American Airlines Flight Attendant Wants to Abrogate the Union Contract

This recent article and subsequent court memorandum have flight attendants at American in an absolute uproar. I actually thought it was a prank until I saw it with my own eyes.

Rock Salomon
BOS

++++++++++++++++++++

American Airlines Flight Attendant Calls Union 'Disruptive'
Jacqueline Palank April 09, 2012
2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

An American Airlines flight attendant said he supports AMR Corp.'s (AAMRQ) bid to negotiate a new labor agreement with a flight attendants union whose actions have proven disruptive to AMR's restructuring.

David E. Tripp of La Jolla, Calif., who said American Airlines hired him as a flight attendant in 2001, argued that he and other unidentified flight attendants disagree with the "vituperative, disruptive and adversary" positions the Association of Professional Flight Attendants union has taken against AMR during its Chapter 11 case.

"Many American Airlines flight attendants are in strong disagreement with the APFA's strident posturing and unfair and aggressive mislabeling of American management's efforts in this restructuring," Tripp wrote in court papers. "Those flight attendants are hesitant to voice their opinions at the risk of suffering in-flight castigation, being shunned as pariahs, or worse." A representative of APFA, which said it represents more than 16,000 American Airlines flight attendants, couldn't immediately be reached for comment Monday, and neither could Tripp. An American spokesman confirmed Tripp's employment but declined to comment on his filing.

Tripp, who supports ending compulsory union membership for flight attendants, last week filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, expressing his support for AMR's request to reject the collective bargaining agreement governing the terms of flight attendants' employment. Bankruptcy law allows companies like AMR to seek court approval to reject existing bargaining agreements and negotiate new ones with a blank slate. However, companies have to show they previously engaged in good-faith negotiations with the union but failed to reach a consensus.

That's what AMR said is the case with its flight attendants' union, for whom the company is proposing such changes as eliminating overtime incentive pay, increasing the amount flight attendants must contribute to their medical coverage and implementing a new pension plan funded by both employee and employer contributions.
APFA opposes the changes and said in its latest bankruptcy update that it won't "idly sit by while the company attempts to take all that we've worked for from us."

According to Tripp, the flight attendants' current bargaining agreement not only hurts American's ability to compete with other major airlines but also fails to incentivize flight attendants to do a good job. Tripp specifically pointed to the way flight assignments are tied to seniority, which he said enables some attendants "who are not the best representatives of American" to work flights that should be staffed by the airline's best.

Tripp also said the union effectively deters American from making sure flight attendants comply with its uniform and dress standards, service guidelines and on-board performance requirements. "Some of American's flight attendants have affected on-board inattention and unkempt sloppiness and manners to the degree that American flight attendants are held up to ridicule and made the laughing stock of the traveling public," he said. "They know there will be no repercussions for their failures because the APFA has effectively stilled American management's voice in trying to compel compliance with flight attendant standards."

By rejecting the bargaining agreement, Tripp said, AMR could make the changes it needs to compete with other airlines and improve conditions for its employees. "Rejecting the APFA agreement with do away with enabling poor flight-attendant performance and will enable American to restructure the unfair seniority and dues requirements that hinder both American and its employees," Tripp wrote. A trial over whether AMR can reject the bargaining agreements it has with the three unions representing its flight attendants, pilots and transport workers is scheduled to start April 23.

AMR sought Chapter 11 protection last November, warning it would need to slash labor costs to be in line with those of its competitors, many of whom used bankruptcy to do the same thing. It's since said it needs to save $1.25 billion in annual labor costs.

(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and those under bankruptcy protection.)

-By Jacqueline Palank, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review; 202-862-6615; jacqueline.palank@dowjones.com

++++++++++++++++++++++

David E. Tripp
7514 Girard Avenue
Box I-240
La Jolla, California 92037
408-656-3424
detripp@yahoo.com

Amicus Curiae in Support of Debtors

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT SO DIST OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------l[

In re
AMR CORPORATION, et at,
Debtors.

---------------------------------------------------------------l[

Chapter 11 Case No.
11-15463 (SHL)
(Jointly Administered)

AMICUS CURIAE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEBTORS' MOTION PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1113, TO REJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, AND WITH PARTICULARITY, TO REJECT FLIGHT -ATTENDANT-UNION CONTRACTS

Introduction.

1. Under 11 U.S.C. Section 1113, American Airlines and the debtors in this matter filed a motion seeking an order authorizing American to reject collective bargaining agreements. American therein set forth the requisite background, overview, and jurisdiction and Americans' statement of relief requested. American contemporaneously filed its Memorandum of Law in support of that motion, and addressed the flight attendant agreement in Part Three thereof.

2. This is an Amicus Curiae memorandum, in particular, in support of American Airlines' motion for an order authorizing rejection of American's agreement with the flight attendants' union, and solely in support of, and in regard to, American's rejection of that union agreement.

3. This memorandum does not take a position and does not address American Airlines' agreements with any other entity or union. In submitting this amicus memorandum, I do not seek admission to practice before this court. I am not a "registered user" of the filing system under the rules of this court, I do not have access to filing on a three-and-a-half-inch disk in "PDF" format, and I ask this court for exception to these rules (as required under the Case Management Procedures order, document 453 in this matter) in order that I might file this amicus memorandum in this matter. In the interests of conserving court time and expense to respondents, I waive notice and personal service electronically and I agree to refer to the published docket in order to view any further filings or response.

4. This memorandum is submitted by myself as an individual, but it represents the views of a substantial number of here-unnamed but similarly-situated American Airlines' flight attendants who are unwilling members of the APFA union and who disagree with the Union's vituperative, disruptive and adversary positions against American Airlines.

Background

5. I am an American Airlines employee, assigned as a flight attendant to the Flight Services division of American Airlines (American). I was hired in 2001 and compelled to join the flight attendants' union, the APFA (Association of Professional Flight Attendants). Although I was hired in Texas, a so-called "right-to-work" state, American explained to me and to other similarly-objecting employees that American was compelled under the APFA agreement to not hire us unless we paid the APFA a compulsory monthly amount, denominated as "union dues." The APFA dues were deducted from my paycheck each month.

6. Since I was hired, I have voluntarily agreed, on several instances, to take a leave of absence -- to not work and to not be paid -- in order that American might not be compelled to layoff flight attendants. Although I took voluntary unpaid leave, in order to preserve APFA union member jobs, the APFA continued to assert that my compulsory monthly dues should be paid to them.

REASONS WHY THIS COURT SHOULD ALLOW AMERICAN TO REJECT ITS CONTRACT WITH THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' UNION

7. The APFA agreement imposes time-consuming administrative record-keeping and payroll tasks on American, while effectively cutting the pay of employees. American may reject the APFA agreement on a showing that doing so will benefit American and that rejecting that agreement is not pursuant to whim or due to capriciousness. In rejecting the APFA agreement, American can show that administering the agreement is time-consuming and burdensome and that the agreement unfairly economically penalizes American's employees. The compulsory-dues requirement in the APFA agreement requires thousands of hours of administrative time for American payroll and management personnel who might be more fruitfully employed in other pursuits. American is compelled by the agreement to deduct dues of some five hundred dollars ($500) a year from each flight attendant's pay, an amount which is greater than the Federal or State income taxes paid by many of these flight attendants and an amount close to what the APFA is charged each hour by its "consultants and experts" for representation in this bankruptcy matter. If the APFA agreement were rejected, these flight attendants would, in effect, receive some $500 a year more pay. If the agreement were rejected, employees who sacrifice active-duty employment and take voluntary leaves to protect fellow flight attendants would not be unfairly punished by the continuing gouge of union dues owed during the time of their leave.

8. The APFA agreement defeats flight attendants' natural willingness to do a good job in the best interests of American and of passengers' comfort and safety. The APFA union managers effectively reward flight attendants who are sloppy, overweight, inattentive and unkempt by administratively deterring American from requiring and monitoring flight attendants' compliance with American's uniform and dress standards, service guidelines, and onboard performance requirements. The time-consuming administrative haggling that APFA representatives impose on American when it attempts to require compliance with uniform and performance standards is a costly burden that American should be allowed to reject under Section 1113, and such rejection is certainly not capricious or whimsical. Some of American's flight attendants have affected onboard inattention and unkempt sloppiness and manners to the degree that American flight attendants are held up to ridicule and made the laughing stock of the traveling public. All one must do to confirm this assessment is to compare some of American's crews with the well-dressed appearance of foreign-carrier flight attendants. If American is to compete in the world market, American's managers must not be hamstrung by a quagmire of APFA objection. Many of Americans' flight attendants DO wish to do a good job and project Americans' best image; however, those few are disheartened by the onboard inattentive, sloppy performance of other flight attendants with whom they are assigned a flight. The poorly performing flight attendants frequently leave the passengers alone the entire flight and spend the flight gossiping, kibitzing, and eating at the back of the plane or in the galleys. They know there will be no repercussions for their failures because the APFA has effectively stilled American management's voice in trying to compel compliance with flight attendant standards. The APFA has done this by tying up American's management with time-consuming repetitive hearings and threats in order to enable the sloppy performers to continue as flight attendants. Allowing American to reject the APFA agreement will enable American to once-again bring its flight attendant crews to a level of uniform compliance, onboard performance, and passenger respect in keeping with American's deserved place in the world air-travel market.

9. Rejecting the APFA agreement will enable American to award the best-performing fight crews American's most important flight destinations. The seniority-based system of awarding flight assignments enables some flight attendants who are not the best representatives of American to work those assignments that fly where American's onboard representatives should be its best. Those sub-par performers then more-frequently interact with American's most-important high-revenue passengers. Even though a flight attendant is overweight, sloppy, and inattentive, that attendant is awarded the most-important trips simply because he has been an employee longer than the more presentable and attentive flight attendant. That policy, protected by the APFA, unfairly prevents American from staffing its first class and business sections on flights to high-revenue-passenger destinations with those American flight attendants that are most complimented by passengers as being attentive and the best representatives of American. In allowing American to reject the APFA agreement, this court would enable American to scrap the seniority-based system and implement a merit-based system. American might then designate its best representative flight attendants to its most important assignments.

10. Rejecting the APFA agreement will enable American to bring its flight attendant personnel expenses in line with the realistic comparable costs of other world carriers. If American is to compete in the world market, it must bring the performance of its flight attendants up to the standards set by the world's dominant carriers and must bring its flight attendant costs in line with those of American's world competition. American's flight-attendant expenses are a large percentage of its sales; Singapore Air and Cathay Pacific have personnel costs of some fifteen percent of their sales (Bloomberg Businessweek, February 27, 2012, page 29). With outdated high personnel costs as a percentage of sales, American is not price competitive and can either slowly shrink as a world carrier or it must come up with a business plan with costs close to the world competition's costs. American must be allowed to bring its flight attendant costs down. The flight attendant job is not a job in which employees improve because of substantial time on the job. The flight attendant job could be done by a relatively articulate, able-bodied person with the equivalent of a high school education plus a year's experience on the job. If two flight attendants are otherwise equal, with one having ten years' experience and the other having one year's experience, the ten-year veteran is no better qualified and no more able to do the job. The APFA has unfairly inculcated in its members the notion that this job, one which could be done by a flight attendant with a year's experience, must somehow command a continuing yearly pay increase simply because that same job has been done by a person for twenty years. This is contrary to reason; a flight attendant does not get twenty years' more proficient at the job simply because he has been doing the same job, with no increase in difficulty, for twenty years. That person really does not have twenty years' experience -- he has one year's experience twenty times. By allowing American to reject the APFA agreement, this Court would enable American to cap its flight attendant labor costs and enable American to encourage long-time flight attendants to move on to more-challenging management or lateral company positions with more potential for advancement.

11. The sheer physical bulk and arcane nature of the APFA agreement creates difficulty in administration and comprehension. The APFA agreement is hundreds of pages of practically impossible-to-comprehend amendments and re-amendments and interstitial letters of agreement. No two flight attendants can agree upon just what it says or doesn't say. The burden of analyzing and interpreting the numerous provisions and exceptions to exceptions is a Gordian Knot that this Court might unravel at a single blow. Allowing American to reject the entirety of the APFA monstrosity agreement will enable American and APFA or any subsequently organized flight attendant group to effectively put in place a convention that will take American well into the future. Rejecting the APFA agreement will do away with enabling poor flight attendant performance and will enable American to restructure the unfair seniority and dues requirements that hinder both American and its employees.

Conclusion

12. Many American Airlines flight attendants are in strong disagreement with the APFA's strident posturing and unfair and aggressive mislabeling of American management's efforts in this restructuring. Those flight attendants are hesitant to voice their opinions at the risk of suffering in-flight castigation, being shunned as pariahs, or worse. In submitting this memorandum. 1 can say that 1 represent a sizeable number of similarly-situated flight attendants who would vote with their feet if offered a chance to opt out of the union. It is time to cast out that which is not working -- that which may never be healed by further amendment. Compulsory union membership no longer has a viable social purpose. It is time for American Airlines to reclaim its place as a leader in the world air travel market. 1 am in support of American's motion for an order authorizing American to reject the APFA agreement and in support of such an order issued by this court.

Respectfully submitted,

David E. Tripp
American Airlines Employee
7514 Girard Ave, #1-240
La Jolla, California 92037
408-656-3424
detripp@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that 1 served the foregoing Amicus Curiae Memorandum, in support of American Airlines' and the Debtors' motion under 11 U.S.C. Section 1113 for an Order authorizing American to reject the APFA agreement, upon the following persons, with a request that some recipients forward this memorandum to their colleagues in the same office or law firm.

Mr. Jeffrey A Bartos, counsel for APFA
Guerrieri, Clayman et al
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
jbartos@geelaw.com

Ms. Kathryn Koorenny,
AMR Corporation
Maildrop 5675
Fort Worth, Texas 76155-2605
kathryn.koorenny@aa.com

Mr. Stephen Karotkin, AMR
Weil Gotshal & Manges
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
stephen.karotkin@weil.com

Mr. Brian Masumoto
Office of the U.S. Trustee for the
Southern District of New York
33 Whitehall Street
Twenty-first Floor
New York, New York 10004

Mr. Jay M. Goffman, Creditors Committee
Skadden Arps Slade Meager & Flom
Four Times Square
New York, New York 10036
jay.goffman@skadden.com