Well it's official:  United flight attendants, as represented by AFA, headed back to the bargaining table this past Wednesday (Feb. 7) to resume discussions on raising flight attendant pay. 

The talks had previously halted on November 4, 2000 when both parties disagreed over a United Airlines proposal that would only offer salary increases for flight attendants if the union signs an agreement to give consent to the US Airways merger.  At the time, the company had agreed to open our contract six months early because of the recent pay increases given to other employee groups.  However, the MEC had decided (in light of the 'fence' agreement) back then that the best course of action was to continue CHAOS activities to increase pressure on the company.  

So now we're back at the bargaining table.  The problem, as AFA reported yesterday, is that the wage discussions held on Wednesday were in direct conflict with CEO Jim Goodwin's remarks during his Q & A session to flight attendants on Jan. 25.  Apparently, United's negotiators demanded a contractual waiver to purchase not only the US Airways wholly-owned carriers but also the US Airways mainline operation.  Only in return for this broader waiver would the company move forward with the pay raises United had promised its flight attendants.

Our MEC President Linda Farrow told the press:  "We're tired of the mixed messages.  While United makes up its mind about whether to negotiate or fight with the flight attendants, we are moving forward in preparing our lawsuit to protect our members' rights."

Meanwhile, AFA has posted the Questions & Answers following the Goodwin's presentation to the AFA United Master Executive Council on January 25, 2001 on its website.  Having just reread the questions posed by our flying partners and Goodwin & Co.'s response, I found them to be an emotional and depressing set of questions and answers that provided little or no information for us.  I have my doubts the meeting was even worth even the cost of a Clarion hotel banquet room.  Hopefully, the version posted on AFA's site is only a partial set of information and doesn't reflect the true nature of that actual meeting.

I would have expected much more specific responses from a person of Mr. Goodwin's position of power and education.  And I would have expected our own questions to be a bit more professional.  Here's what I mean:

Question: When will UAL come to the table without the pre-condition of a "fence" agreement?

Goodwin's Answer: I'm not going to negotiate today.  I have offered to sit down and talk about issues in our mutual interest in how we want to move forward in this transaction. 

For heaven's sake, isn't addressing the issues and concerns flight attendants have regarding this merger transaction in our mutual interest?  Hasn't AFA made it perfectly clear that the 'fence' agreement must be addressed before "moving forward in this transaction?'

Here's another gem:

Question:  In reference to the strategic rationale and planning that was in the presentation, how do you see the value of having such a poor relationship with our union, as it is extremely stressed?

Goodwin's Answer:  We must get the rest of the communications resolved, including the talks with the AFA.  If we can't learn to work together and stop some of the things we did to each other last year, then we will not have a great franchise.

What?  Exsqueeze me?  Re-read that last part:  "If we can't learn to work together and stop some of the things we did to each other last year…"  Things that we did to each other?  What, exactly, did the flight attendants "do" to United Airlines, last year?  When our contract was violated to kingdom come and critical coverage implemented not once by twice, it's pretty darn easy to see what was done to us.  But things we did to each other?

Uh-uh mister.  Maybe some other time, but last year was your fault 100% and that was a one-way street, pal.

The interview goes on...and you can read the rest for yourself.  Most of the responses and answers amounted to nothing more than glittering generalities and wishy-washy non-specifics.  I doubt Goodwin, Fields, & Co. would have given those types of answers to large corporate customers, like IBM Corporation for example, in a meeting/situation like that.

But to be fair to United, some of our questions were over-the-top emotionally as well.  Here's one that grabbed my attention:

Meeting Comment: You have an intellectual skill.  F/As have an emotional skill.  What you are hearing is an emotion....

Yes, very true.  And the quote goes on to mention the value and importance of possessing emotional skills.  But I've never been crazy of saying that YOU have this and WE have that.  Especially when comparing intelligence with emotion.  And I would caution discussing it at a meeting with a CEO of a Fortune 500 Corporation.  The flight attendant profession has evolved and expanded since the days of propellers and subservient emotional welcome smiles.

Yes, emotional skills are important and should be measured and compensated like a skill to speak a 2nd language; it's having that emotional skill which is how we can keep our cool and deal with the various stresses of being in the public eye under extreme conditions.  But we also have an intellectual skill, equally as important.  This is very important to not let them forget, especially several days before you're headed back to the bargaining table to discuss financial matters!

It was clear from reading the Q & A that there was lot of emotion in the questions asked at the meeting, filled with a lots of wishy-washy answers to boot.  I hope the actual negotiations turn out differently.  I really do admire Linda Farrow for standing strong on the 'fence' issue.  It takes a lot of guts.