Vol Furlough Info Out
- Thread starter PHLfa88
- Start date
Iheartflying
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 8
but that's only 150...I thought they needed 200?
USCREW
Veteran
According to the E-Line sent out today, it's 150 for the 8 month, 50 for the 3... System Wide though and not base-specific like AFA proposed... they aren't reducing the amount of flying in BOS, LGA or DCA... just PHL & CLT... so now I worry that I could get displaced... I'd rather be furloughed, honestly.
USCREW
Veteran
It's interesting how the West has been offered 225 slots ranging from 2 months to 7 months. I guess they need less staff in the West?
I think that the 3 month VPLOA on the East will go more senior than the 8 month leave because many F/As can not go that long without income or insurance. At least that is what I am hoping for.
I think that the 3 month VPLOA on the East will go more senior than the 8 month leave because many F/As can not go that long without income or insurance. At least that is what I am hoping for.
PHLfa88
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Messages
- 826
- Reaction score
- 35
They can collect unemployment! <_<
USCREW
Veteran
We have twice as many F/As and we're getting 75 less?
I assume that means that West is more over-staffed or will be losing more flights than East.
That is...if there is any logic to the numbers at all.
I assume that means that West is more over-staffed or will be losing more flights than East.
That is...if there is any logic to the numbers at all.
NoMoreKoolAid
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 20
Seems we got screwed by AFA CLT, DC and BOS yet again. God forbid they make a good choice for the membership! I guess it dind't matter to them like always. I hope everyone sends them exactly whats on thier mind. :angry:
Reduction in Personnel 2008
LOCAL COUNCIL CONTACT NUMBERS
Earlier today, US Airways sent out important information regarding the need for a reduction in personnel, which was originally announced last month. If you have read this information, you know that a majority of the reduction will come from the Philadelphia domicile.
I wanted you all to be aware of some information that the company did not disclose.
On Tuesday, June 17th and Friday, June 20th, the AFA MEC met, via teleconference, to discuss a proposal that the company brought to us. In an effort to stem displacements and involuntary furloughs, the company asked the AFA MEC to consider a 'base-specific' voluntary furlough. Currently, our contract calls for voluntary furloughs to be offered on a system-wide basis, in seniority order. However, the proposal the company brought forward had a twist - in addition to offering S4 travel, they were also willing to offer medical, dental and life insurance, at the active company rate, for the duration of the voluntary furlough period - something that has not been offered since the original VF1, in December, 2001.
In order for this to occur, the MEC would have to agree to this by majority vote. A majority vote would create a Letter of Agreement which would run concurrent with our contract.
Without a doubt, I believed what was before the AFA MEC was a "win-win" situation for all flight attendants and I would like to share with you exactly how I felt, and still feel, regarding this issue:
By extending medical, dental and life insurance, at the active company rate, as well as S4 travel, to those awarded a voluntary furlough, I believed that the majority of the applicants would have been more senior. If this were to happen, then those flight attendants who transition from PRI lineholders to SEC lineholders during the winter would stay PRI. Those that transition from SEC to RSV in the winter would remain SEC. And, most importantly, I believed that this offer would best prevent displacements and involuntary furloughs. I believed this was true at the time the MEC met and I continue to believe it today.
I made a motion to the MEC that read as follows:
"Should the US Airways MEC accept the company's proposal, via side letter, regarding the voluntary furlough program on a base-specific offering?"
The vote was 4-1, against, and was recorded as follows:
FOR: John McCorkle, LEC President, PHL (jmccorkle@afausairways.org)
AGAINST: Alin Boswell, LEC President, DCA (alin@afausairways.org)
Lynne Caramello, LEC President, BOS (Lcaramello@afausairways.org)
Ann Crowley, LEC President, CLT (acrowley@afausairways.org)
Rob Wessinger, LEC President, LGA (rwessinger@afausairways.org)
Some of the comments I heard during the meeting went something like this:
"I don't think we should do the company any favors."
"We should stick to what the contract says."
I strongly disagreed that this was doing the company a favor. On the contrary, it was an attempt to get a good deal for all flight attendants that will be affected, either by voluntary furlough, displacement or involuntary furlough - something I don't think any of us want to see happen to our fellow flight attendants that just came back to flying.
If the cost of displacements is equal to the cost of extending medical benefits, you can see how it makes no difference to the company. However, the company could not extend those benefits without the MEC's approval of a base-specific VF.
There are 45 side letters in our current contract. I had nothing to do with any of them. But #46 would have clearly been a benefit to everyone in the PHL base.
My concern has been, is, and will remain, with the Philadelphia flight attendants.
Regards,
John
John McCorkle - President
Association of Flight Attendants
Philadelphia Council #70
US Airways
Reduction in Personnel 2008
LOCAL COUNCIL CONTACT NUMBERS
Earlier today, US Airways sent out important information regarding the need for a reduction in personnel, which was originally announced last month. If you have read this information, you know that a majority of the reduction will come from the Philadelphia domicile.
I wanted you all to be aware of some information that the company did not disclose.
On Tuesday, June 17th and Friday, June 20th, the AFA MEC met, via teleconference, to discuss a proposal that the company brought to us. In an effort to stem displacements and involuntary furloughs, the company asked the AFA MEC to consider a 'base-specific' voluntary furlough. Currently, our contract calls for voluntary furloughs to be offered on a system-wide basis, in seniority order. However, the proposal the company brought forward had a twist - in addition to offering S4 travel, they were also willing to offer medical, dental and life insurance, at the active company rate, for the duration of the voluntary furlough period - something that has not been offered since the original VF1, in December, 2001.
In order for this to occur, the MEC would have to agree to this by majority vote. A majority vote would create a Letter of Agreement which would run concurrent with our contract.
Without a doubt, I believed what was before the AFA MEC was a "win-win" situation for all flight attendants and I would like to share with you exactly how I felt, and still feel, regarding this issue:
By extending medical, dental and life insurance, at the active company rate, as well as S4 travel, to those awarded a voluntary furlough, I believed that the majority of the applicants would have been more senior. If this were to happen, then those flight attendants who transition from PRI lineholders to SEC lineholders during the winter would stay PRI. Those that transition from SEC to RSV in the winter would remain SEC. And, most importantly, I believed that this offer would best prevent displacements and involuntary furloughs. I believed this was true at the time the MEC met and I continue to believe it today.
I made a motion to the MEC that read as follows:
"Should the US Airways MEC accept the company's proposal, via side letter, regarding the voluntary furlough program on a base-specific offering?"
The vote was 4-1, against, and was recorded as follows:
FOR: John McCorkle, LEC President, PHL (jmccorkle@afausairways.org)
AGAINST: Alin Boswell, LEC President, DCA (alin@afausairways.org)
Lynne Caramello, LEC President, BOS (Lcaramello@afausairways.org)
Ann Crowley, LEC President, CLT (acrowley@afausairways.org)
Rob Wessinger, LEC President, LGA (rwessinger@afausairways.org)
Some of the comments I heard during the meeting went something like this:
"I don't think we should do the company any favors."
"We should stick to what the contract says."
I strongly disagreed that this was doing the company a favor. On the contrary, it was an attempt to get a good deal for all flight attendants that will be affected, either by voluntary furlough, displacement or involuntary furlough - something I don't think any of us want to see happen to our fellow flight attendants that just came back to flying.
If the cost of displacements is equal to the cost of extending medical benefits, you can see how it makes no difference to the company. However, the company could not extend those benefits without the MEC's approval of a base-specific VF.
There are 45 side letters in our current contract. I had nothing to do with any of them. But #46 would have clearly been a benefit to everyone in the PHL base.
My concern has been, is, and will remain, with the Philadelphia flight attendants.
Regards,
John
John McCorkle - President
Association of Flight Attendants
Philadelphia Council #70
US Airways
IMisstheAladdinTrays
Veteran
How did anyone get screwed? It will be a system bid. Any F/A can put in for it!
PHLfa88
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Messages
- 826
- Reaction score
- 35
No MEDICAL..No DENTAL!!! That is where the other MEC Idiots SCREWED The Rank and File!! Shame on Them!! :down:
galley princess
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 263
The "Screw Factor" is this:
AFA went for a system bid furlough on the East instead of a base furlough: translation: PHL.
Why? Because undoubtedly DCA, PIT and BOS have the idea that they want a piece of the pie. Fine, the contract does provide for that.
However.
We are talking about junior f/as that have the most absymal, abusive reserve system the devil ever created, have sustained extensive furloughs and displacements already and now, because of the actions of three MECs, will most likely endure yet more displacements and / or furloughs.
They had the opportunity to throw these people a bone, recognize that PHL is the one that needs the relief and in short "do the right thing" and instead looked after their own interests.
Throw in the fact that the package that they refused would have been advantageous to PHL f/as, specifically some senior ones who are just hanging on a thread and might very well used it as a way out, thus benefiting said junior f/as and it's a smelly, rotten decision. It is well known that we have some flight attendants who are here now simply for health benefits.
This is my humble and undoubtedly flawed analysis.
Last question: did they intend to offer the West something similar? If so, the three MECs decision just got nastier.
AFA went for a system bid furlough on the East instead of a base furlough: translation: PHL.
Why? Because undoubtedly DCA, PIT and BOS have the idea that they want a piece of the pie. Fine, the contract does provide for that.
However.
We are talking about junior f/as that have the most absymal, abusive reserve system the devil ever created, have sustained extensive furloughs and displacements already and now, because of the actions of three MECs, will most likely endure yet more displacements and / or furloughs.
They had the opportunity to throw these people a bone, recognize that PHL is the one that needs the relief and in short "do the right thing" and instead looked after their own interests.
Throw in the fact that the package that they refused would have been advantageous to PHL f/as, specifically some senior ones who are just hanging on a thread and might very well used it as a way out, thus benefiting said junior f/as and it's a smelly, rotten decision. It is well known that we have some flight attendants who are here now simply for health benefits.
This is my humble and undoubtedly flawed analysis.
Last question: did they intend to offer the West something similar? If so, the three MECs decision just got nastier.
beachboy
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,484
- Reaction score
- 48
😱 😱 They did what? Of all the selfish bull crap! Just when you think our MEC can't get any more short sighted they do! What in the heck was going through their minds? This is prime example of protecting the Sr group. This whole package is about saving the JR peoples jobs NOT about the SR folks! Of course you call CLT and the only answer you get is "Well when your a blockholder you will understand" Newsflash Annie, no one this effects will be a blockholder anytime soon! I hope Allen, Lynn, Rob and Anne sleep well knowing they threw this group under the bus again.
It wasn't AFA that proposed base-specific, it was the company.
