Possible Restoration of Lost Wages for Flight Attendants

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimntx

Veteran
Jun 28, 2003
11,218
3,302
Dallas, TX
www.usaviation.com
Special Bulletin from the APFA:
 
Yesterday, Doug Parker responded to APFA President Laura Glading’s December 8th letter (https://www.apfa.org/images/arbitration/Letter-to-Doug-Parker-CEO-AA-from-Laura-Glading-120814.pdf) requesting a meeting to discuss the possibility of restoring wages beyond the arbitrated award (https://www.apfa.org/images/arbitration/AA-APFA-JCBA-Award-and-appdx.pdf) . APFA is pleased to report that Parker has expressed a willingness to put wages back into our JCBA and has agreed to meet with the APFA Board of Directors and the Joint Negotiating Committee to discuss the details in a Board Briefing being scheduled for Thursday.
 
Who'd a thunk it?
 
I decided start a new thread.  Gives Bob Owens more room to post "Yeah, but they don't get profit sharing" every other post.  And, for WT to point out that DL f/as have Profit Sharing.  To both of you...Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, now put a sock in it.  We KNOW your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
In exchange for what though? All this shows me that the original deals US management made with the AA unions was very lackluster in value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Black Magic said:
In exchange for what though? All this shows me that the original deals US management made with the AA unions was very lackluster in value.
Perhaps some arms and legs?

Here's how it might go down: APFA negotiates $82 million a year improvement in exchange for more work rule rollbacks (increased "productivity") and the Board approves it unanimously (just like the failed TA). APFA sends it out for member ratification and the same "Vote No so we'll get even more" crowd carries the day again.

And the fact that Parker is willing to entertain the possibility of higher wages now gives that Facebook crowd (the "Vote No" group) some credibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
FWAAA said:
And the fact that Parker is willing to entertain the possibility of higher wages now gives that Facebook crowd (the "Vote No" group) some credibility.
 
Parker's credibility is really on the line here.  If he is going to be true to what he has said, it will be the proposal which was voted down, or the arbitrated award.  He has said that the proposal that was rejected is still available, but it had to be "take it or leave it" in order to make it clear that negotiations were over and defeating it would not lead to any better offer from the company.
 
Perhaps Parker is simply making that identical proposal yet again available because he realizes that if the APFA send the exact same thing out again for ratification, it will pass (now that the apathetic 1/3 is actually paying attention.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
My money is on Parker saying that he wants the clause in the Award where it says that however UALs new deal changes the aggregate gets removed, and maybe, depending on how big his balls are another year added to the term. 
 
For all the whining about losing $83 million the fact is with that clause they could come out ahead if UAL gets a good deal and profits are as high as expected at UAL and DAL. 
 
Parker would be wise to offer something to remove that clause. Lets say he gets it, then when the other FAs at DAL and UAL get better deals and profit sharing on top of that and pull down $15 to $20 k a year more than those at AA what can they say? I know what he will say, he will say "you voted for the sure thing, the bird in the hand, so don't complain to me about the two in the bush".
 
nycbusdriver said:
 
Parker's credibility is really on the line here.  If he is going to be true to what he has said, it will be the proposal which was voted down, or the arbitrated award.  He has said that the proposal that was rejected is still available, but it had to be "take it or leave it" in order to make it clear that negotiations were over and defeating it would not lead to any better offer from the company.
 
Perhaps Parker is simply making that identical proposal yet again available because he realizes that if the APFA send the exact same thing out again for ratification, it will pass (now that the apathetic 1/3 is actually paying attention.)
What all the pro-management folks here keep leaving out is the award has a clause saying that UALs Deal could change the aggregate. I give Laura kudos for including that in the NPA and not just a wage adjustment provision like we got.  Sure there are a lot of "ifs" but there is a long time for those "ifs" to occur, five long years. The next few years could shape up to be like the end of the 90s where some of us saw our biggest increases ever (except the airlines will be making much larger profits). Pilots and mechanics saw the biggest increases, both in dollars and percentages, mechanics were restored to early 80s wages(but not full compensation). Thats why we do not want long term deals.
 
AdAstraPerAspera said:
Since when are you interested in giving management pointers in how to win at the bargaining table?
Are you serious? On the one hand you claim I'm stupid and ignorant then claim I thought of things that management didn't? You are being played. Lets see if I'm right.
 
Their plan is already on rails, they may be able to switch tracks, but I'm just letting you know what I think you can expect. 
 
If anyone helped management here it was all you whiners who sobbed about how defenseless you were and how the No voters left you vulnerable to be screwed by the company and how you wanted the $83 million and didnt care about profit sharing or the fact that you would be stuck with pretty much all the concessions you gave in BK for at least another year beyond the 6 we all got stuck with in BK.  
 
 
If Parker wants any credibilty and cares about having happy Flight Attendants he will give you the measly $83 million and let you keep the arbitrated award with the UAL adjustment to the aggregate.
 
 
There now, does that make you feel better? 
 
 
 
 
 
Just curious, since there is no provision for Profit sharing lets say that UAL gets deal with a better wages and profit sharing, then the profit sharing brings the aggregate up, that means your wage goes up, wages are earned as you go, profits are added up and paid out after the year, so lets say profits did take a dip three years down the road, wouldn't you retain your higher wage for for the extra year before Delta and UAL found out what their reduced profit sharing will be? With fuel super cheap and the possibility of the top three carriers pulling a total in excess of $20 billion this could drive the aggregate waaay up this year, and since its wages paid as you go  you are pretty much locked in as far as their abilty to adjust the aggregate again. Once fuel returns to more normal prices profits will still be there, just not nearly as high. 
 
I think Parker will be pretty desperate to get out of that last clause in the award. 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
We are working for 1990 wages lowest paid in the industry. Tell Parker to give me a call for the restore and more....
 
Thanks
J. Little and company
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
If this all pans out, do you bet on getting back some of the $82M now, or hoping that UAL's next contract raises the aggregate enough to make a difference later?

My gut says that getting back money now may pay off better than betting on how long it takes for UAL and AFA to come to an agreement, and how much it winds up being worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
There will not be a re vote....I noticed someone saying this would be the case.. If he agrees...the agreement will stand...voting is done...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
diamondcutter said:
It give the no group no credibility. It is only in wages, so we are getting the exact TA that they voted no on!!!
 
No they don't. There was language on work rules that was agreed to after the September 19th TA was announced which was negated by the arbitration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.