American Airlines and flight attendants are down to the wire in negotiations. They’re meeting with federal mediators next week in Washington, D.C. in what the union calls a “last ditch” effort.
The National Mediation Board doesn’t want to authorize a strike, which is bad for the economy and will be unpopular with travelers before the election. There would be pressure on the President to halt the strike, as Bill Clinton did with American Airlines pilots (and pressured both American and flight attendants to agree to arbitration), but he’d be in an impossible position because interfering with a strike would be seen by his labor supporters as betrayal.
The airline has increased its financial offer, the union has moderated theirs, but they’re still far apart it seems not just on wages but also on retro pay and work rules.
On Wednesday the airline went directly to employees and told them that – with the union’s permission, which is required – they would immediately raise pay 17% and implement Delta’s profit sharing formula. This would be outside of contract negotiations, and would not require giving up anything, it would just mean bigger checks while negotiations continue. Naturally it’s aimed at avoiding a strike while negotiations continue.
As I wrote to expect, this angered the union. The union board unanimously rejected it.
Today, American Airlines CEO Robert Isom released a video detailing a company proposal to offer an immediate 17% pay increase on June 1, 2024, without reaching an agreement on a complete contract. This proposal was sent to APFA yesterday afternoon. Management was informed that we would discuss the offer with the APFA Board of Directors.
…Management should focus on reaching an agreement with APFA rather than concocting schemes to take the pressure off.
The APFA Board of Directors unanimously rejects management’s proposal and encourages, in the strongest way possible, the company to put all of its attention towards reaching an agreement with our Union and avoiding a crippling strike.
Aside from the fact that the union has been emphasizing how much flight attendants need the money – that they haven’t seen a pay increase since January 1, 2019, that their wages have been eroded by inflation, and that starting pay is quite low – and this would have delivered more pay to struggling flight attendants immediately without committing the union to anything at all – turning down the immediate raise is bad strategy.
- Gives up moral outrage. Flight attendants can no longer complain about qualifying for food stamps. That was imposed on them by the union.
- Blunder in negotiating the best deal. They could have taken the 17%, and are still bargaining over the 11% additional wage gap in their positions. And American will no longer be able to say they are giving ‘most of’ what flight attendants are asking for.
American’s current offer is ‘no additional wage increases’ beyond the 17% (just boarding pay, greater retirement contributions) but at that point why would flight attendants agree to a new contract that includes changes the airline wants? The airline is starting from zero but still faces the possibility of a strike. American’s deal forces the airline to up its offer. Mid-contract raises ultimately led to mechanics getting more in their deal not less.
- Doesn’t actually increase flight attendant leverage. The union didn’t take it because they think it means the National Mediation Board would wait longer to release them negotiations if they accepted. The unaccepted offer could have that same effect. The board wants any excuse not to have a major airline strike especially right before a presidential election.
- American’s offer would have made a strike more costly. If/when flight attendants execute CHAOS strike (skipping specific flights each day, not doing a full walkout – which is what they’ve talked about), the airline would be paying most flight attendants even as customers booked away. This would have raised the cost to the airline imposed by the strike. The strike would have been 17% more costly in terms of flight attendant wages American is still paying.
The smart thing would have been to take the money since nothing was required in exchange – it was literally just allowing the airline to increase paychecks without a new contract or accepting any company terms whatsoever. You don’t leave free money on the table especially when you… need the money. This would have set a new baseline to negotiate upwards from.
There are still four days mediated bargaining next week to see what’s next. Flight attendants are being told to prepare to skip credit card payments. A strike is not clearly better than taking higher pay and continuing to negotiate.
Back in the 1900’s, unions were necessary to rid the country of indentured labor practices. Of late, the only thing a union is good for is…feathering their own nest. Look at what the teacher’s union has done for education. Nothing, except to starve our children’s rights to a good education. A good education that includes reading the Constitution to understand the “why” of the United States. Look at the Chicago school system. The UAW has wreaked havoc on the automakers. The Teamsters have wreaked havoc on the trucking and shipping industry. So, what is the flight attendant’s union doing? It is wreaking havoc on the airlines and making the constituents pay for its existence. The once proud American Airlines is now a craphole run by incompetent management, being further embarrassed by the unions whose leaders are laughing all the way to THEIR bank. Flight attendants are not indentured laborers. They can get another job.
APFA simply just shot themselves, and their members, in the foot.
Perhaps if Isom threw himself forgoing 30MM of his deal into the mix, that might gain some corporate traction in the negotiations.
How crazy is this?
AA flight attendants would be crazy
Not to fire their union!! Has there ever been a better example of a union that has no regard for the needs of its members? I think not.
The simple reason the union needs to reject the 17% proposal is because it would ensure AA FAs would make less than their counterparts at non-union DL.
If DL FAs can get better pay without a union, the incentive to hold onto a union is greatly reduced.
A decertification vote becomes a real possibility.
AA FAs are being held hostage to APFA’s “need” to add something of value to the process even as their pay relative to competitors shrinks.
AA wants to break the union but keep the FAs.
They should have accepted the 17% pay hike. It came with no strings attached. But at the end of the day, there will be no strike, which, itself is weeks away from becoming a real possibility. The Federal government will step in, as it has done previously in labor disputes at AA, and block it in the interest of the economy.
If they don’t strike , then they are chicken .
Yeah, I don’t get it. Well, actually I do — from the Union leadership perspective. But I don’t from the FA perspective.
How much do FAs pay each year in union dues? That’s also money they’re being cheated out if.
Opinions are like a certain orifice of the body…everybody has one even if they don’t see the bigger picture. Nice try by Bobby trying to an end run.
LOL I love clueless posters.
Never know which is worse, unions or management. With both, it’s a race to the bottom.
The union did the right thing by keeping the pressure on. Why didn’t the management offer the 17% months ago if not years? AA flight attendants should solider on and strike if necessary. That 17% drop in the bucket which Isom said it’s a no strings attached is hogwash. For those of you that don’t believe unions are still necessary, go talk to a firefighter, policeman or pilot
@Tedster … +1 . Well said .
“but he’d be in an impossible position because interfering with a strike would be seen by his labor supporters as betrayal.”
Hardly an impossible situation. There is zero chance the Biden administration allows for a strike before the election.
The Dems know that the unions are in their pocket and will be no matter what.
Why would Biden care about bending over backwards for them? Like their heroes Bernie and Liz, they’ll do the “old man yells at cloud routine” about the consequences the Dem establishment will face, but then when the rubber meets the road, they’ll be the dutiful lapdogs they always are
@Tedster
Unions are useful…to those in the union. For the rest of society, they result in inflated prices (in the case of public service employee unions, taxes), and worse service and/or quality of work. This is undeniable to anyone not completely beholden to unions or extreme leftism.
Gary is right in terms of negotiating strategy that the union should have taken the free money, but AA should not have offered it. I maintain they should lock them out and hire a non union FA workforce. They are unskilled labor that is easily replaced, it’s ridiculous to pay them as if they were highly skilled. So sorry, FAs. Two weeks training max. Short term pain, but huge gain long term in cost structure, service quality, and labor certainty.
Union members don’t understand that a union is a business, and like every business, it has to market its product. The union’s product is only valuable when members are unhappy with their job situation (pay, benefits, scheduling, duties, etc.). While a union consistently promises to improve those and occasionally does, its security lies in its chronically unhappy members. This is why unions are always pushing negative messaging out, no matter the situation. Whether a union actually provides long-term improvements in pay/benefits/etc is very much up for debate. Research suggests that the effects are minimal. What isn’t up for debate, however, is that being part of a union shop virtually guarantees lower job satisfaction as the union works incredibly hard to ensure that their members are never happy with their job.
It’s interesting all the criticism flung here saying the Union isn’t doing what their members want. If you go onto any flight attendant forum and you will see every AA FA wanted them to reject this. While they might be better off financially from this I think you have underestimated the emotional toll this negotiation has had on FAs and how desperately they want to punish American management for how they have been treated. I think many (including the junior FAs living on food stamps) see more long-term value in striking not just about this contract but for future contracts. They believe that if you accept the 17% now, you are rewarding management for pro-longing the negotiations and it will drag out for years before they get something real. What is even more important is the union has maximum leverage with a strike right now – if they get released next week or the week after, they will be able to strike in July – the peak period of travel for Americans.
Gary’s analysis also underestimates this, he says that if they took the money, that striking would cost American 17% more, well if it took away their ability to strike in the Summer (when airfares are more than 17% higher and loads are higher) then no, a strike will cost American more to strike now without the additional pay vs striking later with the additional pay.
@Tim Dunn “The simple reason the union needs to reject the 17% proposal is because it would ensure AA FAs would make less than their counterparts at non-union DL.”
No, they would make more than they do today and they’re still negotiating and still can seek an impasse from the NMB to be released to self-help.
Unions = legalized mafia
17% still leaves them broke and in poverty. Until you understand the pay scale, you don’t get to judge. The hourly number looks great, BUT not all hours at WORK are PAID hours………..
@Maxine
Then they can go find another job if they don’t like theirs, like everybody else in the free world. Better yet, get some education and acquire some job skills so they can do more than unskilled labor, and then they won’t need to extort money from their employer, and could instead have a mutually beneficial and thus respectful relationship. Nah, nevermind, just keep playing victim.
There are so many uninformed comments about flight attendants, the profession, the pay scale and the sacrifices that we have made throughout the years to keep our company afloat through every rough time, including 9/11, the economy, COVID, We have taken pay cuts we have come to work to keep our company afloat and money in our CEO’s pockets. We deserve better. We are all safety professionals each and every day that we go to work!
now, Gary, respond to what I wrote which is that AA FAs would make less than their counterparts at DELTA -and not relative to where they are at AA.
You have accurately noted that any AA proposals that include profit sharing cannot match what DL FAs get because AA will not generate the same level of profits.
And the same is true for UA and WN and every other airline.
AA’s union has consistently tried to offset the lower level of profit sharing with higher base salary increases.
Add in that boarding pay is a divisive issue for unions if it is considered as part of a contract – but DL simply added boarding pay on top of increases.
APFA is fighting relevance relative to what DL has offered its FAs (and other non-union employees) and DL benefits greatly from the labor discontent at AA that sends passengers fleeing away from AA.
I can’t guess where this will all end but it is pretty certain that AA FAs will not get what they think they will get by holding out while AA’s labor situation is just one of AA’s major financial challenges that only gets more complicated.
@Tim Dunn “now, Gary, respond to what I wrote which is that AA FAs would make less than their counterparts at DELTA -and not relative to where they are at AA.”
They ALREADY make less.
This free pay raise would mean they make more than they do today, and they’re still negotiating a contract.
Just wait – We will get the contract we deserve. We are worth way more than 17%. Gary Leff has always hated American Airline’s ever since he got his CK taken away…..
Gary Leff it is NOT a Free Pay Raise it is a stall tactic to avoid a strike to drag negotiations on and on. This further keeps our flight attendants from getting the contract that they deserve and have earned! They need to make offers at the bargaining table not outside of it, under it or through the media to make themselves look good.
This comment box, as well as the OP, is full of the most base and ignorant opinions which demonstrate your lack of real-world understanding of what is happening here. Y’all sound like you write travel blogs of places you’ve never been. Why don’t you give financial advice with no degree either, huh? Tell me what stocks to buy. That’s how worthless these opinions are. They don’t even rise to the quality of being called “analysis.” And you know what they say about opinions, right?
APFA made the right decision. We’ll be back to the table next week. I hope we can get this settled without a Strike, but if it comes to one We Are Ready.
In Collective bargaining Public Perception is important, especially in industries where government can get involved. No strings attached my ass, union leadership isn’t that gullible.
@Gary
“would not require giving up anything,” Your quote. I would think that if you really know as much about all this as you imply that you do, you would realize EXACTLY what would have been given up had the APFA taken this ‘deal.’
To agree would allow AA to continue to kick the rest of the negotiations down the road. It would show the NMB that AA is trying, so the NMB would have less interest in pushing AA to give us an acceptable offer. And while 17% sounds good on the surface, it does not keep up with inflation during the time since our contract became amendable.
There is absolutely NOTHING keeping Robert Isom from adding 17% to our paychecks immediately. An agreement by the APFA isn’t necessary, is it? Just add the money, since you’re (Isom) so concerned about us getting more cash now. Details will still be worked out in negotiations.
But by NOT simply paying us more in the meantime, then it absolutely shows that the union (all AA flight attendants) WOULD be giving up something. Leverage. As much as you’ve thought about all this, you need to consider this angle before you consistently favor AA in this mess.
In this thread: people who are not privy when it comes to flight attendant contracts. The blunder would have been accepting this nonsense – it would’ve taken away any leverage from APFA completely. There is much more to a flight attendant’s contract than just hourly pay – there are inhumane conditions like having to be up for multiple
hours before you’re assigned a trip where you fly 2 legs, sit for 3:59 hours, then work a redeye to the east coast – these quality of life conditions need to be improved. Accepting some 17% raise, which is less than SW’s rates, would only prolong this drawn out negotiation process. Everybody knows it.
Gary,
I think enough people have posted that it should be obvious that the urgency to settle a contract is much less if the union accepts a 17% raise. AA wants to kick the can down the road.
AA FAs will not make as much as DL FAs with this proposal and the union knows this.
Line FAs are increasingly worried that their personal finances will be negatively impacted and they will get skittish given that the union is telling them not only to expect no help but also that their flights might be targeted by the union for wildcat action and the individual FAs could be worse off than if all FAs went on strike. CHAOS is the worst way to do this for individual FAs that are afraid of personal retribution from the company but it is the only avenue the union has given the lack of a strike fund.
As noted, AA could increase the pay of any of its unionized groups at any time without waiting for union approval. AA wants to divide the FAs and harm their union which has had sky-high expectations for far too long.
And the real carrier to watch in all of this is UA which may benefit from AA’s troubles now but will be writing bigger and bigger checks for its FAs when AA finally comes up w/ something.
I’m an EP with AA and FULLY SUPPORT the flight attendants and their UNION. I fly with AA 3-4 days a week and I’m always treated very well by their flight attendants. These men and woman have NOT had a raise in 5 years!! Five years!! That’s totally unacceptable and 17% does NOT get them up to what they are suppose to be, never mind inflation. I will support them if they go on STRIKE! AA has the money and gave their pilots what they wanted plus retroactive pay. They need to do the same for their flight attendants! AA CEO walked away with 32 million dollars last year! Time to start paying your people!
While I dislike how union workers seem to think and behave as if they work for the union rather than their actual employer, unions are good for all airline workers, especially DAL employees: fear of union forces DAL to overcompensate their FA’s; it is simply naive to think that DAL or any company would base their pay decisions on fairness or goodwill. So, to make anti-union statements about how DAL and Skywest are non-union and are the only ones offering boarding pay is deceitful.
@Tim Dunn – yes, AA wants to avoid a strike and get breathing room to wrap negotiations. I wrote that in my original post yesterday about the offer. My point is that flight attendant bargaining is actually stronger with this deal than without it.
jake 1
DL and SKYW offer boarding pay and better than average compensation because their employees deliver more for the airline.
There is nothing “goodwill” about it but rather a calculated decision that well-paid employees in a service industry deliver for the company and the evidence shows that to be true.
Gary,
You and I agree on the facts but disagree on the conclusion. I and others believe the FAs will be worse off w/ this deal because it gives much less incentive to get a deal done and the government might well see that the union accepted an offer so there is less pressure to provide a full settlement.
AA FAs have a choice to make in the near future – push their union leaders to accept a settlement less than the union has been pushing for years of negotiations and face the potential decertification of the union or push the whole issue and run the risk that FAs might balk at having to pay such a high price because the union has failed to achieve its goals.
Something needs to give, competitors will continue to benefit from the conflict, and the labor-mgmt rancor at AA esp. w/ FAs is not likely to diminish regardless of what happens.
Tim, you seem to be suggesting that fear of unionization plays no or very minor part in DAL FA compensation decision?
“YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY AA FA!”
Imagine working some place where you needed permission from the union to get a pay raise from your employer. What a shame.
Anyone is wondering, the APFA skims $40-something bucks a month off the 27k FA paychecks for the privilege to be in the illustrious union. Do the math.
Again, if you’re such dire straits, whether it be emotionally, physically, financially, from working as a FA for AA, then do yourself a favor and do something else. Life is too damn short.
Delta knows full well how destructive airline labor relations have been to customer service and to the airlines themselves and have provided no real benefit to unionized employees.
The notion that Delta would pay its employees well out of a fear of unionization makes no sense. If you want to cut costs, you pay employees just like everyone else.
Delta sees its ability to get premium revenue heavily tied to having happy employees that benefit from profit sharing – something unions don’t like.
Delta’s formula clearly works. They aren’t motivated by fear but a track record of success.
and Delta’s FAs are the best advertisement for why unions can’t deliver what FAs want.
All these people that are posting all these bad comments about the Flight Atendant profession just stop, unskilled labor force..?? Are you seriours please stop it, these Flight Attendants are safety and security professionals, first aid givers, life savers, they are trained in CPR, first aid, firefighting, evacuation of an aircraft in 90 seconds or less in case of a crash landing or fire. They deserve all their asking for and no less, Robert Isom got over 30 million dollars in compensation last year and what does he do really..??
“If you want to cut costs, you pay employees just like everyone else.” – yes, unless you fear unionization. Without competition whose compensation plans are affected by unions, DAL would certainly not feel pressure to raise compensation above theirs.
@Actual AA Flight Attendant. You are 100% correct. Gary and the rest of the naysayers are uninformed about the facts. I hope AA FAs strike or get so close to it that Isom and his thugs come to the table with some real money and improved Scope.
begin (and end) with the premise … AA would never do anything that doesn’t inure to the benefit of AA. AA sees APFA’s members ultimately losing money if they grab this. And throwing it out right now, in a blatant attempt to fracture the FA’s … isn’t that just like AA?
@tedster Obviously its the quality of life they want in addition to pay raises.
At the end of the day, the company will have a set amount they will offer/allow per employee…how its broken down is up to discussions..raises, medical, overtime, per diem, etc..
The company will look at what they get in return…a more productive work schedule and a FA that will actually work and do there job.
It does not help when you read stories they are on their phones, rude to customers, sitting in the galley ignoring the customer, or do not know how to use a defibrillator and the passenger dies. The flight attendant job does not require a degree or certification (requiring years of training) other than a 6 week initial training course and annual recurrent training. Pay should fit the job requirements. If they do not like the hours, leave and work a local job.
If the chaos system starts, I would expect that the participants would be suspended without pay until hearings can be done to see if they had any reason to be off. This will either lead to a general strike or a cessation of such action. Some flights will be canceled. Strikebreakers, or at least replacement workers will be trained. I wonder how many of the union members have actually participated in a strike before and lost significant pay. I can only point to the disastrous grocery workers strikes two decades ago in California as examples of poorly planned strikes of workers that had relatively little training for their jobs.
Does anyone think for a split second that the current administration’s NLRB will allow a strike in an election year?
@win It would not get that far. They might be in the process of locking them out.
AA is trying to avoid a strike at any cost. Yet, it’s been dickering with the union 4+ years because it can delay, and delay, and delay via the Railroad Act.
A strike would be a kick in AA’s arse and force the issue. So far, AA management screwed up on business PAX; Cabin service is down the toilet; and AAdvantage has peso miles for rewards.
Not a pretty picture!!
The 17% increase being offered does not keep up with the cumulative increase in cost-of-living during the 2019/2020/2021/2022/2023 period. That number is 20.3% and does not account for 2024. To take 17% is A PAY CUT.
How much were you paid for this hit job Leff?