AMR Corporation Plans to Cut 1,600 Jobs

[jersey777]

I went to the Union meeting at JFK on July 1st and someone asked the question of why the Union has not asked the flight attendants to not fly high time in order to save jobs. Laura Glading responded that courts have considered any attempt by a union to limit the flying that employees do to be considered a job action and such activity would be illegal and that the Union would be subject to fines.

 

[Skymess]

Skymess, you are obviously senior enough that you are in no immediate danger of furlough. 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.)

Jim,

I'm right near the furlough numbers so there is your first theory debunked. I didn't try to divert attention from what jason asked. I answered his question whether I would be willing to forfeit my job if it meant retaining the flexibility and I put the other information in there to support my reasoning. That's all.

I am not AMR, and neither is Laura Glading. Arpey and his pals are the ones running the company and deciding the numbers based on bookings. The only ways to stop furloughs is for more passengers to buy tickets and for the APFA to stop agreeing to more productivity gains for AA from AAFAs.

I do not agree with the theory that forcing people to fly will save jobs. If it means thousands lose their job, including myself, to retain work rules and flexibility than that is how it has to be. This economy can't last forever while work rules can. If you want to think of that as throwing people under the bus, go ahead. If passengers don't fly and we impose a threshold it won't save anyone's job. It will just force us all to have a threshold, force us to get our extra trips from the company thorugh MU and option II, and will make the people dropping fly their threshold to retain their job. Don't delude yourself that all those people will quit. The ones who needed the medical came to fly the 35 hours when that threshold was imposed. If the passengers aren't flying than we're still going to have that many less jobs.

 

[Skymess]

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.

Said from the comfort of a Dallas suburb............ Have you checked home prices on the west and east coasts? Next you'll be saying that everyone should be a commuter.

People who choose to live at their base sacrifice other things in order to pay for that privilege. If you start adding the bills of a family plus the more expensive taxes than you need to work a lot more than a DFW or STL FA in order to simply pay for your necessary items. Many of those people were doing just fine until concessions came along. People don't fly 150 hours because they want to.

 

[jason77]

Jim,

I'm right near the furlough numbers so there is your first theory debunked. I didn't try to divert attention from what jason asked. I answered his question whether I would be willing to forfeit my job if it meant retaining the flexibility and I put the other information in there to support my reasoning. That's all.

I am not AMR, and neither is Laura Glading. They are the ones running the company and deciding the numbers based on bookings. The only ways to stop furloughs is for more passengers to buy tickets and for the APFA to stop agreeing to more productivity gains for AA from AAFAs.

I do not agree with the theory that forcing people to fly will save jobs. If it means thousands lose their job, including myself, to retain work rules and flexibility than that is how it has to be. This economy can't last forever while work rules can. If you want to think of that as throwing people under the bus, go ahead. If passengers don't fly and we impose a threshold it won't save anyone's job. It will just force us all to have a threshold, force us to get our extra trips from the company thorugh MU and option II, and will make the people dropping fly their threshold to retain their job. Don't delude yourself that all those people will quit. The ones who needed the medical came to fly the 35 hours when that threshold was imposed. If the passengers aren't flying than we're still going to have that many less jobs.

I think most of the people getting furlough know the economy is bad and that the airlines are not doing real well.But it is a hard pill to swallow when you know that there are people here that don't what to fly but won't take a leave.I don't care if it's only 50 people it's still 50 people losing there job we need to protect the people that want to work not the ones that don't.Don't tell me that if we raised the threshold for medical to 60 hrs and have a 35hr threshold to keep your job people won't leave.I know it's not going to help anybody getting furlough now but we need to look to the future there are to many people here that hate this job but don't quit we need to force them out.

 

[Barfbag]

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.

The bottom line is that if AMR intends to continue to operate out of major cities, like JFK where the cost of living is almost 30% more than DFW, then all unions should accept revamping their contracts to reflect the difference in pay scales.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ Like I said, The IAM did it for TWA's HNL employees, over thirty years ago! ----- So what's the big deal? ------ The boys in TUL, and AFW, DFW, don't like the idea of someone getting more than them? ----- If that's the case, let them exercise their seniority, and transfer to the "Big Money!"------ Oh! I forgot! It's not quite that easy, with the TWU! :down:

 

[AAStew]

I won't get into the argument as obviously some here can't see the forest because of the trees. I will just say that at one poinnt I had 10,000 people below me in seniority, after the expected furloughs I will probably have 3000. I am not there yet but there is every possibility. Yet if it meant keeping my job at the loss of flexibilit, absolutely not! This job has only that and that is what the majority of us value the most. If anyone here wants job security, they should have gone into the health industry. I am willing to possibly give up my job in order to maintain quality of life.

 

[MCI transplant]

I won't get into the argument as obviously some here can't see the forest because of the trees. I will just say that at one poinnt I had 10,000 people below me in seniority, after the expected furloughs I will probably have 3000. I am not there yet but there is every possibility. Yet if it meant keeping my job at the loss of flexibilit, absolutely not! This job has only that and that is what the majority of us value the most. If anyone here wants job security, they should have gone into the health industry. I am willing to possibly give up my job in order to maintain quality of life.

<_< ------ I'm glad to hear you have the "luxury" to do that!------ You've been blessed!------- But let me point out, some do not! :unsure:

 

[jimntx]

and for the APFA to stop agreeing to more productivity gains for AA from AAFAs.

There are a lot of f/as that could not get less productive unless they fell into a coma. And, you know it as well as I do. We all see it everyday. And, we enable it by picking up the slack for those that think that they are being paid to keep the jumpseat from springing up flat against the bulkhead.

There is one in STL that will openly say that "I'll do what I want to do on the plane. They can't tell me what to do. I am a union member. They can't fire me." Or, when I'm commuting to/from STL and we have one or two little bumps during takeoff, and one of the "working" crew will make a pa that due to the turbulence there will not be a service.

 

[AAStew]

<_< ------ I'm glad to hear you have the "luxury" to do that!------ You've been blessed!------- But let me point out, some do not! :unsure:

No, I do not have the luxury to this, but there comes a time when the job is just not worth it anymore. ANd take my word for it, it is a job not a career as some like to call it....

 

[Bob Owens]

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.

Carty had a workforce that was earning around 40% more at the time. The lower the wages get the smaller the pool gets of available workers, even in a bad economy because of the skills required.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

say again bob

 

[MCI transplant]

No, I do not have the luxury to this, but there comes a time when the job is just not worth it anymore. ANd take my word for it, it is a job not a career as some like to call it....

<_< ------- I can understand that!

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

http://www.miamiherald.com/business/intern...ry/1151870.html

Cut more heads off days and afternoons we need to be more productive.

:unsure:

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I agree with those who think the number is "a lot". The senior folks are really going to screw the junior folks if they get their way on this.

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.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that the layoffs would have been significantly larger in number if you hadn't agreed to those concessions. Not to mention that the court would have slashed your salary by more than you conceded.