Flight Attendant Attrition Rate

[jsn25911]

Rumor is in Crew Skd that we might see about 600 or so back in Oct/Nov. Heard that usually about 35% don’t come back and about another 30-40% of what’s left go sick.

[post="182417"][/post]​

I will glad for any amount, but I am puzzled why they are only calling 600 back (per the rumor).

According to Jim - we have lost 646 people since Jan, we are 128 f/a's less than we were last year at this time( before that recall), and we have increased flights, and the attrition factor will continue, possible 777 payout retirements (even though it has been stated that not many would leave.)

By the time they start recalling we quite possibly be 200 less than today. It just doesn't add up.

But as I have stated - I am happy for any amount. It just appears by the time they recall - they will already be in the need for another recall (if they only recall 600).

 

[jimntx]

Garfield: Paying full AA benefits costs exactly the same as COBRA. That's what COBRA is--company benefits, but the whole premium paid by the employee. I can't imagine that is cheaper than some other route.

If there is, in fact, a flight attendant working in real estate while on the SK list, it is the company's responsibility to initiate termination proceedings on this person for abuse of sick leave policy. One of the problems I observed in my vast career of 2 years and 10 months at AA was that the company was inconsistent in its application of the rules. One f/a is on 2nd Written Warning for a dress code violation and another f/a is not even on coaching and counseling after 5 missed trips and 10 late sign-ins in less than 2 years (and yes, I know of such a case).

And, you are correct that there are f/as who never fly. When I was forced into attending that Yourworld training, I met a perfectly lovely woman who when we all introduced ourselves self-identified as a 28 year f/a who had not flown a trip in over 4 years. She came to DFW once a year for EPTs. She kept dues current and bid a line every month, but then gave/sold all her trips to a trip trade service. She didn't care about the benefits because she is married to a pilot. I asked her why she bothered with keeping up her quals. She said that "well, I might want to fly some more some day."

"But the point I'd like to make is, it's YOUR job and your business how much or how little you fly." [From MK's post]

There is no other job in the world other than maybe street beggar--which is an independent contractor type job--where the worker decides how much or how little they will work. And, it is very much the company's business how much a f/a flies. I'm talking myself out of recall here, but the truth is, if the company could depend on every f/a coming to work and flying their expected 75 hours/month, the company could probably cover the flying with 3,000 fewer f/as than they have working now.

I love the flexibility of the job as much as anyone else. I'm still grieving the loss of availability lines. I'll probably be recalled right at the start of ski season with no hope of maxing out by the 19th or 20th of the month and 10 days to ski each month. But, at some point the company has to be able to draw the line and say in order to be a f/a, you have to work some mininum number of hours every month unless you are sick or on a specific type of leave. That's the thing that just kills me about a number of flight attendants that I know. They love being a flight attendant as long as it doesn't involve working on airplanes that have passengers on them. :blink:

The economics of the airline business have changed, and some of the "customs" of the past--including f/a staffing and work rules--are going to have to change as well. If we want AA to stay in business, we can't afford to take the "let's leave it like it is" position just because we like the current situation. Everything should be on the table. It's not a question of whether it is fair or right, it's just business.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a f/a like Art dropping trips here or there while attending school. In any business, there is an expectation that sometimes a worker's personal life will prevent them from coming to work. But there is no justification for a flight attendant who never flies except as a non-rev passenger unless they are doing union work or on leave or works only when it is convenient to them.

MK, how would you like it if your local grocery store/pharmacy/department store had to raise prices to pay for extra cashiers or pharmacists or sales people because "the ones we have all moved to Costa Rica and they only work every other month because they don't like the commute?" I'll probably be recalled to LGA. Now, I can either move to the NYC area, or I can deal with the commute. It is not the company's problem if I decide to move to Borneo.

 

[kirkpatrick]

MK, how would you like it if your local grocery store/pharmacy/department store had to raise prices to pay for extra cashiers or pharmacists or sales people because "the ones we have all moved to Costa Rica and they only work every other month because they don't like the commute?" I'll probably be recalled to LGA. Now, I can either move to the NYC area, or I can deal with the commute. It is not the company's problem if I decide to move to Borneo.

While I appreciate your input, you haven't convinced me that our flexibility actually requires the company to carry more employees than they would if we were more restricted. In the case of my friend who moved to Costa Rica, he bid a line he could hold and then dropped his trips to people to wanted to pick them up. He could have, as you pointed out, dealt with the situation another way, such as stayed in New York instead of moving, but I fail to see how this affects the company's headcount requirements.

Our flexibility is a great asset. Let's not give it away without a lot of serious thought.

MK

 

[Garfield1966]

I have no problem with what any one said. But this thing got started by someone pointing out that picking Opt II hurts the chances of Furloughs coming back. I just merely pointed out what I thought (perhaps incorrectly) were FA's who were hurting their chances just as much by staying on payroll and not flying a full or even partial skd.

Personally it does not affect me one way or the other. We are short staffed and we are hiring right now. But if I were on Furlough I think I might be PO'd more at the folks I pointed out than the hand full that pick up Opt II.

Jim, you will get no argument from me in terms of the inconsistency of policy enforcement. I have seen enough FA's who have been sick every single holiday since probation to not be surprised any more. I have given TM's to the same people that it makes me wonder if anyone even gives a crap. Then there is the person who does nothing wrong, screws up one time and is put up against a wall and dressed down for it. Makes no sense.

As a crew skd, it is one of the most infuriating things that we deal with on a daily basis. I have written up so many people for flagrant violations and they just get excused. Maybe you guys can do something on your end because we sure as hell can’t.

 

[bigdawgs]

jimntx,

I totally agree with Kirkpatrick. Do not give up the flexibility we have. Each day varies with some f/as. Perhaps, you too, maybe in that same position whereby you do not want to sever your ties with AA. You may just want to test other waters. As of the RPA, I do believe that many f/as have had to pay the full amount of insurance as they have not accrued the 420 hours. Well, so be it. That is and should be their option. They also do not have the accrual of retirement and vacation and sick time, as we once had.

Just as an aside, late sign ins are a performance issue. Sick, missed trips and POs are the chargeable offense issues.

 

[jimntx]

I have no problem with people flying part-time while they try a different job or go to school, but that's what I said. The case Garfield was talking about is a f/a who is working another job while on the SICK list at AA. That is wrong.

And, there is nothing to be gained by picking nits about whether inappropriate job behavior is performance related or chargeable. In the real world, you are not only expected to show up to work on a regular basis, you are expected to show up on time. It's not like we f/as have to go to work every day like most people.

The truth of the matter is that a lot of f/as who are of the "I'll bid a line and drop all the trips" persuasion end up calling in sick if no one picks up one or more of the trips. There is a name for receiving benefits while not working. It's called retirement.

 

[crew4aa]

I tend to agree with jimntx that the flexibility does require additional heads. First let me say that for many years I was a manager with a workforce of over 50 direct reports, granted this was not a flight attendant work group. Let me try and explain why I feel that this may be the cause:

1. I have no doubt that most of us realize that when flight attendants try and drop trips and cannot for whatever reasons, they are more likely to call in sick. I cannot count the number of times that I have been called out on reserve to fly a trip, only to find out from the other crew that the person I was replacing had this trip on hiboard and said if they couldnt drop the trip they would call in sick. This alone has to be factored in. They do this by reserve utilization reports.

2. I am on vacation this month and I only had 9 days of vacation; however, due to very cleaver bidding on my part I wound up with 22 days off. In the "real" world if you had 9 vacation days you only get 9 vacation days. Once again another example of trips going into open time and the company has to properly plan.

3. Sick calls in general are very high in the flight attendant work group. From previous companies that I worked with, if we saw employees calling in sick as much as some flight attendants, they would be fired. With our union contract and FSM not properly managing the sick time policy, we have flight attendants who have been on pre-term for years and still call in sick. The company knows that it is hard to fire someone for calling in sick so they have to plan for absences that are definitely higher than most industries.

4. Although it doesnt happen often, we are able to drop trips into open time. Once again another example that we have to have better coverage, as not all those trips are picked up by flight attendants.

5. Another example will be for those that get an open replacement line. It is very easy to call a trip trade service, borrow trips from another flight attendant, then call crew schedule and ger release from the remainder of your avbl days, then return the trips back to the original flight attendant and in essence be a part time flight attendant.

6. Finally the ability to drop to part time status and receive full time benefits. Few companies do this. If you want full time benefits you work full time.

Let the assualt begin..lol

 

[jsn25911]

1. I have no doubt that most of us realize that when flight attendants try and drop trips and cannot for whatever reasons, they are more likely to call in sick. I cannot count the number of times that I have been called out on reserve to fly a trip, only to find out from the other crew that the person I was replacing had this trip on hiboard and said if they couldnt drop the trip they would call in sick. This alone has to be factored in. They do this by reserve utilization reports.





I have been sick before and not wanting to use sick time - I put my trip on hiboard, however no one picked it up. Therefore, I had to call in sick.

I understand what you are saying - but could some of them not have sick hours left and therefore they tried to get rid of the trip rather than have another strike against their attendance? (If they were sick)

 

[kirkpatrick]

The truth of the matter is that a lot of f/as who are of the "I'll bid a line and drop all the trips" persuasion end up calling in sick if no one picks up one or more of the trips. There is a name for receiving benefits while not working. It's called retirement.

[post="182805"][/post]​

A few years ago at TWA we had a similar undercurrent of discontent going. As the airline shrank we got more and more junior, and there was a lot of talk among people about how unfair it was that senior people could bid Rome and then drop or "sell" their trips. Hell, if we got rid of ETO (our version of OE) or severely restricted it maybe the senioritas would quit and we'd all move up in seniority.

Well, the '99 IAM contract brought some restrictions. One friend of mine, a school teacher who flew one or two SJU turns on weekends, was faced with the prospect of having to fly 150 hrs per quarter. "What are you going to do?" I asked her. "Fly fifty hrs a month" was her response. Nothing short of death itself was going to make her quit her job.

After the dust finally settled, I doubt if a dozen or two actually quit over being forced to fly more. As far as calling off sick if your trip isn't picked up, do you really think forcing people to fly more trips would change that? If anything, they'd just have more trips to call off sick for.

When I was a trader, I'd often only fly two or at the most three trips per month. The flexibility allowed me to make my choice: fly a full schedule or do some work from home where I could watch the kids instead of commuting to STL. My friend who moved to Costa Rica, well, he died on 800 so that's no longer a problem, is it?

I said it before and I'll say it again. Don't give up our precious flexibility without some good, hard thinking. It won't make many people quit; you'll just end up a few numbers higher up and some day when you decide you want to avail yourself of it, it won't be there.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

I have no problem with what any one said. But this thing got started by someone pointing out that picking Opt II hurts the chances of Furloughs coming back. I just merely pointed out what I thought (perhaps incorrectly) were FA's who were hurting their chances just as much by staying on payroll and not flying a full or even partial skd.

[post="182684"][/post]​

Here's the difference. When does the company make Option II available? When they need bodies, that's when. That should be evidence enough. If Suzie Q and I both have 75 hr lines and she OE's me a couple of her trips, then she has 50 and I have 100. The company has two bodies flying a total of 150 hrs either way, two insurance policies to pay for, etc. But if the company has openings it thinks will be hard to fill and I take them on Option II, then the reserves who would have been utilized are free to be utilized elsewhere, and the FA's who might have been reassigned are off the hook.

No doubt about it. A couple of people picking up Option II trips won't bring us furlougees back in droves, but it certainly will alleviate the company's manpower shortage and make recalls less likely.

MK

 

[jimntx]

MK you are confusing flexibility with rank abuse of the system. I have no objection to people dropping trips or trading trips. What we have been attempting to talk about is abuse of the sick policy, abuse of trip trading, and the like. It is one thing for you to drop trips so that you can operate your trip trading business. It's another thing entirely to call in sick and get paid for sick leave in order to operate your side business. You and JSN keep using anecdotal evidence about you or another single f/a that you know.

What we are talking about is fairly common abuse of the system. As Crew4AA said that had happened to him and has happened to me...You get called out to work a trip on reserve because someone called in sick. You've either seen this trip in Hiboard for a week or two or the rest of the crew tells you, "Oh yeah. Well, she/he had a date this weekend. They tried to trade in Hiboard, but they had to call in sick because nobody wanted the trip." Garfield can tell you of more than one f/a who has never worked a holiday--particularly, Christmas. They don't have the seniority to hold Christmas off; so, every year they get sick at Christmas and have a miraculous recovery right after.

When I worked at a major oil company in Houston, you would have gotten MAYBE a second chance to work the holiday you were scheduled to work. If you called in sick a second time, you would have been made available to the larger job market.

 

[kirkpatrick]

2. I am on vacation this month and I only had 9 days of vacation; however, due to very cleaver bidding on my part I wound up with 22 days off. In the "real" world if you had 9 vacation days you only get 9 vacation days. Once again another example of trips going into open time and the company has to properly plan.

In the real world, my wife is a teacher. If she gets five days off plus the weekend on both ends, she has nine days off. Creative bidding is really nothing more than the airline version of that. And besides, that's totally unrelated to trading/OE. We've already had our vacations slashed from 42 days plus the prior 48 to a mere 28; let's not give up any more in that area; OK?

3. Sick calls in general are very high in the flight attendant work group.

Again, that's unrelated to trading/OE flexibility.

4. Although it doesnt happen often, we are able to drop trips into open time. Once again another example that we have to have better coverage, as not all those trips are picked up by flight attendants.

Trips go green only when the company determines that it has the proper manpower to allow it.

6. Finally the ability to drop to part time status and receive full time benefits. Few companies do this. If you want full time benefits you work full time.

Jeez, if this job were like the outside world, how many of us would be here? Let's keep something; OK?

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

MK you are confusing flexibility with rank abuse of the system.

[post="182905"][/post]​

I don't think I'm confused. I don't advocate sick leave abuse, and the fact that I have over 800 hrs in my sick bank shows I put my money where my mouth is.

My point is that crippling the trading/OE system is NOT going to stop sick leave abuse. We're really talking about two entirely different things here: flexibility and sick leave abuse. Restricting the former won't alleviate the latter.

MK

 

[crew4aa]

Kirkpatrick:

AA flight attendants have never really been held accountable for their actions. I and you have worked at other airlines and I can assure you that we were held accoutable and people were fired for abuse of sick time.

There is just a very different work ethic. Particaularly amongst the folks hired after 1995 (I am one of them in the group).
'

 

[AirLUVer]

In the real world, my wife is a teacher. If she gets five days off plus the weekend on both ends, she has nine days off. Creative bidding is really nothing more than the airline version of that. And besides, that's totally unrelated to trading/OE. We've already had our vacations slashed from 42 days plus the prior 48 to a mere 28; let's not give up any more in that area; OK?

Again, that's unrelated to trading/OE flexibility.

Trips go green only when the company determines that it has the proper manpower to allow it.

Jeez, if this job were like the outside world, how many of us would be here? Let's keep something; OK?

MK

[post="182907"][/post]​

Mark, if the sick list is unreasonably high, trips won't go green, because the reserves are needed to cover for sick time, not open time due to trip drops.