FA contract thought

[eolesen]

Last time I checked anyone can post on the message boards as long as you follow the TOS.

And the reason I posted is I am tired of union haters like josh.

Well, thanks for taking the bait. The two lines next two each other just point out the double standards that apply here....

Frankly, I'm tired of outright liars, antagonists, trolls, union shills, management-haters, company-haters, passenger-haters, and anyone-with-a-different-viewpoint-than-yours-haters.

But I don't question their ability to post, and I actually read what they have to say, because usually somewhere between two polar opposites in any discussion you'll find the truth. It's rarely found at one side or the other.

 

[FWAAA]

I have questions about the source and validity of the data that was input to come up with those percentages. Those numbers came out at the time that we had unprecedented amounts of flight attendants on overage leaves and furlough. I would bet that those FAs on leaves were factored in at 0 flying hours and I also wouldn't put it past the company to factor in our furloughed flight attendants as well. I would bet my next pay check that those numbers are false.

The numbers may be inaccurate, but they don't include the furloughed (mathematically impossible) and I doubt they include all of those on overage leaves.

The document says "Includes all regular flight attendants on active status at least one month in the year." So I doubt that counts the furloughed. Perhaps it does capture those on leaves.

The .pdf I linked from aanegotiations.com reflects the FA hours worked and paid from 6/09 thru 5/10. Early June, 2009, AA had 1,258 FAs on furlough. At the end of 2009, AA had 1,410 FAs on furlough. At the end of May, 2010, AA had 1,363 FAs on furlough.

If the AA summary of hours worked and paid included those on furlough, why does it show only 577 FAs who worked no hours during that period? Wouldn't the number be at least the number on furlough plus the 200 that jimntx says the union admits haven't worked a flight in over 10 years?

If 200 haven't worked a trip in over 10 years, it's very likely and reasonable to believe AA when it says that 577 active FAs did not work a trip during the 12 months shown in the .pdf from AA.

Of the 577 who flew no hours at all in the 12 months, only 241 received no pay for those 12 months. Looks like 336 of them managed to drop their trips in such a way as to capture some pay anyway.

If the numbers included the furloughed, there would be at least 1,400 who would have flown no hours at all (since they were furloughed) and would have shown at least 1,200 who received no pay at all (since they were furloughed) instead of just the 241 who received no pay for the 12 months.

Bottom line: The numbers may not be accurate, but probably not for the reasons you mentioned. Unless you think that AA would include only some of the furloughed, and that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Skymess]

The numbers may be inaccurate, but they don't include the furloughed (mathematically impossible) and I doubt they include all of those on overage leaves.

The document says "Includes all regular flight attendants on active status at least one month in the year." So I doubt that counts the furloughed. Perhaps it does capture those on leaves.

The .pdf I linked from aanegotiations.com reflects the FA hours worked and paid from 6/09 thru 5/10. Early June, 2009, AA had 1,258 FAs on furlough. At the end of 2009, AA had 1,410 FAs on furlough. At the end of May, 2010, AA had 1,363 FAs on furlough.

If the AA summary of hours worked and paid included those on furlough, why does it show only 577 FAs who worked no hours during that period? Wouldn't the number be at least the number on furlough plus the 200 that jimntx says the union admits haven't worked a flight in over 10 years?

If 200 haven't worked a trip in over 10 years, it's very likely and reasonable to believe AA when it says that 577 active FAs did not work a trip during the 12 months shown in the .pdf from AA.

Of the 577 who flew no hours at all in the 12 months, only 241 received no pay for those 12 months. Looks like 336 of them managed to drop their trips in such a way as to capture some pay anyway.

If the numbers included the furloughed, there would be at least 1,400 who would have flown no hours at all (since they were furloughed) and would have shown at least 1,200 who received no pay at all (since they were furloughed) instead of just the 241 who received no pay for the 12 months.

Bottom line: The numbers may not be accurate, but probably not for the reasons you mentioned. Unless you think that AA would include only some of the furloughed, and that doesn't make any sense.

I still contend the numbers are inaccurate and do include not only FAs on leave but possibly those on furlough.
I have owned a trip trade service and I currently work for one with a vast amount of FAs clients. I've been based at most of the bases in our system. I have a large amount of friends system wide and I know what they fly and what the scheduling at the bases is like. The amount of people who fly their schedule system wide is minimal. I do believe there are 577 people who did not fly in the 12 month period and 200 who haven't flown in 10 years. I do not believe that the low time average that they claim we fly is anywhere near the truth.

As for the 336 who managed to capture pay it is most likely because they flew the year before and accrued vacation for the next year which they were paid for.

 

[damajagua]

It looks like the NMB is telling APFA forget about it.........No release anytime soon.
They keep calling Laura Gladding to the NMB offices in Washington........but by
the look of its just for coffee; becuase after every meeting it is the same story.
............."we pleaded with the NMB about our contract status; Will continue
to push for a release; still waiting for the NMB next move"
same old song........by the look of this it will be 2020 before we get a new
flight attendant contract.

 

[frontline]

I agree it doesn't look like the NMB is going to release any of us anytime soon.

But instead of sitting around whining about it why don't we all go back to the table and try to hammer something out? Do we really need to sit around and wait for a federal mediator just to have some discussions? Seems to me that is the biggest waste of all of our time and causing this process to drag on and on and on.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Because both sides already know what they'll give and what they'll take. The cooling off period will simply force the issue.

Remember, the company wants a "zero cost" contract. Any productivity improvements will be offset by higher pay and expense money. There's no real pressure here since no one stands to gain or lose much.

MK

 

[Imjustsayin]

Because both sides already know what they'll give and what they'll take. The cooling off period will simply force the issue.

Remember, the company wants a "zero cost" contract. Any productivity improvements will be offset by higher pay and expense money. There's no real pressure here since no one stands to gain or lose much.

MK

It's hard to tell, from what little I've seen from the flight attendant union, it looks like AMR has moved off of the whole zero cost approach everyone keeps talking about.

 

[nbmcg01]

It's hard to tell, from what little I've seen from the flight attendant union, it looks like AMR has moved off of the whole zero cost approach everyone keeps talking about.

They have dropped to below zero cost.. reality if anything moves on any issue then there isn't an impass. As long as AA saves $1,000,000 (or more) a day with the SIA concessions there will be no contract until AA needs to have it done.

 

[Imjustsayin]

They have dropped to below zero cost.. reality if anything moves on any issue then there isn't an impass. As long as AA saves $1,000,000 (or more) a day with the SIA concessions there will be no contract until AA needs to have it done.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you have some way of determining the economic impact of the proposals?
How could AA be getting a million dollars "a day" "savings"? Do the other unions at AA make that same claim? Or this just an attendant issue?