BDL757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 128 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9049 times:
Here's some good news from AA! It seems that 500 f/a's that were granted leaves are being brought back to work this coming August rather than next March. I'm not really sure how this affects the company's proposal to eliminate 2,300 flight attendants during bankruptcy.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22027 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8541 times:
If you read comments from AA, they need the additional crews as the operation has suffered including higher than historic absentee rate.
Cancelling the leaves is simply to provide enough staffing cushion.
If I was one of the F/A out on leave (remember its voluntary, people wanted time off) I'd be pissed !
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
toltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3220 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8461 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2): If I was one of the F/A out on leave (remember its voluntary, people wanted time off) I'd be pissed !
If I were one of the F/As out on leave, I'd be annoyed that I took a leave to help protect their jobs, only to have them calling in sick at record numbers, requiring me to be called back early.
I'm sure they were told when they took the leave that it was subject to recall at any time based on operational needs.
aluminumtubing From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 315 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6814 times:
Life is full of choices. My understanding, and I have been wrong before, is that these leave durations are not guaranteed. If the company they applied to work for needs them back and they don't want to go back, there is always the option of finding another place to work. Working isn't always convenient.
xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2345 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6276 times:
It could be a way for AA to start trimming their post-bk numbers without too much hassle. Remember if they place you on leave (furlough), you are still with the company. When they call you back, regardless of when it is, and lets say you have found another job and cannot come back at that point the airline wants you to, you automatically are considered as having quit. It's a win/win for the airline. They shave their numbers, while not having to support those who quit.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 8, posted (9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
Quoting Acey559 (Reply 4):
If I were the FAs I would take this to the judge and demand no concessions from the company.
Which explains why AA went into BK...
Quoting xjramper (Reply 6): When they call you back, regardless of when it is, and lets say you have found another job and cannot come back at that point the airline wants you to, you automatically are considered as having quit. It's a win/win for the airline. They shave their numbers, while not having to support those who quit.
That would be an unusually astute move on AA's part. More likely the sick time being taken by other F/As forced this.
HiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 606 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5188 times:
AA management has said they plan on cutting the FA ranks by about 2000 people. So you get recalled early from your voluntary furlough and then you get the axe. Why even come back?
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5142 times:
Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 9): AA management has said they plan on cutting the FA ranks by about 2000 people. So you get recalled early from your voluntary furlough and then you get the axe. Why even come back?
If AA has its way, it is unlikely these people will be getting furloughed again in a few months involuntarily. Under the terms of the contract proposal AA is now hoping the APFA membership will ratify, AA will be paying $40,000 (before taxes) to flight attendants to leave. AA will have discretion on when, and how many, but I suspect AA would be more than happy to see plenty of flight attendants walk out the door as long as its done in an orderly fashion. It isn't particularly difficult or costly to train a flight attendant, and AA would of course be thrilled to replace one topped-out, $55,000 FA with a new one starting out at half that.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5088 times:
Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 11): Is there a cap on the number of people that they have to pay the voluntary serverance to?
According to the text of AA's proposal, any cap is at AA's discretion, as is the time phasing of when people leave (between 4Q of this year and 3Q of next year).
HiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 606 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4939 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 12): According to the text of AA's proposal, any cap is at AA's discretion, as is the time phasing of when people leave (between 4Q of this year and 3Q of next year).
Thanks for the info. It sounds pretty much under the control of AA's whims and I'm sure that was intentional. Good luck to APFA and the AA FA's through all of this. Heard there are road shows going on right now about the proposal.
qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2198 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4473 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 12): According to the text of AA's proposal, any cap is at AA's discretion,
According to APFA they have written confirmation from the company stating they will not limit the number of eligible flight attendants who can accept the buyout. I think phasing their departure over a year helps insure the company can quickly train enough replacements. Supposedly the company will be running at a surplus of 2,300 once the new rules take effect, so the company has quite a cushion to absorb losses from the start. But from all indications, the company is prepared to hire immediately, and there are some indications they believe that will be necessary. All of course depending on the LBFO passing.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4330 times:
Quoting qqflyboy (Reply 14): According to APFA they have written confirmation from the company stating they will not limit the number of eligible flight attendants who can accept the buyout.
Heard that - although I do find it interesting that the text of the LBFO on AA's website says exactly the opposite.
Quoting qqflyboy (Reply 14): I think phasing their departure over a year helps insure the company can quickly train enough replacements.
True.
Quoting qqflyboy (Reply 14): Supposedly the company will be running at a surplus of 2,300 once the new rules take effect, so the company has quite a cushion to absorb losses from the start.
Makes sense.
Quoting qqflyboy (Reply 14): All of course depending on the LBFO passing.
... which I don't see happening.
You would certainly know better than me - but I don't think 50%+1 of the FAs will vote for this, unless this ends up being sufficient to entice some of the senior IDF/IOR/LAX-I folks who might have wanted to retire anyway and who would now get paid $40,000 (less taxes) to do it. Should be interesting.
delta2ual From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 575 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3814 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 15): unless this ends up being sufficient to entice some of the senior IDF/IOR/LAX-I folks who might have wanted to retire anyway and who would now get paid $40,000 (less taxes) to do it. Should be interesting.
They might take it because with the new contract, as I understand it, there will be no more IDF and IOR-just DFW and ORD. That right there may be enough for some people to leave. The days of sitting reserve for just international will be over; of course it sounds like reserve as they know it will be over. They (AA) want a 3-6 day per month reserve system like DL's, where everyone is a lineholder.
From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual
HiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 606 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Quoting delta2ual (Reply 16): They (AA) want a 3-6 day per month reserve system like DL's, where everyone is a lineholder.
That'd be a deal-breaker for me. There's no reason from a crew scheduling standpoint that mixed trips/reserve lines are any more efficient than straight line and straight reserve. Why should someone that's been with the company 20-30 years have to be on-call every month? DL management chose to do this because they COULD...but there's no practical reason for it besides "shared pain".
qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2198 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3670 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 15): You would certainly know better than me - but I don't think 50%+1 of the FAs will vote for this, unless this ends up being sufficient to entice some of the senior IDF/IOR/LAX-I folks who might have wanted to retire anyway and who would now get paid $40,000 (less taxes) to do it. Should be interesting.
So far on the line it's a very mixed bag. I think the "yes" vote hinges on the buyout. Without the buyout I have no doubt the LBFO would fail. The buyout just may prove to be the tipping point to pass it.
Quoting delta2ual (Reply 16): They (AA) want a 3-6 day per month reserve system like DL's, where everyone is a lineholder.
There is a bit of controversy in this right now because the original term sheet, and indeed a similar article already signed-off by the APFA/Company during regular negotiations included such a measure. However, in the LBFO the 'R' days, as they're called, will only apply to new hires. I would much rather a few days/month, rather than a month at a time. There is zero flexibility when you're on reserve an entire month. At least with 'R' days you have flexibility all but 3-6 days per month. With this new system, you'd sit a maximum of 72 days/year, or as few as 36. The old system calls for 54-57 days. I suppose it's a trade-off. I'd still prefer the new system.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3642 times:
Quoting qqflyboy (Reply 18): I think the "yes" vote hinges on the buyout. Without the buyout I have no doubt the LBFO would fail. The buyout just may prove to be the tipping point to pass it.
Very interesting - definitely makes one wonder what the company and the union may have been able to accomplish a few years back.
I have been critical in the past of the insular stance that the unions appear to have taken, detached-from-reality, over the last five years. Some issues were apparently "off the table," despite the economic reality of all their network airline peers getting contracts gutted in bankruptcy (if they even had contracts to start with).
On the other hand, though, this - the buyout thing - is a perfect example of how the company, in my view, was just as stupid and short-sighted in other ways. I recognize that, without the protection of bankruptcy, AA had to keep paying their bills and fulfilling their financial obligations, and thus I realize why Arpey didn't want to spend one dime more than he absolutely had to on anything. But, that being said, buying out flight attendants (especially senior ones) makes infinite sense today, just as it did five years ago.
The company's seeming refusal to put buyouts on the table - all the way through the first six months of bankruptcy, all the way up to this LBFO, strikes me as ridiculous. I'm glad the company has finally moved on that issue.
BDL757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2911 times:
Quoting qqflyboy (Reply 18): So far on the line it's a very mixed bag. I think the "yes" vote hinges on the buyout. Without the buyout I have no doubt the LBFO would fail. The buyout just may prove to be the tipping point to pass it.
Hopefully a buyout will make some people who want to leave, leave and give a little sense of stability to those on the bottom of the seniority list. I was talking to an AA f/a who was trying to jumpseat on my flight that said she is on the bottom and would definitely be furloughed if it came down to it. She was former TWA and said she's been furloughed for 8 of the last 10 years!!! I felt so bad for her but she had a pretty upbeat attitude.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 128 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
