Why do you wish such ill will on fellow employees? What did they ever do to you? Bob Owens has posted that they make something like $10k more per year than TWU-represented AMTs; you'd probably be better off if you had to join their union.
Foreign Nationals-Miami
- Thread starter 737823
- Start date
kirkpatrick
Veteran
The numbers are easily found on the Flight Service website under Bidding|Bid Awards Table. Here are figures for March:
BOG - 96
EZE - 141
LIM - 140
SCL - 130
Total - 507
A LOA in the contract specifically spells out exactly what they can and cannot fly, but I won't jam up the board by posting the whole thing here.
MK
Apples and oranges.
TWA was sued by the TLV employees for severance pay and pension obligations.
FA Mikey is correct, and each FN base has there own country contract with AA, it was said at the MIA APFA road show, that there all in BK as well and renegotiating with AA.
APFA did try to get them to join and they wanted to as well, but local laws prohibited it.
We fly-work with them more than you think, and we get along, not to mention often DH on some other flights.
I agree
strikeforce
Veteran
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,224
- 253
I don't have anything against any foreign national, but I have to work under the guidelines of the RLA, and because the airlines use the RLA against me, the FN should work under those same rules. WE do work for the same airline, don't we???
As part of my employment contract with AA, I was forced to join the TWU by way of the RLA because the TWU is the sole bargaining agent with AA. The RLA should apply to all that work for AA. Period! Talk about unfair labor laws and an unfair level playing field!
Really, yet the service was ended prior to AA's the assumption of the TWA assets. The local employees sued and won an injunction against TWA's assets in Israel. TWA ended the service to avoid having an aircraft seized by the court ordered action.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #41
I'm not sure what Open Skies has to do with FA staffing... Open skies applies to capacity and pricing, not labor laws which countries continue to have the right to administer as they choose.
.
As for the idea that AA domestic and foreign employees should be forced to belong to the same union, you might want to ask yourself why the Chinese employees who manufactured product X you just bought (or are thinking of buying) are not governed by the same labor laws and have the same pay and benefits as the American and Japanese companies for whom their products are made.
You might also ask yourself if you would have half the stuff you have if you had to pay prices based on US/European/Japanese employees having built the product.
based where?
.
As for the idea that AA domestic and foreign employees should be forced to belong to the same union, you might want to ask yourself why the Chinese employees who manufactured product X you just bought (or are thinking of buying) are not governed by the same labor laws and have the same pay and benefits as the American and Japanese companies for whom their products are made.
You might also ask yourself if you would have half the stuff you have if you had to pay prices based on US/European/Japanese employees having built the product.
thanks Mikey...
based where?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #42
"I have always assumed that they are members of a union in their country of residence, just like the AA employee mechanics in London....."
AA mechanics in London are non-union. They had an option to join the TGWU a few years back along with the rampers, but decided against it because they didn't think their interests would be best represented by a union that knows nothing about aircraft maintenance.
AA mechanics in London are non-union. They had an option to join the TGWU a few years back along with the rampers, but decided against it because they didn't think their interests would be best represented by a union that knows nothing about aircraft maintenance.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
Now *that's* funny.
Hate to break it to you, but trying to enforce US labor law outside the US isn't going to be very successful.
JAMAKE1
Veteran
The history here is long. The foreign national cabin crews were inherited when Braniff International first acquired Panagra back in 1967. As part of the purchase agreement, Braniff agreed to retain Panagra's cabin crews who were based in South America. When Eastern purchased the Latin American Division from Braniff, the foreign nationals were grandfathered into the acquisition agreement as well. The process repeated itself when AA purchased the division from Eastern.
The same thing occurred at United, when UA purchased Pan Am's Pacific Division. Pan Am employed foreign national cabin crews all over the world, but as it related to the Pacific Division, the crews were based in Bangkok and Singapore. Therefore, a letter of agreement was reached between UA's flight attendant union (AFA) and the company, which stipulated that all foreign nationals had to be furloughed prior to any flight attendant on the AFA seniority list. Additionally, United inherited Pan Am's LHR cabin crew base when the London routes were purchased in 1991. Pan Am's LHR crews were represented by the same union as Pan Am's U.S. counterparts. As such United's LHR crews are represented by AFA. During the mid-1990's, United wanted to increase the number of language speaking cabin crews on international flights. AFA dug its heels in on the issue, contending that increased language speakers undermined the flight attendant seniority system.
United circumvented the AFA by opening crew bases in CDG, FRA, HKG, NRT, TPE, and SCL Since the contract language stipulated that any newly opened bases required AFA-represented cabin crews, those six, plus LHR were staffed by a mix of local residents as well as Americans...but working under the same collective bargaining agreement as United's AFA represented cabin crews in the U.S. SCL was UA's smallest crew base, which reached a peak of 50 flight attendants. When UA downsized MIA and closed the SCL station, the base was closed. Both CDG and TPE were closed after 9/11 as well. Today, most of the former CDG-based flight attendants commute to either FRA or LHR, while most of the former TPE-based F/A's commute to NRT.
With all that said, on the United side, the foreign nationals in BKK and SIN have all been furloughed since UA has approximately 2,100-AFA represented flight attendants currently on voluntary furlough. So while United does still currently maintain 4 foreign bases (LHR, FRA, HKG, and NRT)...all staffed with a combination of both American and local nationals. Crews based overseas are NOT regarded as foreign nationals. Americans are allowed to transfer to overseas, but the local nationals are not allowed to transfer to the U.S. since they do not possess green cards. I believe that no transfers have been permitted into HKG since it reverted back to Chinese jurisdiction.
That's probably more information than you care to hear, but the history of foreign nationals, foreign crew bases and how they came to be, is quite fascinating...
