AMR Corporation Plans to Cut 1,600 Jobs

[The Goose]

The answer to your question is ALOT!! all across the system probably will be in the thousands. Now if AA and all the unions decide to weather the economic storm and just give out lets say a small raise and a new contract with the duration of maybe lets say 18 months then you probably wont see many layoffs at all or you might even see none, the bottom line at that point would be a lot of jobs would be saved. BUT!!! you have older more senior people that do not see it that way, they seem to have blinders on and earplugs in when you try to explain this to them, all they want like anyone else is MORE!! MONEY!! that's all they want, so in return if they get the MORE!! MONEY!!! they will probably have to step up to the plate and have to work a lot harder each day because all your junior workers will be gone.
Of course this is only my opinion on this subject its not a fact just an opinion that's why we are all here...

To offer an opinion also - the gains made by the TWU over a good number of years were given up in hopes of mitigating a layoff in 2003. Didn't happen. The company took the money and had a layoff anyway. The company management fared quite well, the TWU's International didn't have to tighten its belt, but the rank & file got hosed.

A union, because of its dues collection, will always attempt to keep employment high at the expense of its membership and as long as the "wages" cost doesn't exceed a predetermined amount, the company doesn't care, except perhaps for the extra in benefits paid out. Let's not forget: in the column that says "Wages", that of the execs is lumped in there also.

Money is the cheapest thing we can be given - the time off and other benefits were fought for over many years because of its cost - and it was given up with hardly any fight at all.

 

[AA767JET]

To offer an opinion also - the gains made by the TWU over a good number of years were given up in hopes of mitigating a layoff in 2003. Didn't happen. The company took the money and had a layoff anyway. The company management fared quite well, the TWU's International didn't have to tighten its belt, but the rank & file got hosed.

A union, because of its dues collection, will always attempt to keep employment high at the expense of its membership and as long as the "wages" cost doesn't exceed a predetermined amount, the company doesn't care, except perhaps for the extra in benefits paid out. Let's not forget: in the column that says "Wages", that of the execs is lumped in there also.

Money is the cheapest thing we can be given - the time off and other benefits were fought for over many years because of its cost - and it was given up with hardly any fight at all.

Your right, but my opinion is definitely a big part of the puzzle as well. Very well put Goose for sure...

 

[jimntx]

IT'S CALLED FLEXIBILITY.. THIS IS WHAT THE JOB IS ALL ABOUT. GO WORK 9-5 IF YOU WANT ... NOW BACK OFF FROM THIS...

Typing in all caps is called shouting and it's considered to be extremely rude. Now, if you think I would follow YOUR instructions, you must be hitting the cooking sherry pretty hard. Also, since you are one of those that seems to think that the APFA is the end all and the be all, I'm sure you know nothing of unionism history. After all, there were no unions until the Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed came into being, right?

Well, please allow me to give you a little lesson. It's not called flexibility. It's called featherbedding. It started with the railroad unions (RLA mean anything to you?). They forced the railroads to keep jobs filled that were no longer needed--such as having a lantern man on the rear of the train even after train headlights and tail lights became common. All the lantern man did for full pay was ride in the caboose, drink coffee, and play gin rummy or poker. Eventually, a number of railroads went out of business or were swallowed up by other railroads because they were paying twice as many people as were actually working. When this happened, thousands of jobs were lost. The passenger service disappeared except the little bit that was saved in Amtrak.

You know as well as I that I am not talking about people who drop a trip here and there, or maybe even all their trips on occasion, or those who have family illnesses that need to be attended to; so, don't even bother dragging that red herring through the boards again.

But, you go ahead chanting the flexibility mantra. It will make being back on reserve at 19 or 20 or 25 years more bearable. (At only 25 years you won't be senior enough to even make the backup list.) You can just keep saying to yourself, it's for the flexibility. It's for the flexibility. Then click the heels of your ruby red slippers together twice, and poof, you'll be back in Kansas.

 

[Bob Owens]

To offer an opinion also - the gains made by the TWU over a good number of years were given up in hopes of mitigating a layoff in 2003. Didn't happen. The company took the money and had a layoff anyway. The company management fared quite well, the TWU's International didn't have to tighten its belt, but the rank & file got hosed.

A union, because of its dues collection, will always attempt to keep employment high at the expense of its membership and as long as the "wages" cost doesn't exceed a predetermined amount, the company doesn't care, except perhaps for the extra in benefits paid out. Let's not forget: in the column that says "Wages", that of the execs is lumped in there also.

Money is the cheapest thing we can be given - the time off and other benefits were fought for over many years because of its cost - and it was given up with hardly any fight at all.

The only time an employer will keep extra heads on the payroll is when he realizes that since his wages are so low he wont get them back if he lets them go . This is the case with mechanics now. Even in places like Dallas AA's mechanics rates arent much better than what people with the same skill-sets can earn outside the airline industry. If they let trained skilled workers go they probably wont return.


Thats why despite the fact that we've seen big layoffs continue in other departments we arent seeing them with mechanics. The situation is especially critical in Title II. The company is trying to force the guys from Kansas City to fill positions in high cost cities like LAX where they cant get replacements. Most mechanics work two jobs, so as the company continues to lose mechanics they are having problems getting guys to work OT. In the high cost areas many mechanics run their own busineses and work at AA just for the benifits, often giving their hours away and never working OT.

 

[The Goose]

The only time an employer will keep extra heads on the payroll is when he realizes that since his wages are so low he wont get them back if he lets them go . This is the case with mechanics now. Even in places like Dallas AA's mechanics rates arent much better than what people with the same skill-sets can earn outside the airline industry. If they let trained skilled workers go they probably wont return.


Thats why despite the fact that we've seen big layoffs continue in other departments we arent seeing them with mechanics. The situation is especially critical in Title II. The company is trying to force the guys from Kansas City to fill positions in high cost cities like LAX where they cant get replacements. Most mechanics work two jobs, so as the company continues to lose mechanics they are having problems getting guys to work OT. In the high cost areas many mechanics run their own busineses and work at AA just for the benifits, often giving their hours away and never working OT.

That may well be the case, but ... I haven't forgotten how Carty and the board ran the company into the ground. The present situation stinks of the same game.

 

[jimntx]

And you guys need to continue refusing overtime. There are f/as who think nothing of flying 130-150 hours a month. That allows the company to furlough a f/a for each one willing to work a double line (or close to it).
That would be true unionism. I see it with the mechanics and the rampers everyday. F/as? Not so much.

 

[Skymess]

And you guys need to continue refusing overtime. There are f/as who think nothing of flying 130-150 hours a month. That allows the company to furlough a f/a for each one willing to work a double line (or close to it).
That would be true unionism. I see it with the mechanics and the rampers everyday. F/as? Not so much.

It's a nice idea, Jim, but not reality. Mechanics may be refusing overtime because they possess a skill they can use in other jobs, or have other businesses. That doesn't make mechanics true unionists, it makes them skilled workers. Most flight attendants don't have other jobs or skills that would guarantee them the same income elsewhere.

My bills aren't astronomical so I don't work a high time schedule. Many FAs have families, mortgages, and various bills and work very high hours because they need to. Who will pay what they owe if they worked the minimum?

 

[FA Mikey]

Mechanics also dont have the schedule flexibility and the extra time off to pick up if they wanted too. FA's are not being furloughed because there are some working 100 plus hour schedules. They are furloughing because there is an excess due to the drop in flight schedules.

If in August everyone worked their schedule it would be basically the same as if you had one half the people drop and the other half work a double schedule. The same hours worked and the same flights covered.

People point to a few who drop everything and say they are the reason people are being furloughed. When you go to limit the scheduling flexibility you risk losing everything that is great about the job.

The mechanics are not great Unionists. They have for years used the rampers numbers for leverage in negotiations, and the rampers have used the mechanics skilled labor as its bargaining tool. Its been one of the great symbiotic relationships in this industry.

 

[Barfbag]

The mechanics are not great Unionists. They have for years used the rampers numbers for leverage in negotiations, and the rampers have used the mechanics skilled labor as its bargaining tool. Its been one of the great symbiotic relationships in this industry.

This statement is very true, after 40 years in the air transportation industry I have never seen anything like this, brother against brother, local against local, all for overtime hours.

Management wins and wins again.

 

[Skymess]

People point to a few who drop everything and say they are the reason people are being furloughed. When you go to limit the scheduling flexibility you risk losing everything that is great about the job.

Exactly why I will vote no to any contract that forces a minimum threshold to retain the job. We already have a minimum for medical benefits and that is enough.

 

[butchord45]

I think by everyone committing to flying only their schedule would quickly put the company in a bind by being understaffed. At least on the Domestic side in ORD most people I fly with are in the 100 and up range. There are very few that fly under 70 hours. If they go ahead and furlough 1200, I predict they will be woefully short of F/As especially around the holidays.

Butch

Mechanics also dont have the schedule flexibility and the extra time off to pick up if they wanted too. FA's are not being furloughed because there are some working 100 plus hour schedules. They are furloughing because there is an excess due to the drop in flight schedules.

If in August everyone worked their schedule it would be basically the same as if you had one half the people drop and the other half work a double schedule. The same hours worked and the same flights covered.

People point to a few who drop everything and say they are the reason people are being furloughed. When you go to limit the scheduling flexibility you risk losing everything that is great about the job.

The mechanics are not great Unionists. They have for years used the rampers numbers for leverage in negotiations, and the rampers have used the mechanics skilled labor as its bargaining tool. Its been one of the great symbiotic relationships in this industry.

 

[jason77]

Exactly why I will vote no to any contract that forces a minimum threshold to retain the job. We already have a minimum for medical benefits and that is enough.

Everybody always talks about the flexibility of the job and not wanting to lose any of that.But how many jobs are we willing to lose 1000,2000,3000 please someone tell me.And if you think that's ok would you be willing to give up your job if it came down to it just to save the flexibilty so people don't have to work.

 

[Skymess]

Everybody always talks about the flexibility of the job and not wanting to lose any of that.But how many jobs are we willing to lose 1000,2000,3000 please someone tell me.And if you think that's ok would you be willing to give up your job if it came down to it just to save the flexibilty so people don't have to work.

Yes I would. Just as I voted no to something I didn't like even though the threat was to go out of business if we voted no. I'd vote no again. How many concessions are we willing to take under the guise of being 'grateful' we have a job? Notice how grateful everyone became after concessions when the only thing most people could do was b*tch that they took a pay cut and they weren't doing what they didn't feel like doing at 33% less pay. In 2003 nobody was thinking they were grateful to have a job it was AA's lucky we're still doing this job for less pay. Now fast forward to 2009 and some people would be willing to give the rest of what we lost up just so they could keep the same job. I couldn't even begin to imagine how miserable the conditions would be if we gave anything else up.

Would I like to lose my job? No. Would I be willing to give more away for the privilege of saying I have a job? H*ll no. I'm not expecting the moon in this contract but I'm also not accepting more concessions.

Right now I'm more concerned with the union agreeing to any productivity enhancements that would surely mean more job loss on the horizon and less flexibility for us such as: merging international domestic and forcing a threshold. No to both. Concessions all neatly wrapped up to fool the unwary.

 

[jimntx]

Skymess, you are obviously senior enough that you are in no immediate danger of furlough. Now, just like the Republicans are saying that the possibility of increasing taxes on people making over $1 million a year is "hurting small business owners" (of course, only a Republican would call a business producing $1 million net taxable profit small. AMR should be so lucky) to divert attention from their refusal to support health care for ALL Americans, you avoided the question jason asked to post a diversionary discussion of the next contract--which jason never mentioned.

So, I'll ask again. It's not a discussion of the next contract. The question requires a simple number. None, 100, 1000, 2000, whatever. Ok, here goes. How many of us junior flight attendants are you willing to throw under the bus in order to maintain the Almighty flexibility of the job?

(And, you might want to ask yourself, how flexible will it be when there is no one left junior to you. Expect another major furlough next year. You heard it here first.)

 

[jimntx]

It's a nice idea, Jim, but not reality. Mechanics may be refusing overtime because they possess a skill they can use in other jobs, or have other businesses. That doesn't make mechanics true unionists, it makes them skilled workers. Most flight attendants don't have other jobs or skills that would guarantee them the same income elsewhere.

My bills aren't astronomical so I don't work a high time schedule. Many FAs have families, mortgages, and various bills and work very high hours because they need to. Who will pay what they owe if they worked the minimum?

Yes. It's called by anyone other than a flight attendant, living beyond one's means. I'm well aware of several f/as who feel they have a right to live in homes that cost over a quarter of a million dollars and drive $50,000 vehicles, but somehow it is AMR's fault that they have trouble paying their bills.

If you do not have the skills or education to make $50,000/yr in the real world, but you are making that much as a flight attendant, you need to be putting away a bunch of that money just in case the job goes away--which in the airline business is a distinct possibility. Living from paycheck to paycheck at any income level is not smart.