American Airlines' Arpey gets hefty raise

[nbmcg01]

Nancy,

I have a bit of a problem with predicting cross-utilization in the near future. Training thousands in wet ditching and all the other aspects of international flying would take many months, if not a couple of years, and would be very expensive. Maintaining everyone's qualification would add to the training budget in the future.

There is virtually no support for this in the active FA ranks; in fact, I think most are vehemently against it, just as we were before it was forced on us by Icahn's strike. The union is under no obligation to open contract negotiations early, or to quickly come to any agreement. Contracts traditionally take two years or even more after they become amendable. A major rewriting of the contract would be necessary to accommodate this.

I think if AA thought they could slash the workforce by another 2000 or so FA's they would have tried to do so long ago, yet no mention of cross-utilization seems to have been made in the last contract talks or in the concessionary talks. I brought this up before we were furloughed and a supervisor told me essentially what I mentioned above: the cost of training and maintaining qualifications would negate any slight increase in productivity.

It may happen some day, but it won't be soon.

MK



Mark, I was speaking of the next round of negotiations and referring to Mr. Arpey's cry for productivity improvements. The Company has approached the APFA about cross utilization. SO FAR the APFA has not taken the bite. Training (other than ditching) could be accomplished by "paper". Wet ditch could be added to EPTs for one year. Training expenses are always recouped as a necessary business expense for taxes. One reserve pool alone is worth the training expense. Don't forget there is a former member of TWA's flight attendant Labor Relations negotiating team at the master base and he is always willing to share cost saving ideas. Cross utilization was a huge productivity savings and without our more "fluid" work rules would be even more so for AA. My point was if a little money is thrown in the pot the AA f/as will probably sign. I'm not certain they have learned that dollar per hour does not make an industry leading contract.....It is ALL about the work rules.

 

[IORFA]

I am not buying it. I agree with Mark. AA in the past, most notably Laurie Curtis, has said NO to the cross-utilization rumor every time it is brought up. APFA gets a big NO everytime they ask in a survey of the membership. Possible - YES, Likely - NO. Regarding the unlimited recalls, AA is not going to change that at this point, they see the finish line and why would they want to do that to themselves. If they really want to be rid of the TW F/A's, as the RUMOR'S say, Why would they extend the recall dates? When hiring starts again and the total F/A costs go down, flying will be expanded. Maybe sooner. I hope evryone gets the chance to come back that wants to. Realistically, that won't happen. We lose over 1000 before Thanksgiving from the recall list this year alone.


Nancy,

Unless THB signs another one of her favorite L.O.A.'s, or either AA or APFA opens our contract early, the recalls will run out around the time of Section 6 openers. So, I miss the point.

 

[Oneflyer]

Bob, don't you know? According to the anti-unionist sentiment here, the pension will only be taken away from union workers, not management and non-union workers, because they are more important than anyone else in the airline.

The non-union workers already had their pension taken away. Its no longer an option, only the 401k.

 

[jimntx]

The union is under no obligation to open contract negotiations early, or to quickly come to any agreement. Contracts traditionally take two years or even more after they become amendable. A major rewriting of the contract would be necessary to accommodate this.
MK

Well, technically either the company or the union can serve notice to begin early negotiations under the RLA. I think that is any time within 2 years of the amendable date. We are already within that timeframe. And, since the company has already notified the APA of its desire for early openers, we might get our notification next.

My mole at Centerport said some time ago to expect the company to ask for MAJOR work rule concessions in the next contract--which may include cross-utilization. That, and I think we'll see a demand for more "cleaning"--not just through flights at a hub.

The cost of ditching training is not nearly as much an issue to my mind as re-qualification of all the senior people on the "lesser" equipment that would be required. For cross-utilization to work, every f/a has to be qualified on every piece of equipment that the company flies. We don't even have everyone who flies the 757 qualified on the former TW 75s. Think of all the people who have dropped all their quals except for 767 and 777.

At the same time, though, with $5.5 billion in the bank, the cost of anything short of replacing the entire S80 fleet is more an excuse than a reason for not doing something.

 

[jimntx]

I am not buying it. I agree with Mark. AA in the past, most notably Laurie Curtis, has said NO to the cross-utilization rumor every time it is brought up. APFA gets a big NO everytime they ask in a survey of the membership.

I guess I had better dig those waterwings out of the bottom of the closet and prepare to jump in the pool at the next EPTs. (The fact that I shouldn't be seen in public without gloves on, much less in a bathing suit is an issue to be dealt with later.)

When it comes to AA management saying "No, it ain't gonna happen"...

May I remind the honorable member from IOR of the following:

Jan, 2004: "There are no plans for any recalls in 2004."
(Stated forcefully by both the company and the APFA.)
Feb, 2004: "There are no plans for any recalls in 2004."
Mar, 2004: Ditto
Apr, 2004: Ditto
May, 2004: "We are pleased to announce a recall of 275 furloughees for July, 2004."
Jun, 2004: "Unfortunately, the July recall will be the only recall for 2004."
Jul, 2004: "There will be no further recalls for the foreseeable future."
Aug, 2004: Ditto
Sep, 2004: "We are pleased to announce a recall of 705 furloughees for Nov, 2004."

It's like the old announcement that there was no way AA would close it's Nashville base and hub. "We are committed to the future of this up and coming city."

 

[IORFA]

I know not to trust them Jim. I also know that the speak out of both holes. That being said, I don't think it will happen, or at the very least, not in time to give Nancy her unlimited recalls.

 

[FA Mikey]

Jim you are correct. We would also require to train and retrain FA's on EQ dropped like the MD80, as well as train on the EQ they never were trained on

It also means a change in vacation bidding. Some holding summer and holidays will no longer be able to in a single unit.

If they were smart they would begin and build the INTL. lines to the max utilization. A few months ago I held a 2 day MIA-LGA-MIA-AUA,AUA-MIA-STL-MIA. Lines like this. Should see more like that.

PS Jim for ditching, water wings are fine, make a statement, go with the thong!

I truly cannot understand why the company cannot have unlimited recalls for alll the FA's. If you can for the pilots, you can for us.

 

[Skymess]

My mole at Centerport said some time ago to expect the company to ask for MAJOR work rule concessions in the next contract--which may include cross-utilization. That, and I think we'll see a demand for more "cleaning"--not just through flights at a hub.

The cost of ditching training is not nearly as much an issue to my mind as re-qualification of all the senior people on the "lesser" equipment that would be required. For cross-utilization to work, every f/a has to be qualified on every piece of equipment that the company flies. We don't even have everyone who flies the 757 qualified on the former TW 75s. Think of all the people who have dropped all their quals except for 767 and 777.

Cross utilization may not make sense for training everyone. Just as it doesn't make sense to qualify all the flight attendants on everything.

What does make sense would be to eventually have all reserves trained on everything and have them all internationally qualified.

To begin with they can just start by having everyone on reserve at each base qualified on everything that base flies. That way they will be able to have a real idea of headcount needed at each base. They could also start using domestic reserves who have their RDT quals for intl sequences when the intl reserve list is running low.

There are ways to make it cost effective and if the union were smart they would be looking at ways to make sure that items like cross utilization and forced aircraft training were looked at as concessions and not merely operational necessities which are worth nothing to us.

I want most of my contract negotiations to entail more hourly pay as opposed to fighting for keeping the country club lifestyle for the select few who don't want to work.

 

[Bob Owens]

When you say "Cross utilization" what exactly do you mean? Does it mean that you can go from an MD-80 to a 767?

 

[jimntx]

When you say "Cross utilization" what exactly do you mean? Does it mean that you can go from an MD-80 to a 767?

Bob, AA is the only major airline that still keeps separate Domestic and International flight attendant corps. All other majors have all f/as trained on everything. For instance, I am qualified on every a/c that AA flies except for the A300 which is used only in the International operations. However, I do not have the RDT (recurrent ditching training, aka "overwater quals") required to be a f/a on an International flight.

By cross-utilization we mean using any flight attendant on any flight, domestic or International, as needed.

Mikey, a THONG? I do have some shreds of dignity and self-respect left. Not many, but a few.

 

[jimntx]

I want most of my contract negotiations to entail more hourly pay as opposed to fighting for keeping the country club lifestyle for the select few who don't want to work.

And, that's the very attitude that the company wants us to have. Don't get me wrong. I vudn't mind a dime or more in my paycheck each month, but we have, in the past, traded hourly pay for extremely restrictive work rules that make maximum utilization of that higher pay rate almost impossible.

For instance, Southwest, Frontier, US Airways (that I know of, for sure) allow you to trade or drop a "part" of a sequence. Now, this might not be of maximum use on International sequences, but say for instance, I had a Dr.'s appointment for next Friday, but I have a 3-day scheduled to begin on Wednesday. To keep that Dr's appt. I have to drop or trade away the entire trip. At other airlines, I could trade just the last day of the trip.
I don't lose the value of the entire trip and someone else who might just have one day free can pick up some extra money.

 

[Hopeful]

And, that's the very attitude that the company wants us to have. Don't get me wrong. I vudn't mind a dime or more in my paycheck each month, but we have, in the past, traded hourly pay for extremely restrictive work rules that make maximum utilization of that higher pay rate almost impossible.

For instance, Southwest, Frontier, US Airways (that I know of, for sure) allow you to trade or drop a "part" of a sequence. Now, this might not be of maximum use on International sequences, but say for instance, I had a Dr.'s appointment for next Friday, but I have a 3-day scheduled to begin on Wednesday. To keep that Dr's appt. I have to drop or trade away the entire trip. At other airlines, I could trade just the last day of the trip.
I don't lose the value of the entire trip and someone else who might just have one day free can pick up some extra money.

I don't think ANY worker would mine trading some work rules for better pay? But what is the company's definition of better pay! The average $.40 an hour each TWU mechanic received in May?

 

[jimntx]

I don't think ANY worker would mine trading some work rules for better pay?

I think you misunderstood my point. Yes, when we got our last contract in 2001, the AA f/as were supposedly the highest paid in the industry, but our work rules prevented us from taking full advantage of the hourly pay. It doesn't matter what you are paid per working hour, if the work rules prevent you from working.

For instance, a friend of mine who was a TWA f/a, got a 15 or 20% hourly raise when she went on AA's payroll. But, because of our work rules, she made almost $15,000 less that year than the year before under TWA's pay rate and work rules.

Some examples...
1. I'm on reserve this month in SLT. I have sat ready reserve at my crash pad in St. Louis 4 or 5 days this month while open trips were being transferred to other bases because Scheduling is afraid they will run out of reserves before the end of the month.
2. July the 4th, I had to non-rev to St. Louis from Dallas just to turn around the next morning and deadhead back to Dallas to work a Dallas sequence. I was not allowed to waive deadhead because I am on reserve. I was one of 12 people (several, like me, Dallas area residents) deadheaded on the same flight the next morning which was already oversold (the day after a holiday, duh!) which means that over 20 REVENUE passengers were denied boarding so that we could be deadheaded. The rules are just that inflexible.

 

[Bob Owens]

Thanks for clearing that up. So when these management types come on here and complain about restrictive workrules it must be for the flight crews because we really dont have any restrictive rules. It seems that your rules have become a burden upon the workers as well as upon the company, much like the Pilots. I always said that they should streamline their pay structure, even if it means that top pay, which most never see anyway, is reduced. The key is lifetime earnings. The high numbers that few get to see acts as a recruitment device for the company and works against the workers as they try to explain an overly complicated pay structure.

 

[skydrol]

The non-union workers already had their pension taken away. Its no longer an option, only the 401k.

I think what you meant to say was a few years back the Company offered the non union workers two choices.
1. Stay in the traditional plan (defined) with the Company contributing....
2.Freeze your traditional(defined)(in other words you keep it) and start a matching 401k.

Correct me if i am wrong please..from what i can tell to say it was taken away could be misleading????