More F/A furloughs

[TWAnr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 144 PM MiAAmi wrote:

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

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Captain Chamberlin (L1011) is absolutely right on this point. The APFA refused to allow LLCers to transfer out of STL, in case openings existed elsewhere in the system, before all the probationary nAAtives were recalled from furlough. That was the main reason cited by the company when it refused to start integration training so that STL based flight attendants could continue to fly the STL international routes.

 

[acmech]

Will the last former TWA employee in St.Louis please turn off the lights.

The writing is on the wall folks, American's plan all along was to discard as many of the TWA folks as they could. They are doing exactly that little by little.

 

[MiAAmi]

Thank God AA is about to go broke or this TWA conspiracy theory wouldn't be credible.

 

[MiAAmi]

If it were not for 9/11 and AA was making money and needed to expand. How would we still get rid of the TWA'ers. Hmmmm

 

[L1011Ret]

Indeed, correct about offering LLC F/A's the ability to transfer when F/As are recalled. But since none are being recalled and it is unlikely that any will be for the forseeable future, LLC F/As cannot profer for any openings. And yet all other Native AA F/A's can transfer to anywhere there are openings. So why the discriminatory restrictions?? There are a number of LLC F/A's who would be happy to fly out of LGA even with reduced seniority because it is their home and they can be with spouses and children rather than being on reserve or commuting to STL for their flights. As I said, this is discriminatory behavior by APFA. This has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with Duty to Fairly Represent and Equal Opportunities in the workplace.

 

[L1011Ret]

Indeed, it certainly appears that APFA is not interested in representing LLC F/As. Why does APFA not put anything on their web site about this second class action suit? I wonder how many nAAtive F/As are aware of the content of this second suit?

 

[TWAnr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 1:48:28 PM IORFA wrote:

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.
----------------
[/blockquote]

IORFA,

I am well aware of that modification to the so called integration agreement. That addition was agreed upon between the union and the company only after a law suit was filed charging the APFA with breach of the duty of fair representation to the STL based flight attendants. Personally, I think it is a matter of too little too late.

My present complaint about the APFA is not about its taking a position adverse to the former TWAers seniority rights. It is about not fighting to save their jobs NOW by demanding that the company allow overage leaves at other bases to mitigate furloughs in STL.

 

[MiAAmi]

If there is already an overage on the AA side because not enough people took the overage where do you suppose these new overage seekers are going to come from?

 

[MiAAmi]

What I think you all are forgetting is that there is an overage. Whether its on the AA side or the TW side. Fact is that the company is still planning on moving the a/c to AA. But they don't plan on cross training the TWA'ers. I don't agree with this but its what the company is doing. I think the company is probably looking at as a $$$$ thing. Why take the couple weeks and pay for the TWA'ers to go thru training only to turn around and put them on furlough.

 

[TWAnr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 509 PM MiAAmi wrote:

If there is already an overage on the AA side because not enough people took the overage where do you suppose these new overage seekers are going to come from?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Part of the overage projected for May is caused by OVL takers scheduled to return from leaves at that time. Some, if not most, of those may opt to take another Overage Leave, given the opportunity.

On a related note, I'd like to see the union putting some pressure on the company to cross train the TWAers. I realize that it is probably a money issue for the airline, but that does not mean that the APFA should just roll over and play dead.

 

[kirkpatrick]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 509 PM MiAAmi wrote:

If there is already an overage on the AA side because not enough people took the overage where do you suppose these new overage seekers are going to come from?
----------------
[/blockquote]

The second part of your sentence has been answered. There may not be many new leave takers but certainly a good number of those on leave would extend those leaves if offered the chance.

Now look at the first part of your sentence. The overage is on the AA side, yet no leaves will be offered there. Why not? The overage will be taken care of by moving TWA aircraft over to the AA certificate, thus moving the overage to our side and causing us to be furloughed. Now I understand the seniority system, and realize that being at the bottom subjects me to furlough. What I don't understand is why the company and the union aren't doing EVERYTHING in their combined power to keep the numbers as small as possible.

APFA may not have represented us before the acquisition, but they are representing us now, and I expect them to bust their damn butts trying to help us.

MK

 

[L1011Ret]

Mark, well said. If 750 native AA F/As had been furloughed APFA would have doing everything it could to cushion the furloughs. I still haven't received an answer to why LLC F/As must spend the rest of their careers in STL while native AA F/As are free to transfer if there is an opening.

 

[L1011Ret]

Mark, well said. If 750 native AA F/As had been furloughed APFA would have doing everything it could to cushion the furloughs.

 

[MiAAmi]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 7:29:16 PM kirkpatrick wrote:

APFA may not have represented us before the acquisition, but they are representing us now, and I expect them to bust their damn butts trying to help us.

MK

----------------
[/blockquote]

Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.

 

[IORFA]

L1011

Where are al these so called "nAAtives" finding all these domestic transfers? I haven't seen any only domestic laterals. Which of course is one for one. Once again a lot of the overages that are ending were timed for the ramped up summer schedule. Thus there won't be an overage at all bases. IOR, Chicago Int'l, might possibly have a shortage once all the flying is back. We don't know yet for sure. To answer your question about letting the STL based f/a's transfer out of STL, read the integration agreement that was signed before APFA became the former TWA IAM represented f/a's union. It says that STL based former TWA f/a's can't transfer out till all original AA f/a's are off furlough. Well, we have already modified that agreement to address a future seniority issue. Nothing else. We are NOT going to change the agreement. You can't tell me with a straight face that we should completely undue an agreement that was agreed upon before TWA LLC f/a's were represented by APFA. Think the IAM would have considered it? D.O.F.R. accusations are completely false and deflametory. (excuse the spelling) APFA owed former TWA IAM represented f/a's exactly NOTHING. They didn't represent them. As witnessed by the Reno Air Litigation, that was won by APFA, appealed and again won by APFA. Same issues, same results. People can say what they want. Bottom line is that APFA set the rules governing integration and all applicable provisions before TWA was on property and represented by APFA. Now that we are one, that doesn't mean that the rules governing an integration should be changed. It just makes ZERO sense that you would actually get upset at APFA for not even entertaining the idea. Crazy!! All you really want to do is put the people who chose to work here, interviewed here and helped from day one to make AA a great airline, on the street. To preserve your selfserving agenda. Now that I answered your question, answer one for me if you can. Why should APFA ammend/completely change an agreement that would go back and benefit, at the detriment of current memners, persons from another union that worked for a different airline completely and were once again not represented by APFA? When you tell me why APFA should, Please answer me why the current "nAAtives" shouldn't sue APFA for failure of D.O.F.R.?