Back in January, AFA communicated that management had approached AFA regarding their desire to negotiate a co-terminal agreement for the SFO domicile.
The Master Executive Council (MEC) then conducted interviews for three Special Negotiating Committee (SNC) members and appointed them in February.
The SFO Co-term SNC met in early April for negotiations training and preparation. During that session, the SNC determined that a proposed SFO Co-terminal Agreement would have to contain significant improvements for all Flight Attendants (not just for those in the SFO domicile) in order for a tentative agreement to have a chance of ratification by a majority of the membership. With that prerequisite in mind, the SNC developed a conceptual proposal (a non-binding proposal, or “supposal”) and passed it to management for their consideration.
Management recently responded to the conceptual proposal:
Thank you for sending us AFA’s conceptual proposal to consider while negotiating co-terminals for SFO. It is our understanding that the Special Negotiating Committee strongly believes we would need to implement many of the items listed in the proposal in order to have the SFO co-terminals voted in by AFA membership.
As you know, the difference in savings is relatively small between opening a SJC FA base, and opening SFO co-terminals. Given that, we have very little to play with in order to implement items in AFA’s Conceptual Proposal, while still achieving savings and efficiency for the company greater than (or equal to) those that the company would gain by opening an SJC base.
As such, it would appear that continuing to negotiate a deal between the two parties in order to achieve SFO co-terminals is not productive. Please let us know if you’d like to continue the discussion, or if you agree that the parties should respectfully walk away at this point and acknowledge a deal could not be reached at this time on SFO co-terminals.
The MEC concurs with management’s assessment that the parties should respectfully walk away from further negotiations. We sincerely thank the SFO Co-Terminal Special Negotiating Committee members for their service.
The MEC has been holding off on publishing these details in deference to management’s desire to take the lead on communicating plans for a San Jose Flight Attendant base. However, the MEC has become aware via social media that Inflight executive management has been openly talking to line Flight Attendants about such plans. Consequently, we feel an obligation to get in front of potential rumors and confirm to our members that the reports are true: Management intends to open a SJC base in the next year or so.
We know our members will have many questions. Once management provides the MEC with more concrete information, we will pass those details along to you.
In Solidarity,
Your MEC – Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Linda Christou, Lisa Pinkston, Terry Taylor, Mario de’Medici, Melissa Osborne, Tim Green and Brice McGee
Erik Kruse says
Wish we could reconsider having an OAK base for those of us who are forced to cross the horrid bay bridge from the east bay… I realize OAK has fewer flights than either SFO or SJC, but without much detail provided by AFA, how can we know the reasons behind why a co-terminal isn’t realistic?
It’d be nice to have more specifics for those of us new to this whole negotiation process….
Thanks.
Jeffrey Peterson (MEC President) says
Management is not interested in opening an OAK base because the cost efficiencies are not significant enough to justify the expense of opening and maintaining OAK. Part of the challenge for AFA in communicating sufficient details to the membership is that the Company’s financial information is shared with the Negotiating Committee under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). This is very standard practice within the industry in such circumstances. Consequently, AFA is not at liberty to disclose specific financial details to membership, but we can still talk around the issue in an illustrative way.
Let’s say that opening a SJC base by itself (no co-terminal) will save the Company approximately 500 bananas per month. Management can open a base at any time without the need to negotiate with AFA.
Now let’s say that opening a SFO co-terminal (SFO + OAK + SJC) will save the Company approximately 600 bananas per month, which is a difference of 100 bananas additional cost savings compared to opening a SJC base. However, management would need to negotiate with AFA to achieve a SFO co-terminal agreement. The SFO Special Negotiating Committee (SNC) knew that a potential SFO co-term tentative agreement (TA) would be voted on by the entire membership, and that the TA would need to include fairly significant benefits for all flight attendants, not just for those based in SFO. The cost of AFA’s conceptual proposal–even if pared down to the bare minimum–was far more than 100 bananas per month. It was fairly obvious to both parties that we weren’t in the same ballpark and would never get there, so continued negotiations just didn’t make sense.
Consequently, management is moving forward with plans to open a standalone SJC base sometime next year.
Bryan says
Confused. Difference to management….why? Why are you not telling us what the actual terms are? How can we make an informed decision when we know nothing? Stop the difference, and put it out there..we can decide. Thank you.
Jeffrey Peterson (MEC President) says
The deference to management (not difference) was specific to management’s desire to be the first to communicate the SJC base opening. There are no “actual terms” because the parties didn’t negotiate anything. The SNC put together a conceptual proposal in order to facilitate initial conversation, but the parties quickly came to the conclusion that we were so far apart in our opening positions that there was no way to close the gap in order to reach a tentative agreement. In other words, there is no TA to put out for membership consideration, and we weren’t even remotely close to achieving one.
Bryan Brasseur says
Thanks Jeff. Sorry, my bad. Curiosity always makes me write bad emails.
Jeffrey Peterson (MEC President) says
Lol. No worries!
Anthony maxcy says
Thank you. I’m all for not having a co terminal.