Any Progress on the 90 Warn for NY based FAs

[nyc6035]

At the risk of restarting the "staple wars" or whatever you choose to call it, which is NOT my intention, I thought I would ask the question if there have been any additional developments on the FAs who are NY based being able to avail themselves of the 90 day Warn Law in NY given that there were more than 250 impacted between JFK and LGA. I recall last someone suggesting the union was looking into it. Has there been any progress on that front?

Good luck to all.

 

[kirkpatrick]

A couple of responses amounting to "We'll look into it," but I don't hold out much hope. AA must be well aware of the law, since they cut the furlough at exactly 249 LGA FA's. You can bet they had the legal department clear everything. They do their homework before acting.

MK (#76 on the furlough list)

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

A couple of responses amounting to "We'll look into it," but I don't hold out much hope. AA must be well aware of the law, since they cut the furlough at exactly 249 LGA FA's. You can bet they had the legal department clear everything. They do their homework before acting.

MK (#76 on the furlough list)

As usual..MK, I'm keeping a GOOD THOUGHT for you, and your trying to stay working !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nyc6035]

A couple of responses amounting to "We'll look into it," but I don't hold out much hope. AA must be well aware of the law, since they cut the furlough at exactly 249 LGA FA's. You can bet they had the legal department clear everything. They do their homework before acting.

MK (#76 on the furlough list)

MK,

I think you may want to file a complaint with the state (I think you can do that alone). The fact that LGA FAs are interchangable with JFK FAs (can be called out on trips to either location) would suggest that this is 'perhaps' a single location.

I figure you've got little to lose and perhaps 60 days of additional pay.

I do hope it all works out for you and your co-workers. Here's hoping there's at least an orange vest available for you to ride out the storm.

 

[FA Mikey]

The LGA base is in name only. It is the Domestic base for NYC. The LGA crews fly out of all three airports. The JFK base is the international base and fly all international trips out of any of the NYC airports.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Kirkpatrick,

You are a SURVIVOR, and I'm predicting that you'll return to work again in 09.

Some of those 73 recalls in front of you will "pack it in", via retirements, or not wanting to commute BACK(again) to NY, plus any deaths/firings/retirements within the whole system,...plus this being march..and the busy summer season just around the corner.

Heck, just on the seasonal DFW/ANC alone, that must take a fair amount of F/A's to crew that 757 , 7 days a week, and there is a new DFW/LHR coming on line soon.

Bottom line, they will never get to you "Permanently"(cause you're a New Yorker, and THAT equals ...SURVIVOR) !!!

 

[jimntx]

The LGA base is in name only. It is the Domestic base for NYC. The LGA crews fly out of all three airports. The JFK base is the international base and fly all international trips out of any of the NYC airports.

However, Mike, the company has always played down the differences in the airports when it suits their needs. As you know they think nothing of starting a domestic trip at LGA and ending it at EWR or JFK. As you say International f/as also fly out of any New York airport. This may trip them up.

Remember, there are government agencies in this country that believe that f/as are not full-time employees because we are only guaranteed 70 hours/month. The reverse side of that coin may be trying to convince New York state that LGA and JFK are two different work groups.

1. They are both flight attendants.
2. They pay dues to the same union, which has a single set of officers and one headquarters.
3. International f/as who have maintained their domestic a/c qualifications can fly domestic trips on reserve months.
4. We are the only major airline that still tries to claim that there is a difference between domestic and International f/as. Whether or not I know how to board a raft in a ditching or serve sushi in F/C may be a minor point to the New York state agency in charge of this issue.
5. Switching from one group to the other--particularly, International to Domestic--is not a major effort.

We all know that the drawback to merging the two groups is not getting my quals (or any other lowly domestic fa) up to International standards (I would need ditching and A300 training), it's getting all the International senior mamas re-qualified on domestic equipment. Remember the weeping and wailing in IMA when they put that 737 Caribbean turn on the MIA-MAD lines? (Or so I heard.)

The division is not quite as clear as some AMR folk (both management and f/as) would like to believe.

 

[jimntx]

Kirkpatrick,

You are a SURVIVOR, and I'm predicting that you'll return to work again in 09.

Some of those 73 recalls in front of you will "pack it in", via retirements, or not wanting to commute BACK(again) to NY, plus any deaths/firings/retirements within the whole system,...plus this being march..and the busy summer season just around the corner.

Heck, just on the seasonal DFW/ANC alone, that must take a fair amount of F/A's to crew that 757 , 7 days a week, and there is a new DFW/LHR coming on line soon.

Bottom line, they will never get to you "Permanently"(cause you're a New Yorker, and THAT equals ...SURVIVOR) !!!

Nice sentiments, NHBB. However, not only is there not much chance that he will be recalled in '09 if furloughed, there is a better than even chance that I will join him on the unemployment line, and I am over 900 from the bottom of the active list. The overage is much worse than the company is addressing at the moment.

Since they found out that they don't have to give 60-day notice if the overage is less than 500 (or 90-day if less than 250 in New York state), they are going to parcel out the furloughs over time. Legally, they could announce another 499 today to take effect 01JUN and it would be considered a different set of folks from the current 410.

Why do I say the overage is worse than announced? Here are some figures to consider. I don't have all the numbers here at home, but let's look at the largest and one of the smallest bases. DFW domestic paid out over 6000 guarantee hours in January alone. SLT with only 367 active f/as paid out over 1300 guarantee hours.

Guarantee hours are hours guaranteed to a f/a, but not flown--such as, reserves or availability f/as who are not given enough flying to cover their guarantees. January is not unique. I was on reserve in December and February. In December--which is historically known as the month we run out of reserves and line people get reassigned--I had 40 hours and 27 minutes, and 10 hours of that was sitting airport standby. I only actually flew a little over 30 hours. In February, I finished the month with 47 hours, but 5 hours was airport standby and 4 hours 10 minutes was special assignment. The only reason I had 37 hours of flying was I put myself on short call one day and managed to pick up a 19 hour, 3-day trip on a day I was #17 of 24 available reserves.

According to a DFW domestic f/a I was talking to while commuting home one night, the DFW reserves in February flew approx. 35 hours each. Each one of them was guaranteed 75 hours; so, approx. 40 hours of guarantee hours for each reserve--approx. 300 f/as each month.

Something has to give somewhere.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Something has to give somewhere.

Jim, numbers I got from my usual source indicate the actual systemwide overage for April is 750, with 410 being the smallest overage for the summer months. That's assuming January's attrition rate of 28 holding as a monthly rate for the remainder of the year. I'd feel much worse about all this if the company had announced a cutback in flying, but no such additional cutback has been announced. The summer is coming up, and the 737's requiring four FA's start coming in this month.

The 249 WARN loophole could be used again, but barring any further cutback, I see no reason to assume it will be exercised simply because it can. After all, they could have used it any time in the last few years but haven't done so.

All this is based upon the assumption that the current level of flying will be maintained, which of course, is not guaranteed. I stand a fairly decent chance of escaping this furlough, and recalls could occur for the cost of a postage stamp within a year, since no retraining is required.

It won't be long before we know.

MK

 

[Skymess]

A couple of responses amounting to "We'll look into it," but I don't hold out much hope. AA must be well aware of the law, since they cut the furlough at exactly 249 LGA FA's. You can bet they had the legal department clear everything. They do their homework before acting.

MK (#76 on the furlough list)

I flew with a former TWA FA the other day who told me that not all the former TWA FAs will receive warn letters because there are more than 410 active. Could it be possible that the reason they didn't give the 90 day notice was because AA was aware that even though there are 250-255 former TWA FAs based in NY ( a combination of LGA and JFK) that not all of them are eligible for a WARN letter because they aren't all within the 410 most junior category?

 

[Skymess]

I replied to Jim's international/domestic division post and think it should be discussed somewhere else so I erased it.

 

[jimntx]

I flew with a former TWA FA the other day who told me that not all the former TWA FAs will receive warn letters because there are more than 410 active. Could it be possible that the reason they didn't give the 90 day notice was because AA was aware that even though there are 250-255 former TWA FAs based in NY ( a combination of LGA and JFK) that not all of them are eligible for a WARN letter because they aren't all within the 410 most junior category?

The reasoning has been twisted around here. The Federal law requires WARN letters if the number of people affected within a particular job category is 500 or more. I think 410 was picked so that it wouldn't look like they were deliberately avoiding the WARN act. Say, with 499 to be furloughed. Nothing obvious like that. Of course, they were sure that we wouldn't notice that 249 at LGA was 1 below the New York state WARN threshhold. 🙄

I'm not sure what having more than 410 active has to do with anything. That would be like saying we don't have send WARN letters to 410 nAAtives because there are more than 16,000 active.

And, au contraire, Skymess. The domestic/International discussion matters very much to this thread. It was the idea which started the thread in the first place. If the state of New York chooses to view the flight attendant corps at AA as one job category--regardless of whether they fly domestic or International--then AA is in violation of the law. Because there are 249 affected at LGA and 3 at JFK, that exceeds the New York threshhold of 250 furloughs which requires a 90-day notice prior to furlough. OR, the company has to pay 3 months salary to each person furloughed in New York state. And, just imagine the protest that will (or should) come from the APFA if some furloughees get 3 months pay and others do not.

I agree with the idea that one of the New York f/as affected should file a complaint directly with the state rather than wait on the APFA to do anything. The phrase, "We'll look into it," should always be followed by "when pigs can fly."

 

[eolesen]

If AA is that concerned, they'll find a way to keep the combined furlough under 249, or have a second furlough which complies with the 90 day notice.

Remember the discussion on taking the per-diem deduction right up to the limit a few weeks ago?

How 'bout staffing when the 737 went over 150 seats?

Loopholes benefit each of us at different times.

 

[Royal Ambassador]

Several NY based flight attendants have already filed complaints with the NY Labor Board. They received replies that the furloughs are taking place at different sites and for that reason the numbers cannot be combined. At the end, none of this will matter since a few leaves will be granted, a few jobs will be saved and less than 250 lose their jobs.

 

[Skymess]

And, au contraire, Skymess. The domestic/International discussion matters very much to this thread. It was the idea which started the thread in the first place. If the state of New York chooses to view the flight attendant corps at AA as one job category--regardless of whether they fly domestic or International--then AA is in violation of the law. Because there are 249 affected at LGA and 3 at JFK, that exceeds the New York threshhold of 250 furloughs which requires a 90-day notice prior to furlouhgh. OR, the company has to pay 3 months salary to each person furloughed in New York state. And, just imagine the protest that will (or should) come from the APFA if some furloughees get 3 months pay and others do not.

Maybe I am not asking my question correctly because I can't seem to get an answer. the 249 at LGA and the 3 at JFK are all the most junior former TWA attendants or that is the total of former TWA FAs in NY?