September 4-6 MEC Meeting Agenda Items submitted and Vote Results

 

Agenda Item 1:  (PIT)

Subject: Pension & Retirement Educational Program 

 

Be It Resolved that the MEC Vice President and MEC Benefits Chairperson to research and develop a program to educate members on issues related to pension, retirement and early retirement.  MEC Benefits Chairperson to develop educational literature and a seminar that can be conducted in each domicile responding to issues, concerns and questions related to retirement and pension.

 

Adopted as Amended

 

Agenda Item 2:  (PIT)

Subject:  Personal Days/Perfect Attendance Program Eligibility

Be it Finally Resolved; that the MEC President go into discussions with the company on the use of flight attendant Personal Days and its affects on the eligibility for nomination in the “Perfect Attendance Award” program participation and changing the “award criteria” program policy to include ‘Personal Days”.

 

Adopted as Written

 

Agenda Item 3: (PHL)

Subject:  Over Flying Of Options

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the US Airways MEC Condemns the practice of intentionally over flying one’s option when not specifically allowed by the Agreement or established past practice,

Be It Further Resolved that the MEC directs the MEC VP and her designee, in conjunction with the Company, to research methods to discourage individual members from exceeding monthly flying options.

Be It Further Resolved that the MEC VP and her designee will report out, and make recommendations to the MEC on this issue at or before the October 2002 Regularly Scheduled MEC Meeting.

 

Adopt as Amended

For: DCA, BOS, PHL, PIT & LGA

Against: CLT

 

 

Agenda Item 4: (PHL)

Subject: Early Retirement Committee

Be It Resolved, that the US Airways MEC hereby establishes a Special Advisory Committee consisting of the MEC President and PHW Flight Attendant Carol Austin,

Be It Further Resolved, that this committee will have the authority to meet with the company to develop and “early-out” plan, and

Be It Finally Resolved, that this committee obtain agreement of the Company that it will pay similar expenses for these discussions, as was agreed to it in the 2002 Restructuring Amendments to the May 200 Flight Attendant Agreement.

 

Adopted as Written

For:  DCA, PHL, LGA & PIT

Against:  CLT & BOS

 

 

Agenda Item 5: (PHL)

Subject: Return to Previous Jump-Seat Procedures

Therefore be it Resolved, that the US Airways MEC hereby directs the MEC President, and his designee to enter into negotiations with the Company to obtain a Side Letter of Agreement resending the Jump-Seat procedure outlined in Section 30.G.3 of the Flight Attendant Agreement of May 2000 as amended August 2002, and replacing that procedure with one similar to the “30-minute Rule” that was in effect under the 1993 Flight attendant Agreement.

 

No Action (Agenda item goes away)

For ‘no action’:  BOS, CLT, DCA, LGA & PIT

Against taking ‘no action’:  PHL

 

FYI:   Many of you have approached me asking  to see the jump seat policy return to the original ’30-minute’ cut-off or something similar.   As you can see by the vote, the other LEC Presidents did not want to discuss the issue.  Their solution was to file individual grievances for any problems you may encounter.   Obviously, the other LECP’s are not hearing what I am.  If you want to see your Jump-Seat procedures changed back, please e-mail me or better yet drop a hand written note in my mail file stating so.

 

Likewise if the ‘New’ Policy seems to be working and there is no longer a need to change the jump seat back to what it was or something similar, let me know that also.  You do not need to state anything more than ‘keep it the same’ or’ change it back’.  This will let me know if I am still on the right track.

 

PHL/ PHW:  It is my opinion that management would have no trouble in agreeing to the change.  I also believe some LECP’s could be persuaded to change their minds if they heard from their membership.  If the jump seat is still a problem, please write to your fellow FA’s from other bases asking them to write their representatives.   

Thanks.

 

Agenda Item 6: (PHL)

Subject:  Enhance Catcrew Screen Options 2 & 5 to contain the same info as the pilots

Therefore be it Resolved that the US Airways MEC direct the MEC President and his designee to approach the Company to discuss modifying Catcrew screens 2 & 5 so that both Pilots and FA’s have access to the same actual, projected and month-to-date pay information.

Be It Further Resolved, that this request to the Company be handled in a manner consistent with the discussions, and agreement, that resulted in modifications and improvement to the agenda item adopted during the January 1999 meeting of the US Airways MEC.

 

Adopt as Written

FYI: Once we receive the enhancements, both you and Crew Scheduling should be able to immediately know how much ‘Under fly’ you are legal to fly back without adding each individual leg. 

To find out more about ‘Under fly’ go here.

 

 

Agenda Item 7: (PHL)

Subject: MEC Policy & Procedures Article lll, D change

Be it Resolved that Article lll, Section D of Policy and Procedures of the US Airways Master Executive Council be, and is hereby, deleted in its entirety.

 

Adopted as Written

The policy was changed last year when two councils, CLT & the previous LEC from PHL roll called the issue after it was voted down 5 to 2. 

 

We are flight attendants and many of us live all over the country.  By changing the policy back to were it was before CLT & PHL’s changed it, I believe we open up a greater opportunity for more FA’s to run for the MEC officer positions.  Since the change last year very few candidates from other bases wish to run.  We have seen the same handful of PIT based FA’s run for every office over and over again.   Hopefully, the change back will encourage more candidates from outside the PIT domicile to run for office.   

 

Agenda Item 8: (PHL)

Subject: Motion to Require a Voice Second

Be It Resolved, that Article I of the Policy and Procedures of the US Airways Master Executive Council be, and is hereby amended to add the following.

G. MOTIONS: It is the procedure and practice of the US Airways MEC that no action shall be taken on a motion, unless it is seconded, except for those motions that by their nature do not generally require a second (i.e. Point of Order, Parliamentary Inquiry, Motion to Withdraw, Division of aQuestion, Division of the House, Roll Call Vote, and Question of Privilege.)

 

Passed by a Simple Majority, Roll Called by CLT

Failed on the Roll Call vote.

For: BOS, DCA, LGA & PHL

Against: CLT & PIT

 

FYI, until changed last November with a roll call vote by CLT & the previous PHL leadership, we have historical required a voice second for certain motions.  Our AFA Constitutions and Bylaws also states; a voice second is required.  Since the removal of the voice second by CLT & PHL (Riggs-Zeigen) it is my opinion that business has been bogged down by revisiting the same issue over and over without support from the other MEC members.   Individual issues that are not supported by at least one other member should be addressed outside the meeting arena. 

 

Agenda Item 9:  (PHL)

Subject: SAP & Seniority Violations

 

Withdrawn By Maker

This agenda item was withdrawn at the Request of the FASC (Flight Attendant Scheduling Committee Chairperson) It will be resubmitted and revisited at the October MEC Meeting.