AA Flight Attendant Reject Contract - Part 2

American 767 · Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:42 am

Please continue here:

AA Flight Attendants Reject Contract (by gen2stew Nov 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Ben Soriano

gen2stew · Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:25 pm

Picture it, Sicily 1921. Ooops wrong story. AAL the present, a CEO willing to give more money to a work group, 24000 airhostesses eagerly awaiting the out come of the meeting on Thursday. Why would he even consider such an idea when he has the work group over a barrel, who knows? Implications? Predictions?

b727fa · Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:37 pm

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 1):
Picture it, Sicily 1921. Ooops wrong story. AAL the present, a CEO willing to give more money to a work group, 24000 airhostesses eagerly awaiting the out come of the meeting on Thursday. Why would he even consider such an idea when he has the work group over a barrel, who knows? Implications? Predictions?

Huh????

dirtyfrankd · Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:30 pm

Quoting Gen2stew (Reply 1):
Picture it, Sicily 1921. Ooops wrong story. AAL the present, a CEO willing to give more money to a work group, 24000 airhostesses eagerly awaiting the out come of the meeting on Thursday. Why would he even consider such an idea when he has the work group over a barrel, who knows? Implications? Predictions?

I'm assuming you're referring to the rumors circulating that Doug Parker is considering adding back the 82 million to the flight attendants' contract even though he has no reason to?

If he does agree to do so, i'm assuming that it's his attempt of turning over a new leaf and improving management-labor relations. Honestly not sure which way I would go though if I was in his shoes...

Dallas · Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:37 pm

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 3):
If he does agree to do so, i'm assuming that it's his attempt of turning over a new leaf and improving management-labor relations. Honestly not sure which way I would go though if I was in his shoes...

I just don't see the company benefit from a dollar perspective. You give in now, 5 years later the union will ask for more. There will be no mention of the good faith or extra bonus from this period. Everyone always wants more money, and it's just how the world works. If I were expecting a 10% raise and instead I got 20%, that doesn't mean in 5 years I would be thinking, well geez I got more than I was expecting 5 years ago, so I don't really need or expect as much now. That raise will be in the distant past and I'd still ask for more if profits were really good, it's just human nature.

Personally, I'd either stay firm with the ruling. The FAs had their chance and they blew it by voting no. Maybe the union should have tried harder to persuade everyone to vote YES, as everyone warned and saw this coming from the arbitrator/ courts. Plus, by not giving more $$ back now, I believe it gives the FA a better reality check and would make them more likely vote YES for future contracts, seeing how they blew this one.

Blast away, just my

dirtyfrankd · Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:47 pm

Quoting Dallas (Reply 4):
I just don't see the company benefit from a dollar perspective. You give in now, 5 years later the union will ask for more. There will be no mention of the good faith or extra bonus from this period. Everyone always wants more money, and it's just how the world works. If I were expecting a 10% raise and instead I got 20%, that doesn't mean in 5 years I would be thinking, well geez I got more than I was expecting 5 years ago, so I don't really need or expect as much now. That raise will be in the distant past and I'd still ask for more if profits were really good, it's just human nature.

Personally, I'd either stay firm with the ruling. The FAs had their chance and they blew it by voting no. Maybe the union should have tried harder to persuade everyone to vote YES, as everyone warned and saw this coming from the arbitrator/ courts. Plus, by not giving more $$ back now, I believe it gives the FA a better reality check and would make them more likely vote YES for future contracts, seeing how they blew this one.

Blast away, just my

You make very fair points, hard to blast you for that; this is a tough decision. The only thing to keep in mind though is that AA management and labor have had a very adversarial relationship for over a decade now...and this may be a measure of good faith to try and turn over a new leaf. That may be naive thinking though...like I said, I really don't know which way I would go if I was in his shoes. There is an argument to be made for both sides...

Have their been any updates on this front? I believe that Doug Parker was scheduled to meet with the APFA Board of Directors and the Joint Negotiating Committee today to discuss this?

miaami · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:02 am

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-raises-to-flight-attendants.html/

deltaffindfw · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:02 am

Yes, the company gave in and added back the $81M.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-raises-to-flight-attendants.html/

dirtyfrankd · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:24 am

Quoting deltaffindfw (Reply 7):
Yes, the company gave in and added back the $81M.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-raises-to-flight-attendants.html/

Thanks for posting. Here is an excerpt I found interesting:

"Parker, president Scott Kirby and executive vice president Steve Johnson met with APFA leadership Thursday morning to discuss the situation. Out of that came a union resolution clarifying and limiting what might happen when United Airlines and Continental Airlines flight attendants redo their contract in several years."

So, if I'm interpreting this correctly: in return for adding the $82 million back to the contracts, APFA won't be able to come back to the negotiating table if United and others increase their contracts? The wording is a little vague; hopefully we will get more specifics in the next few days...

Prost · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:35 am

Missing in the article (and I have no way of knowing what was in the letter Ms. Glading sent) was a 'Thank You' from the union membership to the executive management team. cSay what you will, they could have played hardball and kept the $81 million.

aacun · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:54 am

The stipulation is still in place. The only clarification is that any modification of wages after a UA/CO joint agreement must be upwards.

dirtyfrankd · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:59 am

Quoting Aacun (Reply 10):
The only clarification is that any modification of wages after a UA/CO joint agreement must be upwards.

Sorry for being dense, but I'm not sure that I understand this statement. Any modification of wages after a UA/CO joint agreement has to be higher than the current contract? So, this is protection for APFA/Flight Attendants as opposed to protection for the company?

etops1 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:25 am

Yes . If UA gets better than market rate in their combined contract then AA will increase the wages to reflect UA's increase ..

LAXtoATL · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:01 am

Quoting etops1 (Reply 12):
Yes . If UA gets better than market rate in their combined contract then AA will increase the wages to reflect UA's increase ..

That is not my interpretation.

'Out of that came a union resolution clarifying and limiting what might happen when United Airlines and Continental Airlines flight attendants redo their contract in several years.'

The key word in there is limiting. Its still vague, but I read this to mean that in exchange for the money now the union agreed to limit their ability to renegotiate based on UA's deal. It sounds like I will I will pay $8 now instead of $10 later. If I am interpreting correctly it is still a win-win. The company is limiting its future exposure and still only paying what it had initially planned to pay and the workforce is appeased (which is good for the company and union leadership).

Prost · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:48 am

Sad to read people saying in a few years time when they refer to a join UA/CO contract.

aacun · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:51 am

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 13):

I understand what the word limiting means......except it is nowhere to be found in the executive commitee's resolution letter that was agreed upon today by AA and the APFA.... So I dont know where they got that from. Unless Im missing something here.

LAXtoATL · Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:52 am

Quoting Aacun (Reply 15):
except it is nowhere to be found in the executive commitee's resolution letter that was agreed upon today by AA and the APFA.... So I dont know where they got that from. Unless Im missing something here.

I certainly don't know and the article was definitely vague.
But we have to assume the union offered something to bring management back to the negotiating table.
Negaotiations by definition are give and take. I have no idea what it was and if the reporting is accurate but you can bet something was offered / agreed to whether in writing or not.
Either way, I think it is a win-win for all involved.

b377 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:08 am

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 16):
I certainly don't know and the article was definitely vague.

Well I read the AFPA's agreement and have come to the conclusion that they agreed that after the UA/CO contract has been been ratified and in effect, the AFPA can only re-negotiate on salary. Work rules and other issues will be off the table.

[Edited 2014-12-18 23:09:27]

LAXtoATL · Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:25 am

Quoting b377 (Reply 17):
Well I read the AFPA's agreement and have come to the conclusion that they agreed that after the UA/CO contract has been been ratified and in effect, the AFPA can only re-negotiate on salary. Work rules will be off the table.

That sounds a limiting factor.
Makes sense. I still think it is a win-win.

uberflieger · Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:27 am

I am very impressed by Parker. Congratulation to American's flight attendants for an industry leading contract.

Tugger · Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:48 pm

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 19):
Congratulation to American's flight attendants for an industry leading contract.

So what does this mean? What is the next step? Do they now have to revote to accept the contract or is it now essentially just put into place as arbitrated and the FA's have a new contract?

Tugg

aacun · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:58 pm

There is a contract and the provisions will be adopted at different stages. Pay rates go into effect 1/1/15 but Purser pay hike doesn't go into place until 5/1/15 for example. There are different implementation dates for different items. We might not see Prefferential Bidding for a while, is what I have heard.

INFINITI329 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:11 pm

Did the FAs get any of the work rule changes they wanted?

Maverick623 · Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:43 pm

Quoting Aacun (Reply 21):
We might not see Prefferential Bidding for a while, is what I have heard.

I believe the PBS delay is because of IT issues, or so I've been told.

B757capt · Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:22 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 20):

Its done. They have a new contract.

TVNWZ · Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:10 pm

Slick move. Completely undercuts Union leadership. " It's not the union that gets you raises, it's me. ". Popcorn time next Union election.

EA CO AS · Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:27 pm

Quoting deltaffindfw (Reply 7):
the company gave in and added back the $81M.

The company didn't "give in" - they simply chose to pay what they'd already budgeted for - well above the arbitrated value - hopefully earning some goodwill from the membership in the process.

This is as win-win as it gets.

Tugger · Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:26 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 26):
The company didn't "give in" - they simply chose to pay what they'd already budgeted for - well above the arbitrated value - hopefully earning some goodwill from the membership in the process.

This is as win-win as it gets.

It was not only the best business decision, it was happily the right thing to do. As EA CO AS states, this is important for the goodwill factor and is worth more due to possibly having employees that willingly show up for work as opposed to begrudgingly. I am not claiming it will wholesale change every FA's opinion or solve all the problems, but it shifts the whole thing away from "what we lost/what the company took from us" to one of "Wow... OK this is fine, I am not unhappy." So never perfect but vastly better.

Tugg

StuckInCA · Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:30 am

Time for a shareholder lawsuit? Or would they consider it in the best interests of the stock to pay more than necessary?

Raventech · Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:20 am

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 28):
Time for a shareholder lawsuit? Or would they consider it in the best interests of the stock to pay more than necessary?

If it was just giving it to them without anything in return contractually then maybe but it will probably an up hill battle.

If they did get that limiting term discussed above then no chance, they will be just told "don't like their management style, then get them off the board".

777ord · Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:05 am

Quoting uberflieger (Reply 19):

AGREED! I'm glad they were able to get that done, even if it did go to arbitration. Having seen the first hand affects of the UA/CO fiasco, and now being back @ AA. It's clear that the UA issues are no where near resolved... It is sad to think that the issue is years from concluding

....

etops1 · Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:56 am

I just want to clarify on the resolution regarding UA/CO . When UA/CO reach a combined contract . If their total value of their contract is larger than the total value of the AA contract then the AA contract must match the value of the new UA contract in the form of wages . AA's contract is now worth $193 million since Parker agreed to add the $81 million on top of the required $112 million . If UA''s contract exceeds that number then AA FA 's must be compensated in the form of wages . Even if UA's wage rates exceeds AA's top wage rates of $53.52 and hr. If their contract does not exceed the value of AA's contract then no wage increase will result in AA's contract . It is very unlikely in my opinion that UA's contract will exceed the value of AA's since AA has one of the best work rules in the industry better than DL and UA mostly on the Continental side . That' adds extreme value . It is my opinion that with the UA/CO contract they will see higher wages than AA since the Continetal side already tops out at $52.53 while the UA side I believe tops out at $46 and change . But they will not exceed AA in the form of work rules . If they do both them that just benefits the AA FA's even more . So its kind of a win win situation for the AA FA's either way you look at it .

flyfree727 · Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:20 pm

Add another 4% to that.
Parker just announced additional 4% FOR fa's and others at AA

AA ORD

chepos · Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:22 pm

Woohoo, I like raises.

TVNWZ · Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:39 pm

Interesting all those that thought the arbitration was iron clad and that AA would never do anything other than go with the award are curiously silent on here now.

EA CO AS · Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:55 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 34):
Interesting all those that thought the arbitration was iron clad and that AA would never do anything other than go with the award are curiously silent on here now.

The ironclad part of the arbitration meant AA wasn't going to return to the negotiating table, despite what the "no" voters predicted.

And AA didn't. They just unilateraly upped the wages on the arbitrated package. Of course the union can choose to reject the wage hikes if they choose....

TVNWZ · Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:35 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):

Yeah Im sure there were no meetings or discussions at all.

Tugger · Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:52 am

I am thinking this thread should be archived and a new one started with a more appropriate title.

This one has run its course.

Tugg

[Edited 2014-12-23 16:53:05]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net