Source: Our Contract

As was reported in the Company’s negotiations communication of April 29, the parties were in Chicago for mediation last week.  

We told you in our April 22 update that we had presented a comprehensive proposal to Inflight management that outlined all aspects of what the JNC believes a new joint Contract needs to contain, and that, as was also reported in the Company’s posting, they were going to present us with a responsive proposal at our next session.  The JNC received the Company’s comprehensive proposal on the afternoon of April 25.

It’s disappointing, but not unexpected, that the Company insisted on communicating with Flight Attendants, and all our fellow employees, regarding the terms of our comprehensive proposal.  There is no positive reason for “corporate speak” from the Communications Department which tosses about broad generalizations about negotiations proposals from the 1980s, or how Flight Attendants negatively impact the airline’s operation and then try to characterize management’s actions at the table as “progress.”

We have been in mediation since October of last year, and we have been pressing to focus these negotiations on issues and interests that Flight Attendants have identified as important.  From the beginning, our view has been that these negotiations are about putting 3 different Contracts together into one new joint Contract.  Unfortunately, management has not held the same view and, as they have since these negotiations began in 2012, continue to propose that each pre-merger Flight Attendant group give up Contract provisions that they currently have today.  Additionally, in many other instances the Company’s proposals are to impose new provisions that don’t apply to any of us today.  The proposals we’re seeing continue to try pitting one group of Flight Attendants against another instead of working to build a Contract that includes all of us.

This is not the way forward.  
This is not going to get us a joint Contract.  
This is not progress.

We presented the Company with a comprehensive proposal on April 21 that represented what Flight Attendants are looking for in their new joint Contract, and it was in fact responsive to United’s interests.  While the Company’s communication may report that they were “responsive” to us, we don’t think you would agree.

Here are just a few examples. United’s comprehensive proposal would:

• Eliminate the incentive rates of pay pre-merger CAL and CMI Flight Attendants have today.
• Eliminate or reduce pay factors, like Reserve Override and Holidays, pre-merger UAL Flight Attendants have had for over 30 years.
• Drastically alter the reassignment provisions pre-merger CAL Flight Attendants have today.
• Implement insurance coverage for Flight Attendants that was negotiated by United and ALPA, and raise the cost for Flight Attendants and their families by thousands of dollars.
• Implement wage rates for Flight Attendants that are below American and Delta, and do not approach them until the third year of the Contract.

On United’s earnings call with analysts, that took place the same day we presented our comprehensive proposal, James Baker of JP Morgan asked, regarding United Airlines’ performance, “Does mediocrity suffice?”  The Company’s proposal on our wages seems to answer that question with a big fat “Yes.”  Anyone would be hard pressed to describe wage rates that trail American and Delta - on Day One - as industry leading, or is this just more of what the analysts are describing as United leading from the back?

We know Flight Attendants across the system do not view the proposals being made by the Company as progress, or progressive, and we encourage you to make that known. We will continue to advocate that the Company work with us to build a Contract that truly is industry leading, not industry average.

Negotiations continue this week in Chicago.