• COMPANY REFUSES ANY SEPARATION BENEFITS AS A RESULT OF THE LGA AND BOS BASE CLOSURES
• Accessing Wings

• AFA Local Numbers

COMPANY REFUSES ANY SEPARATION BENEFITS AS A RESULT OF THE LGA AND BOS BASE CLOSURES

After the Company announced their intention to close both the LGA and BOS domiciles, the Union made three different Separation Package proposals to the Company in the hopes of mitigating the effects of the closures on our members. Unfortunately, the Company has denied every proposal. Copied below are links to previous Elines describing the Union's first two proposals and the Company's letters of rejection.

http://www.afausairways.org/Eline/feb25_10.htm
http://www.afausairways.org/Eline/jan31_10.htm
http://www.afausairways.org/Eline/jan21a_10.htm

The Union's first two proposals contained monetary and benefit incentives. The second proposal reduced by 50%, the proposed cash payout and the number of participants. Even with that "good faith" position, the Company sent the following to the Union:

Mike,

Although I recently provided you with the Company's verbal response to your Separation proposal, on behalf of Al Hemenway I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with a written response. We received you modified Separation proposal dated February 22, and correspondence. In our first correspondence back to the Union on this topic we pointed out that one important criteria the Company considers in assessing any voluntary separation package is whether doing so would reduce the need for involuntary furloughs. Since we achieved our reduced need for FA through voluntary leaves, we are not planning currently any involuntary furloughs.

In terms of the impact to the FA from the closed bases, in our first correspondence we observed that any FA from BOS or LGA who elects to displace to either DCA or PHL will have one of the more practical commute schedules due to the higher Shuttle flight frequency and lower load factors involved. In your most recent correspondence the Union argues that the pairings in DCA or PHL generally involve longer trips than those the FA in LGA and BOS have become accustomed to. We agree, and while we understand that a change to longer pairings may present some personal challenges in adjusting personal schedules, in many cases where employees decide on a commute instead of relocation, often times a change to longer pairings are preferable as they reduce the frequency of the required commute.

Last, we recognize the Union movement in this modified proposal reducing the lump sum from a minimum payment of $20k, to a flat $10k, but the reality is that while that reduces the direct payout costs, it also reduces the potential demand. Thus while we appreciate the Union movement, for all the reasons stated in our original correspondence and in this note, we are not able to consider a separation package. In addition, we are in receipt of former LEC President Rob Wessinger's request for a travel package for any flight attendant that has separated or is considering separation as result of a base closure. As you know, the travel policy is a corporate policy and we believe ours is among the most competitive in the industry. However, the flight attendants have even a more generous travel benefit than afforded under the corporate travel policy for separations. Under the collective bargaining agreement and supplemental to retiree travel provisions under the corporate policy travel, flight attendants who separate are entitled to travel under the negotiated 25/45 or 5/55 language. Therefore, the flight attendants have an opportunity to separate under the 25/45 or 5/55 Collective Bargaining Agreement programs, or under the corporate policy retiree travel 65 point plan. Although not all of the flight attendants qualify, a large majority of the flight attendants do qualify for one of these programs. For these reasons, modifications to the travel program are not currently being contemplated.

Thank you.

Cindi Simone, Director
Labor Relations, Inflight

In light of the Company's denial of both the second Separation package and former LGA LECP Rob Wessinger's request for a travel incentive, the Union formally requested a travel incentive package via the following letter:

March 3, 2010                         VIA FAX AND US MAIL

E. Allen Hemenway
Vice President, Labor Relations
US Airways, Inc.
4000 E. Sky Harbor BLVD.
Phoenix, AZ 85034

Dear Al,

The Union has been informed of the Company's denial of a second Separation Package proposal. The basis for the denial is an SEP would, in the Company's words, be a cost to the Company and not generate any savings.

While we can argue the merits of the Company's logic, the Union believes that at the very least, the Company should offer travel benefits to Flight Attendants, not otherwise eligible for travel under the Company's current policies who are forced to separate as a result of the LGA and BOS domicile closures.

While many of our members qualify for either Corporate or contractual travel policies, some do not. It seems a shame for someone who has dedicated years of service to US Airways and because the domicile closures must separate, to fall through the cracks of either Corporate or contractual travel policies-and in effect-leave with nothing.

For the airline, non-revenue travel is a very small cost item. For the individual, the continuation of some form of non-revenue travel is a very large item in terms of good will and consideration.

I once again urge this Company to do the right thing. The effects of the domicile closures have been devastating. Although your earlier letter explained that while commuting is never easy, the types of commutes for our former LGA members and soon to be displaced BOS members were some of the easiest commutes in the system. That is corporate rhetoric that ignores the fact that no commute is easy and in fact some people simply can't commute at all due to the nature of the flying that has existed in LGA and BOS.

For the above reasons, I believe the Company should offer a travel benefit for the members who aren't otherwise eligible who are forced to separate. Furthermore, this benefit should be offered on a retroactive basis to any member who has separated from the Company as a result of the domicile closures.

I look forward to discussing this with you.

Sincerely,

Mike Flores, President
The US Airways Master Executive Council
AFA-CWA

The Union truly believed that offering a travel benefit was essentially a no cost item to the Company and should have been granted to members disadvantaged by the Company's decision to close two long time domiciles loyally staffed for decades by our members. And yet, the following was received by the Union this week:

Mike,

Respectfully, on Al Hemenway's behalf, I am declining the AFA's request for a travel package for flight attendants affected by the BOS and LGA base closures. For the same reasons cited in my email to you on March 5th in response to former LEC President Rob Wessinger's request for travel which exceed any contractual or Company benefit. Once again I remind you, our flight attendants have a more generous travel benefit than afforded under the corporate travel policy for separations. Under the CBA and supplemental to retiree travel provisions under the corporate policy travel, flight attendants who separate are entitled to travel under the negotiated 25/45 or 5/55 Collective Bargaining Agreement programs, or under the corporate policy retiree travel 65 point plan. Although not all of these flight attendants qualify, a large majority of the flight attendants do qualify for one of these programs. For these reasons, modifications to the travel program are not currently being contemplated.

Thank you.

Cindi Simone
Director
Labor Relations, Inflight


The process to secure a Separation Package has been a long and trying one. AFA-CWA used all of our resources to propose packages that made financial, practical and humanitarian sense to the Company.

The Company has chosen to believe that base closures are a fact of life and, the effects on our members are of little or no consequence.

The Union still has on record, yet to be heard grievances, regarding the Company's unilateral decision to close the LGA and BOS domiciles.
 

Thank You,

Mike Flores, President
The US Airways Master Executive Council
AFA-CWA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AFA US Airways Website

www.afausairways.org

Accessing Wings:

https://wings.usairways.com
Questions about WINGS? Please contact the EDS Help Desk at (480) 693-6029 for assistance. More information can also be found HERE.

AFA Local Numbers
 
Council 41 DCA 703-212-8090
Council 69 BOS 781-289-8454
Council 70 PHL 215-492-0840
Council 82 LGA 315-736-3483
Council 89 CLT 704-527-0325

New Hotline Number Toll Free: 866-USA-AFA2
US AIRWAYS Benefits Information 800-872-4780

Reply to Inflight: askinflight@usairways.com

Got Questions? Get Answers

The *E-Line* is now in a new and improved format. By updating your profile at unionvoice.org you will be able to enjoy improved services in the near future! Visit your subscription management page at: http://www.unionvoice.org/

Got questions about This *E-Line* from AFA - US Airways or any other Union matter? Do NOT REPLY to the *E-Line*. PLEASE contact your local AFA officers or committee chairs directly: http://www.afausairways.org/emailaddresses2.htm

Your MEC Officers
Association of Flight Attendants
Hotline & *E-Line* - US Airways