Here the link

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-w ... SKCN0ZA2HY

Yup....still requires sUas F/A leadership to sign off on the deal but their approval is likely. Assuming the F/As ratify it all that is left is the mechanics....

Well done UA

Any details? Or is nothing released to the FA's yet?

Can someone remind me what the major sticking points were for each group? I know the both agreed on Seniority long time ago...

It started with the CO Fa had a list of things and the UA Fa had there's, it took time for them to get together to have just one list to work with.

cosyr wrote:

Any details? Or is nothing released to the FA's yet?

Can someone remind me what the major sticking points were for each group? I know the both agreed on Seniority long time ago...

working hours were a big one. Continental F/A wanted to work lots of hours(way more than the sUA contract) while UA F/A wanted the same hours from the old contract.

If anything this deal shows that the problem was Jeff Smisek and not the flight attendants or the union. The new CEO Oscar Munoz has been back from his operation just a few months and they already have a TA. Congrats to the United flight attendants!

OOer wrote:

If anything this deal shows that the problem was Jeff Smisek and not the flight attendants or the union. The new CEO Oscar Munoz has been back from his operation just a few months and they already have a TA. Congrats to the United flight attendants!

I'm not a SMI/J defender, but I think it speaks more to the NMB mediation than anything.


From earlier this month. Apparently people starting taking things more seriously:

"United Continental Holdings Inc (UAL.N) and its flight attendants have agreed to extend mediated contract talks this month after scheduled discussions ended last week without a deal for unified work rules and benefits, they said on Monday.

U.S. federal mediators directed the parties to resolve contract language issues next week ahead of a new final mediation session during the week of June 20, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA said in an online notice. United said in a separate online bulletin that it was "committed to bringing this negotiation to a successful close.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-w ... SKCN0YT04B

OOer wrote:

If anything this deal shows that the problem was Jeff Smisek and not the flight attendants or the union. The new CEO Oscar Munoz has been back from his operation just a few months and they already have a TA. Congrats to the United flight attendants!

Agreed. Jeff is a criminal & was tone deaf on how to correctly run the merger. I'm glad to see some progress here - this deal should have been reached 5 years ago.

Flight attendants and ex UA employees are flying the flag high today.

The only folks who were tone deaf were the Unions. The blame lies squarely at their feet.

airzim wrote:

Flight attendants and ex UA employees are flying the flag high today.

The only folks who were tone deaf were the Unions. The blame lies squarely at their feet.

Smisek and his team deserve plenty of same blame the unions got.

Again, how is it the unions fault? They've been negotiating the entire time with very little progress...until Oscar Munoz came in and things changed drastically. The problem was Smisek, not the union or the employees.

The only folks who were tone deaf were the Unions. The blame lies squarely at their feet.[/quote]


I am also curious as to how the unions were to blame for UA F/As not having a contract. Jeff Smisek was at the root of the protracted "so-called" negotiations. I find it interesting that fairly soon after Smisek's departure, UA has been able, under Oscar Munoz's leadership, to present a tentative agreement to their FAs. The unions are still at UA, yet a tentative has been offered. Smisek is the one who should be embarrassed and ashamed, yet sadly, I am certain he couldn't care less about the employees and/or customers of United. Way to go UA. I hope the agreement passes and United can finally move forward.

OOer wrote:

Again, how is it the unions fault? They've been negotiating the entire time with very little progress...until Oscar Munoz came in and things changed drastically. The problem was Smisek, not the union or the employees.

while I agree the biggest reason the mechanics and FAs didn't have a contract was Smisek, the AFA also had a lot of in-fighting going on. Not quite on the level of the US pilots but a good amount.

seeing the contracts Jeff offered everyone but the pilots, it not hard to see why UA has gone so long with a combined CBA for the other work groups. Asking for basically bankruptcy concessions in this environment isn't a good way to have happy labor.

caleb1 wrote:

The only folks who were tone deaf were the Unions. The blame lies squarely at their feet.

I am also curious as to how the unions were to blame for UA F/As not having a contract. Jeff Smisek was at the root of the protracted "so-called" negotiations. I find it interesting that fairly soon after Smisek's departure, UA has been able, under Oscar Munoz's leadership, to present a tentative agreement to their FAs. The unions are still at UA, yet a tentative has been offered. Smisek is the one who should be embarrassed and ashamed, yet sadly, I am certain he couldn't care less about the employees and/or customers of United. Way to go UA. I hope the agreement passes and United can finally move forward.[/quote]
Does no one remember the absolute disfunction that was the AFA? For years they had nothing to propose because they couldn't agree on anything. And before I get trashed for being a Smisek lover, go back and look at the real history of this drama. Don't revise history.

airzim wrote:

Flight attendants and ex UA employees are flying the flag high today.

The only folks who were tone deaf were the Unions. The blame lies squarely at their feet.

I don't blame the unions - that's not fair. Having a CEO who penny pinched his way through a merger, not making good negotiations with the unions, and getting fired over greaseball corruption I blame way more. That's the only sensible way to look at it.

Of course ex-CO folks will look the other way at Smisek but it's time to wise up to know that he's a big POS.

piedmont762 wrote:

Of course ex-CO folks will look the other way at Smisek but it's time to wise up to know that he's a big POS.

The only CO person I ever heard defend Smisek was a good for nothing, low life, scab. So your point is BS.

piedmont762 wrote:

Having a CEO who penny pinched his way through a merger, not making good negotiations with the unions, and getting fired over greaseball corruption I blame way more. That's the only sensible way to look at it.

There is a lot of "cause and effect", in many aspects of the company, when comparing Munoz vs. Smisek.

DualQual wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

Of course ex-CO folks will look the other way at Smisek but it's time to wise up to know that he's a big POS.

The only CO person I ever heard defend Smisek was a good for nothing, low life, scab. So your point is BS.

Well that's your perspective. Gordon recently went on CNBC to say "Jeff Smisek is one of the most honest people I know." So your point is complete junk and your ex-leader is just as corrupt for defending Smisek.

piedmont762 wrote:

Well that's your perspective. Gordon recently went on CNBC to say "Jeff Smisek is one of the most honest people I know." So your point is complete junk and your ex-leader is just as corrupt for defending Smisek.

One can be honest and also a terrible CEO who focuses only on the monetary side of the equation and not the personnel impacts.

One can be honest and be the head of a company that has seemingly-shady business practices.

One can also be a terrific executive within one's specialty and a terrible executive in another area or as an overall leader.

Smisek was the wrong CEO for the UA-CO integration. I don't know anyone on either prior side of the now-combined company that will argue that. But I don't know the man personally and have never met him, so I couldn't tell you if he's a decent, honest human being or not.

Buffoon was just as big of a weasel as Jeff, he just had more charisma.

And his constant defending of Smisek Everytime he goes on CNBC is nauseating. He gives more excuses for his failures than a 2nd grader who didn't do their homework.

antoniemey wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

Well that's your perspective. Gordon recently went on CNBC to say "Jeff Smisek is one of the most honest people I know." So your point is complete junk and your ex-leader is just as corrupt for defending Smisek.

One can be honest and also a terrible CEO who focuses only on the monetary side of the equation and not the personnel impacts.

One can be honest and be the head of a company that has seemingly-shady business practices.

One can also be a terrific executive within one's specialty and a terrible executive in another area or as an overall leader.

Smisek was the wrong CEO for the UA-CO integration. I don't know anyone on either prior side of the now-combined company that will argue that. But I don't know the man personally and have never met him, so I couldn't tell you if he's a decent, honest human being or not.

Know that Greg Brenneman was the man responsible for anything positive at CO. Bethune was the loud mouth puppet that was the face of the airline - Greg was the man with the plan.

Smisek was just a lying lawyer hired by a man with bad taste. I mean you don't need to meet Smisek to realize he's corrupt. He got forced to resign from UA for a scandal with the greasiest east coast organization - the Port Authority. That's the opposite of honesty.

piedmont762 wrote:

DualQual wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

Of course ex-CO folks will look the other way at Smisek but it's time to wise up to know that he's a big POS.

The only CO person I ever heard defend Smisek was a good for nothing, low life, scab. So your point is BS.

Well that's your perspective. Gordon recently went on CNBC to say "Jeff Smisek is one of the most honest people I know." So your point is complete junk and your ex-leader is just as corrupt for defending Smisek.

I am frankly disappointed about Gordon's comments regarding Smisek. Gordon is trying to sugar coat the fact that Jeff was a bad hire by him. Bragging that he hired Smisek is not a good idea. His positive comments about him (Smisek) on CNBC are quite odd as Gordon in a historical sense has been a man of candor, being quite frank and to the point. He has been known to be very blunt with a "salty" language.

Smisek, being a lawyer, obviously did a good job getting the merger approved fairly swiftly through the DOJ........but the execution of the merger was clearly a failure. Someone else should have guided the company through the merger.

The future looks much brighter now with Oscar...thankfully.

coairman wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

DualQual wrote:

The only CO person I ever heard defend Smisek was a good for nothing, low life, scab. So your point is BS.

Well that's your perspective. Gordon recently went on CNBC to say "Jeff Smisek is one of the most honest people I know." So your point is complete junk and your ex-leader is just as corrupt for defending Smisek.

I am frankly disappointed about Gordon's comments regarding Smisek. Gordon is trying to sugar coat the fact that Jeff was a bad hire by him. Bragging that he hired Smisek is not a good idea. His positive comments about him (Smisek) on CNBC are quite odd as Gordon in a historical sense has been a man of candor, being quite frank and to the point. He has been known to be very blunt with a "salty" language.

Smisek, being a lawyer, obviously did a good job getting the merger approved fairly swiftly through the DOJ........but the execution of the merger was clearly a failure. Someone else should have guided the company through the merger.

The future looks much brighter now with Oscar...thankfully.

Thanks for this - I 100% agree with your comments. I think Jeff did what he could to work with Tilton to get the merger done. UA cleaned it's act up to get the merger ready, CO was about to be in bad state with it's crush debt financed fleet (urban legend from some at UA was CO was headed for BK #3.)

"Sugar coating" by Gordon is exactly what I call it. Seems like Oscar has the backing of UA employees across the board which definitely helps out in getting an agreement pushed through.

Congratulations to the UA flight attendants. Six years is an awfully long time.

I'll be curious to see pay rates, etc. Should there be any significant improvements , I expect that DL will most likely match them in relatively short order.

Well, let's forget about Smisek for a minute.
A year ago I was on CLE-SJU. The plane was staffed by CO staff. I was talking to one of them, she was telling me how much she loved the CO contract. She seemed bothered (being nice about it) that the UA contract would probably prevail in the final version. So, which one is the new one more like??? the CO one (with higher pay and flexible rules) or the UA one, that focused on better rules and conditions.

I am not an FA, this is just what I have been told. Does anyone know anything at this point? I doubt it, no one is saying they know anything.

The times I flew UA since the merger, it was kind of fun observing the CO or UA staff to get a feel for them. But they need to get integrated fully to move on. I hope this is finally the real deal for their sakes.

klwright69 wrote:

Well, let's forget about Smisek for a minute.
A year ago I was on CLE-SJU. The plane was staffed by CO staff. I was talking to one of them, she was telling me how much she loved the CO contract. She seemed bothered (being nice about it) that the UA contract would probably prevail in the final version. So, which one is the new one more like??? the CO one (with higher pay and flexible rules) or the UA one, that focused on better rules and conditions.

I am not an FA, this is just what I have been told. Does anyone know anything at this point? I doubt it, no one is saying they know anything.

The times I flew UA since the merger, it was kind of fun observing the CO or UA staff to get a feel for them. But they need to get integrated fully to move on. I hope this is finally the real deal for their sakes.

I have no idea - that's a good question. sUA's F/A had better work rules and (seemingly) better benefits with regards to layovers. sCO's contract was as you say "work as much as you want and get paid for it" but in my experience sCO crews were less relaxed and the service typically rushed especially in F.

piedmont762 wrote:

klwright69 wrote:

Well, let's forget about Smisek for a minute.
A year ago I was on CLE-SJU. The plane was staffed by CO staff. I was talking to one of them, she was telling me how much she loved the CO contract. She seemed bothered (being nice about it) that the UA contract would probably prevail in the final version. So, which one is the new one more like??? the CO one (with higher pay and flexible rules) or the UA one, that focused on better rules and conditions.

I am not an FA, this is just what I have been told. Does anyone know anything at this point? I doubt it, no one is saying they know anything.

The times I flew UA since the merger, it was kind of fun observing the CO or UA staff to get a feel for them. But they need to get integrated fully to move on. I hope this is finally the real deal for their sakes.

I have no idea - that's a good question. sUA's F/A had better work rules and (seemingly) better benefits with regards to layovers. sCO's contract was as you say "work as much as you want and get paid for it" but in my experience sCO crews were less relaxed and the service typically rushed especially in F.

Tommy, it's not better it's different. Regardless if it is sUA or sCO, when they are not flying, they are not getting paid. For many FA, sitting in hotel room is a waste of time and money, and they'd much rather be home or working another trip to maximize hours. The sCO contract gives FAs options. If you want to pick up a trip or do back to back TCONs, you can. But you don't have to. The sUA one doesn't and has you sitting in a hotel room. Compared to AA, sCO, and DL, the sUA contract is a aberration in the US industry.

There was a LOT of buzz over the weekend among FAs about this looming TA.

The key is that everyone will have to READ it, study it, learn it, weigh it and then ensure there is a proper conduit for asking questions--and getting answers--from the union. Communication HAS to be paramount in getting this done, because there's going to be, I fear, a lot of adversarial positions dug in simply on the respective sCO and sUA sides.

This contract will be different for EVERYONE involved and the fear of that change is going to freak people out. This workgroup could not be more diametrically opposite in how their former unions had contracts--from work rules to pay rates to reserve rules to base structure. The UA contract has some good stuff in there that could be nice if incorporated into the whole, and vice versa.

I fear it could devolve into a xenophobic bitchfest, but hope--PLEASE--that FAs can keep an open mind. For the sCO peeps, you didn't get that solid contract with IAM right out of the gate, it took many contracts to have something that flexible. For sUA peeps, you're going to have to accept some productivity changes, and the really senior mamas are going to either have to work or retire.

It's exciting that this is FINALLY getting done. I hope they can get it approved.

I'm curious if there will be any "early out" retirement incentive. Even, perhaps, in the form of a signing bonus, after which disenfranchised folks can take the money and run.

airzim wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

klwright69 wrote:

Well, let's forget about Smisek for a minute.
A year ago I was on CLE-SJU. The plane was staffed by CO staff. I was talking to one of them, she was telling me how much she loved the CO contract. She seemed bothered (being nice about it) that the UA contract would probably prevail in the final version. So, which one is the new one more like??? the CO one (with higher pay and flexible rules) or the UA one, that focused on better rules and conditions.

I am not an FA, this is just what I have been told. Does anyone know anything at this point? I doubt it, no one is saying they know anything.

The times I flew UA since the merger, it was kind of fun observing the CO or UA staff to get a feel for them. But they need to get integrated fully to move on. I hope this is finally the real deal for their sakes.

I have no idea - that's a good question. sUA's F/A had better work rules and (seemingly) better benefits with regards to layovers. sCO's contract was as you say "work as much as you want and get paid for it" but in my experience sCO crews were less relaxed and the service typically rushed especially in F.

Tommy, it's not better it's different. Regardless if it is sUA or sCO, when they are not flying, they are not getting paid. For many FA, sitting in hotel room is a waste of time and money, and they'd much rather be home or working another trip to maximize hours. The sCO contract gives FAs options. If you want to pick up a trip or do back to back TCONs, you can. But you don't have to. The sUA one doesn't and has you sitting in a hotel room. Compared to AA, sCO, and DL, the sUA contract is a aberration in the US industry.

Better Crew Rest / Layover benefits are on the sUA contract. Getting worn down flying through time zones and needing time off is certainly not a "waste of time & money." That's so wrong to say that.

I don't think it is. Both have their pros & cons but calling the sUA contract an "aberration" is flat out wrong. That's propaganda if you ask me.

What they should do (regardless of which sub you're on) is making sure sitting in the galley and flipping through magazines when F class passengers need service is monitored and corrected.

I flew with an sCO crew on 5/22 from MCO to LAX. Upon boarding the aircraft, I asked the FA at the boarding door if they were able to have a layover in MCO or were they coming from somewhere else. She told me that they had just flown in from LAX and were working the turn back to LA. I commented that they were going to have a really long day. She responded with a weak smile. The flight attendants were all very nice and polite, but it was obvious that they were also very tired. There were some lapses in the service but the most glaring one was that they never picked up any trash after distributing drinks and snacks. They began to do so, but the captain turned on the fasten seat belt sign, the FAs took their seats, and unfortunately never resumed with picking up trash. They even curtained themselves off in the back of the 737-800 for almost 35 minutes while the Y cabin passengers were trying to balance used cups, cans, papers, napkins etc. It became so bad that one of the passengers rang the call button and questioned the responding FA about this and received a polite, but firm response to the tune of: " We already picked up the trash." An argument ensued between the passenger and FA when the passenger asked the FA to look around the cabin and see for herself. Trash was everywhere. Another FA seemed to feel a bit guilty and made a half-hearted attempt to diffuse the situation by collecting what she could from a few trash-laden passengers. This really isn't a direct criticism of the FAs because if anyone really bothered to look at them, the crew looked thoroughly exhausted. They were very nice, but also very tired. They really seemed way overworked, in my opinion. If this type of scheduling is allowable under the sCO contract, I think I understand why some on the UA side might be a bit hesitant about incorporating this scheduling work rule into the new contract. My experience is only anecdotal, but I believe it is also very telling.

quiet1 wrote:

I'm curious if there will be any "early out" retirement incentive. Even, perhaps, in the form of a signing bonus, after which disenfranchised folks can take the money and run.

There already has been one on the sUA side as my now retired sUA FA mom took the "early out" retirement deal back in November 2014.

Considering that so much tension has built up between both the sUA and sCO groups some folks will want out to avoid the potential conflicts that may arise from the final integration.

caleb1 wrote:

If this type of scheduling is allowable under the sCO contract, I think I understand why some on the UA side might be a bit hesitant about incorporating this scheduling work rule into the new contract. My experience is only anecdotal, but I believe it is also very telling.

Keep in mind, this type of scheduling is also allowed by FAA regs so it's not like the sCO contract is doing something outside of established crew rest minimums. If some younger employees have no problem working these longer days and have the opportunity to either earn more or get their monthly hours logged in a shorter period of time, why would AFA want to take that option away from its members?

If some FAs don't want to work these type of work days, they can either opt to not bid them or simply trade out of them. On the other hand, a long duty day is never an excuse to hide behind the curtain and neglect basic job requirements.

Well I guess we shall see the details later, it's still too early. This FA from the CO side was adamant about the CO contract and preferred its provisions.

jetblastdubai wrote:

caleb1 wrote:

If some younger employees have no problem working these longer days and have the opportunity to either earn more or get their monthly hours logged in a shorter period of time, why would AFA want to take that option away from its members?

Umm, it's in very the nature of U.S. collective bargaining. Withhold something the company wants in order to get a better deal for the represented craft as a whole.

Others outside the negotiation don't have to like it (they may envy it) -- but they do need to understand it.

caleb1 wrote:

I flew with an sCO crew on 5/22 from MCO to LAX. Upon boarding the aircraft, I asked the FA at the boarding door if they were able to have a layover in MCO or were they coming from somewhere else. She told me that they had just flown in from LAX and were working the turn back to LA. I commented that they were going to have a really long day. She responded with a weak smile. The flight attendants were all very nice and polite, but it was obvious that they were also very tired. There were some lapses in the service but the most glaring one was that they never picked up any trash after distributing drinks and snacks. They began to do so, but the captain turned on the fasten seat belt sign, the FAs took their seats, and unfortunately never resumed with picking up trash. They even curtained themselves off in the back of the 737-800 for almost 35 minutes while the Y cabin passengers were trying to balance used cups, cans, papers, napkins etc. It became so bad that one of the passengers rang the call button and questioned the responding FA about this and received a polite, but firm response to the tune of: " We already picked up the trash." An argument ensued between the passenger and FA when the passenger asked the FA to look around the cabin and see for herself. Trash was everywhere. Another FA seemed to feel a bit guilty and made a half-hearted attempt to diffuse the situation by collecting what she could from a few trash-laden passengers. This really isn't a direct criticism of the FAs because if anyone really bothered to look at them, the crew looked thoroughly exhausted. They were very nice, but also very tired. They really seemed way overworked, in my opinion. If this type of scheduling is allowable under the sCO contract, I think I understand why some on the UA side might be a bit hesitant about incorporating this scheduling work rule into the new contract. My experience is only anecdotal, but I believe it is also very telling.

It really all depends - I've had some bad apples from both sides. One time I got reamed back in 2013 when I was in F and an unaccompanied minor next to me asked me to go to the bathroom when there was turbulence. The sCO F/A's were nowhere to be found so I rang the call button (because I honestly didn't know). One came over and I got an earful about how she had to get up when the sign was on. I then said the young girl next to me asked if she could use the lav and she didn't know, she shut her trap. I definitely made her feel like an idiot for sure. The service was generally bad on that flight but the food was good.

On the other hand, met a sCO 777 pilot recently out here in Denver at a brewery and we hit it off. Great guy, definitely gave a lot of perspective. One thing he did say is how the pilots kind of worry about their own kind rather than the F/A's with separate contracts. He also said he didn't have much interaction with sUA pilots (he was International 777 getting a cert at the training center.) He did say the hate towards Smisek was universal and that nobody liked him.

If you have Facebook. There is the group "Sisterhood and Brotherhood of the traveling scarves and ties." Here is what I found

Joint MEC Unanimously Approves Tentative Agreement

Date: 6/28/2016

Dear Fellow Flight Attendants:

We have a Tentative Agreement. We stand behind the Tentative Agreement and unanimously approved submitting it to AFA members for ratification.

As the elected leaders representing all 25,000 United Flight Attendants, we reviewed with our Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC), line-by-line, the language agreed to with United Airlines management for a joint collective bargaining agreement. We also reviewed the process by which our JNC fought for our collective priorities to join three contracts, extend beneficial provisions to the whole group and advance the overall value of our joint contract to lead the industry. We thank every Flight Attendant who took part in supporting our negotiations.

With your approval, our Flight Attendant contract will set new industry standards that push our careers forward as United Airlines seeks to restore our premiere status in the industry. Some of these provisions include:

Improved single pay scale with base rates topping out in the 13th year at $62.00 and moving to $67.11 throughout the agreement.
$2.00 international override per hour and reimbursement for Global Entry.
$5.00 incentive rate of pay for all flying between 200 and 330 hours in a quarter.
Preserved our Flight Attendant-specific healthcare plan, with additional Medical Plan options.
Profit Sharing
Protected Scope language that defines Flight Attendant work as belonging to AFA members on the United Airlines System Seniority list – all CAL/UAL/CMI.
No Furlough Letter for all Flight Attendants on seniority list at date of ratification.
Holiday Pay for 5 holidays each year.
Per diem at $2.20 Domestic / $2.70 for International with automatic $0.05 increase every other year
Three (3) hours flight time pay and credit for training, plus up to five (5) hours deadhead pay each way to and from training.
Industry-leading Reassignment protections and pay.
Commuter Program without usage limit and cabin jumpseat qualifies as an available seat for commuting purposes.
No weight restrictions for CJA.
12 days off for Reserves and 12 hours free from duty at home between trips.
Reserves have ability to trade assigned trips with Lineholders or other Reserves.
New ability for Reserves to pick up flying from Lineholders on days off.
Domestic 10 hours free from duty on layovers, with at least 8 hours place of lodging at hotel.
12 hours free from duty at home between trips for Domestic Lineholders, but waivable at Flight Attendant option to 10 hours when trading or picking up.
Contractual hotel standards with downtown/downtown-like hotels for layovers of 19 hours or more.
Hotel Gainsharing, domestic and International
Vacation days ranging from 12 days to 40 days, with an additional 7 day Flex Vacation and optional Vacation Fly Through.
Maintained and improved Retirement Plans.
Maintained floor exchange rates.
5 year duration with early opener.
The JNC has not stopped working since reaching an agreement on the terms of the contract Friday morning, June 24th. We will continue to work diligently to proof the language of the Tentative Agreement and prepare information for your review. We appreciate your patience, it will take several days before more detailed information is posted. Make sure you are signed up for updates on OurContract.org.

Following presentation of all of the details of the Tentative Agreement and the full contract language, the JNC will begin a series of Information Sessions around the system, including a live Webcast planned for July 13th. Information will be sent to members' homes and balloting will start after you have access to the full Tentative Agreement. We encourage you to take the time necessary to review all of the information and get all of your questions answered. Seeking accurate information is especially important in this contract vote since many terms will be new for everyone and this is the foundation for our future together.

We share a proud history of serving as frontline first responders whether formerly working as United, Continental, Continental Micronesia or hired since the merger date of October 1, 2010. The past several years have created unimaginable challenges for all of us as employees of United Airlines. Flight Attendants deserve a joint collective bargaining agreement to obtain all of the benefits of a fully integrated airline and which reflects our hard work on the frontline of United Airlines. Now is the time to move forward. We are stronger and better together.

In Solidarity,

The AFA-CWA United Airlines JNC and Joint CAL/CMI/UAL MEC

WOW.
Those are some pretty good economic terms there.

No signing bonus or retro pay, which is a tradeoff.

The incentive rate is a carryover from sCO (not sure if sUA had that), but that's not a bad thing to keep around for those FAs who choose to be very productive.

sCO FAs don't have any holiday pay now (sUA does), same with training pay I think.

Reserve rules look to be improved, at least on sCO side. 12 hours is a much better window and trip trading is more flexible, so that's really a nice quality of life thing and gives the company more flexibility too.

And the time off duty on layovers--10 hours is HUGE! This is a major quality of life thing, and will cost the company in efficiency somewhat, but is really necessary. So often a FA will get into city XYZ late, pax deplane, they deplane, get on the van, go to hotel (drive times are wildly inconsistent), check in, and then are expected to crash instantly to get up early AM for an early show. Having 10 hours in is a major improvement.

***

So that announcement is all wine and roses. The drawbacks, if you want to call it that, will be published and talked to later I'm sure. But I'd bet a million bucks that there will be minimum duty hours worked per month (something sUA doesn't have, so the company carries literally dead unproductive weight on the employment rolls which costs money and they get zero work from), and I'd also bet that the prior bifurcation on the sCO side of domestic vs intl bases will disappear. And it should really.

The hourly rates are pretty impressive though, wow.

I'm not an expert on either companies contracts, but I have reviewed both of them. Doesn't United have some very good health plans for flight attendants? I've heard some FAs say they pay very little in monthly premiums for some very good plans which is quite rare.

slider wrote:

WOW.
Those are some pretty good economic terms there.

No signing bonus or retro pay, which is a tradeoff.

The incentive rate is a carryover from sCO (not sure if sUA had that), but that's not a bad thing to keep around for those FAs who choose to be very productive.

sCO FAs don't have any holiday pay now (sUA does), same with training pay I think.

Reserve rules look to be improved, at least on sCO side. 12 hours is a much better window and trip trading is more flexible, so that's really a nice quality of life thing and gives the company more flexibility too.

And the time off duty on layovers--10 hours is HUGE! This is a major quality of life thing, and will cost the company in efficiency somewhat, but is really necessary. So often a FA will get into city XYZ late, pax deplane, they deplane, get on the van, go to hotel (drive times are wildly inconsistent), check in, and then are expected to crash instantly to get up early AM for an early show. Having 10 hours in is a major improvement.

***

So that announcement is all wine and roses. The drawbacks, if you want to call it that, will be published and talked to later I'm sure. But I'd bet a million bucks that there will be minimum duty hours worked per month (something sUA doesn't have, so the company carries literally dead unproductive weight on the employment rolls which costs money and they get zero work from), and I'd also bet that the prior bifurcation on the sCO side of domestic vs intl bases will disappear. And it should really.

The hourly rates are pretty impressive though, wow.

Yeah that's a deal. And Smisek's team couldn't get to this? Absolutely ridiculous.

On this Facebook page I referenced, you can see all the signatories and their titles. I am impressed. I don't know why this was so hard to agree on beforehand. It seems pretty straightforward.
I am happy to have come across this to share with all of you!

piedmont762 wrote:

slider wrote:

WOW.
Those are some pretty good economic terms there.

No signing bonus or retro pay, which is a tradeoff.

The incentive rate is a carryover from sCO (not sure if sUA had that), but that's not a bad thing to keep around for those FAs who choose to be very productive.

sCO FAs don't have any holiday pay now (sUA does), same with training pay I think.

Reserve rules look to be improved, at least on sCO side. 12 hours is a much better window and trip trading is more flexible, so that's really a nice quality of life thing and gives the company more flexibility too.

And the time off duty on layovers--10 hours is HUGE! This is a major quality of life thing, and will cost the company in efficiency somewhat, but is really necessary. So often a FA will get into city XYZ late, pax deplane, they deplane, get on the van, go to hotel (drive times are wildly inconsistent), check in, and then are expected to crash instantly to get up early AM for an early show. Having 10 hours in is a major improvement.

***

So that announcement is all wine and roses. The drawbacks, if you want to call it that, will be published and talked to later I'm sure. But I'd bet a million bucks that there will be minimum duty hours worked per month (something sUA doesn't have, so the company carries literally dead unproductive weight on the employment rolls which costs money and they get zero work from), and I'd also bet that the prior bifurcation on the sCO side of domestic vs intl bases will disappear. And it should really.

The hourly rates are pretty impressive though, wow.

Yeah that's a deal. And Smisek's team couldn't get to this? Absolutely ridiculous.

To be fair, this isn't all on Smisek. There's no question the changing of the guard kind of reinvigorated things. But the respective MECs and negotiating committees couldn't agree on the color of the sky for the longest time.

This isn't a done deal. There are FAs already squawking about voting no (which is moronic to say without having read the contract), and the cultural rift is still there.

But yeah, this is impressive on a lot of levels just based on the early highlights. We'll see what the rest of work rules all cover.

I'd put the blame mostly on him with his elitist inability to work with the unions and sway his people (ex-CO) into a joint contract. He completely failed as CEO, but this was such a huge deal that he mismanaged.

The fact that there is a "cultural rift" this long into the merger is beyond pathetic. Not nearly the case at DL or AA.

Here is a story, there are still some sticking points..

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news ... e-too.html

piedmont762 wrote:

I'd put the blame mostly on him with his elitist inability to work with the unions and sway his people (ex-CO) into a joint contract. He completely failed as CEO, but this was such a huge deal that he mismanaged.

The fact that there is a "cultural rift" this long into the merger is beyond pathetic. Not nearly the case at DL or AA.

Not to be argumentative, but again, the respective workgroups couldn't agree on anything--that condition existed with or without Smisek. Not defending the guy, but certainly his toxic presence didn't help.

The cultures at DL and AA weren't/aren't nearly as polar opposite as with UA/CO. Trust me on this one.

slider wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

I'd put the blame mostly on him with his elitist inability to work with the unions and sway his people (ex-CO) into a joint contract. He completely failed as CEO, but this was such a huge deal that he mismanaged.

The fact that there is a "cultural rift" this long into the merger is beyond pathetic. Not nearly the case at DL or AA.

Not to be argumentative, but again, the respective workgroups couldn't agree on anything--that condition existed with or without Smisek. Not defending the guy, but certainly his toxic presence didn't help.

The cultures at DL and AA weren't/aren't nearly as polar opposite as with UA/CO. Trust me on this one.

I mean, this agreement is pretty common sense and it seems like everyone is falling in line nicely. I don't understand why Smisek and the rest of the executive team couldn't get to this point. It's total ignorance & corruption on his part.

Cultures at AA & DL in their merger situations aren't nearly as bad. NW & US got wiped out, the CO identity remained (as did a lot of the management team) which made it tough for people to move on. I've been on UA flight as late as last year where an F/A was b*tching about how she's still sCO and how much better CO was during a delay. Nearly 5 years into the merger? Com'on, that's just childish.

These are flight attendants though - I think the pilots are better integrated and have created better unity. Mainly because sUA & sCO could all rally behind how much Smisek sucked.

piedmont762 wrote:

slider wrote:

piedmont762 wrote:

I'd put the blame mostly on him with his elitist inability to work with the unions and sway his people (ex-CO) into a joint contract. He completely failed as CEO, but this was such a huge deal that he mismanaged.

The fact that there is a "cultural rift" this long into the merger is beyond pathetic. Not nearly the case at DL or AA.

Not to be argumentative, but again, the respective workgroups couldn't agree on anything--that condition existed with or without Smisek. Not defending the guy, but certainly his toxic presence didn't help.

The cultures at DL and AA weren't/aren't nearly as polar opposite as with UA/CO. Trust me on this one.

I mean, this agreement is pretty common sense and it seems like everyone is falling in line nicely. I don't understand why Smisek and the rest of the executive team couldn't get to this point. It's total ignorance & corruption on his part.

Cultures at AA & DL in their merger situations aren't nearly as bad. NW & US got wiped out, the CO identity remained (as did a lot of the management team) which made it tough for people to move on. I've been on UA flight as late as last year where an F/A was b*tching about how she's still sCO and how much better CO was during a delay. Nearly 5 years into the merger? Com'on, that's just childish.

These are flight attendants though - I think the pilots are better integrated and have created better unity. Mainly because sUA & sCO could all rally behind how much Smisek sucked.

Tommy767, please stop and read the posts above. DL and NW are totally different from UA given that DL is/was non Union and there's no contract to negotiate. Even after the merger.

The UA and CO work rules were completely divergent. Business 101 is you don't negotiate against yourself. Management needed a unified proposal from the union before they can negotiate a joint contract. Had this not gone to mediation, this would never have happened, with or without smisek.

And the only reason this went to mediation is because AFA filed for mediation. Let's be clear: The company did not want mediation. Furthermore, prior to Oscar Munoz's arrival, senior management did not take negotiations seriously. They resented the fact that AFA prevailed as the collective bargaining representative in the representation election. Negotiations would be scheduled and conference rooms booked at neutral locations throughout the system. Company executives would then abruptly cancel meetings that has been planned for weeks and/or just not show up. There was no meaningful progress until Jeff Smisek was ousted and Oscar Munoz came in. His heart attack was an obvious setback, but when he was well enough to return to work, he personally reached out to AFA Leadership and became the demonstration of his word. For the first time in 5 years, there was weekly dialogue between UA senior leadership (Oscar himself) and Sara Nelson, the AFA International MEC President (who also happens to be a UA F/A).

While the TA preserves both s-CO flexibility and s-UA duty rigs and benefits, there is a collective disappointment that there is no signing bonus with this TA. Six years is a long time to have waited for a tentative Joint Contract to be reached. There's a sense that either some retro-active pay or a signing bonus would've been appropriate compensation to offset the pay disparity between United F/A's and our network peers at AA and DL during the past few years. As such, many of us are confronted with diminished expectations with regard to the TA.

"If some younger employees have no problem working these longer days and have the opportunity to either earn more or get their monthly hours logged in a shorter period of time, why would AFA want to take that option away from its members? "

In theory that is a good idea, but as some others have reported here, the longer work days the sCO folks engage in sometimes affects the quality of service provided...so if the company can enforce acceptable levels of service and policy enforcement, then it seems logical...from a passengers perspective, the service needs to get better across the board and MUCH more consistent.

Jamake1 wrote:

And the only reason this went to mediation is because AFA filed for mediation. Let's be clear: The company did not want mediation. Furthermore, prior to Oscar Munoz's arrival, senior management did not take negotiations seriously. They resented the fact that AFA prevailed as the collective bargaining representative in the representation election. Negotiations would be scheduled and conference rooms booked at neutral locations throughout the system. Company executives would then abruptly cancel meetings that has been planned for weeks and/or just not show up. There was no meaningful progress until Jeff Smisek was ousted and Oscar Munoz came in. His heart attack was an obvious setback, but when he was well enough to return to work, he personally reached out to AFA Leadership and became the demonstration of his word. For the first time in 5 years, there was weekly dialogue between UA senior leadership (Oscar himself) and Sara Nelson, the AFA International MEC President (who also happens to be a UA F/A).

While the TA preserves both s-CO flexibility and s-UA duty rigs and benefits, there is a collective disappointment that there is no signing bonus with this TA. Six years is a long time to have waited for a tentative Joint Contract to be reached. There's a sense that either some retro-active pay or a signing bonus would've been appropriate compensation to offset the pay disparity between United F/A's and our network peers at AA and DL during the past few years. As such, many of us are confronted with diminished expectations with regard to the TA.

Well, maybe some of that ire and disappointment should be directed towards AFA...the union leadership has plenty blame to share here, its not like EVERY other union was shut out from getting a joint contract out of Smisek and company. So...maybe that loss of signing bonus is the price the rank and file pay for electing crappy union leadership.