In this Issue...
- Reduction in Personnel
- LOCAL COUNCIL
CONTACT NUMBERS
Earlier today, US
Airways sent out important information
regarding the need for a reduction in
personnel, which was originally announced
last month. If you have read this
information, you know that a majority of the
reduction will come from the Philadelphia
domicile.
I wanted you all to be aware of some
information that the company did not
disclose.
On Tuesday, June 17th and Friday, June 20th,
the AFA MEC met, via teleconference, to
discuss a proposal that the company brought
to us. In an effort to stem displacements
and involuntary furloughs, the company asked
the AFA MEC to consider a 'base-specific'
voluntary furlough. Currently, our contract
calls for voluntary furloughs to be offered
on a system-wide basis, in seniority order.
However, the proposal the company brought
forward had a twist - in addition to
offering S4 travel, they were also willing
to offer medical, dental and life insurance,
at the active company rate, for the duration
of the voluntary furlough period - something
that has not been offered since the original
VF1, in December, 2001.
In order for this to occur, the MEC would
have to agree to this by majority vote. A
majority vote would create a Letter of
Agreement which would run concurrent with
our contract.
Without a doubt, I believed what was before
the AFA MEC was a "win-win" situation for
all flight attendants and I would like to
share with you exactly how I felt, and still
feel, regarding this issue:
By extending medical, dental and life
insurance, at the active company rate, as
well as S4 travel, to those awarded a
voluntary furlough, I believed that the
majority of the applicants would have been
more senior. If this were to happen, then
those flight attendants who transition from
PRI lineholders to SEC lineholders during
the winter would stay PRI. Those that
transition from SEC to RSV in the winter
would remain SEC. And, most importantly, I
believed that this offer would best prevent
displacements and involuntary furloughs. I
believed this was true at the time the MEC
met and I continue to believe it today.
I made a motion to the MEC that read as
follows:"Should the US Airways MEC
accept the company's proposal, via side
letter, regarding the voluntary furlough
program on a base-specific offering?"
The vote was 4-1, against, and was recorded
as follows:
FOR: John McCorkle, LEC President, PHL
(jmccorkle@afausairways.org)
AGAINST: Alin Boswell, LEC President, DCA
(alin@afausairways.org)
Lynne Caramello, LEC President, BOS
(Lcaramello@afausairways.org)
Ann Crowley, LEC President, CLT
(acrowley@afausairways.org)
Rob Wessinger, LEC President, LGA
(rwessinger@afausairways.org)
Some of the comments I heard during the
meeting went something like this:
"I don't think we should do the company any
favors."
"We should stick to what the contract says."
I strongly disagreed that this was doing the
company a favor. On the contrary, it was an
attempt to get a good deal for all flight
attendants that will be affected, either by
voluntary furlough, displacement or
involuntary furlough - something I don't
think any of us want to see happen to our
fellow flight attendants that just came back
to flying.
If the cost of displacements is equal to the
cost of extending medical benefits, you can
see how it makes no difference to the
company. However, the company could not
extend those benefits without the MEC's
approval of a base-specific VF.
There are 45 side letters in our current
contract. I had nothing to do with any of
them. But #46 would have clearly been a
benefit to everyone in the PHL base.
My concern has been, is, and will remain,
with the Philadelphia flight attendants.
Regards,
John
John McCorkle - President
Association of Flight Attendants
Philadelphia Council #70
US Airways
OFFICE: 215-492-0840
MOBILE: 215-300-4742
|
