Sure, AA could push through a few small groups qualified on only one aircraft, but it would still take a couple of weeks to get anyone actually working a flight. It ain't gonna happen.
MK
Dunno how far they would take it. IMHO, I don't see the stigma attached to being a SCAB after witnessing the lack of ostracism (sp?) after the 90's strike. I seen more catfights over general conflicts and personalities than those flights with SCABS, even just a couple of years after the strike. If you had 1000-1500 last time, you could see 4000-5000 this time. Remember too, that last time, there were alot more 20 somethings that were risking a lower paid job as well as fewer family responsibilities. 16 years later, I fly with alot of single mothers in their 40's with kids in high school and college. I haven't seen baby pictures in a long time except for Grandkid pics.
After you pick a number of SCABS, 2000-4000, split them up and fly them with the 7 day wonders, 130 hours a month (or whatever). Although most narrow bodies are already min crews, the 777/767 can be cut to 7 and 6 (or whatever it is). Add cancelling vacations leaves and flying Supervisors, the number required to run the system drops significantly. Another factor is AA's code share buddies, BA and IB as well as LAN will cut the required number of FA's even more. (big factor why APA is concerned, but that's another 7 page thread).
The replacement pool is unknown. How many LCC/Regional/EX-TWA/EX-Legacy FA's are jobless or in dirt pay jobs? Unknown me what they'd do, but many would probably take the chance after having the taste of travel and lately have been sitting in front of a cash register, or watching daytime TV. This group would adapt to training fairly quickly.
Another factor is the difference between the early 90's and now. AA was in the top 5 back then in customer service, and locked in a fight with UAL for the business passenger. Having the SCAB and flunky crews screwing up for 6 months would have killed that high ranking. Although the FA's are only part of the ranking problems today, I would be caution the AMR might not worry about dropping from our current ranking of 16 out of 18 down to 17 out of 18. The bulk of our FA's back then were also on lower payscales, the cost of replacements could not have been that huge back then. I'm not so sure that's the case today.
Just some observations and opinions.
