Greetings,

AFA 66 eCommunication - Tuesday, August 4, 2009

AFA Joint Negotiations Committee Update - August 2009

As communicated previously, the negotiating process is very detailed and measured in approach. Add the process of trying to combine two very different Scheduling Sections, with different contractual language and the result is a longer timeframe than many of us would wish.

Additionally, the Company attempted to negate nine months of negotiations when they counter-proposed with an inadequate and deficient Scheduling proposal in March of this year. 

The East and the West JNC have met twice a month in Phoenix since January.  These three-day weekly sessions included JNC caucus as well as across-the-table meetings with the Company.

Recap on this year’s progress:

On December 17, 2008, the JNC met in Phoenix and presented a Scheduling proposal to management.

On February 24, 2009, the JNT met in Charlotte with Company negotiators and were handed a substandard and wholly inadequate counter-proposal to AFA’s Scheduling proposal. Not only did the Company undo many months of combining East and West language, but removed important flexibility features for all Flight Attendants such as the Electronic Trade Board (ETB), the Availability and Improvements List (AIL), language that provides AFA input in pairing generation and monthly bid review, and by adding language to allow tagging of Lineholders and rescheduling of a Lineholder “even if the Lineholder’s pairing operates as scheduled”.

The next day, MEC Presidents Lisa LeCarre and Mike Flores attended the CLT Crew News Town Hall talk with CEO Doug Parker and directly expressed the disappointment and frustration of the JNC with regard to the Company’s handling of joint negotiations.

On April 5, 2009, west MEC President Lisa LeCarre and AFA made a formal request to the National Mediation Board to resume Section 6 Negotiations for the west flight attendants.

On March 26, there were several changes in negotiations including the departure from the table and the company of Director of Scheduling Mike Finn and Vice President Inflight Services, Sherri Shamblin.  Director of Scheduling Chip Mayer now sits in the place of Mike Finn at the negotiating table along with Scheduling Analyst Michael Broderick and/or Manger Scheduling/Planning Andrew Masiello.

During the months of April, May and June, company negotiators divided the Scheduling section into several separate pieces to present counter-proposals to AFA. Various proposals on these sections have been traded between AFA and the Company.

On July 1, 2009, the Company presented an Hours of Service proposal based upon the premise of not pairing with the pilots.

The Pilot/Flight Attendant Co-Pairing Issue

It has become glaringly obvious that proposing contract language based upon the concept of working with the pilots may not be in the best interest of our Flight Attendant group if we ever expect to reach an agreement. With the lack of knowledge about when the pilots will reach a contract; whether it would be ratified due to disagreements with the seniority issue; and how long the legal maneuvering will go on leaves no other option but to consider a contract separate from pilots but equal in terms of duty pay, duty rigs, rest hours and other working conditions.

While the concept of flying pairings separate from the pilots is normal to west Flight Attendants, it is a 40-year tradition for East Flight Attendants that has included the protections of rigs and duty limitations, rest requirements, hotel accommodations and transportation and protection of domicile block hours. The JNC believes pay and credit for a trip should be the same for both Flight Attendants and pilots. West pilots get a minimum of 15:45 credits for an OGG trip while Flight Attendants only get paid approximately 12:10 and work the exact same duty periods.  All crewmembers should be paid equally.

During irregular operations the co-pairing of pilots and flight attendants makes it more advantageous for the Company to reschedule a crew together.

Finally, the “Me too” clause is strong language that protects the East Flight Attendants by providing that whatever the pilots receive in terms of pay protections will also apply to Flight Attendants during the course of the trip.

On the west, it has been proven through an exemplary safety record that CRM is not an issue affected by pairing with or without the pilots.  From 1983 until the pilot’s first contract in 1995, west Flight Attendants and pilots flew all trips together. When the pilot group went to a PBS system in 1997, the crews were split and the Company began building separate Flight Attendant pairings.  Since that time, the company has used two different systems in which to generate pairings based upon the different language in the contracts of the pilots and the Flight Attendants.

Preferential Bidding Systems (PBS)

In the past year, the JNC has researched and reviewed volumes of information regarding Preferential Bidding Systems. This is neither a new concept nor the first time that west negotiators have considered PBS.  When the 1999 Flight Attendant Agreement was negotiated, the Company proposed a PBS system.  The Negotiating Team, at the time, rejected PBS for various reasons. The Section 6 Negotiating Team also considered PBS in amending the current contract.

Since that time, PBS programs have become much more sophisticated allowing for added features such as buddy bidding, position bidding, reserve participation, reasons reports and standing or default bidding and more. Why is the JNC looking at PBS systems?  The JNC finds a benefit for flight attendants in PBS by providing:

1. The ease of monthly bidding by allowing a Flight Attendant to put in a bid that can be run each month either with or without changes.

2. The time value of not having to spend hours looking at hundreds of lines of flying.  

3. More flexibility for Flight Attendants by allowing them to bid more options for lines of flying.

4. Allowing Flight Attendants to create their own lines, personalized with specific pairings and parameters instead of only having the choice of bidding a hard line that the Company creates.
 
5. A PBS system will create more lines of flying than is provided by the Company through monthly line bidding allowing more Flight Attendants to hold a line.

Last fall and into the beginning of this year, Council 66 hosted six Preferential Bidding System presentations introducing the concept to flight attendants.  The presentations were well received and provided education and information about how these programs work, the benefits and the downside to these systems.

While PBS is being considered, it has NOT been agreed to by both AFA and the Company. From the earliest negotiating sessions, AFA has been very clear, through redundancy with the Company, that a Preferential Bidding System would only be agreed to under the following conditions:

PBS is contingent upon reaching an overall agreement.

Any savings generated by PBS shall be added to the Flight Attendant Agreement and will be in addition to the non-PBS economic framework of the deal. 

AFA agreement on vendor selection and agreement and input on other elements of PBS System.
Specific agreement up-front of which terms of Agreement will be modified to fit a PBS system.

Negotiations are currently scheduled through October of this year. The following chart shows negotiations dates for the remainder of 2009.



Below is a set of charts. The first chart shows the sections of joint negotiations that are “closed”. This means that these sections have been agreed to by both AFA and the Company and are considered to be a part of the future contract.



The second chart shows the sections of negotiations that are “open. You will also see a “Table Date” in the header. This means that the section was negotiated with the Company and “tabled” either due to lack of consensus or the inability to complete it due to compensation or other tangential issues.

At this point in negotiations, many sections are tied into other sections that may not have been discussed, such as compensation, and must be tabled. There may be sections within the section that are “agreed” to by both AFA and the Company, but the entire section cannot be completed.





mec@afa66.org

www.afa66.org