Correction Made, Questions Answered, Rumors Addressed and Passive Aggressiveness Identified

Correction Made, Questions Answered, Rumors Addressed and Passive Aggressiveness Identified

First the Correction

There was a calculation error in my previous post on the comparison between the Delta work rules, the NWA-AFA contract and the Continental-IAM contract: I inadvertently overstated the NWA-AFA pay amount by $4.19 because of applying the international per diem rate ($1.85/hour) to both of the trips in the example. The correct calculation would be to apply the domestic per diem rate ($1.65/hour) to the first trip in the example and the international per diem to the second trip. I also did not correctly identify the Delta per diem rate of $2.10/hour as the domestic per diem rate. The Delta international per diem rate is $2.60/hour, which does not apply to Mexico and Central America trips.

The true AFA-NWA contract pay is really $4.19 less than I had calculated in my previous blog. The Delta work rules and the IAM-Continental pay rates are correct and accurate as previously posted. I apologize for the error and have posted the correct analysis at the end of this blog.

And the Rest

As the Machinists (IAM) and their self-appointed, but as yet undisclosed, “National Campaign Leaders” continue to dodge substantive facts, basic arithmetic and objective comparisons, some of their supporters are struggling desperately to fill the information void. Unfortunately, whether by design or because it’s all they’ve got, these proxy “spokespersons” for the Machinists “campaign” also fail to address fundamental truths and degenerate the conversation into the same baseless assumptions, premise-hopping, personal attacks and passive-aggressive rumor mongering that torpedoed the previous AFA campaigns at Delta.

Recently I put out a factual mathematical pay comparison in response to a flight attendant’s post on a public forum where she falsely claimed that she was being harmed by earning less pay under the Delta work rules than she would under a union contract. The basic premise of her argument was that the 4:45 Duty Period Averaging was affecting her financially. She probably believes this because the IAM campaigners (who were formerly the AFA campaigners and at one point were the TWU campaigners, while some of them were briefly Teamsters campaigners), have done a poor job of explaining how 4:45 Duty Period Averaging works.

It’s apparent from the history of their behavior that they are not so much interested in or capable of relating facts, talking truths and providing transparency as they are at placing blame, calling names, and generally missing the point as well as the big picture.

Remember this: The basic premise of the original flight attendant “complaint”, which I addressed in my blog, was that the poster mistakenly assumed she was losing money on her trips due to the 4:45 Duty Period Averaging. I answered that basic premise with facts, and numbers and real-life comparisons. Rather than acknowledging the existence of facts and arithmetic, the proxy Machinists spokespeople attempt to deflect the conversation, shift the premise and (yet again) launch immature, untrue personal attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the topic of discussion.

Q’s & A’s   

Q. What struck me is that Jose conveniently uses NWA bankruptcy pay-rates from 8-10 years ago! With our union contact, those rates would have been bumped up and the pay figure he gives would have been MUCH higher! THIS is why his claims MUST be answered and countered with the truth!!!   ~ Randall Steffan

A. I’ll address your last sentence (“THIS is why his claims MUST be answered and countered with the truth!!!”) first: Yes, Yes, Yes!!! This is what I and others have been asking for all along. A factual, objective, comprehensive comparison that all Delta flight attendants can review and base their decisions on. Surely they know what a comprehensive industry comparison looks like because they have the ALPA comparison for the pilots posted on their website. So instead of comparing us to the pilots, why don’t they show us the complete, entire-package comparison between the Delta and the other airlines?

Why do the Machinists and their leaders refuse to provide this information to the Delta flight attendants? If they are so bad at responding to your (and our) requests now, why should we  believe that they will become any more responsive if we vote them into office and are unable to remove them? Won’t the incompetence and unresponsiveness grow, just like it did with AFA at Northwest, and now at the combined United/Continental?

You are also wrong about the effective dates of the last AFA-NWA contract. We didn’t even HAVE the last NWA bankruptcy contract 8-10 years ago. The last contract would have been in effect until the end of 2011 had we remained with AFA. So the pay rate is correct. It is the pay rate that we would have still been under if AFA had won the election.

Further, the NWA pay rate was not from 8-10 years ago as you falsely claim. The $41.37 (at fifteen years of seniority – the twelve year pay was $38.46) top of scale pay rate went into effect on January 1, 2011 (ref: Sec 3.B. Incentive Pay of the AFA-NWA contract).

Under the Railway Labor Act, contracts don’t expire, they become amendable. So that last contract, and those pay rates, would have remained in effect until a combined agreement was negotiated and approved by the flight attendants, which would take anywhere from 3 to 7 years based on AFA’s recent and historical performance.

Q. Jose seems hell-bent on vilifying at least ONE individual f/a by name in practically all of his blogs. These are his peers...people he works alongside. If his blogs are held up as the 'gospel' of the anti-union movement, you would think he would be a bit more magnanimous in them. This practice of vilification alone makes me question his motivation. ~ Russ Mates

A. That’s an interesting accusation, Russ. You posted that remark in a thread of at least a dozen vilifying statements and personal attacks, and you had no observation at all about those other posts (right above yours), probably because the posters hold the same political position you do. In a way, you piled on those other attacks with your false speculation, and your untruthful admonitions of my blog. Clearly, it is not the act of vilification that you find reprehensible. What seems to upset you is a statement of fact that counters your opinion on the merits of a particular issue.

I do not vilify individuals in my blog. In fact, as policy, I don’t even mention the names of individual flight attendants in my blog, unless they:

a)    Are principally involved in a campaign to represent the interests of the flight attendant group, in which case it is entirely an appropriate part of the democratic process to debate the merits of their position, challenge their misstatements of fact and express an opinion on whether I believe they are capable and qualified to represent the best interests of the group they are seeking to organize.

b)    Mention my name in some passive-aggressive post about me on some public page for a group of which I am not a member. It is absolutely fitting to respond to spurious claims and ridiculous speculations about me, even when they are carried out in a childish, underhanded manner.

c)    Give me express permission to include their name in my blog.

You’ll notice that I did not post the name of the flight attendant who originally complained about the duty period averaging on her two trips. The issue wasn’t who wrote that post. The issue was the math that was behind the truth in how much she would be paid under a contract versus under the current work rules.  

The only people I have recently mentioned by name in my blogs have been:

a)    David Bachman, Machinist campaigner, who was overtly confused about the number of hours he flies each month (and then apparently tremendously distressed when I illuminated the truth – to the extent that he claims to have gone running for “protection” from the company that he is currently campaigning to protect me and the Delta flight attendants from).  C’mon, Russ, tell me there’s not some sad irony in that.

b)    Michael Cooper, who was so busy self-promoting himself and his “qualifications” as a Machinists lead campaigner for Atlanta that he couldn’t even take the time to figure out the difference between release to report rest and behind the door rest.  

By the way, Russ, since we’re ‘chatting’, I thought I’d point out at least one error in another post you made:


Q. Bravo to Pre-merger Continental f/a's L. Jacobs and M. Gallardo for telling the TRUTH to the anti-union crowd about their work life under their IAM Contract and IAMNPP (Pension Plan). ~ Russ Mates

A. The truth is, Russ, that the Continental flight attendants don’t belong to the IAMNPP (Machinists pension plan). IAM tried to get the flight attendants to join the IAMNPP, but they voted it down. Twice. Here was the statement on the most recent vote: “In the end, the CAL FAs voted to retain our company plan as it contained a lump sum option and the IAMNPP did not.”

The IAM pension plan is an inferior plan that the Machinists can’t even get their own members to join.  Here’s what AFA-CWA (that union you used to support) has to say about the Machinists (the union you’re now supporting) pension plan: http://unitedafa.org/news/details.aspx?id=6199

Q. Priscilla, trust me. Your post above re: your mom's insurance in comparison to ours will not make it into a Jose blogspot. ~ Russ Mates

A. The insurance comparison wasn’t in my blog because that wasn’t the premise of the original “complaint”. Insurance wasn’t the topic of discussion, duty period averaging was. But since you brought it up, maybe you can explain to me why we should give up almost $10.00 an hour in wage increases, plus a 50% improvement in sick/PPT accrual, plus a 40% increase in hourly per diem, plus increased company contributions to the 401(k) plan, plus better profit sharing (in percentage and in real dollars), compared to the old AFA-NWA contract, just to keep the old NWA insurance plan – based solely on a (unsubstantiated) price comparison of one medication between the Delta and the American Airlines plans? Is that rational thinking, Russ? Because you have to look at the entire package – you can’t say that this one little thing over here is better and that’s why we have to throw everything we have out in favor of something else.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that the poster brought the American Airlines contract into the discussion, in a preposterous effort to evade acknowledging the facts and the math that I presented. The American contract doesn’t seem to be an option for us right now, unless there is also a union drive to bring the APFA over to Delta, so how is this even relevant? The track record we should be reviewing is IAM’s, not APFA’s. If I’m thinking about buying a Prius, I don’t look at some feature that’s available on the Ford Fusion as justification for wanting a Prius.  

Q. I thought Jose was an expert on unions. Why is he quoting the less-than-ideal rest reductions permitted in the pre-meger CO contract? Didn't the MAJORITY of the CO f/a's vote for the T.A. and that's how it became their contract?? Are we CO? Would our co's side of the negotiating team be CO's? ~ Russ Mates

A. Hi again, Russ. I am quoting the “less-than-ideal rest reduction” because they exist and because IAM negotiated them. Are you saying that there will be no give and take, no trade-offs in contract negotiations if IAM comes on the property at Delta? Are you so naïve that you believe that we will keep all that we have and then get some more on top of that? Are you really saying Russ that the Continental flight attendants had an option for greater rest provisions, but chose a contract with rest that can be reduced to 7:30 because that’s what they preferred?

Q. He (sic) also using the NWA bankrupt contract.. (sic) Where there is a difference of 90 dollars (sic) to Delta today (sic). We will be negotiating a delta (sic) FA (sic) contract for Delta FA (sic). I am with Priscilla and he is off the mark on so many things..(sic) ~ David Bachman

A. David, your obsessive compulsive cognitive dissonance is very alarming in light of the fact that you are advocating a change in the entire structure of pay, benefits, work rules and quality of life for the Delta flight attendants. It’s scary that you can’t even acknowledge or accept evidentiary reality and yet you are a vocal and adamant proponent for changing it.

First of all, that $90.00 difference that you think is no big deal is averaged over 11:21 flight hours. That averages out to a cost differential of $7.93 per flight hour, to figure in the added cost of the credit rigs, increased per diem and international pay.

Even if we were more conservative in calculating the Delta advantage and if we spread out the cost over the 15:43 the trip is worth, including credit, the differential is $5.71 per hour. If a flight attendant flies 85 hours a month on average, that $90.00 difference is worth ($5.71 per hour X 85 hours X 12 months) $5,824.00.

But that’s only between the Delta work rules and the AFA-NWA contract.

The really important point – the one that you couldn’t bring yourself to acknowledge at all is that the difference between the Delta work rules and the IAM-Continental is $204.00!!! That’s an hourly difference of $12.95 or a yearly difference of ($12.95 per hour X 85 hours X 12 months) $13,209.00 on these trips between the Delta work rules and the IAM-Continental contract.

The other point that you failed to recognize, David is that the none-bankruptcy IAM-Continental contract is actually WORSE in this scenario than the NWA bankruptcy contract was. The question that you continue to refuse to answer is: Why should Delta flight attendants give up pay, credits, rigs and benefits that could be $13,000 or more per year, just so you and your friend can hold self-important union positions, where you won’t competently work for or adequately communicate with the members whose dues are paying your salaries? 

Corrected calculations in the trip comparison:

IAM – Continental Contract:

(No rigs/credits apply)

Hourly top pay: $52.53/hour
International override: $0 (does not apply to Mexico or Canada in the IAM contract)
Domestic Per Diem: $1.95/hour

International Per Diem ($2.50) does not apply to these trips

Flight time = 11:21
Duty/Credit rigs = 0 hours
Hard fly plus credit hours = 11:21

Flight pay: 4:36 X $52.53 = $596.22
Credit pay: $0
Hard fly plus credit pay: 11:21 X $52.53 = $596.22
International pay: $0
Per Diem: 44:02 TAFB X $1.95 = $85.86

IAM Continental Total Pay: $682.08

========================================

AFA – NWA Contract:

(4:15 minimum duty day applies)

Hourly top pay: $41.37/hour
International override: $1.25/hour flown
Domestic Per Diem: $1.65/hour

International Per Diem: $1.85/hour

Flight time = 11:21
Duty/Credit rigs = 5:39 hours
Hard fly plus credit hours = 17:00

Flight pay: 11:21 X $41.37 = $469.55
Credit pay: 5:39 X $41.37 = $233.74
Hard fly plus credit pay: 17:00 X $41.37 = $703.29
International pay: 6:36 hours flown X $1.25 = $8.25

Domestic Per Diem 20:53 TAFB X $1.65 = $34.45
International Per Diem: 23:09 TAFB X $1.85 = $43.48

AFA-NWA Total Pay: $788.81

========================================

Delta Work Rules:

(4:45 duty period averaging applies)

Hourly top pay: $49.96/hour
International override: $1.25/hour flown
Domestic Per Diem: $2.10/hour

International Per Diem ($2.60) does not apply to these trips
 

Flight time = 11:21
Duty/Credit rigs = 4:22 hours
Hard fly plus credit hours = 15:43

Flight pay: 11:21 X $49.96 = $567.22
Credit pay: 4:22 X $49.96 = $218.15
Hard fly plus credit pay: 15:43 X $49.96 = $785.37
International pay: 6:36 hours flown X $1.25 = $8.25
Per Diem: 44.02 TAFB X $2.10 = $92.46

Delta Work Rules Total Pay: $886.08


========================================

Delta Work Rules (with no deadhead segment):

(4:45 duty period averaging applies)

Hourly top pay: $49.96/hour
International override: $1.25/hour flown
Domestic Per Diem: $2.10/hour

International Per Diem ($2.60) does not apply to these trips

Flight time = 11:21
Duty/Credit rigs = 7:39 hours
Hard fly plus credit hours = 19:00

Flight pay: 11:21 X $49.96 = $567.05
Credit pay: 7:39 X $49.96 = $382.19
Hard fly plus credit pay: 19:00 X $49.96 = $949.24
International pay: 6:36 hours flown X $1.25 = $8.25
Per Diem: 44.02 TAFB X $2.10 = $92.46

Delta Work Rules Total Pay (Duty Period Averaging): $1,049.95

Sincerely,

Jose Arturo Ibarra