It also "appears" that the FAs are fine with not having union representation, given the results of the election.

I have really enjoyed seeing these mergers, through the eyes of flight attendants. I used to work for usairways. And I just *giggle* every time I hear a PMNW flight attendant complain. If they really want a crappy quality of life, try out usair. Their work rules and lines are really swell.

There are a number of posters citing "Profit Sharing" as an example of good things that happen to non-union workers. Let's be clear, there was no Profit Sharing at Delta until the Pilots negotiated it during the concessions of LOA46 (the program was altered in the bargaining for both LOA 51 and Contract 2012). As with many things that the Pilots negotiate for, they eventually filter down to the other work groups. This is especially true for the Flight Attendants because they share a similar work environment with the Pilots. If the Pilots secure raises in per diem, they migrate towards the FAs. When the pilots gained access to the jumpseat, the priveledge also went to the FAs. Crew Rest facilities, Known Crewmember, etc, when ALPA gains these benefits, the FAs win as well. While there are certainly some fellow workers who are angered when the pilots secure contract benefits, there's also a larger silent majority who realize that when the pilots make gains, good things are eventually in store for them. Frankly, many F/As know they already have a de facto union....it's ALPA. (....and besides, it should be great theatre when the new VP of Labor Relations who was formerly head of the Flight Attendants sits down at the table with the Pilots for Contract 2015)

But to reiterate, Delta didn't start profit sharing out of the goodness of their heart, it was negotiated with DL ALPA.

There you go, bringing in facts to cloud up some old fashioned arguing...

I suppose it's also worth remembering that -- in the U.S. anyhow -- we can owe the "40 hour workweek" to unions. While some of us may actually put in more than 40 hours per week, that's by choice. Without the efforts of organized labor, we might be working 50+ hours per week to be considered "fully employed".

The simple fact is that there were more PMDL FAs than PMNW FAs. All PMDL FAs were unfamiliar with unions and didn't see their benefit first-hand. There was plenty of fear mongering and innuendo against the unions, some of which innocently suggested by Delta company leadership as well. And since most people don't like change -- the merger was already change/uncertainty enough -- they voted to remain without a union. So, if by "fine" you mean they haven't quit en masse, you're right. Delta has certainly thrown bits and pieces their way, but things will only be "fine" for so long. When the airline starts losing money again, when more flying gets shifted to partners, if any additional acquisitions/consolidation occurs, these things are all ripe for changing that feeling of contentment.

Nobody here can compare a pilots benefits vs a FAs benefits. Apples and oranges people. For some reason (some) FAs thinks they should be treated just like pilots....just like (some) posters think that too.

I must've missed it because I haven't read a single post saying FAs should be treated just like pilots.

I think both sides learned from years past . I don't think you will see unions asking for outlandish contracts anymore only to wind up losing there shirts years down the line. No one wants to go through that anymore. I think you will see more mature, realistic bargaining

How much are union dues? I've never belonged to a union so I have no idea.

You are far more optimistic than I am. I wouldn't trust a union member as far as I could throw them. They have no regard for their fellow coworkers. They don't understand that their being selfish and calling a strike could lead to financial devistation and the loss of jobs for everyone else involved. Not to mention they couldn't care less about the customer and the effects of not getting people where they need to be.

Well, they may be happy with what they have. That doesn't mean they would not do better with representation. You are right, if you are happy with less, or you don't think you can get more, everything is fine then and you vote no.

IIRC, PMDL FAs made more money than PMNW FAs. Regardless, if things were so great for PMNW FAs (their attitudes suggested otherwise), then it should have been easy enough to convince the PMDL FAs of the error of their ways.

Given that PMNW FAs still comprised over 40% of the combined FA group, it shouldn't have been that hard to convince a fraction of the PMDL group to join the union. That assumes, of course, that every PMNW FA wanted a union, which we must assume to be true as everything was wine and roses for them.

Do you have evidence that the NMB erred in ruling that DL did not interfere in the election? If so, I would be very eager to see it.

I had an exNWA FA chatting with me when the profit sharing story came out. I said that must have been nice to get. She said it was small - but that the pilots got THOUSANDS more. So - could have been sour grapes - but seems like the FAs get much less in PS than the pilots - where they get a lower percent. Not sure how true but she really gave me an earful.

Why is it surprising that an FA would get less profit sharing? I've gone on record as calling pilots plane drivers because I don't really think their skills warrant their high salaries, but their skills are easily greater than those required of an FA.

My company gives bonuses and stock grants to all employees. We give the largest bonuses and stock grants to those employees with the most skills and most demand for their skills. I struggle to see why the airline industry would be different.

I can't answer that, but here's what the AFA says was spent trying to get into Delta as of 4 years ago: $1 per month/dues since 1996. OP NWAFA could comment on how much his dues were and how much went toward the effort in that timeframe. (full article link below):

Friend became the AFA’s president in 1995, and a year later it started working in earnest at Delta. The union set up an organizing fund and earmarked a $1 per member per month allocation of dues to the cause. That led to a representation vote in 2002, which the union lost badly. Another vote in 2008 did better but still fell well short of a majority favoring the AFA.
Over the years, the union has probably spent millions of dollars, Friend said.
“We knew that it was going to be a long-term investment,” she said.

Union chief unable to bag Delta after 16-year pursuit
http://www.ajc.com/news/business/uni...ar-purs/nQmnS/

In what were they investing? I'm familiar with the notion of investing for myself or my company. I put money in today and hope to take out more in the future. But I'm not sure I understand what the investment was in this case.

What was the motive of the AFA? Who do they hope would "take out more in the future" from their investment in organizing DL? Considering that they were taking money from current members, did they think that organizing DL would improve the situation at NW? Do gains accrue only if all airlines are unionized (which raises the question of why an FA would vote for a union not knowing how other FAs at other airlines would vote)? Or was it really a charitable donation to DL FAs? If it was a charitable donation, why didn't Ms. Friend call it a charitable donation?

I guess I'm just struggling to figure out what, exactly, the unions brought the FAs. We have some folks on this thread that seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject, so hopefully they can weigh in.