More F/A furloughs

[Veritas]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 4:34:33 PM MiAAmi wrote:

If the company would have cross trained everyone by now this wouldn't be an issue. Then anyone on the AA side could take the additional leave and spare the furlough in STL.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Your sentiments are sincerely appreciated. Unfortunately, the overage leave situation on the AA side of the fence appears to have been maxed out. The reason there is an overage of 528 on the AA side is that there were not enough leave takers the last time that OVL were offered.

[blockquote]
----------------
This is Jane Allen with an Update for January 31, 2003.

As you know, we did not have enough flight attendants proffering for our last round of overage leaves to eliminate the overage in our AA bases. Thus, we are today carrying an overage of 528 flight attendants. This overage will be growing to approximately 750 over the next few months, and I’ll explain why in just a moment. As painful as it might be, I’m sure everyone understands why the Company cannot afford to operate with such a large surplus, particularly in light of our current financial crisis.

As you know, leaves and furloughs are about the only options we have to deal with a surplus of flight attendants. Since we do not have enough takers for leaves, we must go down the painful path of additional furloughs. This reality has placed us in the very difficult position of changing our previously announced plans for Integration Training.

Thus, we are postponing Integration Training for our St. Louis-based flight attendants, which was set to begin in March. It is not clear when such Training will begin, but at the earliest, it will be this fall. The change in plans means that when we modify TWA aircraft and bring the modified planes over the fence, crews based outside St. Louis will fly them for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, this change in plans will result in an additional overage of up to 750 flight attendants in STL during the spring. Late yesterday, we briefed the APFA on this situation and told them we would have up to 355 furloughs by April 1, and an additional 395 furloughs by May 1.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[MiAAmi]

Did you read the quote above? Its from Jane Allen not APFA.

 

[L1011Ret]

So APFA's quote of a 750 overage in STL is not quite correct. In fact STL is short F/A's to fly the LLC operation and the overage is at other AA bases.

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 6:53:01 PM MiAAmi wrote:

Its a shame that the FAA won't allow the TWA flight attendants to be cross trained to our equip like we are to theirs. I just received a message to take the on-line test for the TWA S-80. It took me all of about 10 min to be qualified on the equip. If the FAA could pull it together and allow the same type of training for the TWA'ers we could hold off on some furloughs. Even if it were only for one a/c type (ie the S80)I think it would make a big difference.
----------------
[/blockquote]

There's just one thing missing. Someone has to really WANT to save us.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 6:49:13 PM AA D2 TW SP wrote:

[blockquote]

Your sentiments are sincerely appreciated. Unfortunately, the overage leave situation on the AA side of the fence appears to have been maxed out. The reason there is an overage of 528 on the AA side is that there were not enough leave takers the last time that OVL were offered.
[/blockquote]

It's not so much that the desire for leaves is tapped out. It's the leaves which will expire this summer and this fall, which will not be able to be extended. Although just about anyone who wants a leave has been offered the chance to take one, many of those coming off leaves this year would choose to extend them, saving jobs on the TWA side.

Throw that in with the loss of VM's due to going to Bistro, the threat of war, and wondering what the impact of whatever work rule changes we're forced to accept and you'll understand why the skies over STL are so grey these days.

MK

 

[TWAnr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 6:53:01 PM MiAAmi wrote:

Its a shame that the FAA won't allow the TWA flight attendants to be cross trained to our equip like we are to theirs. I just received a message to take the on-line test for the TWA S-80. It took me all of about 10 min to be qualified on the equip. If the FAA could pull it together and allow the same type of training for the TWA'ers we could hold off on some furloughs. Even if it were only for one a/c type (ie the S80)I think it would make a big difference.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You are being paper trained on equipment that has been converted to the AA operating certificate specifications; however, some minor differences remain, mostly in the galley areas. The TWA planes, as currently configured, have emergency equipment in different locations as well as some other differences. The main hang-up for the FAA appears to be the emergency procedures, which are not shared by the two airlines. Understandably, you want all flight attendants to be on the same wave length in case of an emergency.

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 4:34:33 PM MiAAmi wrote:

If the company would have cross trained everyone by now this wouldn't be an issue. Then anyone on the AA side could take the additional leave and spare the furlough in STL.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Now you're beginning to see what we've been saying.

MK

 

[TWAnr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 917 PM kirkpatrick wrote:

It's not so much that the desire for leaves is tapped out.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Mark,

There were not enough takers for leaves on the AA side in the last go around. That is why the greener side of the fence is currently operating with an overage of 528. However, that overage is being shifted to the TWA LLC side as the planes are being converted to the AA operating certificate specifications but cabins crews are not being trained to go along with them.

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 10:08:39 PM TWAnr wrote:


Mark,

There were not enough takers for leaves on the AA side in the last go around. [/blockquote]

I realize that. It isn't that I expect more people to take leaves, it's the leaves which will be over this April, May, and especially this fall. I'm sure many would choose to extend those leaves (take new ones, technically) if offered the chance. But it appears that offer will not be made.

Our own Sherry Cooper is on a leave which comes up in May. She has announced her intent to take another one. How many AAers might make the same choice if offered the chance?

MK

 

[bicaal]

And in the history of the OVLs has there ever been an offering at only one base? If the answer is no, then there are serious legal ramifications both to AA and APFA.

 

[L1011Ret]

AA went to APFA some months ago to request relief from language in the "integration agreement" that prohibited LLC F/A's from transferring to other domiciles. AA was willing to train LLC F/A's so they might return to their homes even with reduced seniority. APFA denied AA's request. It makes no sense for AA to train LLC F/As to AA equipment until they can go to Domiciles where AA equipment is flown. This is not an FAA problem. APFA has decided LLC F/As must remain in STL for the rest of their lives. Thus no integration - ever. However, the APFA contract says a F/A may profer for a Domicile if an opening exists. LLC F/As are denied that right even though they are represented by APFA and the APFA contract. Thus this issue becomes the second suit against APFA. Personally I think APFA is going to lose this one big time. You must represent members equally.

 

[IORFA]

What L1011 doesn't understand is that AA offers leaves at the specific bases that have the overage. There very well could be additional people who want a leave, but if there base doesn't have an overage. Tough luck. This also is how junior people get leaves over more senior. This allows AA to not have to shift too much flying and forceably move people. Also regarding the people coming off leave for the summer. Well, the flying is increasing, mostly the international flying. So they aren't going to let them take leaves and then have to train people to take their place. That doesn't make economic sense. I know it is wrong, but when you have no money are you going to choose to train people on a/c that will take 3 weeks to learn the FAA training and then possible furlough them. Or train the people who the FAA has allowed to take a 10 minute computer test, who aren't at the bottom of the seniority list. The choice is obvious. I in NO way am advocating the TWA F/A's should all be furloughed. This is how our contract works and barring 9-11, probably wouldn't be having this discussion. The faster people get out there and pay a reasonable fare to fly, the faster this all gets fixed. Our union, APFA, shouldn't be maligned for the decisions that were made to protect all current APFA members, pre bankruptcy purchase and pre-integration. APFA had NO obligation to consider any former IAM member. This has been upheld previously through the Reno Air Litigation. Why don't people understand that. If rules, practices and contracts and the like were made/signed before APFA represented the former IAM represented TWA F/A's. Why would anyone expect them to be changed after the integration? Why on earth waste the time and money if that were the case? Obviously, just my 2 cents. Have a great day.

 

[IORFA]

I meant to say pre-represntation instead of pre-integration

 

[MiAAmi]

L1011, your above post shows you don't know what your talking about. Check the facts before you post false information please.

 

[IORFA]

TWAnr

If you had paid attention, APFA and AA did agree to allow STL based F/A's to transfer to any open base based on their AA bidding seniority, before any furloughrd F/A is recalled to any other base other than STL. The agreement is located on the APFA website.