead of the exact hire date is because the SHARES system does not have the ability to recognize more than two digits. The Company states it would cost $300,000 to program the system to recognize more than two digits. I am assuming it can recognize the one digit I am currently displaying.

THIS METHOD PLACES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WORKING A TRIP ON AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD.

Flight Attendants who are on trips may not have the ability to check-in via either method until the completion of their trip.

The new policy places the Flight Attendants at a competitive disadvantage to other workgroups if check-in time determines boarding order.

The Union will be reviewing the policy with AFA attorneys.


Thank you,

Mike Flores, President
US Airways Master Executive Council
AFA-CWA
 
Again, it boils down to our computer system....it will not handle the work....Well if we have the billions to spend elsewhere, why can't we put the infrastructure to our IT systems? Our VFF's complain along with the employees. When will the Sandcastle learn how to run this airline?
 
we have a computer system in place that can handle the task. Perhaps they need to rethink their position on SHARES
 
I support the union, but i'm having a hard time understanding why they are looking for explanations from the company now? This policy has been on the table for over a year and I would think the union would have positioned itself against first come first served or anything slightly like it this past year.

And why is the union screaming now and not for the past 14 months?

Putting FA's at a disadvantage?

That means the West FA's have always been at a disadvantage over other company employees for 24 years and this was never cause for concern among the FA's, why is it that argument supposed to hold ground now?

I'm just looking for the real argument here, not that i agree with the change in policy.
 
Because the contract wasn't violated until now. Who would have thought that the company would arbitrarily and knowingly violate the contract? Now that they have not announced a stipulation for f/a's, the union has no choice but to react at this time.

Not that it matters, but they have my full support!
 
"The current Company policy as it relates to flight attendants and their eligible dependants shall not be reduced or discontinued during the life of the agreement" -Section 27-Q-2 of the AWA/AFA Collective Bargaining Agreement


It seems the status quo had been violated before and you had no problem with it and/or you let the company get away with it. What priority do your dependants now fly at when flying alone?
 
so, West AFA isn't happy becuase they are going to seniority, and east AFA isn't happy becuase they aren't going to strict date of hire. Seems like the 2 unions should get together and decide what they want to fight.

It seems the status quo had been violated before and you had no problem with it and/or you let the company get away with it. What priority do your dependants now fly at when flying alone?
When traveling alone, dependents on the west have always flown at a lower priority than employees.
 
we have a computer system in place that can handle the task. Perhaps they need to rethink their position on SHARES
Doesn't Continental Airlines use SHARES? Doesn't CO use date of hire, to the specific date, for non-rev boarding priority? Therefore, SHARES can handle date of hire. And the employee knows exactly where they are on the non-rev list immediately after listing.

Of course, AWA never owned the "whole" version of Shares, so anything that is added on -- such as date of hire, or even year of hire, is an added cost.

If they -- the powers that made this stupid decision -- think that by time of check-in within year of hire is any way to placate the FCFS bunch, they're crazy. This is about as convoluted as it can get. If I have ok seniority, I shouldn't have to worry about checking in at 3:30 in the morning for a 3:30 flight tomorrow afternoon. Crazy.

However, I still wish they would make EVERYONE list at least 24 hours before flight time, otherwise, go directly to the bottom of the list -- maybe that's what that unused SA8 category could be used for???? That way, we would know where we stand on the list and can either be up and ready to check-in or sleep through. But allowing changes -- additional listings -- up until 30 mins before departure justs keeps rearranging the priority list. At least with FCFS, once you checked-in you knew where you stood. Now, anyone with more seniority can just check-in and your trip could be ruined. Don't get me wrong, seniority based is OK by me -- just PLAN ahead -- at least 24 hours -- if you want to go somewhere so I know where I stand. Of course there's a chance that you may not show up -- but that's always a chance, no matter what. Thanks.
 
However, I still wish they would make EVERYONE list at least 24 hours before flight time, otherwise, go directly to the bottom of the list -- maybe that's what that unused SA8 category could be used for???? That way, we would know where we stand on the list and can either be up and ready to check-in or sleep through. But allowing changes -- additional listings -- up until 30 mins before departure justs keeps rearranging the priority list. At least with FCFS, once you checked-in you knew where you stood. Now, anyone with more seniority can just check-in and your trip could be ruined. Don't get me wrong, seniority based is OK by me -- just PLAN ahead -- at least 24 hours -- if you want to go somewhere so I know where I stand. Of course there's a chance that you may not show up -- but that's always a chance, no matter what. Thanks.

You want everyone to go to the bottom of the list if they don't list 24 hours before flight time? What if your original listing is cancelled or delayed? What if your original listing fills up? You have to re-list, and you go to the bottom of the new flight? Sounds fishy....

As far as your trip being ruined, if you are trying to plan major vacation and there are so few seats that your vacation could be ruined by a few senior people running over, that sounds like poor planning. Besides, very rarely am I bumped by a senior person at the last minute. Just does not happen that much. People are becoming hysterical about a non- issue....

Try the system, I bet you'll find it very similar to what HP had before.... B)
 
When traveling alone, dependents on the west have always flown at a lower priority than employees.

Sorry if my post was misleading.

It was meant to be directed to Sthrnboy, the topic starter, and the East AFA and the first post posted in this topic.

My point was it seems that Section 27-Q-2 of the AWA/AFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (on east side) was violated by putting dependants in a lower priority SA.

As far as I know no AFA action taken was taken.

I may be wrong does anyone know how this slipped by?
 
If you are a PIT-PHL commuter you can guarantee unless your the most senior to commute that you'll be bumped off right before the cut off. It happened to me a few times. It sucks.
 
If you are a PIT-PHL commuter you can guarantee unless your the most senior to commute that you'll be bumped off right before the cut off. It happened to me a few times. It sucks.
Do we still fly to PIT? :lol: :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist....