Any Progress on the 90 Warn for NY based FAs

[jimntx]

Oh. The 249 at LGA are simply 249 of the 410 most junior active f/as--i.e., those subject to this possible furlough. There are more than 249 former TW f/as at LGA and JFK. the rest of the 410 are located at DCA, BOS, and ORD. There might be a few at SLT, but I don't think so. No one has been recalled directly to SLT. The former TW that are there are due to domestic mutual transfers--mostly between ORD and SLT; so, I'm assuming that among the former TW f/as, the ones at SLT are fairly senior.

 

[kirkpatrick]

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?

There are about 333 former TWA at LGA, and about 572 systemwide. The number 249 was chosen not because of federal law, but because of a recently passed NY law which requires WARN letters at 90 days if the number affected at a particular site is 250 or more. Being ex-TWA had nothing to do with it.

We can argue until the cows come home about what constitutes a "site," but my feeling is the company did its homework and will probably prevail. My main concern is not trying to squeeze an extra 30 days out of this but to do what can be done to keep people working and avoid furloughs. Let me suggest the following:

If AA had open-ended OVL's like UA we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If AA had a recal bypass option, even more would be saved. These things should have been negotiated into the contract when the concessions came around in 2003, to save the jobs of those who wanted to work and allow those who didn't to step aside, but the administration at the time was more concerned with the senior people.

MK

 

[jimntx]

If AA had open-ended OVL's like UA we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If AA had a recal bypass option, even more would be saved. These things should have been negotiated into the contract when the concessions came around in 2003, to save the jobs of those who wanted to work and allow those who didn't to step aside, but the administration at the time was more concerned with the senior people.

MK

Along with a "no-raises, no-bonusses for executives as long as workers are on reduced pay" clause. But then, there are a lot of things about our union and its actions that "should have been." But then, there was no one in danger of being furloughed with as much as 5 years (among the "nAAtives); so, saving those jobs was not even an issue for the APFA.

 

[Skymess]

There are about 333 former TWA at LGA, and about 572 systemwide. The number 249 was chosen not because of federal law, but because of a recently passed NY law which requires WARN letters at 90 days if the number affected at a particular site is 250 or more. Being ex-TWA had nothing to do with it.

I'm not trying to disparage former TWA attendants. The reference to the ex TWA was because ex TWA are the most junior. I understand about the 249 number and the extended WARN. I was just trying to establish if there were in fact a TOTAL (both intl and dom) of FAs based in NY who are at the bottom of the seniority list (whithin the 410 number) who will be receiving the letter. The reason I specifically asked about ex TWA was because I thought someone, I actually think it was you, pointed out in a different post the breakdown of ex TWA by base. I couldn't remember what your total for NY was. Now that I see you say 333, does that mean the 250 something of the 333 are the most junior systemwide and will receive WARN letters?

We can argue until the cows come home about what constitutes a "site," but my feeling is the company did its homework and will probably prevail.

Don't be too sure about that one. This company has tried many times to steamroll over the employees and has lost many a grievance because of it. I think that they may, as someone else pointed out, be attempting to do this knowing it is wrong but hoping for the fact that enough will take leaves to make it a moot point later which would possibly only cause them a small amount of money vs. keeping an FA overage for a few more months.

My main concern is not trying to squeeze an extra 30 days out of this but to do what can be done to keep people working and avoid furloughs. Let me suggest the following:

If AA had open-ended OVL's like UA we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If AA had a recall bypass option, even more would be saved. These things should have been negotiated into the contract when the concessions came around in 2003, to save the jobs of those who wanted to work and allow those who didn't to step aside, but the administration at the time was more concerned with the senior people.

MK

Recall bypass would be ideal. I utilized that option when I was furloughed with a different carrier. There's definitely something wrong with the way the company has been doing the leaves. It is terrible what they are doing to the most junior people and doesn't really give anyone confidence in their management abilities if you judge them by their haphazard leave system and miscalculation of numbers needed.

 

[Skymess]

Along with a "no-raises, no-bonusses for executives as long as workers are on reduced pay" clause. But then, there are a lot of things about our union and its actions that "should have been." But then, there was no one in danger of being furloughed with as much as 5 years (among the "nAAtives); so, saving those jobs was not even an

well as long as we're making our dream list of what should have happened, we should never have shortened the balloting period and should also never have extended it. An agreement never should have been reached without snap backs when the company was doing better. Inactive FAs should never be allowed to vote in any election and furloughed FAs shouldn't be able to hold elected positions.

 

[Maark767]

There are about 333 former TWA at LGA, and about 572 systemwide. The number 249 was chosen not because of federal law, but because of a recently passed NY law which requires WARN letters at 90 days if the number affected at a particular site is 250 or more. Being ex-TWA had nothing to do with it.

We can argue until the cows come home about what constitutes a "site," but my feeling is the company did its homework and will probably prevail. My main concern is not trying to squeeze an extra 30 days out of this but to do what can be done to keep people working and avoid furloughs. Let me suggest the following:

If AA had open-ended OVL's like UA we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If AA had a recal bypass option, even more would be saved. These things should have been negotiated into the contract when the concessions came around in 2003, to save the jobs of those who wanted to work and allow those who didn't to step aside, but the administration at the time was more concerned with the senior people.

MK

I think the administration was more concerned with staying out of BK than anything else..... Remember this was not your ordinary negociations and it was a take it or leave it deal . This was AA management playing very hard ball.... People seem to forget that !!!!

 

[eolesen]

Some say it was hard ball, some say it was reality. I don't have the manifests anymore, but it was pretty well confirmed that the VP of Purchasing and others from Legal were at the federal courthouse in NY ready to file Ch 11.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Now that I see you say 333, does that mean the 250 something of the 333 are the most junior systemwide and will receive WARN letters?

The company, knowing that they couldn't furlough more than 249 people in any single location furloughed exactly that number at LGA. Of course, anyone with less seniority anywhere else had to be furloughed too, so the resulting number was 410. They weren't WARN letters, they were furlough letters.

MK

 

[Skymess]

The company, knowing that they couldn't furlough more than 249 people in any single location furloughed exactly that number at LGA. Of course, anyone with less seniority anywhere else had to be furloughed too, so the resulting number was 410. They weren't WARN letters, they were furlough letters.

MK

Thank you.