Furloughs Recalled For July 1st

[mweiss]

Congratulations on your return.

Just remember on a day like today (DFW's a mess) how happy you are to be working. 😉

 

[jimntx]

How many of those who were on OVL chose to quit rather than to fly?

First things first...Congratulations, Flyboy4U. I should be in the next recall as long as it's at least 138 flight attendants (No. I haven't really counted. Why do you ask? 😛 )

As far as the OVLs, as I said in an earlier post, I doubt that we will know the actual number of returning OVLs until maybe the middle of July. It is correct that there is no requirement that a person on OVL notify the company of their intention to return or not. Also, this return may be messy.

1. There are some who do not intend to return, but are not going to let the company know one way or the other.
2. There are some (I've heard) who have told the company that they are returning and have even scheduled training, but don't intend to show up. (The fact that this is wildly unfair to your fellow flight attendants does not seem to outweigh the inconvenience it might cause the company.)
3. There are those who want to return, but are physically too ill to work right now, or otherwise qualify for FMLA. The company would be on VERY shaky legal ground to deny them a medical or FMLA leave.
4. The re-training classes probably won't be over until the middle of July. You know, there is a possibility that some may return for the training and then change their minds.

My SWAG (scientific, wild-assed guess) is that as many as 500 may not return. I think this recall is the company hedging it's bets on the OVLs. I don't think they ever intended to make the recall a one-for-one with non-returning OVLs.

Next couple of months are going to be very interesting. Some of those returning may decide that the job is no longer their cuppa t.

Again, congrats to all the returnees.

 

[jimntx]

Stay positive because if I remember right, no one was due to be recalled in all of 2004 according to HDQ. Take everything they say with a grain of salt, but of course those that have been around here for awhile already know that!! 😉

Tim

Tim, you really must learn to interpret corporate speak! 😛 The company never said that they were not going to recall any furloughees in 2004. They said, "There are no plans to recall any furloughees in 2004" and "We have not budgeted for the recall of any furloughees in 2004."

In corporate speak there is a vast difference between "we ain't gonna" and "we have no plans to..."

 

[kirkpatrick]

This certainly is good news, although a bit mysterious. Barely three weeks notice is unprecedented. It must be that a lot of people on OVL elected not to come back.

We can only hope there will be another recall around Christmas and maybe they'll start on TWA people in 2005.

MK

 

[jimntx]

This certainly is good news, although a bit mysterious. Barely three weeks notice is unprecedented.

Not really. The CBA (or what's left of it) states quite clearly that the company must give furloughees a 21 day notice of recall. I agree, though, that this is a response to lack of response from the OVLs as to their plans. As far as I know, it is now too late for an OVL to schedule a June re-training date. I'm guessing that the company is assuming lack of contact = no intention of returning.

However, they can't be sure just yet. They have to "involuntarily" schedule the non-responders for early July training. It will only be when people don't show up that the company can start termination proceedings.

 

[AC AA LA FA]

I think that those out on OV leaves-do not qualify for FMLA-so if they are sick ect-I think they are out of luck...remember for AA there is a 420 hr yearly min to qualify for FMLA-
how would these folks qualify for 420 being out for a year??

 

[kirkpatrick]

Not really. The CBA (or what's left of it) states quite clearly that the company must give furloughees a 21 day notice of recall.

True, although I think in practice they usually give more. The Dec recall last year was announced Oct 1.

At any rate, it's great news, and I look forward to seeing the actual numbers of OVL's who didn't return.

MK

 

[jimntx]

I think that those out on OV leaves-do not qualify for FMLA-so if they are sick ect-I think they are out of luck...remember for AA there is a 420 hr yearly min to qualify for FMLA-
how would these folks qualify for 420 being out for a year??

Well, as far as I can tell, AA's implementation of FMLA is questionable at best. I was in corporate America for several years after the passage of FMLA. I've never seen an interpretation of the law like AA's.

Basically, the FMLA--the law, not AA's take on it--says that an employer who offers defined benefits--such as sick leave--MUST give a full-time employee up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for personal/family illness. However, (and this is where I'm confused by AA's approach) at other companies where I have worked, FMLA could not kick in until you had exhausted all accrued sick leave and vacation. In other words, the company kept you on the payroll as long as possible before putting you in the FMLA unpaid status.

Needless to say, this ain't the way it works at AA. And, I am still confused by the procedure. Maybe if I ever need it, it will make more sense. 😛

 

[jj]

Its definetly feasible to see another 200 F/As returning by December. 🙄

 

[cancer69]

Congradulations to all
I hope to some day return to mainline for US Airways but I dont think this will happen for another ten years. I wish you guys the best of luck.

 

[SkyLiner]

Yes, Congrats to all the returning furloughed, good luck!
And to you too Cancer69.

 

[jimntx]

Its definetly feasible to see another 200 F/As returning by December. 🙄

As they say, From your lips to God's ears.

 

[operaations]

😀 😀 Welcome back to all of you.

Let the recovery begin

 

[skivoodoo]

Congrats to all that are heading back to the line!

Ski

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

As they say, From your lips to God's ears.

jimntx,
Though I'm unable to explain to you or MYSELF why it may be best for the OVL's to wait until the last possible second, I'm inclined to believe that MABEY the (good ol') company may inadvertantly "over recall" furloughees..

Perhaps if AA "over recalled" 138 F/a's, because the OVL's held AA's feet to the contractual fire, (hypothetically), with IOD's, FMLA's, attrition, dismissals etc., AA "might" say, "well we're a "little fat" at the moment, but lets keep them working, rather than "re" furloughing them, only to have to "re-re" call them a couple of months from now" !!

Jim,
stranger things have happened !!

NH/BB's