| |
Questions From PHL/PHW Flight Attendants
Q: In the letter sent out to many of the employees from
Dave Siegel dated December 24th, he makes it sound if we vote 'NO' and the
company liquidates we will lose our pensions, is this
correct?
A: IF the company were to liquidate,
the PBGC picks up the liability of the terminated plan and PAYS THE
PENSION PLAN according to it's guidelines.
Q: If we vote against the company's proposal, can the
company have the bankruptcy judge negate our contract all
together?
A: On page 8 of the July 2, Restructuring
Agreement (RA) Summary it states:
"The company has issued AFA a
'Section 1113 Letter', which provided that in the event US Airways files
for bankruptcy, the company WILL NOT ASK the bankruptcy court for further
cuts in flight attendant pay and benefits."
Then it
states; "Note: Under bankruptcy law, a company can ask the court for
'relief' from its labor contracts…. This Section 1113 letter protects us
from that scenario."
So if we are to
'trust' what management has said, then the answer to your
question is NO. However, the better question might be 'Will this
new, 'labor friendly' management abide by their word?' As far as I know,
the United FA's do NOT have the same 1113 letter
protection.
Q: Why is the Company proposal
NOT written out yet... the entire language? NOTHING speaks to the ITD,
what happens to us on this new sick thing? How can f/as, seriously, vote
on a concept and not see the language on how it will affect their
lives?
A: Normally negotiations are not so rushed.
Language 'clean up' would happen BEFORE you received the summary.
However, many of the Company personnel involved have been
'UNAVAILABLE'. Those who were available do NOT seem to have any
clear-cut answers. In essence, I believe we have been asked to give the
company a 'Blank Check'.
Q: Are we going to get to see what cuts management is
actually going to take before we vote?
A: There
will be changes to their medical plan. In addition, monthly contributions
will be increased. Officers and ICP-eligible employees will pay the same
medical contributions as those agreed to by ALPA. Officers will
give up their split-dollar life insurance plan (a combination of a
term-life and savings plan) and, in the short term, substitute it with a
term-life policy. However, this will NOT affect the MAJORITY
of Upper management, since most have NOT been with the company long enough
to build up any value in the whole life policy. This will more than likely
only affect a precious FEW. There are many crafty ways to make it
SOUND as if management is taking substantial cuts. In reality those
cuts could be easily made up through bonuses, perks or stock that we as
FA's do not enjoy. I know of no exact figures on cuts to 'Total
Compensation'. FYI: Management's salaries snap back when the employees do.
I believe their bonuses will ONLY be affected through 2003! Starting 2004
Management should be able to make up any losses through bonuses. If Mr.
Siegel reaches or exceeds his targets he will receive bonuses that will
far EXCEED his normal salary. CLICK HERE: For Information From The Company.
http://www.afausairways.org/phl/mgtconcessions1202.htm
Q: If we vote "for" this are they really going to cut
another 315 FA's?
A: YES, that is what we were told.
Anytime there is an increase in productivity, you WILL see a
REDUCTION in the number of heads needed to run the operation. In
addition, if this passes, the company is going to rerun the bid for global
options. The possibility exists that many FA's will migrate to higher
options to make up for the loss of wages and benefits. If this happens,
the 315-number could increase significantly.
Q: I was wondering if there was any way to figure out where
I stand seniority wise if everyone on a VF returns to work? How far back
would the involuntary furlough hit approximately, what month and
year?
A: If our numbers were to remain the same as
they are today, taking into account VF 1, 2 & 3, plus those on other
leaves and the 315 additional FA's in this latest proposal, my numbers
show that the BOTTOM of our seniority list would be somewhere
around September 1989. Note: I do not foresee that everyone will come back
from the VF's or leaves, so hopefully this is a worst-case
scenario.
Q: I have a question regarding the
VM and day/night rig. If we are 'me-too' with the pilots does that mean we
are not voting on it? Will it happen regardless of the outcome of the vote
on this proposed T/A?
A: YES
Q: Is management, also
in line to take an immediate 5% wage reduction if there is an act of
terrorism?
A: I am not aware, as they have not said
one way or the other. However, IF this passes, YOU should be
prepared to take at least one if not more AUTOMATIC 5% wage
reductions in the upcoming months or years.
Q: On what basis am I to determine the authenticity, let
alone belief, of the company's Chapter 7 threat? It is AFA's
responsibility to its members that substantiation of the aforementioned
threat be disseminated. There is too much at stake to rely on a hunch, let
alone a belief.
A: I fully agree. Which is why I
asked Ms. Friend, AFA Pres., who I might add sits on the USA Creditor's
Board, this question: "Have you seen or done an analysis of USA's
viability?" Her response was in essence she had seen some documents but
due to a signed confidentiality statement, she could not tell me what they
contained and 'NO' there has been no analysis done. Your MEC has
also signed confidentiality agreements and should be privy to any
information Ms. Friend may have that can assist us in determining where we
stand.
Q: Under the new proposal can
reserves 'buddy bid' for trips?
A:
NO
Q: How much was this proposal worth
to the company? How much has the FA group
contributed?
A: It depends on who is doing the
calculating. Originally the proposal WITHOUT medical
INCREASES was estimated at $26 million. With the increase in
medical, Pat Friend states in her letter that it is still worth $26m. I
believe before we even sat down with the company we had already met and
even exceeded that amount. I took it upon myself to calculate recent
savings the company has received from the FA group. Here are the actual
dollars I came up with, of which we have NOT RECEIVED ANY
CREDIT for. For example:
1. Severance/furlough pay
SAVINGS from FA's taking the VF: Approximately
$11,261,363.00
2. In contrast, because so few
Pilot's elected to take their VF, the severance/furlough pay for
furloughed pilot's actually COST the company approximately:
$42,761,777.00
3. There is also a SAVINGS in
wages when a more junior FA now replaces a senior flight attendant who
takes the VF. This more junior FA does the same job at a much lower
rate.
The first 6-months SAVINGS for the VF1, in
wages alone, equates to approximately $9,563,559.00. The second
6-months of the VF1 in conjunction with the first 6-months of the VF 2
equates to another SAVINGS of approximately
$13,381,585.00. THESE ARE SAVINGS WE HAVE RECEIVED NO
CREDIT FOR!
FYI: I am NOT an accountant and
these numbers are not guaranteed. The point is this, I have a hard time
believing that ALPA or the IAM would not have been given credit for
savings such as these.
4. In addition to the
above, there are some on the MEC (of which I am definitely one) who
believe the company did not abide by the July RA's 'Verification
Language' as written. If my numbers are right the company owes us a
credit between $4.9 and $5.6 million. CLICK HERE: To read all about it.
5.
On Page 5 of our July 2002, Restructuring Agreement, it states that ANY
cost savings that result from productivity improvements WILL be
RETURNED to the FA's in ADDITIONAL WAGE INCREASES during
the term of the agreement. THIS WAS NOT DONE! In essence if we
ratify the company's latest proposal, then the savings the company
receives by NOT returning wages promised in our 6-month old RA will
equate to another $26million. Or said another way, a total of $52m. $26m
for the productivity improvements that we are giving and getting credit
for plus the $26m in return wages that the company originally agreed to
pay but now will NOT.
6. If we ratify this
agreement, and the computations given above are anywhere in the ballpark
(and I am pretty sure they are), you could say the pilots have
approximately $58 million ($101million minus the $42million paid out in
furlough severance pay) into the latest round of concessions and we will
have approximately $91million ($26m for productivity improvements,
$11.2million for furlough/severance pay savings, $9.5 million for VF 1
savings, $13.4 million for VF1 & 2 savings, $5 million for
'Verification Language' and $26 million is lost wage return for
productivity improvements.) Of course this is NOT how the company
or the pilots will look at the numbers. I guess it all depend on how
YOU look at it.
Q: The proposal on the
LTD is misleading. They say that LTD benefit amounts changed from $2,350
up to $7,500…this is totally misleading the flight attendants. FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS DON'T MAKE THIS!
A: More
'Smoke and Mirrors.' The company is very creative in the way
they word things. When the company states that the current maximum is
$2,350, and that the new proposed maximum will be $7,500 you are again
being somewhat misled. The $7,500 would ONLY apply if your gross
were $15,000 per month (which NONE of us
have.)
Q: Is what Dave states in his letter
about our medical plan VS other medical plans true? Regarding competitive
medical/dental: " For example, the typical major corporation, the employee
contribution is 20% or more for the standard medical plan, and in our
proposed medical plan, the contribution is STILL only 7%. So even with the
changes you are now approving, your health care benefits remain at the top
of those offered in corporate America."
A: The medical
part of the proposal you received is INCOMPLETE! It fails to tell
you that starting in 2006; deductibles as well as co-pays will
INCREASE.
In Mr. Siegel's letter, he compares US with the
average American corporate employee. He fails to mention that FA's DO
NOT receive automatic wage increases due to cost of living, or wage
increases by way of yearly job reviews as many non-airline employees
do.
We were given THREE options from which to choose our
medical coverage. The 7% Medical Mr. Siegel refers to ONLY applies
to OPTION # 1. Very few employees chose Option # 1 for obvious reasons,
this option would place families at the greatest financial risk if ever
faced with a medical crisis.
FYI: Approximately, 95% of
the flight attendants recently chose Option # 3. What Mr. Siegel fails to
mention is that the contributions for Option # 3 have been
SIGNIFICANTLY increased and are now much higher at 19.4%. There
will be ANOTHER open enrollment in January. It is my belief that
with the huge increases to the preferred Option # 3, the company is in
reality forcing you to migrate to the option that saves THEM the most over
all, # 1.
Q: I am working for a much
lower hourly wage than my 14 year counterparts at other carriers and I fly
105:00/month which means I am doing the work of 1.5 FA's at most other
carriers. If US Airways can't make money with those cost advantages then I
propose that the problem here is not MY productivity. Where does it end?
When will it be enough?
A: You just said it
all. As to when will it be enough? As long as we have an extremely high
percentage of our members willing to vote themselves out of wages, work
rules and benefits, it makes good business sense for the company to
continue to come back time and again for another 'bite of the
apple'.
Q: After RSA outbid the
Texas Pacific Group by $40M, the courts allowed RSA to be the new
stake-holder of our company. Now Mr. Bronner implies that if we do not
give more he will 'Chapter 7 it.' Can you tell us, if we vote this down
and Mr. Bronner does as he states what will happen? Would anyone else want
to help us?
A: This actually came up while we were in
DCA. Greg, the AFA money guy, said no one else wants us. He said we are
like a painting that someone was only willing to pay a certain amount of
money for. He went on to say, like that painting, nothing has changed to
make someone want to pay more for us now than they did 2-months
ago.
I DISAGREE! We still have labor concessions
totaling $850 million, an alliance with United who is now free of their
creditors, RJ relief from ALPA and a "fresh start" while in bankruptcy. In
addition, I believe we are a much better investment today than when Dr
Bronner from RSA won the bid. However, expect the company to tell you that
if you do not pass this proposal, no one else will want to help us. Here
are just a FEW of the things that have changed in the last two
months that, in my opinion, make us look a whole lot more desirable today
than when the Texas Pacific Group offered a mere $40 million less than
what Bronner is getting us for…
1. An increase from 5 to 7 out of 13
seats on the USA BOD, now a majority!
2. Ratified pilot
agreement assuring an additional $ 101m.
3. By way of the
'Me Too's' the FA's have at LEAST another $7 million on the books
BEFORE ratification.
4. The TSA has relaxed
security hassles, which in turn should increase passengers returning to
the skies.
5. Recent reduction to minimum staffing of FA's
on aircraft affords millions in savings.
6. New
reduced wages for MDA.
Q: What guarantees can
you give us if this fails?
A: As with most things in
life, none. But if you believe, that history often repeats it's self, I
hope you will be able to 'connect the dot's' on the following information:
FIRST SOME BACKGROUND
- Jerry Glass, Executive Senior VP of Employee
Relations, arrived at USA less than a year ago along with several other
comrades including our new CEO.
- Before coming to our 'failing'
airline, Mr. Glass had his OWN successful Labor Relations
Consulting firm and was affiliated with 'Ford & Harrison', an
Atlanta based company that represents several airlines including Delta,
Continental and Northwest. The web site motto on their 'Litigation' page
when speaking of Unions states: "WHEN THEY ROAR, WE
POUNCE." Click Here: To Enter the Ford & Harrison Web
Site. http://www.fordharrison.com/fh/practice/litigation.asp
- Once you get there, please note that under
Mr. Glass's page it states that he will: "Provide research
and assistance during union AVOIDANCE campaigns, including the analysis
of labor union's financial statements (LM-2s) and constitutions and
bylaws." Click Here: To Enter the Ford & Harrison Web
http://www.fordharrison.com/fh/consultants/jerry.asp
- In addition to the TWO concessionary
contracts that he has negotiated here in LESS than a year, Mr.
Glass has also negotiated at least 60 other labor
contracts.
NOW FOR THE HISTORY
1. Somewhere in the middle of the
America West FA's negotiating their FIRST, section 6 contract, Mr. Glass
was hired by management to continue the negotiations. The FA's turned
down their first TA and started their CHAOS campaign. The company came
back to negotiate with the America West F/A's and they were able to get
more and finally agreed to a TA just moments before going on strike.
This process took them approximately 4-years to get, what is considered
by FA's as, one of the worst contracts in the industry. I understand
that during these negotiations, Mr. Glass often referred to OUR
'disgusting' contract and the problems it created for management. IF
this proposal passes, it is my belief, we will take the top honors for
the worst contract away from the America West FA's.
2.
Just recently, during the last round of concessionary negotiations, the
IAM, like the AMW voted down their first TA. The company came back and
the IAM had another shot.
3. I am pretty sure Mr. Glass
would like nothing better than to see our contract busted back to the
dark ages, as it seems to keep getting in his way. The only guarantee we
have, if we take this deal, is the loss of 40-years of negotiations
along with any value our contract has left. The fact remains we have
already saved this company much more than the $26m they are asking for,
not to mention the 'Me Too' rigs that can also be thrown into the
pot.
4. Mr. Glass has established quite a reputation in
the aviation community for negotiating contracts. Certainly, both he and
Mr. Siegel will be the undisputed 'Fair-haired Boys' of the industry if
they bring all of USA labor unions to their knees. BUT if
they let this company cease to exist for a couple of 'low cost' work
rules they would, most likely, quickly fall from grace. Who
needs to hire folks that not only kill the unions but their company in
the process? It is just my opinion that these guys have even more to
lose than we do. They may get the money but they are both too young to
reach 'has-beens' status. On that note, I will end the Q &
A's.
If we ratify this agreement, US Airways will
emerge from bankruptcy while some, if not many, of our number will
declare/enter it. The company will be back on a solid footing, probably in
less than 18 months and we FA's will be living on less than we were in
1990, to say nothing of the impact on work rules and benefits. Don't get
me wrong, something must be done to save the Airline, but where is the
provision to give back some of the fruits of our sacrifices before 2008? I
wish I could tell you definitively that the Company does, or does not need
everything they have asked from us. Unfortunately, I cannot. In my
opinion, the Company has not given us the information necessary to make an
informed analysis of the situation.
As I have said before,
the choice we will make as a Union will be based on a different set of
circumstances for each of us. When you finally get to the point of voting,
I ask that you remember a few things:
1) It is your decision, do not let
the outside world influence you and that includes the AFA International
Office. Remember everyone has their own agenda and US Airways FA's may
not be at the top of their list.
2) Make sure you will be
able to live with your decision 8 or even 12 years down the
road.
3) VOTE!!! This is a major turning point in each of
our futures. Do not stand on the sidelines and then complain about the
outcome. This is one vote that needs 100% participation.
I do not tell my personal vote in an effort not
to influence your individual decisions, but is there anyone out there who
really doesn't know where I stand? I want to get the Company to sit down
and negotiate in good faith, not dictate what we are to do. I don't think
you want someone in this job that will accept being pushed around nor one
who dictates how YOU should vote, after all that is YOUR
business.
Take Care and Fly Safe,
Mollie
McCarthy,
LEC President
Council 70- PHL/PHW
|
