kirkpatrick
Veteran
Attrition for February was 55. In addition, 23 TWA FA's retired from furlough.
MK
MK
February FA Attrition
- Thread starter kirkpatrick
- Start date
TWskyliner
Senior
- May 20, 2005
- 280
- 48
Sadly it looks as if Americans "wait it out" approach is working.
StraaightTaalk
Veteran
- Sep 10, 2003
- 787
- 0
Very sad. APFA needs to push for recalls. It would be a win-win for both active and furloughed flight attendants.
After reading the piece by Greg B. on the twaflightattendants.com website. I am not sure AA will ever change their mind. They went very far down the ladder to try and make a deal. AA siad NO. According to Greg. Very sad what was considered by the furloughees. Most would have said no anyway.
TWskyliner
Senior
- May 20, 2005
- 280
- 48
One of the biggest insults was that AA was not even willing to give their own furloughees preferential interviews when they start hiring again. Hell , we even gave Eastern and PanAm employees preferential hiring in the early nineties when we were interviewing. Another "cultural" differance I assume.
jimntx
Veteran
"Official" attrition numbers for February (posted to the Flight Service website)...
26 Domestic
25 International
51 Total (less than Mark's number of 55)
Average seniority of those who left: 25 years
Number of retirees: 35.
By the way, an explanation was posted to the website of why number of retirees and the actual list of retiree names almost never matches. Retiree numbers are based on bidding month. Retiree names are based on calendar month. However, f/as are given the option of having or not having their names posted on the list; so, it will never agree totally.
So, the number of retirees for February seems high because f/as who retired 31JAN and 01MAR are included in the total. Their names were included on the January list or will be included in the March list.
26 Domestic
25 International
51 Total (less than Mark's number of 55)
Average seniority of those who left: 25 years
Number of retirees: 35.
By the way, an explanation was posted to the website of why number of retirees and the actual list of retiree names almost never matches. Retiree numbers are based on bidding month. Retiree names are based on calendar month. However, f/as are given the option of having or not having their names posted on the list; so, it will never agree totally.
So, the number of retirees for February seems high because f/as who retired 31JAN and 01MAR are included in the total. Their names were included on the January list or will be included in the March list.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
A question...jimntx.
If an average # of AA f/a's retired per month(20) x 12 months(2006) then thats 240 f/a's.
Therefore , does that mean that 200+ junior AA f/a's were recalled in 2006 ??
Also, how many junior AA f/a's (with recall rights) are still on the street, awaiting to(at least) be asked to return ?
NH/BB's
If an average # of AA f/a's retired per month(20) x 12 months(2006) then thats 240 f/a's.
Therefore , does that mean that 200+ junior AA f/a's were recalled in 2006 ??
Also, how many junior AA f/a's (with recall rights) are still on the street, awaiting to(at least) be asked to return ?
NH/BB's
jimntx
Veteran
You can not equate 1 quit/died/retired/got fired with 1 recall. It doesn't work that way. As a matter of fact, there were NO recalls in 2006.
As of right now, there are 2,366 flight attendants still on furlough who have not yet lost their recall rights. All but about 100 of them are former TW f/as. There is a particularly hot corner of hell waiting for those who perpetrated this travesty of all things union upon the TW f/as. As far as I know, the APFA is the ONLY union ever to staple new members to the bottom of their seniority list in a merger/acquisition.
I flew with an AA f/a recently who (though she sits on the jumpseat and reads her Bible to show the world what a good Christian she is) who wanted to insist that the TW f/as brought it upon themselves. "They should have known a long time ago that their company was in trouble and gone to another airline then. We're not the only ones, though. DL stapled the Pan Am f/as."
She was not aware that A. Pan Am had gone completely out of business. The Pan Am f/as applied at DL as new hires. B. DL's f/as are not union members. My statement still stands. The Blessed Order of the Perpetually Trip-Removed (dba, APFA) is the only UNION ever to staple new members to the bottom of the seniority list in a merger/ acquisition.
And, even if someone out there knows of another example, it still does not make it right. I can show you countless examples of people cheating on their income tax which makes the rest of us pay more in the long run. No matter how many people cheat, it doesn't make it right.
OP
kirkpatrick
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #9
You can tell your bible thumping friend that in fact Delta did NOT staple the Pan Am FA's. They were feathered in much as the top TWA pilots were at AA. I don't recall the exact formula, but the top Pan Am was placed at about number 3000 and then it was one for five (or seven) after that.
I had a friend who flew for PA and she had fifteen years before and ended up with about seven when the dust finally settled. But since Delta didn't have a JFK international base, she was flying the same aircraft to the same places with the same people. Only the uniform had changed.
MK
aredeeyou22
Veteran
- Nov 12, 2003
- 829
- 17
jimntx, you are mistaken when you state that Pan Am went completely out of business when DL purchased the European routes and the shuttle. Pan Am was still operating as an independent airline under bankruptcy when Delta purchased these assets. In fact, when Delta purchased these routes and the shuttle, part of the deal was that Delta would invest in a restructured Pan Am serving only Latin America and the Caribbean, which they did. However, Pan Am continued to lose money and Delta refused to fund them indefinately resulting in Pan Am's shutdown and liquidation.
You are correct when you state that the Pan Am people had to apply at Delta as new hires. However, Delta did not take the Pan Am people in seniority order; they picked up who they wanted; some were junior, some were senior. They picked up mainly pilots who flew the A-310. So a person's Pan Am seniority did not at all guarantee them a job at Delta.
jimntx
Veteran
I was only talking about flight attendants and what the APFA did to the former TW flight attendants. Someone else posted on here that DL gave the Pan Am flight attendants proportional seniority. So, it sounds like one of you is either wrong OR you are talking about two different periods of time--when DL bought the routes from Pan Am and after Pan Am went belly up.
I don't care what happened with the pilots or mechanics or other unionized groups. From what I can tell they all got a much fairer deal from the AA unions. Not perfect, but certainly more fair than stapled to the bottom of the seniority list.
I don't care what happened with the pilots or mechanics or other unionized groups. From what I can tell they all got a much fairer deal from the AA unions. Not perfect, but certainly more fair than stapled to the bottom of the seniority list.
aredeeyou22
Veteran
- Nov 12, 2003
- 829
- 17
While most people from other airlines get that, try convincing your co- workers in the galley that this was unfair. That should keep you busy for awhile..
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
While most people from other airlines get that, try convincing your co- workers in the galley that this was unfair. That should keep you busy for awhile..
I can answer that question...unlike other work groups..the flight attendant corp includes tons of company tranfers..mostly ticket and reservations agents. All of these employees retain only their company seniority for vacation but start ALL OVER when it comes to bidding and pay! So how fair would it have been if a junior flight attendant who was an agent for American Airlines for 10 years got furloughed over a TWA flight attendant who was part of an aquisition? Answer that question!
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
I thought I would answer your question without getting on the TWA flight attentant tangent. It is true we are losing about 600 flight attendants each year(this includes retirements and those that just quit or get fired). But there are 2 main reasons why we are not bringing back furloughs. Number one is the fact that the last couple of years this airline has reduced capacity. So there is less need for flight attendants there. Secondly and probably more important is the fact that as the Food for Sale program has expanded it has reduced staffing on those flights. First it was domestic flights...then it went to Hawaii..then it went to some flights in the Carribean..ie SJU-BDL, SJU-PHL, SJU-BOS...then just last month it went to all JFK- Caribbean flights except JFK-PAP,SDQ,STI. For example..JFK-SXM,STT,PLS,AUA,MBJ,CUN,BGI all lost 1 flight attendant due to Food For Sale. Multiply that by each day of the month and you see where I am going. The next thing that is probably comimg is taking hot meals off Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The company keeps scratching away to do everything possible(in my opinion) so they don't have to bring back any TWA flight attendant.
