FA contract thought

[bigjets]

I would like to know what the feeling's would be for the FA's to have to fly a minimum of 42 hours a month to be employed at AA. I think that the 42 hours limit still gives FA's a fair amount of flexibility. There are numerous FA's who don't work at all, and have the trip trade service's drop all their hours. Right now I see the FA's that give their schedule to the trip trade service's (TTS) are actually giving the TTS the power to bypass seniority and give their clients the trips, plus making money off of FA's who want to fly more hours, rather then giving the FA's who actually work the opportunity to use their seniority to bid on those trips. I also think that this would let the FA's seniority list move, by giving those FA's who don't work the motivation to retire or resign, allowing AA to hire off the street eventually.

For a major concession like this, I would expect AA to make the AA FA's the highest paid in the industry. I see that this would possibly lower the number of active FA's, but it would also make AA FA's the highest paid. I'm curious to see if the APFA is fighting for the FA's that need to work at AA or the ones who see working at AA as a hobby.

 

[fltguymk]

I would like to know what the feeling's would be for the FA's to have to fly a minimum of 42 hours a month to be employed at AA. I think that the 42 hours limit still gives FA's a fair amount of flexibility. There are numerous FA's who don't work at all, and have the trip trade service's drop all their hours. Right now I see the FA's that give their schedule to the trip trade service's (TTS) are actually giving the TTS the power to bypass seniority and give their clients the trips, plus making money off of FA's who want to fly more hours, rather then giving the FA's who actually work the opportunity to use their seniority to bid on those trips. I also think that this would let the FA's seniority list move, by giving those FA's who don't work the motivation to retire or resign, allowing AA to hire off the street eventually.

For a major concession like this, I would expect AA to make the AA FA's the highest paid in the industry. I see that this would possibly lower the number of active FA's, but it would also make AA FA's the highest paid. I'm curious to see if the APFA is fighting for the FA's that need to work at AA or the ones who see working at AA as a hobby.

Hi Bigjets. If you are willing to pay to "drop" your trips to a TT service and then willing to pay for your insurance benefits, then who cares. I think the 420 threshold is fair. I do believe that the 420 should be applied to earning your full vacation. If you do not work the 420 per year, then your vaca should be cut. Thats my 2 cents.

 

[jersey777]

I would like to know what the feeling's would be for the FA's to have to fly a minimum of 42 hours a month to be employed at AA. I think that the 42 hours limit still gives FA's a fair amount of flexibility. There are numerous FA's who don't work at all, and have the trip trade service's drop all their hours. Right now I see the FA's that give their schedule to the trip trade service's (TTS) are actually giving the TTS the power to bypass seniority and give their clients the trips, plus making money off of FA's who want to fly more hours, rather then giving the FA's who actually work the opportunity to use their seniority to bid on those trips. I also think that this would let the FA's seniority list move, by giving those FA's who don't work the motivation to retire or resign, allowing AA to hire off the street eventually.

For a major concession like this, I would expect AA to make the AA FA's the highest paid in the industry. I see that this would possibly lower the number of active FA's, but it would also make AA FA's the highest paid. I'm curious to see if the APFA is fighting for the FA's that need to work at AA or the ones who see working at AA as a hobby.

It has been shown by the union that the number of flight attendant who drop their whole month on a consistent basis is miniscule...around 200 of the 16000 some odd flight attendants. The idea that requiring flight attendants to fly their full schedule on a monthly basis will drastically increase retirements and thusly improve seniority is patently false. This is a "feel good" item that does not benefit the company to a any extent yet reduces the flexibility for the flight attendant work group.

 

[eolesen]

[on edit -- I found the contract language]

Vacation time is already addressed for FA's who work less than 420, and so are benefits if I recall.

IIRC, AA already requires employees in ramp & passenger service to work at least 50% of their scheduled hours in a six month period. Blow the cap and you lose your trading privileges.

More often than not, those who lost their privileges quit rather than give up the "side jobs" they had.

While sick bank and pay for benefits aren't granted on the same basis as far as I know, it wouldn't take much to come up with a fair calculation that won't penalize those who show up for work or who fly their guarantee, while also protecting those who are out on a legitimate paid sick leave.

 

[fltguymk]

[on edit -- I found the contract language]

Vacation time is already addressed for FA's who work less than 420, and so are benefits if I recall.

IIRC, AA already requires employees in ramp & passenger service to work at least 50% of their scheduled hours in a six month period. Blow the cap and you lose your trading privileges.

More often than not, those who lost their privileges quit rather than give up the "side jobs" they had.

While sick bank and pay for benefits aren't granted on the same basis as far as I know, it wouldn't take much to come up with a fair calculation that won't penalize those who show up for work or who fly their guarantee, while also protecting those who are out on a legitimate paid sick leave.

Are you saying that you are in the "know" as to regards of what has been negotiated and signed off between the APFA and AA? All of this is on the table. Bigjets is asking the question in regards to negotiations E.

 

[AAStew]

It has been shown by the union that the number of flight attendant who drop their whole month on a consistent basis is miniscule...around 200 of the 16000 some odd flight attendants. The idea that requiring flight attendants to fly their full schedule on a monthly basis will drastically increase retirements and thusly improve seniority is patently false. This is a "feel good" item that does not benefit the company to a any extent yet reduces the flexibility for the flight attendant work group.

Thank you thank you thank you! I have flown with so many misinformed flight attendants who think this will help them! NO NO NO! You are stabbing yourself in the foot! Please keep spreading the word! I had occasion where I NEEDED to drop almost my entire schedule for about 8 months. What a blessing/benefit it was to be able to do so. Yes, I paid for my insurance, but it was worth being able to keep my job and take care of my family member. DO NOT GIVE THIS TO THE COMPANY!

 

[bigjets]

Thanks for the input, it looks like the feeling is for maintaining the ability to not have to work a minimum amount a month, is more important to being the highest paid FA's. Schedule more important then pay.

 

[jersey777]

Thanks for the input, it looks like the feeling is for maintaining the ability to not have to work a minimum amount a month, is more important to being the highest paid FA's. Schedule more important then pay.

I would not make that conclusion. Let me put it this way, we are not willing to give up scheduling flexibilty items for more pay. There are other areas where there is room for negotiating to improve pay and working conditions.

 

[kirkpatrick]

I also think that this would let the FA's seniority list move, by giving those FA's who don't work the motivation to retire or resign, allowing AA to hire off the street eventually.

Somewhere floating in the older posts in this section is a link to charts showing how many FA's fly how many hours. As Jersey says, only about 200 FA's drop their entire lines each month, in spite of galley gossip to the contrary. This same issue was brought up at my former airline when seniority began to stagnate. People get desperate and grasp at straws looking for ways to make the seniority list start moving.

A poison pill is not the way to do it. I think you'd be surprised at how few people would actually quit. And what's in it for the company? Nothing. It's a lose - lose situation.

We might see some real growth here in the next year or so if any of the rumors about Pacific expansion come true. That'll do a lot more for seniority than giving away our hard - earned flexibility for nothing in return.

MK

 

[eolesen]

Are you saying that you are in the "know" as to regards of what has been negotiated and signed off between the APFA and AA? All of this is on the table. Bigjets is asking the question in regards to negotiations E.

Uh, no. I'm simply referring to the existing contract, which cuts off vacation accrual for those who don't work their 420. Before my edit, I was questioning how much vacation time for those 200 employees was really costing the company.

 

[jimntx]

It has been shown by the union that the number of flight attendant who drop their whole month on a consistent basis is miniscule...around 200 of the 16000 some odd flight attendants. The idea that requiring flight attendants to fly their full schedule on a monthly basis will drastically increase retirements and thusly improve seniority is patently false. This is a "feel good" item that does not benefit the company to a any extent yet reduces the flexibility for the flight attendant work group.

Jersey, this is not correct. What the union found is that there are about 200 flight attendants on the "active" seniority list who have not flown a trip in over 10 years. That's a different thing entirely than "only about 200 who drop all their trips every month." There are actually a couple of thousand that drop their trips just about every month. They just haven't had 10 years experience at it yet, or they actually fly a few trips on occasion. Good grief, there are 5 or 10 at STL who do it most months.

I met one of the 200 at recurrent a couple of years ago. She readily admitted that she had not flown a trip since the 1990's. She said that in fact she was never even on an airplane except when she flew to EPTs each year. I asked her if it bothered her that she was taking up a bidding position that another f/a might really need. Her response was "Not in the least. I earned the right to not fly unless I wanted to. And, I don't want to."

 

[boston]

Somewhere floating in the older posts in this section is a link to charts showing how many FA's fly how many hours. As Jersey says, only about 200 FA's drop their entire lines each month, in spite of galley gossip to the contrary. This same issue was brought up at my former airline when seniority began to stagnate. People get desperate and grasp at straws looking for ways to make the seniority list start moving.

A poison pill is not the way to do it. I think you'd be surprised at how few people would actually quit. And what's in it for the company? Nothing. It's a lose - lose situation.

We might see some real growth here in the next year or so if any of the rumors about Pacific expansion come true. That'll do a lot more for seniority than giving away our hard - earned flexibility for nothing in return.

MK

I have to agree with you, and most of the f/a's I fly don't find this issue of those who drop and never fly to be the big ticket item and feel that things will start to move when we expand. Most don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

 

[jimntx]

Somewhere floating in the older posts in this section is a link to charts showing how many FA's fly how many hours. As Jersey says, only about 200 FA's drop their entire lines each month, in spite of galley gossip to the contrary. This same issue was brought up at my former airline when seniority began to stagnate. People get desperate and grasp at straws looking for ways to make the seniority list start moving.

A poison pill is not the way to do it. I think you'd be surprised at how few people would actually quit. And what's in it for the company? Nothing. It's a lose - lose situation.

We might see some real growth here in the next year or so if any of the rumors about Pacific expansion come true. That'll do a lot more for seniority than giving away our hard - earned flexibility for nothing in return.

MK

Here again, the way this is being stated is the misleading approach. Taking a few months off for family issues as AAstew did is not the same thing as never flying for years on end. It's only about 200 who have been doing it for over 10 years continuously.

Can you actually say with a straight face that you think it is ok for someone to keep their job if they have not showed up to work for over 10 years? I think if you haven't showed up for a year, you should be required to provide some documentation of an illness (yours or a family member) that requires you to be off. And this documentation needs to be from a 3rd party medical professional. I also know a flight attendant who is perfectly healthy (her statement) who has intermittent FMLA because her doctor "will put down anything I tell him to. He hates American Airlines."

I'm sorry. If you want to call yourself a flight attendant, I think you should be required to fly on occasion. We all prate about being safety professionals, not sky waiters and waitresses. OK. You can not stay current as a safety professional by coming to 1.5 days of training once a year. There's the training and there's the actual practice of the job. And, there is a well known physical issue known as "muscle memory." It's why athletes practice during the week. You can not sit around all week and then just go play the game on Saturday or Sunday.

I even drop below line hours, or take a bid leave, some months. But never flying for months or years on end for no reason other than you don't want to is not flexibility. It's abusing the privileges of the job. And, because people are getting away with this, they are gaming the system in other ways--such as, doing their trip trading on Facebook so that those of you who "aren't in our group can't get a trip with us." Before anyone gets bent. No, I do not trade trips on Facebook. But, I know it is going on, and for the reason that there are some groups of f/as around who seem to think that access to their trips should be controlled and limited to only those who they think deserve the trip. For that matter, I have heard it said that they want to make sure that none of those "TWA f/as" get one of their trips. The conversation tends to stop around me when I say, "Excuse me. Their paychecks say AMR corporation and they pay dues to the APFA. I believe that makes them American flight attendants."

I have nothing to gain by changing the rules. I will always be a junior flight attendant--at least in this lifetime. And, I have an income that doesn't depend upon American Airlines. It's how I can afford to do this job and maintain my lifestyle. My monthly take home pays my mortgage payment and the light bill, and not much more. But, I fly my line, and sometimes more than that.

Is it fair to a young mother of 3 (I'm thinking of someone specific) who is the sole support of her children to be blocked from moving up (or down, depending on how you look at it) on the seniority list or picking up high time trips, by someone who just doesn't want to do the job anymore, but (as I heard in ops at DFW one day) doesn't "even like to talk about retirement. It makes me feel old." Since she was a woman about my age, I wanted to say "But you are, Blanche. You are." (For those of you who don't recognize the line, go rent the movie "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.")

People who don't want to do this job anymore should get the heck out of the way of the people who do.

 

[FWAAA]

Somewhere floating in the older posts in this section is a link to charts showing how many FA's fly how many hours.

Here's the chart:

http://www.aanegotiations.com/documents/AAFACharts_7.8.10.pdf

For the 12 months ended 5/2010 (6/09 - 5/10), 3,621 FAs, or 22.6% of active FAs, flew less than 40 hours per month on average. 577 flew no hours at all. 1,300 flew less than 20 hours per month on average.

The chart doesn't tell us how many drop every trip every month, but it does show a lot of part-time FAs.

AA has said that the scheduling limits are the real problem. If AA were allowed to schedule FAs for 15-20 more hours per month, AA would need fewer FAs (leading to cost savings). FAs could still drop their trips as they do now, but of course there would be fewer FAs to pick them up. Could be that some FAs who don't fly now would have to fly a trip or two if they had trips with no takers.

 

[jimntx]

And, there's one of the real issues. F/As who don't care for flying on airplanes that have passengers on them are afraid that there will be no one to pick up their trips if the people who pick up their trips are getting hours from the company.