Garfield writes:
To me, someone who is merely taking up a seniority slot and not flying is far worse than someone who is looking to fly a full month and pick up additional flying.
I respond:
Garfield, I can understand why one may advance this argument, but allow me to explain why it is not always selfish or inappropriate for a line employee to not work 'full-time' or, as you say, to 'merely take up a seniority slot.' I don't wish to argue with you, but I'd just like to posit another side of the scenario.
Since 9-11, there are so many f/as I know who have been positioning themselves to move on. I know several who are in law school, grad school (like me), nursing school, etc... Mind you, I would never condone a f/a calling in sick in order to pursue such activities. The example you cited of the f/a who sells real estate while being on the sick list would appear to be an isolated individual who is acting against company guidelines for attendance abuse (if, indeed, she is working at another job while on the sick list). But for the vast majority of others, we manage to fly and maintain our crazy schedules while fulfilling our obligations to AA. For example, this past weekend I had an enormous amount of writing to do so I dropped both my trips into highboard and they were, thankfully, picked up. And yes, I would have flown them had they not been picked up. My point, however, is that after MANY years of flying 115-125 hours a month, I finally have enough savings to pursue another career and my hard-earned seniority allows me to do so. By the time I am 45 and I qualify for Article 30 (the last vestige of what we laughingly call an 'early out'), I will have completed my Phd. and will leave AA.
Now, if I didn't drop my trips and attend school, I would not have the option of leaving AA in 3 years and I would continue to take up a 'seniority slot' without wanting to be on it. Because I am working hard toward a new career, as are so many others, I will move on and free up the slot for the individual who really wants to fly.
So, what is my point? Well, it may appear as if we are selfish and are taking advantage of the system, but we are working to better ourselves and to move on. This will ultimately benefit the company by getting senior folks like me off payroll as well as those who wish to return to it. (Is there any real advantage to staying at AA if one does not work? I'm not sure. I know that while I was on educational leave, I was paying $605. a month for my insurance at AA. This is still less than what I would have paid for comparable insurance on the public market, but I doubt it offers enough incentive for many people to stay idle on the senioirty roster without flying. As for the passes, the last couple times I've gone on vacation (to Holland and China) I actually paid for my tickets through Travelocity.com. I rarely use my passes). In summary, I believe that as long as we are responsible for our trips (i.e., cover them when we cannot fly them), then there is no harm done to any furloughed f/as or the company. We are merely dropping our trips to other f/as who desire high-time flying as we work to get out of Dodge, so to speak. In the long run, when we are off the payroll, the company will hopefully effect positive change by recalling more furloughees. Many say the attrition rate is remaining constant among the f/a ranks. I imagine that as fellow f/as make it in other fields (i.e., graduate from law school, get their real estate businesses established, etc...) they will continue to leave.
I do not know if I succeeded in convincingly presenting the other side, but there is always another lens through which to view these matters. I can honestly say that I can understand why Garfield or others may perceive f/as who do not fly as being leeches, and some probably are, but there are many of us who are simply making the job work for us the best way we can within the parameters of the contract so we can eventually move on to a new phase in life.
Art Tang
MIA-D
