F/A Cross-utilization / DOM to INTL / Prevents Recalls

[MiAAmi]

Actually, it is not pertinent to the point I was trying to make if 1 or 1000 flight attendants has utilized this increased "flexibility.â€￾ The fact that this new found "flexibility" disproportionately benefits the company and as a consequence, adversely affects the furloughed APFA member’s opportunity to return to work is the issue.

APFA's neglect of its furloughed members needs in favor of the active members "flexibility" should be an affront to all those who proclaim themselves unionists. We’re talking about someone’s job not whether or not you can drop or pick up a trip so as to make a hair appointment or attend junior’s recital.

Unity pays? Yeah, if you are AA duping the unwitting APFA leaders and membership into conspiring to avoid a recall of "activist" furloughed APFA members through LOA's such as this. It pays well.

By virtue of the fact that the membership does not even consider these issues before cheerleading for this “flexibilityâ€￾ demonstrates their callus disregard for fellow APFA brothers and sisters negatively impacted by its existence. That is a display of values; not mine, but yours.

Oh Please!!! Haven't you learned that your union brothers and sisters will gladly call in sick on Christmas and New Years careing less if you get reassigned or have to fly understaffed. The company is not going to call anyone back until they absolutely have to. Anyone picking up an Option II trip or not has nothing to do with recalls. Any trip not assigned goes to a reserve or maybe a supervisor during the holidays. Save your union lectures for something more important.

 

[Garfield1966]

We are finally starting to eek out a profit each year and you want to hire more people so AA can pay more salary, benefits, sick time .. so we in decrease our profits? The flights are being covered, OPT II is not open all that much so it seems to me we have the staff that we need.


That just makes not sense to me.

 

[Hunter]

Oh Please!!! Haven't you learned that your union brothers and sisters will gladly call in sick on Christmas and New Years careing less if you get reassigned or have to fly understaffed. The company is not going to call anyone back until they absolutely have to. Anyone picking up an Option II trip or not has nothing to do with recalls. Any trip not assigned goes to a reserve or maybe a supervisor during the holidays. Save your union lectures for something more important.

No MiAAmi, I have not learned that of my fellow APFA members. What I have learned is that even when misinformation is repeated ad nauseam, it is still that, misinformation.

It is undeniable that both Option II and this LOA concerning limited cross utilization are facilitating AA's ability to run the operation with fewer flight attendants. The galling part is that APFA supports and endorses both activities to the detriment of its own members.

Interestingly, your rebuttal to my argument on this point that the "optioned" trip would have gone to a reserve, actually supports my position. Higher reserve utilization necessarily leads to the need for more reserves. What about this fundamental principle do you not understand?

I understand AA's position of not recalling flight attendants until absolutely necessary. What I do not understand is APFA’s willingness to aide and abet the company in this endeavor.

Fly all the option II that you can tolerate - 90, 100, even 120 hours a month, but do not in the same breath complain about seniority stagnation.

Speaking of stagnation, intelligent discourse on this topic seems to have stalled. To bad really, as an understanding of the consequences of inequitable agreements such as this LOA would probably lead to greater unity within our membership.

 

[FurloughedByAPFA]

No its not rocket science. But can you estimate how many f/a's are going to take advantage of picking up an Option II trip that is still avail after the original base has had a chance to pick and choose over it.

My point is - even if 1 person uses cross utilization for Option II - it is a CONTRACTUAL change with a simple LETTER OF AGREEMENT.

My last SKYLINER had headlines screaming "OUR CONTRACT IS CLOSED."

Uh, can I ask - does this sound like a contract that is CLOSED?

 

[MiAAmi]

No MiAAmi, I have not learned that of my fellow APFA members. What I have learned is that even when misinformation is repeated ad nauseam, it is still that, misinformation.

Can you tell me why only during the holidays this option is available? Well if not I will gladly tell you why, its because there is a major increase in sick calls. Why call back people when you only need them during the holidays (when some people abuse their sick time). We will probably see more flights cancelled for the lack of pilots before we cancel a flight for a shortage of F/A's. I'm all for recalls. I just don't see your point with this option II isssue.

 

[eolesen]

Garfield,
I recall the company studied the possibility of merging the divisions during our 1986-87 contract negotiations. The company concluded the training would prove cost-prohibitive and nixed the idea.

With all due respect, Art, aside from a couple trips to LGW, FRA, HNL and the Caribbean (Canada and Mexico were and still are considered domestic for crewing, correct?), AA didn't have nearly the presence it does today.

AA also had twice as many fleet types and about 30% fewer aircraft at the time.

 

[ArtTang]

With all due respect, Art, aside from a couple trips to LGW, FRA, HNL and the Caribbean (Canada and Mexico were and still are considered domestic for crewing, correct?), AA didn't have nearly the presence it does today.

AA also had twice as many fleet types and about 30% fewer aircraft at the time.

I may wrong, but I seem to recall that we flew to Munich, Narita, Geneva, Dusseldorf, Paris, Manchester, etc. I had some great layovers in these cities in 1987-88. As for the fleet type, I don't recall what the breakdown was.

Art Tang
IMA

 

[eolesen]

I may wrong, but I seem to recall that we flew to Munich, Narita, Geneva, Dusseldorf, Paris, Manchester, etc. I had some great layovers in these cities in 1987-88. As for the fleet type, I don't recall what the breakdown was.

I stand corrected... AA was serving NRT, FRA, ORY, LGW, MAN and DUS in summer 1986, and GVA in summer 1987.

However, my point is that the larger international expansion didn't happen until 1989, when ARN, BRU, LYS, STR, and HAM were added, plus the entire Latin America expansion which materialized after Eastern's 1989 bankruptcy.

Throw in 1991's LHR expansion, and AA's international services expanded by three or four times from what they were in 1986.

 

[MiAAmi]

I would venture to guess that if AA thought it was going to save them money, combining both groups would already be on the table. I'm not sure if this is actually a contract issue or not? If they do combine the groups unfortunatly they would not need to recall for a long time, possibly adding to the furlough list. Again this seems to be a very remote possibility since in my opinion they would have already started this by now. Back to the Option II agreement. Basically we voted for the leaders of our Union to make decisions for the group as a whole. There are always going to be items that don't help me personally but the group as a whole (in this case increased flexibility). I know that the 5 year limit on call backs gets closer everyday for those out on furlough and that is frustrating. I would hope that when you do get called back, you will find that the Union has worked to protect our contract and make this a job worth coming back to. I'm sure everyone will have a differnt opinion about that.

 

[FurloughedByAPFA]

Dear *******,
Thank you for your comments. One of the primary concerns of the union is to
protect jobs and represent members' collective interests. Your concerns have been
noted. We appreciate your input.
APFA President Staff


-----Original Message-----
From: FurloughedByAPFA
Sent: Thu 12/7/2006 1:33 PM
To: Tommie Hutto-Blake
Subject: FW: Recall of Flight Attendants

 

[jimntx]

It is undeniable that both Option II and this LOA concerning limited cross utilization are facilitating AA's ability to run the operation with fewer flight attendants. The galling part is that APFA supports and endorses both activities to the detriment of its own members.

(paragraph deleted by me.jrp)

I understand AA's position of not recalling flight attendants until absolutely necessary. What I do not understand is APFA’s willingness to aide and abet the company in this endeavor.

(paragraph deleted by me.jrp)

Speaking of stagnation, intelligent discourse on this topic seems to have stalled. To bad really, as an understanding of the consequences of inequitable agreements such as this LOA would probably lead to greater unity within our membership.

Option II and LOA do not allow the company to run the operation with fewer f/as. They allow the company to run the operation, period. The problem is and remains that if you look at the total system flying vs. the active f/a roster we are seriously OVER-staffed. However, when you look at the total system flying vs. the number of "active" f/as who are willing to get on airplanes that have passengers on them, Option II and the LOA are needed. (See stagnation below.)

After all this time, I do not see why you don't understand that the Blessed Order of the Perpetually-Trip Removed (aka, APFA) is the company's b*tch as long as the ability of the senior f/as to never fly is protected, and those on Useless Blvd can remain trip-removed with pay.

As far as seniority stagnation...
Unless the company is willing to fight the union on the above-mentioned senior prerogative (i.e., to be a flight attendant without actually having to fly), there will be seniority stagnation. There are LARGE numbers of f/as at MIA, IMA, DFW, IDF, and others that never fly or fly the minimum 35 hours/month to keep paid benefits. I know of a f/a at SLT (actually almost as junior as I at AA, but she is on her 3rd airline) who NEVER flies except in her reserve months. She has a full-time job in a totally unrelated industry where she works from her home and sets her own hours. She keeps her f/a job and flies on her reserve months only to keep her travel benefits. She doesn't even fly all her reserve months because she uses sick leave to avoid trips to the extent she can get away with it without progressing beyond 2nd written warning.

Try to name another job in any industry where part-time or inactive employees are given benefits of any kind--much less something like unlimited free travel. Non-rev travel is a company-defined and company-controlled benefit. If they withdrew this benefit from f/as who don't fly or fly only part-time, I'm willing to bet that some of them would either start working again, would retire, or would resign.

And, don't anyone start the yah-yah-yah about some of them have health problems, family issues, etc. I know that. And, allowances should be made in SPECIFIC cases--just like with hardship transfers.

 

[AAStew]

Jim,
You came onto this job as a retiree fromm someplace else correct? The gall of you! how dare you retire when others have to work until they are 67! Same principle here....I started to work as a flight attendant solely because I knew I would have this flexibility of dropping my trips when I needed to. Flight attendants have fought hard for this privilage. Why does it upset you? If you want to fly go ahead and do so. When I can fly a full month and want to I do, but thank God I can drop trips when my life dictates it also. We have to put up with crap for years and this is one of the small benefits we get in exchange for that. I have been serving reserve for 17 years now at what was considered the most junior base when I came on! Who could of predicted that? But I look at the bright side, I can drop on those other months. Do you have children? Do you have a life outside of work? Why can't you be happy that you still have this one privilage instead of being such a sourpuss about it? (see I didn't call you an old fart this time!) We are honestly our own worst enemies and that is so very sad to me.

 

[jimntx]

I love it when long-time flight attendants make assumptions about what is true or not true about me and my life. As a matter of fact, no I did NOT retire from another profession. And, FYI, I have to work until age 66 to get full Social Security.

So, you enjoy the flexibility of not having to fly unless you absolutely have to. I have no quarrel with that. But, if you arrange to have what is, in effect, a part-time job, don't expect that you are somehow OWED full-time benefits for something you did or did not do years ago.

As far as your being on reserve for 17 years...No doubt, you are one those senior flight attendants who think I should be on straight reserve so you can be off reserve completely. (See, you're not the only one that can make assumptions about what others think or feel based on how YOU would think or feel in the situation.)

I'm not being a sourpuss. It's called being business-like. I repeat...Name me another job in any industry where part-time/inactive employees get benefits. For that matter, name me another job in AMR corporation where part-time/inactive employees are given full benefits.

While I'm busy getting your knickers in a twist, name me another entry-level job (and that's what flight attendant is in the business definition) where someone can do the exact same job for 40 years, never progress in responsibility beyond the basic level, learn only the absolute minimum in new techniques or procedures to do the job, take the liberty to decide what one will or will not do in the job despite employer instructions to the contrary, and yet get paid 3 or 4 times as much as one was paid when one first started the job. Not dying and not quitting are not valid business reasons for getting a raise.

 

[AAStew]

1. I did not necessarily assume you had retired. I was trying to make a point.
2. I am not senior by any means at 17 years, I am at the bottom third of the seniority list.
3. I wish I was making 3 or 4 times of what I entered at. I am making double, after 17 years.
4. I paid for my benefits 6 times within the past 12 months. Approximately 987 per month. And when and if we lose the benefits for flying less than 35 hours, I will pay it then also. So don't assume.
5. I changed my mind, you are a sourpuss old fart.

Oh and BTW, women haven't worn knickers in decades, we wear panties, usually thongs.

 

[jimntx]

[quote name='AAStew' date='Dec 12 2006, 06:23 PM'
Oh and BTW, women haven't worn knickers in decades, we wear panties, usually thongs.
[/quote]

Considering the shape of most female f/as at AA these days...

Would someone please get me a stick to poke out my mind's eye with!