American Airlines is offering a 17% raise and increased profit sharing to its flight attendants immediately, without waiting for a new contract. The union just has to allow them to pay cabin crew more, and doesn’t have to give anything up in return. That’s the message that airline CEO Robert Isom sent in the form of a video directly to flight attendants today.
Hi, everyone.
I have an important update for you.
The company and APFA negotiating teams have been meeting regularly for months to reach a new agreement. We have made progress in a number of key areas, but there’s still a good deal of work to be done.
We will be back at the table with APFA leadership next week and a deal is within reach, but I don’t know how long it will take to get to the finish line and I don’t want another day to go by without increasing your pay.
So, to get more money to you now, we presented APFA with a proposal that offers immediate wage increases of 17% and a new formula that would increase your 2024 profit sharing.
This means we’ve offered increased pay for all flight attendants and are not asking your union for anything in return. This is unusual. But these are unusual times.
If APFA agrees, the increase would be effective for the June bid month, and you would see the increased rates in your pay on June 30.
Importantly, this does not replace our commitment to get the deal done as soon as possible but gives each of you an increase in pay now. We are committed to reaching a new agreement and now is the time to make a deal.
Thank you for all you do every day to take care of our customers.
Unions don’t usually like management communicating with employees about this issues directly. Union leaders are likely to be unhappy, but can’t really say no to their members making more.
- It simultaneously improves their bargaining position, since there’s less that American Airlines will be offering as an incentive to get a final contract done.
- And at the same time reduces some of the immediate tension, potentially making it harder to strike (although as a formal matter flight attendants could still do so if the government allows).
This would be a side letter amending the existing 2015 contract that became amendable at the start of 2020 and would not require a new contract. The 2015 deal was the result of flight attendants voting against the contract that their union had negotiated, an unusual result of an arrangement union leaders arranged with US Airways as part of supporting its takeover bid for the airline.
Paying flight attendants more, right away, would certainly show good faith and perhaps reduce some of the rancor that and impetus for a strike. And it would remove any force to the argument that ‘the longer a contract takes, the more money the company saves.’
However it probably makes getting a final deal done harder.
- American Airlines gave employees mid-contract raises already. Having frontloaded a pay increase to its mechanics, there was less to give in 2019 in order to get to a deal.
- That kept the airline and its mechanics farther apart in negotiations, and led to the airline’s summer 2019 operational meltdown.
- Flight attendants will have less urgency in getting a deal done. This doesn’t give them boarding pay or increased retirement contributions right away, so there are still carrots on the table. But having capitalized most of the gains of a new deal, will have little reason to compromise on remaining items.
Put another way, flight attendants won’t gain nearly as much by adopting a new contract so will be able to live under the current one with higher pay for longer – holding out more easily on work rules and retro pay and eventually returning with another strike threat.
This is a big gamble on the airline’s part, they know all of the reasons why paying more now without getting anything in return makes it harder to get anything in return. So I take it to mean that,
- They don’t have a strong prospect of getting a deal done next week in government-mediated negotiations
- The indications they’ve gotten from the National Mediation Board are that flight attendants really will be released into a cooling off period and allowed to strike
- That the Board will do this despite the position it puts the President in, and they don’t expect the President to intervene (willingly hurting his standing with voters to avoid compromising his position with unions)
This is a risky move in the long-run, but in some sense no more risky than a strike now. If a strike is otherwise certain, American Airlines might as well kick that can down the road. The worst case is that they’ll be facing one later instead.
And they’re going to be ultimately giving flight attendants more than a 17% raise – this is just what was on offer a month ago that wasn’t getting a deal done (the union reduced its demand to 28%).
If this reduces tensions, there’s a win for the airline, and they just need to figure out how to get a deal done with part of the economic value of the contract already agreed upon – and only boarding pay, retirement, and possibly per diem left to incentivize a final deal.
Update: the union responds and as I said to expect, they are not happy.
Yesterday afternoon, AA management approached APFA with a proposal to increase pay rates by 17%, effective June 1st, 2024, without reaching an agreement on our contract. This is not the first time management has offered a similar idea, such as the short-term contract earlier in the year. APFA’s position has been Flight Attendants want and need a complete contract.
Your National President gave immediate feedback that APFA and the company are meeting next week, and management should focus on reaching a deal. We are looking for a complete contract of which Flight Attendants could be proud. However, following APFA’s process, management was informed we would discuss the matter with the APFA Board of Directors, which has been scheduled for later today.
Rather than waiting for a response from APFA, the Company decided to publish their proposal. The fact that they were unwilling to wait for a Union response can only signify that this was a ‘PR’ move in the face of a strike deadline. We believe that AA management underestimated the determination and resolve of Flight Attendants to achieve the contract we deserve.
The union does not, however, say that American shouldn’t immediately pay flight attendants more while they continue to negotiate.
Don’t take the bait…it’s a ploy to keep the status quo. It’s the 9th inning and it’s about to get real…keep the pressure on and let them flinch. It’s the only way to get the maximum benefit.
Soooooo onboard service is going to be thoughtful, helpful and attentive now or will it still be “here for your safety, don’ tbother us” and screw around in the galley bullshit?
@Mike – it literally would not be the status quo, it would be the pay and profit sharing from the airline’s last offer (which is an increase after Delta raised non-union worker pay 5%)
Can they just go on strike already? So tired of this back and forth…
(Though, I think a strike would be unwise).
Weak.
@Gary,
There would be (in my view) VERY little incentive for the Airline to wrap this contract up after giving the 17%.. So boarding pay (as you mentioned) and whatever other work rules/ quality of life changes would be at the mercy of a very elongated timeline to settle. (My assumption is the NRLB would feel much less obligated to declare an impasse as the company is showing ‘good faith.’ )
If the Airline is willing to give 17% for ‘nothing’ there is a lot more to get. I’d say reject the ‘deal’ and keep pressing the NLRB to declare an impasse. Only then (in those last 30 days of the cooling off period) will you get the Airline’s best and final offer.
It’s not like the carrier has built a relationship of trust with the unions. Therefore you can’t assume this is the best they can do. I think only the 30 day cooling off period will yield their best offer. I guess you can say it takes a little bit of fire in order to get cooking.
“and only boarding pay, retirement, and possibly per diem left to incentivize a final deal.”
Retroactive pay. No deal will be agreed upon without it.
@Mike … Spot on . Remember Kramer accepted free coffee , when the company was also going to give him a large cash payment ? Jackie Chiles berated Kramer for his impulsive agreement .
Will that increase be enough to get some of the full time flight attendants off food stamps?
Jackie Chiles : “Who told you to ‘take it’ ? Did I tell you to ‘take it’ “?
Lesson from Jackie Chiles : Never accept a low-ball first offer .
In other news award travel will be increasing 100% effective immediately
So 450k one ways in business class will now be 900k one way
There are a whole lot of FAs that are willing to accept this offer given that the union told its members to prepare for significant financial hardship.
whether 17% is enough or not matters far less than the fact that most FAs cannot afford to strike or worse to be put in the position of having to bear the brunt of a job action f the union targets their flight to be stuck.
The only certainty is that the good times are not coming to an end for AA’s competitors.
@Frustrated F/A – yes, and APFA gets more leverage for retro pay if most of the raise has already been paid and is no longer part of negotiations.
@TDunn,
This is clearly a calculated attempt by the company to test employee resolve and to diminish the strength of the union. Time will tell if they’ve calculated correctly.
If they accept the deal the government may see that as a reason to extend the negotiations. When it comes to negotiations there is nothing more powerful than the right to strike. AA is going to have a huge problem when ticketed travelers show up at the airport and flight attendants do not. Some might say, it’s not a full-blown strike. Even so, there will be a huge ripple effect.
The answer is no. Love the comments saying “Award travel and ticket prices going up”. Why weren’t you saying that when the pilots got their big raise? Do you know RETIRED pilots received retro pay as well? You should be directing your anger at the CEO.
It seems odd that flight attendants not being paid for time doing their required work during boarding before the doors are shut, and after they’re opened can be legal. I don’t believe California labor laws allow this type of working off the clock.
@Keller
Because they make $45/hr off the gate. Its an average. Do you make $45/hr?
It’s a bold move Cotton, let’s see how it plays out…
@Chris
Yes. $45 an hour ‘off the gate’ sounds good. Until you realize how many hours AT WORK are required to get that. Last week one of my duty days was over 16 hours (not exaggerating here Chris) and I was paid for exactly FIVE AND A HALF hours. That’s a bit different than the general public thinking $45 an hour is a lot. And it would be, if I was paid for every hour that I’m working.
@Roger E Keller – these are union-negotiated contracts, and pay is well above minimum wage when calculating comp including boarding hours.
boarding pay benefits junior flight crew, who tend to fly more short flights (so spend a lot of time boarding)
higher pay rates without boarding pay benefits relatively senior flight crew (who tend to fly fewer, longer flights)
flight attendants are paid higher wages but for fewer hours, and this benefits more senior members of the union. delta ADDED boarding pay on top of wages when they also increased boarding time, and skywest followed. both are non-union.
american airlines will be the only unionized flight attendant group with boarding pay when they agree to a contract. others, like afa-cwa at spirit, have opted not to prioritize it in negotiations.
Good tea Gary. They’ll probably settle at 21% overall base pay increase when all this nonsense is over with. But in the meantime, I like Isom going directly to the FA’s about it. I’m sure Julie spit out her Chardonnay in the admirals club when it went public.
In the meantime, for an elevated premium cabin experience, might I suggest JSX.
I think that the flight attendants would be smart to take this offer. The union should get the members to set the extra money aside for their own personal strike funds. On the other hand, summer season is almost here and it is a good time for the union to strike. A strike in the fall before the election would also work as political pressure would come.
Just announced…No deal. Next stop Monday June 10th. We’ll see what the week brings.
Oh, if only we lived in a free society and the rights of the employer were on par with the workers. Most of these disagreements would be settled in short order.
What rights are the employer lacking?
Freedom of Association.
We will not accept this insulting offer by Isom. It’s union busting 101. They are not supposed to directly negotiate with Flight Attendants . That’s’ what we have a Union for . My Union Speaks for ME! Unless that contract doesn’t not have SW pay and Retro . It’s a hard no! We are ready to Strike !!
Wether some on here agree with us or not .We’ve been waiting too long so that management can dangle a carrot of 17% . .. No thanks ! I’ll take my chances with a strike to get what we truly deserve !!
Nah, no thanks bobby. Pony up or summer thunderstorms are gonna be the least of your worries at DFW.
Give them “fair pay” but then a “fair airfare” should be charged to the passengers. Expect $1000 coach tickets soon as these ULCC’s fade away.
“I’ll take my chances with a strike to get what we truly deserve !!”
To be fair, one option should be a “pink slip”.
@james n
You don’t know nothing about what we’re going through . So I respectfully ask you to stay in your lane. Also if you’re flying AA sometime in July . I suggest you make other plans if it comes to a strike .
What you’re “going through” has no bearing on my comment. The fact is that your employer should have the option to fire anyone who refuses to perform their job duties, for example, during a strike.
@James N.
That’s not the way it works buddy . I guess you don’t know anything about how unionism works and the rights union members have .. And they don’t have that option . Whether you think that they should or not has no bearing to me because they don’t by Law ..
Gee, Kevin, it took awhile but you finally caught up to my point and your comment validated it. Congrats!
James from a practical and not legal sense…how does an airline just go and fired 20% of their workforce? How would they run their operation?
@Jim Baround…That’s not my point, you’ve committed a red herring. The only point I’m making is that in a free society, the employer would have the option to fire any worker who refuses to perform their job duties for the wages and benefits offered.
But, in regards to your question, you’re assuming that 20% of the workforce would refuse the wage package offered and walk off the job. If that were the case, the employer could either increase their offer or hire replacement workers. The latter not being an option under current labor laws. My position rests on getting the government out of matters involving the private sector. They always lean towards the workers, versus the employer…bigger voting bloc, of course. Favoring one over the other is patently unfair.
No doubt the company knows a lot of the new hires (they have added so many over the last five years – it’s staggering) cannot afford to live on strike pay. Especially considering the incredible Biden inflation. I suspect we will see a significant fracture withIn the union now that the recent hires form a significant portion of the total. I’d bet a huge number would throw in the towel aft 30 days.
All this debate in this thread about money, when these FAs can’t do their damn job. Where’s my regular pre departure beverage? Where’s my quality service with friendly attitude? Where’s any single gesture of going out of your way to show that you give a damn about the passengers. They don’t deserve these raises until AA sets a standard behavior that’s required of all FAs, where they will be terminated for not following.
If the America West FAs went on strike and didn’t show up in the cabin, will anyone notice?
No, I mean really?
I don’t think flight attendants are needed. At most, ONE per flight. And they should get paid less than fast food workers, because their work is rote, mindless, and they have absolutely no take-home work that influences their private life. The job peformed by flight attendants is at the lowest skill level. I have often thought about how care-free it would be to have a job where you have ZERO responsibility outside the hours you’re actually “performing”.
As a shareholder, I’d prefer that the company declare bankruptcy rather than negotiate further beyond the 17% offer. Let these “attendants” and their $45/hr wages seek employment with competitors. I’m willing to forgo my entire investment to see a union loss.
@Lindy – I think you lose credibility saying you’re a shareholder in AA, given how badly it’s performed as an investment and everyone knew it would happen given their distribution changes.
Secondly, you seem to have no idea what a flight attendant does? Serving customers is not even their core responsibility, they are there for safety reasons. As well as making sure the cabin is kept in a safe and orderly manner and pax do what’s required to maintain safety etc, flight attendants have shown time and time again why they are needed in an emergency. Just look at the JAL A350 crash recently where flight attendants managed to evacuate everyone in bare minutes from a burning plane while no one was prepared for it (it wasn’t like coming into land everyone knew they were about to crash and need to evacuate).
I mean your point would make sense if flight attendants didn’t have to go through 8-10 weeks of intense training where a significant proportion fail and then have to do quarterly and yearly training updates/refreshers… but they do. Please go find me fast food workers who go through this.
Great to see the airline trying to settle this with employees on there own.
@ Lindy — OK, next time you are on a 200-passenger flight that requires emergency evacuation, how do you think that will go with one FA? And, enough with insulting flight attendants. Their jobs are not easy. As a shareholder, maybe you should be more concerned about the guy in charge of an under-performing company receiving $31 million in annual compensation? You sound like the type who doesn’t feel like he should pay an taxes, so maybe you should be really angry with his compensation given that it is all from government handouts.
Unions basically lock you without an escape clause to one employer for life. Can’t change because seniority means you’ll fall back to entry level wages at another employer. That leaves just bitterness with the employee. Like a bad marriage.
Not falling for it, Isom.
@Lindy
91.533 Flight attendant requirements.
(a) No person may operate an airplane unless at least the following number of flight attendants are on board the airplane:
(1) For airplanes having more than 19 but less than 51 passengers on board, one flight attendant.
(2) For airplanes having more than 50 but less than 101 passengers on board, two flight attendants.
(3) For airplanes having more than 100 passengers on board, two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passengers above 100.
(b) No person may serve as a flight attendant on an airplane when required by paragraph (a) of this section unless that person has demonstrated to the pilot in command familiarity with the necessary functions to be performed in an emergency or a situation requiring emergency evacuation and is capable of using the emergency equipment installed on that airplane.