Flight Attendant Recalls In 2005

[jimntx]

Just FYI...

A friend who attended part of Arpey's Presidential conference over the past two days here in Dallas told me that Arpey was asked directly about flight attendant recalls this year. His response was that "there will be no flight attendant recalls this year. There is no money in the budget for recalls."

That being said, everyone please bear in mind that from 01JAN04 until 30APR04, the company mantra was that "there are no plans to recall any furloughed flight attendants in 2004. We have not budgeted for any recalls this year."

I returned to the line in the second recall last year. I do not see how the company can continue with its plans for increased flying if there are no recalls if the current attrition rate continues or increases.

It doesn't matter what is or is not in the budget. If the company wants to send a S80 from DFW to LAX, the FAA says that if there are passengers on that plane there had better be at least 3 flight attendants. Yeah, FAA.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Jim,

When the news of our furlough came in the spring of 2003, I was told by Beth Mack, then head of the STL base, that there were no plans to recall until 2006. 390 were recalled a few months later on Dec 1, 233 more in July 2004, and 610 more (of which you were one) for Nov 2004. Plus, 1350 OVL's were absorbed back into the system.

We keep hearing this same rumor about someone high up saying "it's not in the budget." It doesn't matter what's in the budget. When they need us, the budget will be adjusted accordingly. Canceling flights due to lack of flight attendants isn't in the budget either.

Any way you look at it, on Dec 1, 2005 there will be 800 to 1000 fewer flight attendants than there were at the same time last year. I don't see how the company can go into the holidays with numbers like that. Predicting when is the hard part. Late summer, early fall, late fall ... I think it's gonna happen.

MK

 

[Fly]

Amazing....there are no involuntary furloughs at United......in over a year. How can there still be one at American?

 

[Skyyggoddess]

Amazing....there are no involuntary furloughs at United......in over a year. How can there still be one at American?

[post="266962"][/post]​

That can probably be answered with two words - JANE ALLEN.

We had an unbelievable program in place (overage leaves of absences) when 911 happened. But in typicaly AMR fashion, a hurried overage system was initiated. Unfortunately, rather than offer a well thought out plan, we got a plan that immediately caused so many to be furloughed. Remember that Jane Allen was head of AAL flight service at the time, so her input was probably paramount. If a combination of lengthy OVL's were offered along with a rotation of short OVL's, I do not believe one person would have been furloughed. The F/A's here would have pulled together and continued to work out OVL's. Most F/A's could take a small leave (at least rotating) and there are others who could continue to take long OVL's.

Now Jane belongs to UAL...

 

[aafsc]

Jim,

When the news of our furlough came in the spring of 2003, I was told by Beth Mack, then head of the STL base, that there were no plans to recall until 2006. 390 were recalled a few months later on Dec 1, 233 more in July 2004, and 610 more (of which you were one) for Nov 2004. Plus, 1350 OVL's were absorbed back into the system.

We keep hearing this same rumor about someone high up saying "it's not in the budget." It doesn't matter what's in the budget. When they need us, the budget will be adjusted accordingly. Canceling flights due to lack of flight attendants isn't in the budget either.

Any way you look at it, on Dec 1, 2005 there will be 800 to 1000 fewer flight attendants than there were at the same time last year. I don't see how the company can go into the holidays with numbers like that. Predicting when is the hard part. Late summer, early fall, late fall ... I think it's gonna happen.

MK

[post="266960"][/post]​

I agree. When they need people, they have to recall them. In MIA, they are recalling just about everyone for the ramp. All the TWAers are getting recalled along with the nAAtives that are junior to them.

 

[Bear96]

Amazing....there are no involuntary furloughs at United......in over a year. How can there still be one at American?

[post="266962"][/post]​

There are still a few thousand out on voluntary furlough. AA has a different furlough system but it's not like UA is anywhere near pre-9/11 F/A numbers either.

 

[Fly]

Voluntary......Involuntary

HUGE difference

 

[kirkpatrick]

Amazing....there are no involuntary furloughs at United......in over a year. How can there still be one at American?

[post="266962"][/post]​

Both the company and the union must work together to avoid furloughs, and that isn't happening here. The company doesn't want us to have flexibility; their attitude is, if you don't want to fly, then quit. The union doesn't seem interested in trying to do anything about it.

The APFA contract provides that Overage Leaves (called OVL's) will be offered in the event of a furlough. These leaves were in fact offered, and approximately 1350 FA's availed themselves of them. However, the OVL's are only for a year and there is no provision to extend them for those who might like to stay out. If combinations of shorter leaves were offered as well, many jobs could be saved. Lots of people would take three month leaves who couldn't afford to take an entire year.

Another thing that would help is a recall bypass option, like we had at TWA. If you're recalled and aren't ready to come back yet, or are being recalled to another base and don't want to commute, you can elect to bypass recall until next time. Eventually there comes a time when the last furloughees are recalled and you no longer have this choice, but it buys time for those who need it, and gets those who want to fly back on the line faster.

In defense of AA/APFA, before the 9/11 furloughs there hadn't been a furlough at AA in twenty years, which is probably why no one seemed to think about it much.

MK

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree. When they need people, they have to recall them. In MIA, they are recalling just about everyone for the ramp. All the TWAers are getting recalled along with the nAAtives that are junior to them.

[post="266977"][/post]​

We have some mechanics who had bumped out into the system returning to JFK but thats to replace the ones quitting. Last week we added three more. All with better than 10 years. One went to a fractional jet outfit in Jersey, the other to the police dept to fix radios and the last one is going into Construction.

From the laid off workers I've spoken to a good number do not want to come back, they found other jobs.

 

[okoge1027]

Both the company and the union must work together to avoid furloughs, and that isn't happening here. The company doesn't want us to have flexibility; their attitude is, if you don't want to fly, then quit. The union doesn't seem interested in trying to do anything about it.

The APFA contract provides that Overage Leaves (called OVL's) will be offered in the event of a furlough. These leaves were in fact offered, and approximately 1350 FA's availed themselves of them. However, the OVL's are only for a year and there is no provision to extend them for those who might like to stay out. If combinations of shorter leaves were offered as well, many jobs could be saved. Lots of people would take three month leaves who couldn't afford to take an entire year.

Another thing that would help is a recall bypass option, like we had at TWA. If you're recalled and aren't ready to come back yet, or are being recalled to another base and don't want to commute, you can elect to bypass recall until next time. Eventually there comes a time when the last furloughees are recalled and you no longer have this choice, but it buys time for those who need it, and gets those who want to fly back on the line faster.

In defense of AA/APFA, before the 9/11 furloughs there hadn't been a furlough at AA in twenty years, which is probably why no one seemed to think about it much.

MK

[post="267046"][/post]​

I think AA will try to stick it out by paying us understaffing for several years rather than recalling anymore f/a's. If you get my drift. Hint. hint...

 

[okoge1027]

I think AA will try to stick it out by paying us understaffing for several years rather than recalling anymore f/a's. If you get my drift. Hint. hint...

[post="267164"][/post]​

It's gonna be a MASSIVE hiring in 2008!

 

[jimntx]

I think AA will try to stick it out by paying us understaffing for several years rather than recalling anymore f/a's. If you get my drift. Hint. hint...

[post="267164"][/post]​

Not possible to delay. Understaffing is paid when you don't get the extra called for in the contract due to load and service. When you can't put mininum crew on the a/c, you have to recall. At the rate flight attendants are quitting, the company can not go 3 more years with no recalls.

I reiterate...the company insisted there would be no recalls in 2004, yet I returned to the line in the 2nd recall last year.

 

[IORFA]

When was the acutal first furlough after 9-11? Was it Oct., Nov. or Dec.? I was thinking that the people who first were furloughed only have about a year and a half left. Am I right?

 

[jimntx]

IIRC, all the f/as who were still on probation were "released" either 15OCT01 or 30OCT01. The first "real" furlough was 01DEC01, I think. But then, seems like I remember there was a furlough at the end of February, 2002. That may have been the first.

What I'm having trouble reconciling is the lead time required for a furlough--60 days. To furlough 01DEC01, the WARN letters would have had to go out no later than 01OCT01, and I don't think we knew the lasting impact of 9/11 that soon.

 

[FWAAA]

What I'm having trouble reconciling is the lead time required for a furlough--60 days. To furlough 01DEC01, the WARN letters would have had to go out no later than 01OCT01, and I don't think we knew the lasting impact of 9/11 that soon.

[post="267210"][/post]​

Isn't there an exception in the WARN law for devastating/unforseen events (which would certainly describe September 11, 2001)? In any case, by September 14, 2001, AA announced schedule reductions equal to 20% of its ASMs and by September 25, 2001, AMR had filed an 8-K announcing job losses of at least 20,000.

http://www.shareholder.com/aa/EdgarDetail....00044&SID=01-00