At $17 an hour...(for non airline people that is not based on a a40 hour work week). What is the attrition? I understand many are leaving at UA, AE, and others because of the low pay, reserve, trying to commute, and other work rule related issues. The "glamour" is long gone.
Flight Attendant Picketing to begin next week
- Thread starter MiAAmi
- Start date
At $17 an hour...(for non airline people that is not based on a a40 hour work week). What is the attrition? I understand many are leaving at UA, AE, and others because of the low pay, reserve, trying to commute, and other work rule related issues. The "glamour" is long gone.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
Depends on what you call dastardly. The big picture is that in 81 years of existance, the first time any employee was asked to take a cut in pay was in 2003, Ken.
There may be cases where employees didn't get the contractual pay increases they wanted to get based on what unions at other airlines might have had in their contracts, but that's not a pay cut. It's envy.
Labor wasn't lied to, Ken. The union presidents and negotiators all knew about the presence of these plans. They simply didn't look close enough at the terms, and probably never expected them to be triggered separately from profit sharing being triggered. I wouldn't have expected that to happen either, but it did. Apparently, neither did any of the three unions, since nobody saw fit to put a stipluation into the RPA blocking a one-sided payout.
As I've said many times before, I don't think this was a case of being lied to as much as it was a case of having inadequate/inept resources on your side of the table to recognize the potential land-mines.
That said, the issue as I see it isn't necessarily the fact that someone missed reading all the fine print, but the fact that the Board is choosing to follow the letter of the agreement here, instead of the intent of the agreement.
The letter of an agreement is all that matters when it comes to an arbitration or court proceeding, but to violate the intent of the agreement is far more dangerous since it engenders ill-will with employees, which exactly is what AMR has done two years in a row.
I disagree and think that it's you who's failing to see "the big picture."
Here's my view of "the big picture:"
AMR's market cap in March, 2003: <$200 million
AMR's market cap in March, 2007: >$8 billion
That's a company whose market cap is up by a factor of 40 in less than four years.
AMR stock low point in March, 2003: $1.25
AMR stock high point Jan 17, 2007: $41.00
Considering that every other legacy (other than CO) filed for bankruptcy between 2002 and 2005, leaving their stock worth ZERO dollars, AMR stockholders aren't too upset. Some are downright giddy.
Market value of 38 million options in May, 2003: $0 (because the strike price was the market value of the stock that day, $5).
Market value of 38 million options on April 10, 2007: $1.0 billion
Total PUP payouts over two years (2006 and 2007): $275 - $300 million.
That's the big picture. Everybody shared in that $1.0 billion of option profit. Stupid Worthless Bastard Management elites will share about $300 million in PUP payout stock. Yawn.
As has been posted before, the PUP payouts are based on an overly simplistic formula that credits stock price performance too heavily and doesn't place enough weight on sustained profits. Of course, as Bob Owens has posted numerous times, you can't trust stupid worthless bastard management to compute profit fairly (too easy to manipulate, right?), so I can see how stock price made an acceptable proxy. Although management can influence stock price, it doesn't get to set it like it does net profit or loss.
So should management do without their varible pay just because nobody thought that AMR stock would recover quite as well as it did? Nobody really thought that it would go from $1.25 to $41.00 in less than four years.
If management foregoes their PUP payouts, you can bet that they're gonna want twice as big a piece when their replacement variable comp contracts finally pay off.
Something nobody's mentioned so far: With DL and NW coming out of Ch 11, and UA, CO and US stock outperforming and AMR price down to $32 from its high of $41, there's no way that AMR stock outperforms the industry between now and April, 2008 - meaning the PUP payouts are probably over after this year.
"Defend management's actions?" They can defend their own actions - I just look at the big picture: My AMR stock has recovered better than I ever imagined it would, and management struck a deal a few years ago to get paid if that happened. Well, it happened, and it's now time to pay management. It would be nice if they'd written their variable pay contracts in a more sophisticated manner (taking into account a lot more than just stock price growth), but that's not what happened.
It would be nice if you guys had a union worth paying dues to, but the reality is that you don't. A worthwhile union might have explained to you guys several years ago what management's payoff would be in 2006 and 2007 if AMR stock recovered at the same time nearly every other competitor filed for bankruptcy and cancelled their old stock.
But The Worthless Union didn't do that. Additionally, the TWU didn't stop the inevitable concessions (does anyone think there was a realistic chance of a no-vote?) in 2003 and it didn't negotiate enough upside for you guys in case the company recovered. As I've said before, I can't understand why you guys were represented for as long as you have been by a bunch of bus drivers from NYC instead of a real union, but that's your business.
Before someone posts it - yes, I realize that the bus drivers in NYC do real well because of (or in spite of) the TWU. How the hell couldn't they, given that their employer, the transit authority, holds a monopoly on what they do in NYC?!? If AA were the only airline in the USA, then you guys would be in the same favorable drivers seat as the NYC bus drivers.
Hope you guys can figure out how to get paid a living wage for doing the important (and dangerous, unpleasant and sometimes very difficult) work you do - fixing airplanes in high-cost areas. IMO, complaining about (or marching with picket signs) the PUP payouts doesn't advance that important need. But good luck.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< ----Hate to say it, but the man's right on on this one! ----- 😉
Garfield1966
Veteran
I'm still trying to figure out when being a 'stewardess' went from being a entry level temporary job to a career. Who on earth wants to have a job that requires you to be away from your family for days on end?
TWskyliner
Senior
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 48
I did.
Garfield, you seem to have very strong opinions about the job. Don't you realize that most crew members cherish their time away from their families? Just kidding...
On a serious note, everyone has different interests. I became a flight attendant because I wanted to travel around the world. I'm fortunate to have been able to do that. Plus, I never wanted to work with the same people and in the same place on a regular basis. Here's a bit of irony: you seem to have a fairly low opinion of the flight attendant profession, yet I assure you that the most undesirable job for a flight attendant would be sitting behind a scheduling desk for 9 hours a day without natural sunlight in the middle of Nowhere, Texas. Different strokes for different folks.
The flight attendant job isn't awful if the flight attendant has seniority and can control his/her schedule. Not every flight attendant is away from family for days on end. As a matter of fact, the most fortunate flight attendants fly turns and are home every night in time to tuck in the kids--and they only fly 12 days a month. At best, the job allows us to pursue other interests and goals in life as long as we are able to control our schedules. At the other end of the spectrum, the job can be very unpleasant if the flight attendant has no control of when and where s/he is flying. No question about it: if I were on reserve and holding crummy trips, I'd be outta here too.
I wholly admit that there isn't much glamour left in the career. Whereas I still enjoy laying over in Paris or London, being on an airplane has never been so unpleasant (for both the passengers and the flight attendants). Anyone who has flown on the newly reconfigured 767 which has had two lavs removed in coach in order to add additional rows of seats knows what I mean.
I realize this post is somewhat off topic, but I wanted to respond to Garfield's question.
Peace,
Art Tang
IMA
Well Garfield, since I was never a stewardess, I wouldn't know. Could it possibly be when the Supreme Court said you couldn't fire someone because they were over 32, married, had a child(ren), or didn't weigh 101lbs?
I was able to be a good wife, mother to many children(11), room mother, team mom, childbirth instructor, doula, LaLeche League Leader, Junior League, realtor, political activist, union rep, substitute teacher, classroom guest instructor, legal advocate for the Women'sCenter, domestic violence counselor, Legal Aid paralegal, and on and on.... All because I was SMART enough to become a TWA flight attendant in Jan. of 1970.
I was able to fly turns that allowed me to be home all but a maximum of 10 days a month. When I started flying all night turns, the children didn't even realize mom worked away from home. I attended all of their school activities and sporting events.
As an employee I had over 350 commendation letters, helped write TWAs Assault Policy, served on great committees and taught new hire training. All while being a union rep.
All of this prepared me to move into my current career in social services.
Not bad for a entry level stewardess.
StraaightTaalk
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 0
And I'm still trying to figure out when being nothing more than a CLERK, which is what a Crew Scheduler is, made somebody feel they were an expert on absolutely everything.
Your bitterness is singular, and, quite frankly, those you malign are now FAA-certified, as are pilots and mechanics. You, however, are not, and can be easily replaced by a computer, or an outsourced employee.
If AA can outsource HR functions, how far behind is Crew Schedule? Then, maybe, as you read the Want Ads, you can explore your hidden desire to be like those very people for whom you have such bitterness, and you, too, can become a stewardess at 17 bucks an hour (for UA, please).
ROCK ON
TWskyliner
Senior
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 48
Can I get an AMEN? :groovy: Hey Reverend Nancy, dont forget ordained minister!
Thank you Grant. I am very typical of most flight attendants. We were chosen because of our ability to fit in or feel comfortable with any of our diverse customer base. TWA's pre -Ichan philosophy was one of wanting out customers to feel as if they had been invited into our homes. Of course with the always present seatbelt and line to the bathroom. I know lawyers, dentists, teachers, police officers, stock brokers, realtors, nurses, med students, psychologists, social workers, ministers, and mayors, (Yes, mayors. We have several former TWA f/a mayors in the STL area), all whom were very good flight attendants. It is easy to promote the myth and the mystery of the flight attendant career. I have found that the most negative perceptions usually come from those not qualified (in many ways) to be hired or weren't smart enough to apply for whatever reason.
Grant is another example of a great loss to American. He is smart, funny,very debonaire, and better still, his customers always came back because of his superior customer service skills. What a novel concept.
StraaightTaalk
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 0
That might mean something to me if it didn't come from a former member of AA management.
Your view is not news to me as it just mirrors the disdain that most members of AA management have for the flight attendant group.
