• 24/7 UPDATE #3
• Accessing The Hub
• AFA Local Numbers

Dear Members,

24/7 UPDATE #3

The Company and the Union have meetings scheduled next week to continue discussions regarding the impact of the FAA 24/7 directive on our members. The Joint Negotiating Committee and the MEC Reserve Chair, Sherri Baker will represent the Union. The Union has sent the Company the following letter that reaffirms our position the FAA ruling causes two significant problems: losses to Reserve earning power and the inability for Lineholders to drop trips to lower their flying obligation as agreed to in the 2004 negotiations.

Cindi Simone
Director Labor Relations InFlight
4000 E. Sky Harbor Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85034

VIA EMAIL AND FAX


Dear Cindi,

As you know the implementation of FAR 121.467 (b) (13) will have serious and far-reaching consequences. In addition to the obvious adjustments that must be made to Reserve scheduling, the FAA mandate will have additional consequences to the ETB, Reserve quality of life and earning power and the obligation flexibility the ETB offered for both Reserves and Lineholders. In addition, the Company lacks contract provisions that would facilitate compliance with the FAA mandate in certain situations.

We all understand that, while the Company did not cause this problem, we invite the Company to meet with us and seek mutually agreeable solutions to the consequences and problems caused as a result of the FAA order. In light of these consequences, the joint committee has agreed that we must devote next week's merged contract session to finding solutions to these problems.

Our 2004 concessionary contract contains provisions that are no longer viable in light of the FAA mandate. Concessionary provisions were negotiated based on practices that are no longer permissible. The two major impacts of the new world order both stem from the fact that our Reserves will have their ability to pick up trips from the ETB with the frequency they enjoyed in the past seriously limited. This will cause two immediate problems: significant losses in Reserve earning power, and Lineholders inability to drop trips to lower their flying obligations, as agreed in the 2004 negotiations.

During the 2004 negotiations the Company was insistent that the low flying options (50/55 and 70/75) be eliminated. As you know, AFA would not have agreed to elimination of the options without a feature to replace them. The ETB was negotiated as a tool to replace the options, and now that tool has been seriously compromised.

In addition to replacing the options, pay above guarantee for ETB trips for Reserves allowed the Reserves to recover income lost due to the implementation of the Least Time Order system in 2002. Our Reserves suffered a "double whammy" through the two 2002 Restructuring Agreements. Not only were their hourly rates of pay cut, they also endured the consequence of LTO: no one breaks guarantee. The implementation of the ETB made this consequence less onerous.

AFA knows the Reserves' use of the ETB will be, as a result of the FAA's decision, far more restricted than before, so we know that trying to solve that problem on its own may be futile. What AFA does believe is the FAA mandate will require a completely new approach to Reserve scheduling, line building and the obligation flexibility the ETB formerly provided.

In that spirit we have come up with several options that either separately, or in conjunction, may bring our system and contract into line with the new requirements.

AFA believes the ultimate solution to this situation is to get more people off Reserve. Those that do remain on Reserve should have a system that allows them to earn a living and have a decent quality of life. It is our desire to reach an agreement that can be put into place as soon as possible. I know in previous conversations you had asked me to try to limit our ideas to ones that did not require a great deal of programming changes. Unfortunately that is not really feasible.

We would like to discuss the following ideas/options next week. These items are in no particular order, and include but are not limited to:

• A 12th day off for Reserves - this would allow more Reserve lines to be built with more 4 and 5 day off periods, and would mirror what is available on the West.
• Return to a seniority-based reserve system - while this system does not allow all Reserves to break guarantee, it does use seniority as the determining factor for trip awards.
• Continued discussion of Mike Finn's idea to not place NFL days into a Reserve's line until three days after the Reserve line awards - we feel this may have some value but we need further clarification and discussion.
• Closing of the Reserve Lines and Secondary lines simultaneously - I don't believe the programming issues are as insurmountable as first conveyed.
• Split language changes - the Company received a large savings, quantified at a certain dollar amount, when the language was changed to pay actual time only for split trips. We believe any trips that have to be split for the 24/7 legality should be exempt from the current language for all, since that was not part of the original concession.
• Allow Lineholders to drop to the SAP Floor and not be obligated to their original line value - this will put more trips in SAP, and eventually create more Secondary lines.
• Drop the Secondary line floor to 70 hours - again, more Secondary lines could be created. We would be open to discussing relief from the71-hour Lineholder guarantee.
• Drop the ETB floor to 40 hours - more people would put more 1-3 day trips on the ETB, thus creating more available trips for Reserves to pick up and increasing Lineholder flexibility.
• The creation of partial Secondary lines. In some months trips that remain in open time cannot be packaged into Secondary lines because the time cannot be distributed evenly throughout the month. Additional Secondary lines could be built that contained 40- 50 hours with balance of the month then converting to Reserve duty. Full lines would be constructed to the extent possible and only then would partial lines be created, with the approval of the AFA scheduling committee.

We look forward to discussing these items with you next week.

Sincerely,

Mike

Mike Flores, President
US Airways MEC
AFA-CWA

Cc: Capt. Ed Bular, Sr. VP Flight Ops/ Inflight
Al Hemenway, VP Labor Relations
Clare Burt, Manger Collective Bargaining - AFA
US Airways MEC


The placement of the "NFL" day at the Company's option is a major point of contention. This seriously jeopardizes the Reserve's ability to break guarantee. The Company has offered a partial solution and we will evaluate its' significance.

With regard potential solutions listed in the letter, we are not wedded to any particular solution or solutions. The potential solutions are simply a starting point for a negotiated resolution to the problems caused by the FAA ruling. We realize there are many competing interests in this process and are committed to finding the best approach to solving the problems and, as the letter states, the solutions contained in the letter are in no particular order and are not limited to the items listed.

I have been asked by several members to address a persistent rumor that has been "flying" around the system for the last few days. Lineholders are allowed to satisfy the 24/7 rest requirements if they have a trip that contains a 24-hour layover (check-out to check-in). Rumor has it the Union negotiated with the FAA to allow Reserves the ability to satisfy the 24-consecutive-hour rest requirement within a seven calendar day period if they were awarded a trip with a 24-hour layover. The Union does not "negotiate" with the FAA. We did ask the FAA if the interpretation would treat Reserves in the same manner as Lineholders and the FAA responded it would.

Some Reserves may like this interpretation and some may not, but the Union did not negotiate the interpretation. This interpretation does not affect the contractual requirement that "Reserves will have a minimum of eleven (11) scheduled days free from duty ("reserve days off") at his/her domicile each bid month" (Section 11.A.1). In other words, the Company can't count a 24-hour layover as one of the eleven "reserve days off".

We will continue to keep you informed.

Thank you,

Mike Flores, President
US Airways MEC
AFA-CWA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AFA US Airways website

http://www.afausairways.org/

Accessing The Hub:

http://thehub.usairways.com 
Questions about the Hub? Please contact the EDS Help Desk at 336-744-6000 for assistance. More information can also be found HERE.

AFA Local Numbers

Council 40 PIT 724-695-3329
Council 41 DCA 703-212-8090
Council 69 BOS 781-289-8454
Council 70 PHL 215-492-0840
Council 82 LGA 315-736-3483
Council 89 CLT 704-527-0325

New Hotline Number Toll Free: 866-USA-AFA2
US AIRWAYS Benefits Information 800-872-4780

Reply to Inflight: askinflight@usairways.com