Aa To Recall 390 Flight Attendants

[FWAAA]

I really have to question what is going on with this recall. Yes, it is good news on the surface, but I am very skeptical in the sense that the overage leaves were never cancelled per the APFA contract. Again, this is another instance of this "so called" Union overstepping its boundries and signing off on a recall without following the contract. Of course, at this point, the APFA does what it wants anyways. This could potentially setup a seasonal help situation. I am hoping thats not the situation but we will find out soon enough!

The reason that AA didn't cancel the OVLs is because Article 16 doesn't require AA to cancel them. Try reading the contract sometime:

A. LEAVES IN LIEU OF LAYOFF

Prior to a reduction in force, the Company will, to the extent possible, make leaves of absence available to flight attendants
who are not subject to furlough. Leaves granted under this paragraph A. shall not result in the involuntary transfer of any flight
attendant.

1. Upon proper application to the Company, leaves of absence shall be granted in order of seniority for a period of not less
than ninety (90) days and may be renewed in increments of not less than ninety (90) days. Leaves of absence, once granted,
must be accepted.

2. Due to the requirements of the service, the Company may cancel leaves of absence granted under this provision at any
time prior to the expiration date of such leave.

AA has the right, but not the obligation to cancel the voluntary leaves. Just because one party has the right to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. B)

 

[FWAAA]

You all are jumping the gun to call it seasonal. Talk about over reacting. If after the holidays they said thanks bye, then be pissed. But right now we are being told that due to the up coming manning requirements we need more people. That means additional flying and eq utilization, also dont forget more people are retiring at years end. Haven't we all been we are short people? Now the recall and you all complain. See a pattern in that?

Unfortunately, Todd Burke of AA is quoted today as saying the recall is for a few seasonal flights:

A spokesman for the Dallas airline said American needs to add those extra flight attendants to its staff of 19,379 flight attendants so the airline can add a few extra seasonal flights this winter.

After the recall, American will still have 5,852 flight attendants on furlough. The recall won't extend to pilots or other work groups, spokesman Todd Burke said.

I think he's mistaken, and I expect to see a correction later today.

But these quotes are the real story:

George Price, spokesman for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, the union that represents American flight attendants, said AMR notified the union of the recall early this week during the company's regular active engagement meetings. AMR executives meet frequently with heads of all unions as the company continues to cut costs in order to return to profitability.

"This was very unexpected," Mr. Price said. He said union leaders were surprised and pleased that the company chose to recall flight attendants that had been laid off, rather than to reinstate employees on voluntary leaves of absence. He said around 1,300 flight attendants are on leaves of absence, meaning they are assured jobs when those leaves are over.

"People on leave can stay there, and people who are desperate for their jobs will have money for the holidays," Mr. Price said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/031010/1042000538_1.html

So it looks like a good thing that AA didn't cancel the OVLs. But like you pointed out - the company can do no right by some people. B)

Some employees will never be happy, no matter what the company does.

 

[TransWorldONE]

Isn't it more cost efficient for the company to bring back lower waged junior f/a then to bring back those senior ones on overage leaves?

 

[wrx]

Isn't it more cost efficient for the company to bring back lower waged junior f/a then to bring back those senior ones on overage leaves?

Yes, you're correct on that point. Several f/a's I know from my crashpad who are on an OVL are getting ready to file a NOD against AA. They want to return to active flying and are mad because AA didn't cancel the OVL's. This is going to get very interesting.

 

[FWAAA]

Yes, you're correct on that point. Several f/a's I know from my crashpad who are on an OVL are getting ready to file a NOD against AA. They want to return to active flying and are mad because AA didn't cancel the OVL's. This is going to get very interesting.

So FAs who were not subject to furlough (the only FAs able to take advantage of the OVL) are mad because they have changed their minds and want to get back to flying?

They volunteered for a leave of absence and now they want to rescind it?

Yeah, we believe you.

Either your friends are idiots or you're not very good making up stories. B)

 

[TransWorldONE]

Yes, you're correct on that point. Several f/a's I know from my crashpad who are on an OVL are getting ready to file a NOD against AA. They want to return to active flying and are mad because AA didn't cancel the OVL's. This is going to get very interesting.

I find it hard to believe that anyone on an overage leave would want to come back just in time for Chrismas which is always a very "unjoyous" time in the airline buisness.

 

[FWAAA]

I find it hard to believe that anyone on an overage leave would want to come back just in time for Chrismas which is always a very "unjoyous" time in the airline buisness.

I find it completely unbelievable - nothing about the story is credible.

 

[L1011Ret]

I'm guessing you are on the right track. AA had the option of recalling F/As from furlough or cancelling overage leaves. They chose to recall furloughed F/As when they know over a thousand return from overage leave around next June/July. It is reading the tea leaves to suggest they are optomisitic but if they really thought things were not about to get better with a possible bit of expansion, they would have cancelled the overage leaves instead of recalling the furloughed F/As. Now should they decide that they do not need the 390 returnees around next June and furlough them (again) or offer Overage leaves to avert furloughing again, it will look like the ultimate in stupidity and bad faith. Not that such a move would be the first time for AA. Despite my feelings about AA and its unions for the way they have treated the TWA people, they did not become the world's largest and at onetime profitable airline by making lots of bad decisions.
On October 22nd they announce third quarter results. The runup in the stock price suggests results are going to be a bit of a positive shocker.
Now it would seem to me the next big signal is getting some aircraft out of the desert above and beyond those necessary to replace the Folkers.
I have always loved the name Folker. When asked what you fly at a party you could say "Folker!" When people look at you with quizical looks since most people do not know a Folker from a kite, there are literally dozens of responses including, "those Folkers was Meserschmidts."
At any rate the bottom line looks like things are slowly turning around, from a continual downslide to bottoming out to what now looks like the beginnings of a gradual recovery.
Perhaps there is some hope after all. The history of aviation is full of big downturns followed by great recoveries. The current betting seems to be cautious optomism with consultants forecasting that traffic will take a long time to return to its growth trend line.
I'm more optomistic believing like someone at the crap table in Las Vegas that betting on the come line is the right way to go. When at at what rate is now the question.
Although there is great hatred for AA, APA and APFA, AA has positioned itself to compete very well among the majors. I do not have exact numbers, but I believe AA can compete very well with UAL and US Air. Certainly their cost structure is better than Delta and Northwest. And perhaps compares favorably with Continental.

 

[s80dude]

you mean Fokker?

 

[Skyyggoddess]

You all are jumping the gun to call it seasonal. Talk about over reacting. If after the holidays they said thanks bye, then be pissed. But right now we are being told that due to the up coming manning requirements we need more people. That means additional flying and eq utilization, also dont forget more people are retiring at years end. Haven't we all been we are short people? Now the recall and you all complain. See a pattern in that?

Mikey,
Its not that it might happen, its that it can happen and in fact has already happened to some of our furloughees once before. How much do you think a person can take? It says in the letter if you turn down this opportunity at this time, then you are history.

Its a very sad time for our membership that the union has stopped looking out for the best interest of its members.
Terry
IDF

 

[TWAnr]

you mean Fokker?

 

[s80dude]

Cool pic TWAnr. I am going to save it for my desktop wallpaper. That little luxury jet was my favorite airplane! I will miss her when she is gone.

 

[wrx]

So FAs who were not subject to furlough (the only FAs able to take advantage of the OVL) are mad because they have changed their minds and want to get back to flying?

They volunteered for a leave of absence and now they want to rescind it?

Yeah, we believe you.

Either your friends are idiots or you're not very good making up stories. B)

How can we believe anything you say? You're a former TWA f/a who is so pissed at AA, APFA and the AA f/a's it's not even funny. Have you ever thought that maybe some people need to make some $$$$$$ before the holidays. Maybe they're broke and need to comeback to work. Well, these f/a's do need to comeback and they're going to file a NOD.

I know you're very upset that you will never return to flying with AA. But, don't take it out on us, it wasn't our fault that the IAM and APFA screwed you guys. All you guys have done since the acquisition is complain, complain and complain...YAWN!

BTW, my friends are not idiots. You might want to look in the mirror!!

If you still want to fly then check these out:

USA 3000 Airways

Skywest

JetBlue

Omni Air International

ATA

ComAir

 

[jimntx]

The reason that AA didn't cancel the OVLs is because Article 16 doesn't require AA to cancel them. Try reading the contract sometime:

A. LEAVES IN LIEU OF LAYOFF

Prior to a reduction in force, the Company will, to the extent possible, make leaves of absence available to flight attendants
who are not subject to furlough. Leaves granted under this paragraph A. shall not result in the involuntary transfer of any flight
attendant.

1. Upon proper application to the Company, leaves of absence shall be granted in order of seniority for a period of not less
than ninety (90) days and may be renewed in increments of not less than ninety (90) days. Leaves of absence, once granted,
must be accepted.

2. Due to the requirements of the service, the Company may cancel leaves of absence granted under this provision at any
time prior to the expiration date of such leave.

AA has the right, but not the obligation to cancel the voluntary leaves. Just because one party has the right to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. B)

Wrong, FWAAA! I suggest you read Appendix F, Article 9, Paragraph B (You do know that Appendices override the original articles.)

Said Paragraph B states.
"In the event of unforeseen increased staffing requirements, partnerships will be terminated prior to cancellation of overage leaves of absence. Overage leaves of absence will be cancelled prior to recalling furloughed Flight Attendants."

Note it says, WILL be, not MAY be.

That being said, I have no problem with a side letter to allow f/a's on OVL to remain on OVL if they wish, but an offer should have been made to those flight attendants to return early. Oh, and I am a furloughed flight attendant as of 01July03 who is not being called back this round.

 

[jimntx]

...Not that such a move would be the first time for AA. Despite my feelings about AA and its unions for the way they have treated the TWA people, they did not become the world's largest and at onetime profitable airline by making lots of bad decisions....

Yes, they have done it before. Just last year. They recalled 420 flight attendants from furlough while over 2000 were allowed to remain out on overage leaves. Those 420 were furloughed again 6 months later.

Oh, and remember they no longer have furlough pay as a disincentive to using furloughed flight attendants as seasonal employees. It doesn't really cost them anything to call them back for 01Dec and then furlough them again in January or in the Spring when the OVL people start returning. And, don't anyone give me the business about the cost of retraining and re-EPTing (like my new word?) the furloughees. The company is maintaining a staff over in training department anyway. They might as well have them do a little training!