Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 99): To me the APFA leaders failed its members. Management was in a win-win situation. Voting yes for that reason only gives management ammunition and a head start in base negotiations for future contracts. I think there were enough FAs that had pride in their job to make a short-term sacrifice for hopefully future gains. If you want to give money to a company go work for a charity.

Yet now they have to negotiate from a 40% less point when this contract is over. Pride doesn't pay the bills for 5 years and there after. The F/A's pride cost them big time

[Edited 2014-11-11 11:30:28]

Quoting miaami (Reply 100): Pride doesn't pay the bills for 5 years

Sorry guys, but I do not believe 1 minute this was a matter of pride, rather then the idea turning down the TA would result in a better outcome. I'm sure Mrs Gladding didn't promote that. So who did?

Quoting miaami (Reply 98): Yet the only thing that the arbitrator will decide is compensation. ALL the other details are already agreed to. Compensation is really the only thing that will change, the nitty gritty of the TA remain intact. There is no logic as to why they turned this down unless of coarse the F/A's feel they make too much money already.

The TA will not remain intact the union now has a responsibility to find out from the membership what parts of the contract were unacceptable and go back to the table to renegotiate those terms and while that might cost FA's a dollar or two an hour. One thing that I have learned over the years is money isn't everything and getting a huge raise won't necessarily make a person happy or be the answer to all their financial problems especially if they are already living above their means. That money will be gone before the first paycheck ever hits the bank so stop focusing on the money aspect.

Don't take this next statement personally because I mean no disrespect.

But it is people like you who fail to truly read and understand a contract who vote in favor of a contract based upon the money who are the first to start complaining when management starts enforcing the not so good parts of a contract that you voted for. Then all of a sudden management becomes the devil who is out to destroy you but yet you gave management the power when you voted in favor of a contract without a full understanding of it simply because all you wanted was the money. I find it funny when contract employees start saying the company is at fault for enforcing this agreement, or the union is at fault for proposing this agreement, everyone is at fault except you the person who voted in favor of the contract. When less than favorable contracts are passed simply because people voted based upon a raise I feel like when the enforcement starts you should take Gov.Chris Christie's advise which I though was very funny when he told the guy last week to: shut up and sit down.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 97): Didn't Delta get wind of the initial tentative agreement and announced a substantial profit sharing check (non-contractual) for their flight attendants

Not exactly. Delta did announce an additional 3-4% raise for all front-line personnel in 2015 as a result of the AA TA.

Profit sharing terms however did not change, though they did change the distribution (not sure if that was due to AA or not). Originally, all profit sharing checks were paid out in February (for the previous year's profits). But this year, they decided to pay 5% of the profit sharing in October 2014 instead, and the rest (which will amount to another 10+ % in February 2015). Ultimately, it will still beat the profit sharing check paid out in Feb 2014 (for 2013's profits) amounting to approx 8.25% of salary; 2014's profits will translate into an overall 15+% profit sharing....not bad at all...

Quoting panamair (Reply 103): Delta did announce an additional 3-4% raise for all front-line personnel in 2015 as a result of the AA TA

  
That's what it was. Delta announced it the day before APFA was going to come out with the initial TA, only for Gladding to go back to Parker and work that raise into the final TA.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 102): But it is people like you who fail to truly read and understand a contract who vote in favor of a contract based upon the money who are the first to start complaining when management starts enforcing the not so good parts of a contract that you voted for.

So the question still stands unanswered:

What were the items/elements in the contract that were at issue?

You state that people fail to understand but several people have requested help to better understand what the issues are but no one with knowledge of the situation has yet to actually help anyone understand. Instead just vague statements and nothing substantive.

No disrespect but can some one answer the question as to what were the problems in the contract? I am curious as I don't know since I am not affected by it.

Tugg

[quote=flyfree727,reply=81]USER
[quote=jayunited,reply=102]
Quoting miaami (Reply 98):
Yet the only thing that the arbitrator will decide is compensation. ALL the other details are already agreed to. Compensation is really the only thing that will change, the nitty gritty of the TA remain intact. There is no logic as to why they turned this down unless of coarse the F/A's feel they make too much money already.

The TA will not remain intact the union now has a responsibility to find out from the membership what parts of the contract were unacceptable and go back to the table to renegotiate those terms and while that might cost FA's a dollar or two an hour. One thing that I have learned over the years is money isn't everything and getting a huge raise won't necessarily make a person happy or be the answer to all their financial problems especially if they are already living above their means. That money will be gone before the first paycheck ever hits the bank so stop focusing on the money aspect.

Don't take this next statement personally because I mean no disrespect.

But it is people like you who fail to truly read and understand a contract who vote in favor of a contract based upon the money who are the first to start complaining when management starts enforcing the not so good parts of a contract that you voted for. Then all of a sudden management becomes the devil who is out to destroy you but yet you gave management the power when you voted in favor of a contract without a full understanding of it simply because all you wanted was the money. I find it funny when contract employees start saying the company is at fault for enforcing this agreement, or the union is at fault for proposing this agreement, everyone is at fault except you the person who voted in favor of the contract. When less than favorable contracts are passed simply because people voted based upon a raise I feel like when the enforcement starts you should take Gov.Chris Christie's advise which I though was very funny when he told the guy last week to: shut up and sit down.
[/

And that ladies and gentlemen is the reason why this contract didnt pass. Sir, you just became a member of my respected user list. Thanks for summing it up. If Parker is smart, I would engage in massive communication with the rank and file right now to figure out why this didn't pass. I think they I'll be surprised it wasn't about money at all.

Quoting Aacun (Reply 106): I think they I'll be surprised it wasn't about money at all

I was under the impression the TA took the best aspects of each contract (AA/US) and that determined the future work rules. That sounds like an incredibly sweet deal to me.
Maybe you could explain a couple of provisions you believe totally turned people off?

I don't know if you have seen below the Bloomberg article in post 9, but



In the commentary section of the Bloomberg article, there is a comment made by a "dtbklyn "


Quote:

" There is a lot, that if you are outside the industry wouldn't make sense. If you think it was voted down because the flight attendants wanted more, you'd be sadly mistaken.

This has to do with the following:

A. A medical plan that would evaporate a good part of the raise.
B. New productivity rules which would INCREASE exponentially the amount of unpaid work that flight attendants do.
C. Increase duty periods, generally without any breaks during a duty day.
D. Inequities on how the contract was split between merging work groups.
E. Undefined language in the contract.
F. A union leader who's credibility is questionable at best.

This probably would have passed easily if the leader of the APFA did not after, saying over and over the contract was iron clad and their could be no changes, make a MAJOR change overnight to a very important part of the contract...this was in the middle of the voting period.
"


End quote


Please understand that I do not know who "dtbklyn " is. I don't know this person and don't know if it's a fact what the person Writes.


Apparently it's not just the Money part.

I don't have it in front of me right now. But I have to tell you.... I read the whole thing. It was put together in a hurry and lots of articles seemed unfinished.... The Foreign National clause was so vague so called the union hotline and got the run around for an explanation and finally they got back to me to tell me everything was going to be the way it was.... But this was impossible under the new TA... I also had issues with our Deep South rocket trips. There were a lot of articles that mention. "As example or ie..." You can't have examples in a contract. You need specific writing. And you need to include possible future flying clauses..... The whole thing was put together thinking people were going to care only about money. But we are the ones that have to live by this TA. And we.... Only flight attendants understand the outcome a specific work rule change can have in our work life. I love outsiders giving us their opinion as to how we shot ourselves on the foot for voting this down. The people that voted yes had their reasons so as to the people that voted no. But only the AA flight attendants that sat and actually read thru the whole agreement understand now the reasons we are where we are.

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 77): I'm a bit surprised that Doug Partner didn't want to offer profit-sharing as part of the F/A compensation package. I personally believe that performance-based compensation...even in the airline industry...is a good way to keep all employees focused on the core values and strategic vision of the company. It creates a culture that puts every department and work group on the same page working toward a common goal.

That assumes that each individual F/A will have some sort of direct influence major swings in margin, which I assume isn't the case.

It's been shown that if compensation is based on something that is not directly impacted by day-to-day activities in a major way, it doesn't really work. Furthermore, it exacerbates the feeling of no control when the economy tanks, taking any chance of a bonus away.

Quoting Aacun (Reply 109): It was put together in a hurry and lots of articles seemed unfinished

Thanks man for helping us understand a little better what's going on   

I'm stunned. This seemed like a very uninformed vote. I guess the F/As will now learn the consequences. They'll get an OK deal, but not as OK as this offer. Cest la vie.

Saving AMR $82 million per year... very nice of the F/As. This strikes me as an idiot test... if you didn't vote yes...  

Quoting miaami (Reply 9): "The rejection will cost each flight attendant almost $17,000 in pay and benefits for each year of the five-year accord under arbitration terms set by a prior agreement with American, based on a union estimate. Attendants would have become the best paid in the U.S. industry. "

   I hope the protest was worth it...

Quoting commavia (Reply 21): Nearly every constituency other than the Facebook experts roundly agree that there is no chance of the contract coming out of binding arbitration being as good, let alone better, than this deal - I guess we'll soon see if they're correct.

From what I've read, that is correct.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 47): Those 4000 that did not vote, cannot complain!!!!!

Nope. They voted to go with the results.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 53): if your an airline employee this is near and dear to all of us. Your no vote and now a lower quality TA brings DOWN the rest of the industry.

Yep. This "No" vote menas the best the union can hope for is a short contract...
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ust-gave-money-back-to-the-airline

Quoting apodino (Reply 74): 3. This is the real head scratcher. A number of people voted No thinking the contract was going to pass anyways just as a protest vote and to try to send a message to Doug Parker. They didn't want the deal turned down but they all thought that the contract would pass so they voted no symbolically more as a message than as an attempt to turn down the contract and didn't think their vote counted that much. Well as we all know, it does matter that much.

I think we have a case where the unions like to stir up the membership... and didn't realize how it would backfire in this case.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 86): If I were the judge arbitrating this, I'd give them the bare minimum allowed.

That won't happen. It will be the maximum, which is $82million per year less than agreed to. This is just the union membership being difficult. The only question is how long will the new contract be set? The union should hope for a short duration. The company a long one...

Lightsaber

Does anyone have the the link to the contract.. I would like to read over it

It is all about the language of the proposal. If it identifies horrible situations then a person would vote no. How hard is that to understand?

I have 1 question.

Are we supposed to assume: 1) Doug team and AA legal, did everything to provide a BENEFICIAL contract for F/A.


All I see, is an abundant amount of "distrust" on both sides, claiming the action of the other will wreck the plans of the former. If the F/A had accepted the "industry leading" ( do not think so ) contract. They already would be typing the obituary for the company. Because it will be wrecked by cabin crew making more money than the "average".

Why not begin from the premise; I DP, want the best Paid F/A in the industry. So they can provide the best service for OUR customers. A refreshing new start, for a company with a lot of history of labor strife and distrust in the F/A ranks.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 24): If I had to go through Miami customs every time I got home from a trip, I would not be happy with any contract short of $200 an hour

welcome to my RU list. very funny AND true!

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 108):

He's 100% correct. This contract sounded great but once you read between the lines and figure out what's going to weigh down all the good things everyone else heard. You guys outside the industry don't really know what it was all about.

Quoting 4engines4lnghll (Reply 117): Quoting Mortyman (Reply 108): He's 100% correct. This contract sounded great but once you read between the lines and figure out what's going to weigh down all the good things everyone else heard. You guys outside the industry don't really know what it was all about. 4engines4lnghll

Spot on mate. Pay rates alone aren't everything in terms of quality of life for FAs. Stand strong and stand united APFA. Wishing you all the best. All the other airline FA workgroups are anxious to see what happens. Cheers!

Quoting 4engines4lnghll (Reply 117): He's 100% correct. This contract sounded great but once you read between the lines and figure out what's going to weigh down all the good things everyone else heard. You guys outside the industry don't really know what it was all about.

Fair enough.
What was going to make their lives miserable?
Were there stark rules on layovers, unfair cabin work rules? Insurance cuts? etc?

For all you "Industry" insiders and "experts" and those that think the guts of the contract are negotiable after the rejection of the TA, you may want to watch this video. Its APFA's lawyer explaining the process.

http://youtu.be/2yUuAygwIPs

I have yet to hear what was so horrible in the TA that it was worth giving up $17,000.00 per year per F/A.

Quoting miaami (Reply 120): I have yet to hear what was so horrible in the TA that it was worth giving up $17,000.00 per year per F/A.

You may not have seen this yet:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 108): Quote: " There is a lot, that if you are outside the industry wouldn't make sense. If you think it was voted down because the flight attendants wanted more, you'd be sadly mistaken. This has to do with the following: A. A medical plan that would evaporate a good part of the raise.

First of all, it's easy to say that the contract that was voted down doesn't do enough to get the F/As back to where they were before the concessions of 2003.

The airline industry is in a new world. Between the recession post Y2K, 9/11, and the 2008 recession following the collapse of the financial markets, airlines can't "print money" like they did in the late 1990s.

Businesses no longer are willing to pay obscene walk-up fares for last-minute travel. My wife's employer, in the financial services sector, has had a travel ban in place for nearly 2 years. To get travel approved requires 2 layers of supervisor approval.

The airlines are making money, because they charge for everything that used to be included in air fares, including talking to a live person to make a reservation, sitting in the front of the coach cabin and getting early boarding, checking bags, food in domestic coach, etc.

Second, the APFA supported Parker & Co. buying AA, because they didn't like Carty, Arpey, and Horton. I know that AA employees have pined for the good old days of Bob Crandall, but they detested him, when he was running AA, especially during contract negotiations.

The fact that Parker's team offered an industry-leading contract, which was increased after DL increased its F/A pay, certainly showed that Parker and his team wanted to get started on better terms than APFA had with Horton and Arpey. By voting down the TA, APFA rank-and-file are all but destroying the good will that Parker created by buying AMR/AA out of Chapter 11.

Third, those F/As who say that they can still get $111 million more than they have under the current contract terms don't understand basic economics. Milton Friedman used to say that life was about making choice and undertaking actions meant to improve one's situation.

You don't vote down a contract with an increased value of $193 million, for whatever reason, knowing that there will be no further negotiations, and that the arbritrator has a cap of $111 million, which he could judge as too high for the sake of the company and reduce.

It's one thing to think a stock will continue to rise, and then it starts falling. So, instead of a 50% gain, it's only 40%. The shareholder guess wrong and took a hit on his gain. But, when employees are told that there won't be a better contract, if voted down, by a agreement between management and the union leadership, the rank and file ought to take what they can get, do their part to make the company grow, and have its leadership work even harder during the next negotiations.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 122): airlines can't "print money" like they did in the late 1990s.

You're right - airlines can't "print money" like the did in the late 1990s - they can, and are, printing far, far more!  

Seriously, I understand some of the complaints that some of the FAs had about either the agreement itself, and/or the process, but by all rational and reputable accounts, regardless of how much they did or didn't like the circumstance, this no vote is going to result in less value accruing to the rank-and-file. I find it notable that numerous actual AA FAs - not pundits, analysts, management, "experts," etc. - are talking about the negative consequences of this no vote.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 122):

With all due respect...... May I ask, are you a flight attendant?

Quoting Aacun (Reply 124): With all due respect...... May I ask, are you a flight attendant?

No, just an aviation geek like everyone else here, although I have been an AMR shareholder from time to time. Back in the 1970s, my father was a labor relations executive with a Fortune 50 company, so I got an earful about unions, negotiations, arbitrations, etc. at the dinner table every night for 7 years.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 122): The airline industry is in a new world. Between the recession post Y2K, 9/11, and the 2008 recession following the collapse of the financial markets, airlines can't "print money" like they did in the late 1990s.

I'm throwing up the    on this one.

AAG made a BILLION dollars in profit in 3 months, and they weren't even the top of the pack in margins.

Quoting commavia (Reply 123): I find it notable that numerous actual AA FAs - not pundits, analysts, management, "experts," etc. - are talking about the negative consequences of this no vote.

Not surprised since it only was voted down by 16 votes. The Yes voters feel screwed and rightly so. The F/A's at AA have lowered the bar for themselves and other unionized F/A's at other carriers. At the end of this contract they are already in the hole by 40%.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 121): You may not have seen this yet:Quoting Mortyman (Reply 108):Quote:" There is a lot, that if you are outside the industry wouldn't make sense. If you think it was voted down because the flight attendants wanted more, you'd be sadly mistaken.This has to do with the following:A. A medical plan that would evaporate a good part of the raise.

The LUS F/A's would have seen the biggest change in medical costs and they were going to get a one time $3000.00 pay out to help off set the new medical. That $3000 probably just evaporated on Sunday thanks to their fellow LAA F/A's. The Medical costs to LAA F/A's was not going to change to the amount of $17,000 per year that's for sure. With this TA rejection AA F/A's will probably be the lowest paid of all the majors and they did it to themselves.

Here is a little article for those that think that there will be any additional negotiations.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-but-it-wont-be-negotiations.html/

[Edited 2014-11-12 10:38:09]

Quoting miaami (Reply 127): Not surprised since it only was voted down by 16 votes.

Down by that much, but the negativity will come from the thousand who voted for and against, those 16 will be irrelevant.
A landslide vote either way would have been preferable.

Quoting miaami (Reply 93): Wrong again.

Please don't "wrong again" me when you've never corrected me a first time. Bottom line, APFA got the "guaranteed" money (est profit sharing) and to get the 4% APFA gave that up. So, in essence, the profit sharing "deal" was given away to get the 4% at the last second. That information is NOT wrong once, twice or again. Cheers.

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 97): Didn't Delta get wind of the initial tentative agreement and announced a substantial profit sharing check (non-contractual) for their flight attendants,

As another has stated the announced raises came BEFORE the TA was announced and the profit sharing went to ALL Delta employees (the early pay out) and has really nothing to do with the APFA TA. It wasn't a case of juking the system over and against APFA.

Think about it: why would DL offer an early profit sharing to cause APFA to blink? It doesn't make sense. And they certainly wouldn't up the ante by announcing pay raises AFTER a TA as that would just put their costs higher than they'd budgeted.

It's a shame that such a strong contract was voted down. If someone told me "this is the best it'll be" well guess what. I'm gonna go for the best. I'd be terrified of the next offer.

YES, we all have career choices. Stay or go... I suppose some will go. Oh well....

I find it interesting that there's so many comparisons between Delta and AA flight attendants.

Delta tells it's employees that because of profit sharing...they're making more than AA.

AA flight attendants think that they're getting less than DL because they don't have profit sharing.



Why can't they do math?

They complain about rising health insurance costs, but why doesn't anyone consider the amount a DL flight attendant has to pay for insurance. In 2014 their most popular plan costs about $300 per month for a family, has a $3,450 deductible, and a $9,000 coinsurance maximum. That's a worst case scenario cost of over $16,000 per year. Meanwhile an AA flight attendant pays $275 per month, has a $2,250 family deductible, and a $5,000 coinsurance max bringing their total to a max of just over $10,000. That right there is a $6,000 per year difference in medical costs alone! Why does nobody talk about this?

Under the AA agreement, the AA flight attendants would also receive more vacation, more sick time, a higher 401k match, better work rules, higher overrides for international and pursers, higher pay for language flight attendants, more $$$ for uniforms, and better benefits.

Why does nobody mention any of this? Don't any of these things have a considerate value?

Quoting phillyramp270 (Reply 113): Does anyone have the the link to the contract.. I would like to read over it

It should be avaialble here:
http://www.apfa.org/negotiations

Quoting xdlx (Reply 115): I DP, want the best Paid F/A in the industry. So they can provide the best service for OUR customers. A refreshing new start, for a company with a lot of history of labor strife and distrust in the F/A ranks.

Because even that would be torn apart and questioned. As you see in quite a few posts here it is not the pay that matters as much as it is the scope and benefits.

Quoting OOer (Reply 132): That right there is a $6,000 per year difference in medical costs alone! Why does nobody talk about this?

It is just a potential cost. It is not a real cost that most members will be confronted with in any given year.

Tugg

Quoting Tugger (Reply 133): It is just a potential cost. It is not a real cost that most members will be confronted with in any given year.

A substantial majority at the very least hit their deductible every year. So in an average scenario, the profit sharing Delta receives is used to cover the discrepancy between the 2 medical plans. The average AA flight attendant has over 20 years seniority...meaning they're in their 40s and 50s which translate in elevated health costs.

Then add all those other things I mentioned. Just the override for international flying at AA is TRIPLE what DL pays.

Quoting miaami (Reply 127): The LUS F/A's would have seen the biggest change in medical costs and they were going to get a one time $3000.00 pay out to help off set the new medical. That $3000 probably just evaporated on Sunday thanks to their fellow LAA F/A's. The Medical costs to LAA F/A's was not going to change to the amount of $17,000 per year that's for sure. With this TA rejection AA F/A's will probably be the lowest paid of all the majors and they did it to themselves.

The US FAs have a better medical plan. How much longer they would have kept that plan, is questionable. But let's not stir the pot with pinning one group, against the other. Saying "Thanks to their fellow LAA FA's", is the kind of drama, and disdain AA does not need.

You don't know if AA FA's will be the lowest paid. You don't know the outcome yet, and your view is yours, but it's not factual. It's just your opinion. We all need to respect everyone's choice on the matter.

This TA brought some controversial items. Here's a few of the hot topics, that didn't settle well with members -

No profit sharing. (When DL/WN have it.)

Holiday pay. Instead of time and a half, they're offering only $75 per trip. Not an hour, per trip.

40 hour minimums a month. Right now, FAs can drop their entire schedule, and be off the whole month. This is popular with the mommies, how have a family, and a spouse who can support them financially. Or people who have another source of income, and this is just an added benefit. These are usually people who are senior enough to hold pretty good trips. This option was frowned upon by many. Since it would cut their cushy position. A couple of days after the TA being announced, Glading announced to the membership, that if voted yes, this particular provision would be removed. If voted down, it would remain. This didn't sit well with many, and didn't help her cause.

Medical insurance. (An ever increasing issue.)

And there were others, but these were the top items that caused quite a stir.

In the end, the membership was divided, and many uninformed. Glading's back and forth stance on issues, and not standing her ground, made many doubt her leadership. Members felt they didn't trust her. And that's were it all stands today. We'll see whether they end up with less, or more. No one knows. It's not all black and white. And it's certainly not just about getting paid more an hour.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 126): I'm throwing up the    on this one. AAG made a BILLION dollars in profit in 3 months, and they weren't even the top of the pack in margins.

How much of that profit was from fares and how much was from the variety of fees that didn't exist 10 or 15 years ago?

If Congress ever decided that every person should be entitled to 1 free checked bag, because TSA believes that fewer carry-ons would improve safety and reduce the time that passengers spend going through security checkpoints, that would probably have a major impact on both revenue and profits.

Airlines don't make the kind of money off tickets that they did in the 1990s, and if I'm a finance guy, I'm telling labor relations to use ticket revenue and not total revenue as the number to work from, when it comes to negotiating a contract. There are plenty of cheap people out there who carry on their bags, won't change their reservation, won't buy a snack, etc.

We know that business has gotten cheap with international flying, since so many U.S. carriers have reduced or completely gotten rid of international first class.

And most Americans believe that cheap gas is not here to stay. In 6 months, the price of oil could very well be back over $100 a barrel, especially if news from the Middle East goes sour.

Quoting miaami (Reply 120): have yet to hear what was so horrible in the TA that it was worth giving up $17,000.00 per year per F/A.

Yes, I'd like to see a table of pros and cons spelled out by *costs*. Pick the worst hit F/A group but also note *that* groups benefits. So OK, this becomes 3 tables...

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 108): This has to do with the following: A. A medical plan that would evaporate a good part of the raise. B. New productivity rules which would INCREASE exponentially the amount of unpaid work that flight attendants do. C. Increase duty periods, generally without any breaks during a duty day. D. Inequities on how the contract was split between merging work groups. E. Undefined language in the contract. F. A union leader who's credibility is questionable at best.

A. Medical isn't going up that much, even for the hardest hit F/A groups. Let's quantify the costs.
B. How much? Let's quantify the number of additional hours. Exponential is hyperbole. Let's quantify it. With improved automation, 'free hours' have been dropping in the industry. Are the F/As so afraid of iPads (or other computers) they think they'll really be doing 'paper work?' Look at how much B6 has reduced uncompensated time via automation. AMR and its unions should be jumping on that trend!
C. There are Federally mandated breaks. I've seen FAs sit and ignore passengers to take those breaks. But on the other hand, if I walk into the back galley and see a FA eating I will say "sorry, how long until your lunch is over" and kindly walk out so they may enjoy a meal that is only mildly rushed.
D. Details please. It becomes a unified group in the end...
F. OK. And? That doesn't mean vote emotionally if you don't trust the union. Seriously.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 24): If I had to go through Miami customs every time I got home from a trip, I would not be happy with any contract short of $200 an hour

   True. *and* only with the time through customs compensated at said rate.  

Quoting miaami (Reply 127): The Medical costs to LAA F/A's was not going to change to the amount of $17,000 per year that's for sure. With this TA rejection AA F/A's will probably be the lowest paid of all the majors and they did it to themselves.

I'd like to see things quantified fully. All the math says the F/As did a big mistake.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 135): You don't know if AA FA's will be the lowest paid. You don't know the outcome yet, and your view is yours, but it's not factual. It's just your opinion. We all need to respect everyone's choice on the matter.

The mediator has a budget. That we know. We know that budget is *less* than what was offered. How does one respect a mob doing poor math?

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 135): In the end, the membership was divided, and many uninformed. Glading's back and forth stance on issues, and not standing her ground, made many doubt her leadership. Members felt they didn't trust her. And that's were it all stands today.

Uninformed is the individuals fault. There were links to the contract. When binding arbitration has a lower budget... it is hard to argue they'll do anything but worse. $82M less budget per year is significant. Others say that is $17k less per F/A per year. (Wait... 2*10^4 * 1.7*10^4 is 3.4 * 10^8 not 8.2 * 10^7.... So my math says closer to $4k per F/A per year less. The 17k is from the delayed compensation, but since enough of that will happen... the F/As won't do *that* poorly except until there is a new contract it is a differed $17k for the first year. But they lost that $3k signing bonus...)

Question, is there ever a signing bonus after mediation, or is it just a 'done deal?' I'm not aware of any signing bonuses, but others would know more than I in this particular topic.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 135): We'll see whether they end up with less, or more. No one knows. It's not all black and white. And it's certainly not just about getting paid more an hour.

Since AA's takeover of TWA, the rules have been made much more concrete. It isn't about pay per hour. It is a *budget* for the group. Either work rules improve for the company or the pay raise and benefits drop. Since the total budget has dropped... It will be worse. What was so bad in the last contract?



Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 137): The mediator has a budget. That we know. We know that budget is *less* than what was offered. How does one respect a mob doing poor math?

Because at least they voted. I respect them, regardless of their yes/no vote. I don't however, respect someone who didn't vote at all. Regardless if you, and I think it was poor math, we have to respect their vote.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 137): Uninformed is the individuals fault.

Which in this case, is a few thousand.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 137): Question, is there ever a signing bonus after mediation, or is it just a 'done deal?' I'm not aware of any signing bonuses, but others would know more than I in this particular topic.

Exactly. No one knows. Everyone on here can say they're screwed, or they made the right decision. We'll see what transpires, because most on this site are misinformed on this TA, and the particularities of why it was voted down.

And for the record - I'm neutral. I see both sides have a point. They outcome will prove who was right after all.

Quoting miaami (Reply 120):

Say what you will. If you knew what was really going on inside the airline you'd understand. That pay raise sounds great and I assure you every FA was happy, but when everything was read fully it would come out to be only a 2% raise a year. Over the next 5-10 years. They weren't about to get their full pay back the next month. Insurance would've almost doubled. No profit sharing. More hours needed for a descent pay check. Maybe now you can get a sense what it really looked like.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 138): Regardless if you, and I think it was poor math, we have to respect their vote.

I like democracy and the right to vote. But as an American, it is our national past-time to mock how badly someone else voted.   Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how the FAs will do better.

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 138): They outcome will prove who was right after all.

Agreed. But I don't think it will favor the FAs. In reality, every month of delay to a new contract saves AA money. Cest la vie.

Quoting 4engines4lnghll (Reply 139): Maybe now you can get a sense what it really looked like.

I get the sense the FAs wanted more than they are likely to receive. Bummer they had more before. Bummer AMR had to go through bankruptcy. One should be fixated on what they want, they should have been fixated on getting the best contract possible and making the most of it. Added hours were a given. If they weren't ready for that... But there should be more automation (e.g, web based forms) to cut unpaid hours. Although AA going back to banking hubs means more 'butt time' for FAs. Bummer to be away from family, but that is the strategic decision.

I don't say I would like it. In particular if I had to go through LAX, JFK, or MIA customs every work day. But airlines have gone from emerging industry to established industry. If you wonder what I'm talking about, read Adam Smith, 1776.

Lightsaber

Quoting 4engines4lnghll (Reply 139): Say what you will. If you knew what was really going on inside the airline you'd understand. That pay raise sounds great and I assure you every FA was happy, but when everything was read fully it would come out to be only a 2% raise a year. Over the next 5-10 years. They weren't about to get their full pay back the next month. Insurance would've almost doubled. No profit sharing. More hours needed for a descent pay check. Maybe now you can get a sense what it really looked like.

The contract was for 5 years not 5-10 years. Profit sharing was calculated into regular guaranteed wages. Something that will be on the chopping block come arbitration time. Not so sure about the medical rates since there are current LAA and LUS plans. The $3000 to off set the costs to the LUS who will be losing their "Cadillac plan" will also be subject to cut or elimination. The comparison chart really puts things in perspective. The TA was not all that bad and the F/A's decided take a gamble, hope it works out for the

https://www.apfa.org/images/TA/comparison-chart-print.pdf

Do not be fooled.... DL did nothing to affect this contract!

The profit sharing DL gives, is only to pass those taxes to employees that receive it!
It is NOT because they had an agenda with this topic.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 142): Do not be fooled.... DL did nothing to affect this contract!

You may want to read this article, Laura Gladding going back for more before turning out the TA was a waste of time.

http://www.flyertalk.com/story/ameri...thank-for-13-million-pay-bump.html

Quoting xdlx (Reply 142): Do not be fooled.... DL did nothing to affect this contract! The profit sharing DL gives, is only to pass those taxes to employees that receive it! It is NOT because they had an agenda with this topic.

That's what I've been saying...DL had NOTHING to do with APFA's CBA. And please be cautious about speaking about taxes and profit sharing. Nobody gets profit sharing w/o tax UNLESS it's rolled directly into a 401(k) as profit sharing is taxed by the IRS as a bonus, not regular pay. Delta isn't "passing on taxes" to employees; the IRS is taxing the money--like they'd do to anyone. In my case I get my profit sharing tax free and actually worth 7% more because Delta matches my contributions 1:1 up to 7%. I'll take it!

Quite predictable. The company is all smiles thanks to those No voters.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...t-wont-give-us-anything-more.html/

Quoting B727FA (Reply 144): Nobody gets profit sharing w/o tax UNLESS it's rolled directly into a 401(k) as profit sharing is taxed by the IRS as a bonus, not regular pay.

Bonuses and regular pay have the same tax rate. They may have different withholding rates, but they shouldn't impact your overall tax liability.

Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 19): Ditto.. its been complete uncertainty since 9/11

Welcome to the real world - there are very few people, union or non, who are better off in terms of real earning power today than 10 years go. Maybe more $'s, but those dollars have hugely deflated.

Quoting anstar (Reply 20): this union is not really the best for its members.

And this is news. Few unions are.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 45): You are comparing a political vote to a labour vote

If you think political votes do not impact your livelihood - you are in a fantasy world.

Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 46): trust me. political votes most certainly do influence my livelihood. And while I agree

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 137): Medical isn't going up that much,

You can thank the current administration and just ousted congress/senate for that. Despite promises to the contrary, growth in medical costs have accelerated.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 148): You can thank the current administration and just ousted congress/senate for that. Despite promises to the contrary, growth in medical costs have accelerated.

Please. This is a capitalist economy and the healthcare industry has a minimum of regulation. I can guarantee you that costs will go up even with the new congress in place, and regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

I continue to shake my head in wonder at those who try to bring political party affiliations into every possible argument.