Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Apfa And AA, No Deal After 3 Days Of Negotiations  
User currently offlineSuper80DFW From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1661 posts, RR: 11
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5787 times:

Well, the article says a new mediator was appointed. I guess maybe one more session of negotiations before the NMB decides to release them from negotiations?

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/...-End-Contract-Talks-113032254.html

Will definitely be interesting to find out what the next step will be.

[Edited 2011-01-06 15:49:03]


"Things change, friends leave, life doesn't stop for anybody." -- EAT'EM UP EAT'EM UP KSU!!
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinemacsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5766 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Super80DFW (Thread starter):
Will definitely be interesting to find out what the next step will be

AA needs to use this as a springboard to getting all their labor matters settled. That is the albatross about their neck.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5562 times:

Ready the scabs lets get this over with   
Seriously, what is that Laura Glading wants? Everything to go back to pre-9/11 wages benefits and work rules?



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7318 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Ill try to contain my amazement.   


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineswa4life From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5403 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 4):

With all due respect, do you even know the specifics of the terms on the table by AA? If they're on a concessionary agreement from 2003 and they're being offered 9.9% over 5 years, I'd say that's probably not reasonable..


User currently offlinem11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Quoting swa4life (Reply 5):
With all due respect, do you even know the specifics of the terms on the table by AA? If they're on a concessionary agreement from 2003 and they're being offered 9.9% over 5 years, I'd say that's probably not reasonable..

The contract AA F/As currently have is the third best contract in the industry. Its behind only CO's and WN's. They are lucky to be making what they are now.



My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlinevhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4962 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

AA767400, extremely well said. Welcome to my respected user list.

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11116 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

It's all politics, and both sides know it.

Glading is a politician and has to look tough in front of her troops in order to get re-elected. Thus, she has to stick to the line that they will not accept a "bad" contract. The company has to stick to the zero-cost-growth line because the Street is convinced - despite attempts by Glading to convince them otherwise - that the company's labor costs are already to high (AA's union labor cost for flight attendants is the highest in the U.S., after all).

Without seeing the specifics of what was passed back and forth between the two sides, it is impossible to truly comment on who is moving in whose direction. The bottom line is that the company knows that of course they are never going to be able to get a contract ratified that is zero-cost-growth, and Glading knows that she is never going to get a contract that restores to 2003 - which would be uneconomic, and unrealistic considering how much more APFA flight attendants already cost versus much of AA's competition.

In the end, I agree that this is probably headed to an 11th-hour deal, and probably/hopefully not a strike. I genuinely do believe the flight attendants don't want a strike (not sure about their union, though) - just had a great conversation with an LGA-based purser last week who said that she hopes they reach a deal soon, since both the company and the union have been dragging it out by making unrealistic demands, and that dragging it out hasn't helped any flight attendants - all of which I agree with 100%. Only time will tell ...


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16927 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 9):
WN has been profitable for years, and continues to this day to make a profit EVEN with FAs making just as much, if not more than AA FA's. Pretty much Ditto for the Pilots of both airlines. Gave or take cent.

Google is profitable and can give its employees just about whatever they want; why not compare AA to them too? AA already had 30+ years of operations, employees, labor relations, rules, pensions, costs, and overhead before WN was even scratched out on a napkin. AA continued to operate under pre-Deregulation for almost a decade longer before AA had to deal with its revenue destroying consequences--something WN never had to deal with as a purely intrastate carrier. And that doesn't even consider the difference in complexity of both carriers' networks. If you want to compare the two, start by taking about a third of the revenue from WN, and see how they react on the cost side.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Take a look at the videos put out by the AA union on the numbers. Even in the propaganda they are putting out to their members they cannot really get away from the fact that they are the most expensive. This Dan guy twists and turns the numbers in every which way and the best he can do is to say that American uses too many FA's on International flights.

His words:
"On average you have fewer seats to serve, more flight attendants fewer seats that makes your costs more expensive"

So using his own words, not only are the FA's more expensive at American but they are also less productive! Using his math, to bring American in line with their competitors they should fire these unneeded FA's and make the others who are left do more work.

Again this is a UNION video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3F_Je3xRa4
*** This video has 3 parts, number 2 is where the above quote comes from***



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1080 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4443 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
Google is profitable and can give its employees just about whatever they want; why not compare AA to them too? AA already had 30+ years of operations, employees, labor relations, rules, pensions, costs, and overhead before WN was even scratched out on a napkin. AA continued to operate under pre-Deregulation for almost a decade longer before AA had to deal with its revenue destroying consequences--something WN never had to deal with as a purely intrastate carrier. And that doesn't even consider the difference in complexity of both carriers' networks. If you want to compare the two, start by taking about a third of the revenue from WN, and see how they react on the cost side.

Not to mention WN flies only 737s around the USA. If AA parks all their 777/767/757/MD80 and cancels all future 787 orders they TOO can be like WN!



These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 9):
Take a look at the videos put out by the AA union on the numbers. Even in the propaganda they are putting out to their members they cannot really get away from the fact that they are the most expensive. This Dan guy twists and turns the numbers in every which way and the best he can do is to say that American uses too many FA's on International flights.

His words:
"On average you have fewer seats to serve, more flight attendants fewer seats that makes your costs more expensive"

So using his own words, not only are the FA's more expensive at American but they are also less productive! Using his math, to bring American in line with their competitors they should fire these unneeded FA's and make the others who are left do more work.

Again this is a UNION video!

Really? That's what you took from that? Let me help you out, his point was that American has made a decision to operate 3 class service on some of their aircraft and it is on those aircraft that represent the higher costs. However, he rightly points out that American is not staffing additional FAs on these aircraft for no reason, they are doing so because they are driving a revenue premium in F class where the extra FAs are spending more time with the passengers in the premium cabin. AA is offering their customers premium service at a premium price, no one should be shocked that it comes with premium costs. And apparently AA is making a profit on their F class cabin (with the higher associated costs) or they would eliminate F class although like a lot of airlines or even themselves on their other aircraft.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5064 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting swa4life (Reply 4):
With all due respect, do you even know the specifics of the terms on the table by AA? If they're on a concessionary agreement from 2003 and they're being offered 9.9% over 5 years, I'd say that's probably not reasonable..

That's just under 2% a year. Considering that inflation has been low (look at the COLA increases or lack thereof for people on Social Security), 2% is very reasonable.


User currently offlineswa4life From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 11):

Really? That's what you took from that? Let me help you out, his point was that American has made a decision to operate 3 class service on some of their aircraft and it is on those aircraft that represent the higher costs. However, he rightly points out that American is not staffing additional FAs on these aircraft for no reason, they are doing so because they are driving a revenue premium in F class where the extra FAs are spending more time with the passengers in the premium cabin. AA is offering their customers premium service at a premium price, no one should be shocked that it comes with premium costs. And apparently AA is making a profit on their F class cabin (with the higher associated costs) or they would eliminate F class although like a lot of airlines or even themselves on their other aircraft.

Exactly. AA is comparing apples to oranges when talking about their labors costs when compared to other carriers. When you have a fundamentally different class configuration which requires additional staff, it's not reasonable to compare the costs of such to another airline's costs who use a configuration that uses less staff. Whether AA needs to look at their staffing methods is another issue. They may knowingly operate this way because they feel that their 3 tiered class serves them well, and the airline benefits from offering such a premium product. I know some will laugh out loud at the mention of AA and such a premium product, but that only gets back to the mismanagement that is well known at AA. You and everyone else in the airline biz might know that a 2 tiered cabin is the way to go in the modern industry, but the brass at AA disagree. Maybe that's the problem..


User currently offlineswa4life From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 12):
That's just under 2% a year. Considering that inflation has been low (look at the COLA increases or lack thereof for people on Social Security), 2% is very reasonable.

Yeah but you have to take into account where the contract is CURRENTLY at. Forget for a minute that it's a 2003 contract, and that COLA has likely fallen behind - but also that it's a concessionary agreement (lower wages than their previous agreement) fresh out off the 9/11 catastrophe. That puts the current scale somewhere back in the mid to late 90's assuming they renegotiate every 5 years or so. 9.9% cumulatively is a slap in the face, not to mention it wouldn't even be fully in effect until 2016..


User currently offlinestar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3927 times:

Quoting swa4life (Reply 13):
Exactly. AA is comparing apples to oranges when talking about their labors costs when compared to other carriers. When you have a fundamentally different class configuration which requires additional staff, it's not reasonable to compare the costs of such to another airline's costs who use a configuration that uses less staff. Whether AA needs to look at their staffing methods is another issue. They may knowingly operate this way because they feel that their 3 tiered class serves them well, and the airline benefits from offering such a premium product. I know some will laugh out loud at the mention of AA and such a premium product, but that only gets back to the mismanagement that is well known at AA. You and everyone else in the airline biz might know that a 2 tiered cabin is the way to go in the modern industry, but the brass at AA disagree. Maybe that's the problem..

Really? They're not the only ones operating a 3-class cabin. UA does too, and according to this article from last year:

AA spends 30% of its revenue on pay and related labor costs, which compares to 21% at Delta, 20% at United and 18% at US Airways, according to AP

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/p...ill-losing-money-but-less/100650/1


[Edited 2011-01-07 12:56:16]

User currently offlineswa4life From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

Quoting star_world (Reply 15):

Really? They're not the only ones operating a 3-class cabin. UA does too, and according to this article from last year:

AA spends 30% of its revenue on pay and related labor costs, which compares to 21% at Delta, 20% at United and 18% at US Airways, according to AP

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/p...650/1

The point is, for whatever season AA is requiring more bodies than their competition. They staff more FAs per flight. However that relates to their class configuration is secondary in importance.


User currently offlineswa4life From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 10):
Not to mention WN flies only 737s around the USA. If AA parks all their 777/767/757/MD80 and cancels all future 787 orders they TOO can be like WN!

If it were that simple, everyone WOULD have done that by now. Clearly Southwest leads the industry, so I would imagine if there were a way to snap their fingers and make their airline instantly Southwest like, they would have.


User currently offlinestar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

Quoting swa4life (Reply 16):
The point is, for whatever season AA is requiring more bodies than their competition. They staff more FAs per flight. However that relates to their class configuration is secondary in importance.

In your last post though, you told us that because they have "a fundamentally different class configuration" it is not valid to compare staff costs. It certainly is valid. There's nothing so different about AA's class configuration that should require additional staff - this is their choice, and as a result (and for many other reasons) their labor costs are higher than the competition.

It lacks credibility to say that the costs are higher because of a fundamentally different class configuration and then in your next post say that "however that relates to their class configuration is secondary in importance".


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3742 times:

Quoting star_world (Reply 15):
AA spends 30% of its revenue on pay and related labor costs, which compares to 21% at Delta, 20% at United and 18% at US Airways, according to AP

That is comparing total labor costs, not just those of FAs. It is helpful to understand what you are reading before you try to bring a quote about all fruit into a discussion about pears.


User currently offlineflflyguy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 244 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Something that rarely, if ever, gets mentioned in regards to AA's higher labor costs is the issue of seniority. When you compare pay scales, AA really isn't that much higher than many other carriers, and lower than some. However, our seniority is higher. We haven't had new hires since 2001 and most of us are either at the top of the pay scale, or very close to it.

There are only two ways to rectify this. The first is by growing the airline, like Crandall did in the 80's. A larger airline means more employees which means you need to hire, which means the new hires come at the bottom of the pay scale, which means that your average labor cost goes down. The more you hire, the more the benefit.

AA has clearly not embraced this philosophy.

The other way is to incentivize people to retire. AA steadfastly refuses to do this as well, and in fact makes it HARDER to retire. Our retiree medical benefits have dwindled and their costs increased. Many of our more senior FA's remain active primarily for insurance.

There is a lot involved here....a lot of issues, a lot of emotions, a lot of history, a lot of hysteria, a lot of broken promises. It is a difficult situation, and there is no easy solution.

Let me give just one example. One way that flight crew has seen its pay impacted is by the use of the "Docking Guidance System". This is a system now installed at many of the gates at our hubs.

Traditionally (like, since the beginning of time!) flight crews have been paid from when the door closed to when the door opened. And these times represented the "out" and "in" times of the flight.

The Docking Guidance system is an automated system that, for one thing, reduces the requirement for ground crews to guide the aircraft in and out. On taxi in, it graphically displays to the flight deck that they are on the correct angle to arrive and the gate, and it tells them when to stop.

All that is great. BUT there is also a laser system attached to it that figures out when the wheels first roll, and when they stop rolling (within about 20 feet of the gate area). THOSE times are now our "out" and "in" times.

It used to be, once the agents closed the door, we were getting paid. Now, they can load bags, fuel, dawdle, wait for pushback clearance, etc. etc. and we don't get paid till the wheels turn. This has been exacerbated by the relatively new policy that the agents are supposed to close the door 10 minutes before scheduled departure. We sit there 10 minutes while cargo and the ramp finish up, and we aren't getting paid.

Depending on your perspective, this may or may not be a "good thing." But what it definitely WASN'T was negotiated. It is a fundamental change to the way that FAs and pilots are paid that American implemented without any discussion or agreement. It may not sound like much, but it averages probably 10-15 minutes per leg. That adds up over the period of a month and it costs us money. It also has impact on our legalities, our rest periods, etc. Once I had to wait over an hour after we stopped rolling for Dade County to repair the jetbridge. Door closed, passengers angry, etc., etc., and we weren't getting paid. (However, according to AA, the flight was NOT LATE....we had "blocked in"!!!)

Then I had to tussle with my supervisor becase we were "late to the gate" for our connecting flight. Well, duh....we were still on the first airplane! But the computer doesn't show that......

Anyway, this is but one example of where management has "changed things" with no consultation with the work groups. I know a lot of you will say that this is being whiny and stupid and not recognizing the necessities of business. If you choose to think that, fine. To me, and I was in AA management 15 years before I started flying, one of the primary functions of management is to support and enable the front-line employees. "Happy employees make happy customers." AA management no longer seems to operate under that theory.

A joke going around recently is that AA's new slogan is "We're Not Happy, 'Till You're Not Happy".

At the risk of oversimplifying, the basic problem is that management has completely lost the trust of the employees. Multiply that mistrust by all 3 workgroups and ..... well .... welcome to AA. "We're glad you're here".



The views expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer.
User currently offlinemeechy36 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3741 times:

On the 777 we are staffed with 3 FA's in First, 3 FA's in Biz and 5 in coach, so for 53 premium class pax we staff 6 FA's.

On the 767 we are staffed with 4 FA's in Biz and 4 in coach flexible to 5 based on load and service, so that's 4 FA's for 30 premium class

There isn't anyway we can ever be as productive as WN, the only competitor that we can be compared apples to apples with is UA since they have 3 class products, all the others are apples to oranges when it comes to FA's vs pax ratios.

I'm from the camp that believes half or what the union says and half of what the company says and just want to get this over with so we can start expanding and hiring so maybe someday I can get off reserve!


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

Quoting swa4life (Reply 16):
The point is, for whatever season AA is requiring more bodies than their competition. They staff more FAs per flight. However that relates to their class configuration is secondary in importance.

The important part is that American is driving a revenue premium (as so many AA supporters love to point out at other times, but can forget when discussing costs) because of the increased staffing.


User currently offlinestar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 19):
That is comparing total labor costs, not just those of FAs. It is helpful to understand what you are reading before you try to bring a quote about all fruit into a discussion about pears.

I understand it completely. The fact remains though that AA does have a significantly higher overall labor cost than its competitors. The previous poster was attempting to explain that away as being due to their fundamentally different class structure, which I was pointing out could not be correct.

I'm sure there are plenty of other areas where their labor costs are significantly higher too  


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Quoting star_world (Reply 23):
The fact remains though that AA does have a significantly higher overall labor cost than its competitors. The previous poster was attempting to explain that away as being due to their fundamentally different class structure, which I was pointing out could not be correct.

I don't know which one was you was actually correct because he was discussing FA cost and you were discussing total costs. In order for your point to be valid, you would need to show what UA's FA cost is on their 3 class aircraft. It could very well be that UA's costs there are the same or higher than AA's and that UA has lower costs elsewhere. That's why I said your quote is meaningless in this thread. It's not even isolating FA costs, yet alone their costs on their 3 class aircraft. However, I recognize it could very well be that UA's FA cost on 3 class aircraft are significantly lower than AAs, but the quote you provided doesn't prove it.


25 sbworcs : But would you also agree that one of the primary functions of labour / staff is to support and enable management to run the company?
26 flflyguy : Of course I would. That's why we voted to take pay cuts in 2003....with the understanding that they would not be forever. For how long is labor suppo
27 sbworcs : Fair enough - nice to hear that one. I appreciate that pay cuts were taken in 2003 but unfortunaltey the world in which you work has changed consider
28 daron4000 : On FA's alone, UA and AA seem to staff the same numbers on longhaul flights. 11 on the 777, 8 on the 767. I've flown both and that's usually the numb
29 LAXtoATL : It makes perfect sense. He broke down the AA's FA cost by operation and it was their long haul ops (which is where the 3 class staffed FAs come into
30 LAXtoATL : Assuming your staffing numbers here are correct. Then you are providing further evidence in support of the economist's conclusion (even though you we
31 commavia : (Apologies in advance for the length.) Absolutely. That's definitely the most startling and newsworthy thing I took from that propaganda piece. The ad
32 TUSAA : Im not so sure they can do that without offering it to all work groups. Problem is 30-40% of the workforce would take it, and AA can't afford to loos
33 commavia : Interesting. True, so they stagger it. But it needs to happen - yesterday. Yep. Yep - I know two who are waiting for a contract to be ratified with a
34 TUSAA : Thats because you have all these senior flight attendants who sell real estate in Southlake/Colleyville and Grapevine who fly DFW-NRT/LHR once a mont
35 jc2354 : As staffing levels have been brought up, what is the usual staffing on 2class carriers (Delta, Continental, Air Canada, etc)? Is there much difference
36 LAXtoATL : Well, if you honestly believe what you just said then you must believe AA management are idiots. Because they are the ones who added the extra FAs fo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Big TSA And AA Serious Of Security Flaws posted Mon Feb 8 2010 08:17:47 by tonytifao
Temp Return Of AA ORD-MIA Glory Days posted Wed Jul 8 2009 21:03:30 by CrAAzy
UAL, 1-4 Chance Of BK By End Of 08 And AA Higher! posted Wed Jun 18 2008 11:04:06 by AAH732UAL
Why 777F & No 747F For FedEx After Cancel Of A380? posted Sat Mar 3 2007 01:45:35 by SM92
The Appearance Of Engine Pods And AA Tails. posted Sat Oct 2 2004 08:02:09 by DStuntz
AA And Boeing To Pay FAA Fine Of $3.3 Million posted Wed Jun 2 2004 09:54:19 by 777ER
GE Capital To Pull Out Of AC If NO Deal posted Thu May 20 2004 23:52:52 by Cayman
AA: No Service Between ORD And JFK?! posted Wed Mar 24 2004 17:51:59 by MaverickM11
SN And AA Sign Alliance Deal posted Wed Dec 10 2003 13:57:06 by Sabenapilot
AA: No More Free Standby (Except For Elites) posted Wed Feb 10 2010 08:38:52 by crosswinds21