|APFA Members||Subscribe to the APFA Hotline|
|Non-Members||Subscribe to the APFA Hotline|
|Press||Subscribe to APFA’s Press Release|
December 4, 2014
Yesterday, December 3rd, was the first day of the Flight Attendant interest arbitration before three neutral arbitrators, two union and two company panel members. APFA started off the hearing by presenting its case in front of the arbitration members. APFA President Laura Glading and APFA’s financial analyst Dan Akins were called as witnesses. Click here or here for a summary of their testimony as reported via Twitter by APFA Communications. The entire hearing transcripts will be posted to APFA’s web site as soon as they become available.
- The company and APFA stipulated to the value of $112 million as the amount that the arbitrators must add to our combined contracts to equal market based in the aggregate.
- APFA argued for a “me too” clause for health insurance, meaning that if the company offers another work group health insurance that differs from the health insurance in our JCBA, APFA will have the option of replacing our current insurance with such other health insurance beginning the following year.
- APFA argued for a “me too” clause for profit sharing, meaning that if another workgroup on AA’s property is given a profit sharing plan, APFA has the option of reducing the wage rates by $50 million per year (the value allotted for profit sharing in our proposal) and adopting such profit sharing plan.
- APFA asked for pay rates retroactive to December 2, 2014.
Q: Why wasn’t the rejected T/A our arbitration proposal?
A: The Negotiations Protocol Agreement has specific parameters for the arbitration award. The rejected T/A is not within those parameters. Specifically, the T/A’s average annual increase in value of $193 million exceeds the arbitration ceiling by $81 million per year.
APFA National Communications Chair