Flight Attendant Recalls In 2005

[jimntx]

Attrition numbers are out for June: 105 total including 35 retirements. Out of these retirements, 29 flight attendants have over 20 years seniority.

Art Tang
IMA

[post="283440"][/post]​

Further breakdown of the numbers...

68 Domestic of which 21 were retirements.
37 International of which 14 were retirements.

The other 70 flight attendants quit, died, or got fired. (Probably quit. You know how hard it is to fire a flight attendant. And, lord knows, we are semi-eternal. )

 

[Corinth2103]

Tim,

That's still pretty amazing that IDF and ORD are about the same for RSV.

I'd rather fly INTL (knowing I would be on RSV) and get more $$$ and better layovers and sequences (on most trips) than fly ORD, wondering if my RSV number was finally up the next month.....


Just some highlights from DOM for you. What about INTL?

Coop

SLT

[post="282509"][/post]​

Coop

I have to admit that RSV this month has been relatively painless. I haven't covered one IDF trip yet though and that's pretty much true with some friends of mine as well. I've done the DFW domestic trip, one IMA trip, and one IOR trip. Buddies of mine have done about the same except instead of an IOR sequence, they covered an LAX-I sequence. No reassignments for me this month although in March, I had about three.
I'm on the home stretch this week as I'm off at the end of the month so we'll see.

Anyway, thanks for the DOM highlights and have a good rest of the month.

Tim

 

[Garfield1966]

Not really, Gar. A friend of mine is in training at Alaska airlines right now. His roommate just left UAL after 17 years to train with Alaska. When my friend asked him why, he said the year before UAL went into bankruptcy he was a lineholder and made $48,000 that year. With all the BK concessions he made $34,000 last year flying the same number of hours and was back having to serve reserve on and off.

Everybody has a point at which they say, No More!

P.S. You don't know enough about the personal situation of the flight attendant mentioned in the earlier post to comment on whether it's funny or not. For all you know, she may be married to a Texas oilman and flew just for the fun of it.

[post="283654"][/post]​

I guess I should have made my point clearer instead of being sarcastic.

I fail to see why a person should be allowed to remain on the payroll for 3 years and not fly when there are people who have been furloughed who want a job.

The hard decision crack was that she never had any intention of coming back and “decidingâ€￾ to finally quit was not a “hardâ€￾ decision.

 

[Bear96]

I guess I should have made my point clearer instead of being sarcastic.

I fail to see why a person should be allowed to remain on the payroll for 3 years and not fly when there are people who have been furloughed who want a job.

[post="283894"][/post]​

I think you are missing the point of the voluntary furlough at UA, which it seems like this was since VFs have been going on for about three years now.

If you are on VF, you are not "on the payroll" if by that you mean the person was getting paid. You don't get paid for being on VF.*

And for each person who takes VF, one INvoluntary furlough is avoided. At UA, enough people took the VF, that there were indeed ZERO people involuntarily "furloughed who want[ed] a job." So because of this person taking the VF, one junior person who would have been IF'd got to remain on the job.


* -- VFs don't get paid. They do, however, receive health insurance and travel benefits. These in fact pay for themselves, due to the pay differential between the senior VF who is taken of the payroll and the junior person who is allowed to remain on.

 

[jimntx]

Bear, thanks for your post. I know that the voluntary furloughs at US Airways also prevented some more junior people from being furloughed--though not all in their case.

We would have a lot fewer people on furlough at AA if the company had allowed longer than 12 month Overage Leaves of Absence (OLOA is our term for voluntary furloughs) that had benefits attached to them--such as travel and health benefits and maintenance of seniority.

Also, at United and US Airways, the voluntary furloughs were not restricted to very senior people who had no fear of being furloughed. At AA if you are subject to involuntary furlough, you are not even allowed to apply for a voluntary leave of absence.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong (but I don't think so), the Aapfa had no desire for the company to offer any such leaves like United has because it might have meant that some of the dreaded former TW flight attendants might avoid being furloughed involuntarily. And, Aapfa (at least during the J. Ward administration) was focussed on punishing the former TW flight attendants.

 

[s80dude]

i should have been more clear in my post. the ua fa i met was on a three year voluntary furlough. she got pregnant after 9/11 and used the voluntary furlough as a way to stay home with her young one. she was not taking anyone's job. now that she is forced to either come back to work or quit, she leaning towards the latter since conditions at ual have gotten so bad.

if anything i think it was admirable that she examined her lifestyle and income and realized she could stay home and thus let someone junior to her stay on payroll who needed to work.

 

[kirkpatrick]

We would have a lot fewer people on furlough at AA if the company had allowed longer than 12 month Overage Leaves of Absence

[post="283902"][/post]​

Another thing that would help is a recall bypass option. A recallee could elect not to come back this round, but to wait for a future recall. This way we could wait for our base to be open, or any other personal reason. For example, I have a friend who would like to wait until he is vested in his new company's retirement plan. It'd be a shame to be recalled a month or two before.

The company gets more junior recallees, people who want their jobs back get them. It's a win-win situation, but we won't be seeing it any time soon.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

if anything i think it was admirable that she examined her lifestyle and income and realized she could stay home and thus let someone junior to her stay on payroll who needed to work.

[post="283979"][/post]​

We need to be careful about wishing away our flexibilities in order to coerce senior people into quitting. One day you and I may want to avail ourselves of the ability not to work for a few months, for whatever reason we may have at the time.

Flexible scheduling is one of the main reasons many of us are here. Yet there is an undercurrent of thinking out there that if things such as leaves and OE were tightened up, senior people would quit in droves and we'd all move up in seniority.

We had the same thing in the last few years at TWA. Frustrated by the stagnated seniority list as the airline kept shrinking, people began pushing to limit our OE rules. After all, if Suzie Q. had to fly all her Rome trips, she'd quit and I'd hold them, right? Our last contract did tighten the rules somewhat, imposing minimum hours that had to be flown to get vacation and sick leave. I think you could have counted the number who quit on one hand.

Let's be careful, folks.

MK

 

[jimntx]

Good point, MK! Reminded me of what a friend of mine at DL told me. In 2001, right after our new contract was ratified, I said to my DL friend, "Well, I guess with the greatly improved retirement benefits in the new contract, a lot of the senior f/as will retire."

Her response was, "Don't count on it. All I heard for years in Ops in Atlanta was 'Well, if we could just get paid medical in retirement, I'd be gone tomorrow.' Well, we got paid medical in retirement 2 years ago and the only reason my seniority number has dropped since then was when one of them died." She was fairly senior herself--something like 1500 at the time--but she was one of those people who had never worked anywhere but DL. She had 36 years as a f/a, but was only 58 years old. She was too young to retire on what the f/a pension would have paid her.

BTW, I want to know your sources for attrition numbers. You were spot on, but you had the number almost 3 weeks before it was posted on the website.

 

[TWAnr]

BTW, I want to know your sources for attrition numbers.

[post="284108"][/post]​

MK has friends in high places, but he keeps their identities secret. :disguise:

 

[L1011Ret]

Must be MK has Arpey's home phone number...

 

[kirkpatrick]

Disappointing attrition numbers for July. 58 active FA's left, plus 21 more TWA FA's retired from furlough.

MK

 

[L1011Ret]

Disappointing attrition numbers for July. 58 active FA's left, plus 21 more TWA FA's retired from furlough.

MK

[post="286675"][/post]​

Thanks Mark, a bit disappointing it is.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

OK, with july/05 attrition numbers, where does that put the #1 LLC F/A , to be recalled ?? (in term of numbers)

Thanx,

NH/BB's

 

[jimntx]

OK, with july/05 attrition numbers, where does that put the #1 LLC F/A , to be recalled ?? (in term of numbers)

Thanx,

NH/BB's

[post="286775"][/post]​

NHBB, the attrition numbers do not affect position on the furlough/recall list until there is a recall. If MK's numbers are correct (and they have been up til now), then there have been 524 flight attendants leave the active list so far this year through the end of July. This is quit, died, retired, got fired--everything. None of them have been replaced by f/as on the furlough/recall list.

According to the June Seniority List posted on the APFA website, there are 99 "nAAtives" left on the list ahead of the most senior TW f/a. Interesting thing about my seniority number...It has gone back up by 43 since the June list was published. In fact, it has gone up 1 since yesterday. I heard that some flight service managers were returning to the line, but 43?