Possible Restoration of Lost Wages for Flight Attendants

[NYer]

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".

 
Amazing how getting more pay is a negative. 

 

[NYer]

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.

 
you don't like short term deals either. You were against the 2008 three year deal....three years later, you were still fighting the 2003 wages...

 

[CMH_GSE]

Bob Owens:
"I think Parker will be pretty desperate to get out of that last clause in the award. "

I agree with you here. That clause could add up to a bunch and it's unlikely Parker gives them both the full raises AND the UAL clause.
Time will tell.

 

[usfliboi]

Lol amazing at the folks who,still don't get what is happening.... It will be the original ta....no more no less...no special clauses...minus the 40 hour rule....

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

The 40 hour rule is back in, I believe

 

[Bob Owens]

 
you don't like short term deals either. You were against the 2008 three year deal....three years later, you were still fighting the 2003 wages...

I dont like concessionary deals long or short, long deals are automatically bad deals unless there are clauses that stop you from falling behind. 

 

[nycbusdriver]

Lol amazing at the folks who,still don't get what is happening.... It will be the original ta....no more no less...no special clauses...minus the 40 hour rule....

 
Well, then.  Wasn't the original TA the one that was rejected by the membership vote?  Will it not have to be voted on once again, or can the APFA simply override the membership?

 

[jimntx]

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...

Again, from your lips to God's ears.  I don't like having to submit my paycheck to a vote in which the electorate has a sizable number of idiots.

 

[jimntx]

 
Well, then.  Wasn't the original TA the one that was rejected by the membership vote?  Will it not have to be voted on once again, or can the APFA simply override the membership?

Good question.  In this case, particularly if DP's position is the original take it or leave it, I'm hoping the APFA board can accept on behalf of the membership--idiots included--rather than give idiots another shot.  Some of this is personal animosity toward LG.  They would rather see the TA fail and we all get less compensation just to keep her from "winning."  Kind of stupid, but hey, takes all kinds.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I think what all are missing here is that pay terms of the CBA are minimums.

The company can increase wages as it sees fit as long as the raises are agreed to by the union.

That usually entails ensuring the pay raises are equally distributed among the members in a fair and equitable manner. It is not often it happens, but it can, and does in special cases.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I'm hoping the APFA board can accept on behalf of the membership--idiots included--rather than give idiots another shot.  

 
I doubt it would be rejected a second time now that all of the membership is paying attention, and they all now understand what the "No" vote means.  Or. more accurately, that the "No" vote does not mean "back to negotiations," nor does it mean the arbitrator will use the company offer as a touching off point.

 

[IORFA]

I doubt it would be rejected a second time now that all of the membership is paying attention, and they all now understand what the "No" vote means.  Or. more accurately, that the "No" vote does not mean "back to negotiations," nor does it mean the arbitrator will use the company offer as a touching off point.

You are assuming that the same morons from before just found a bunch of brains to use. My friends that voted no are more than happy working for less. Even told ME I could find a new job. Ha, apparently, wanting to make a good living passing out cokes isn't appreciated by the masses here anymore and people are more than willing to do it for less $. Crazy as it is, I can't wrap my brain around such skewed logic. I sincerely hope Parker can save us from ourselves and we aren't stuck with substandard wages. My life doesn't work in a vacuum where moral victories have a monetary value to purchase things. Bob, your UA carve out isn't a big deal to Parker. It was stipulated to the arbitrators by AA. If they had a problem with it, they would have protested and we would have had 4 disagreements instead of 3. For our wages to increase off their combined contract, they would have to get more than 160 million a year on top of the extra 60 or so million a year to make it matter. Which is my own WAG. I'm not willing to bet on that. Especially at the snails pace they are negotiating now. At this rate, WE may have a new contract before UA. At the end of the day, IF we do end up getting the $81 million, any no voters out there can get in touch with me and make arrangements to turnover some of their unwanted riches! I'll provide a nice comfortable home for their bastard cash.

 

[nycbusdriver]

You are assuming that the same morons from before just found a bunch of brains to use. 

 
No.  I am not assuming that at all.  Even if everyone who voted against the TA cast their ballot the exact same way, I would bet that a lot of the apathetic, or fence-sitters, who sat out the last ballot would vote in enough numbers to counter several times over the entire 16 vote margin of loss.

 

[IORFA]

One would hope, I just don't have that confidence.

 

[etops1]

There will be no revote . It will be the exact same contract originally offered minus removal of the Hard 40 . That's It .. Nothing more ... Nothing less..