New CS Policy?

[LuxuryLiner]

From what I've heard the new CS policy is a result of what is happening at DFW, particularly on the ramp. Over the last few months there have been numerous OSO days because of all the bad weather that has hit the area. What is happening is management is passing out white slips for everybody on the night shift to stay and work all the late flights, problem is half the folks working are from the morning shift working double shifts and have already done 16hrs or 17 if you count the two 30min lunch periods. Now if they force all these morning folks to stay, they will have to pay 100+ people time in a half for their shift the next day cause it's a short turn due to them being forced to stay the night before. I've heard that there can be as many as 600 or 700 CS's in the books for just an average saturday or sunday at DFW.

 

[TWU informer]

From what I've heard the new CS policy is a result of what is happening at DFW, particularly on the ramp. Over the last few months there have been numerous OSO days because of all the bad weather that has hit the area. What is happening is management is passing out white slips for everybody on the night shift to stay and work all the late flights, problem is half the folks working are from the morning shift working double shifts and have already done 16hrs or 17 if you count the two 30min lunch periods. Now if they force all these morning folks to stay, they will have to pay 100+ people time in a half for their shift the next day cause it's a short turn due to them being forced to stay the night before. I've heard that there can be as many as 600 or 700 CS's in the books for just an average saturday or sunday at DFW.

Well if that is the case, then it would be in the best interest of the company to put the policy into the contract and make anything outside of the policy a contractual violation.

 

[JAFA]

The policy change covers everyone under Devalle,

Yes, it is only he DAS and Cargo groups

as I see it those stations that have back to back doubles should still have them unless Jim Ream puts out a letter stating otherwise.

Letter is not from Jim Ream, but it is out. Management saw it yesterday.

As far as what triggered it maybe in fleet they realize that they have a lot of guys that hardly ever work yet they are paying for their benefits and the guys that work all the extra hours are getting hurt too much due to wear and tear. Its a hard job crawling around in those bellies.

From what I hear the driver was several large stations local CS policies being out of sync wiuth each other and severeal small stations having their own rules. There actually were several round table meetings over the change last year with both AAb and Tim Gillespie participating. In the end the policy is not that dissimilair from what we already have at JFK now. Minimum hours is the same, same rules about being qualified in the job, and less advance notice required. The only real difffernece is the max 16 hours worked in 24 or 24 in 48. Honestly not a big deal. Oh yeah they already clarified those limits are to scheduled hours (reg shift and CSW). The max does not apply to OT, be it voluntary or forced.

 

[strikeforce]

From what I've heard so far on this forum, the fleet guys were following the policy and the company got burned. So what? Management just cannot stand when employees follow the rules, and the same rules the company agreed to backfires, and now they want to stick it to the employees. How pathetic is that????????

When is everyone going to wake up to the fact that AA just can't stomach their employee's and will do whatever it takes to stick it to US!!!!! It just never stops!!!!

 

[eolesen]

If DFW is getting burned, they had some interesting local rules vs. what ORD and MIA were using... I also wonder how much they're holding people to the 50% caps. By the time I left in 2006, only about 2-4% of fleet & agents were still CS'ing between 40% and the cap.

My group started tracking CS usage in 2003, and it was next to impossible for managers to figure out who was exceeding the cap. We pulled the data and threw it into a web format that made it a lot easier to use, and found around 170 people who'd CS'd more than 60% (almost half of whom were in MIA).

Warnings were issued, and by 2004, there was enough solid data (and warnings) to start enforcing revoking CS privileges for the ones who continued to ignore the warnings.... There were a dozen or so who quit when their privileges were yanked -- they'd been working in construction (housing boom still in full swing), and were staying on AA payroll for the healthcare.

If the existing policies were actually enforced, I don't think that they'd be seeing problems with quick turns, etc...

 

[LuxuryLiner]

The CS's at DFW are out of control as far as keeping track of who's working for who. A person needs off and can't find one other person to work it, but piece's it together with 5 different folks working the 8hr CS. Knowing the computer will reject it they will just put the CS on paper and drop it in the admin window that day. Management usually looks the other way as long as the shifts and gates are covered...etc.. There will always be abuse...somebody who works 5a-130p will pick up a cs from a afternoon guy who works 1250p-2120p and try and get a TL off from 1250-1330, but then there's a person missing when the flight arrives at 110p...etc. There are folks who take CS's for jobs their not qualified for or folks will lie about what their job is just to get somebody to work for them. Yes, there are a lot of folks who are borderline going over the cap. Years ago, when Ahern was VP DFW, he seemed to cut a lot of slack for folks who were in school.

 

[BonTemps]

Looks like Miami is adjusting all shifts to accommodate the overlap deal..what is DFW doing? I guarantee the outstations will continue to do what they want and work it out amongst themselves because they are not the problem its the hubs thats the problem according to the company.

 

[Bob Owens]

From what I hear the driver was several large stations local CS policies being out of sync wiuth each other and severeal small stations having their own rules. There actually were several round table meetings over the change last year with both AAb and Tim Gillespie participating. In the end the policy is not that dissimilair from what we already have at JFK now. Minimum hours is the same, same rules about being qualified in the job, and less advance notice required. The only real difffernece is the max 16 hours worked in 24 or 24 in 48. Honestly not a big deal. Oh yeah they already clarified those limits are to scheduled hours (reg shift and CSW). The max does not apply to OT, be it voluntary or forced.

We presented management with a contractual CS policy but they werent interestsed. They like the control. As far as the limits only applying to CS and not OT thats a good basis to challenge the change. Since CS's have been a policy for so long they become past practice, therefore part of our workrules, if the company now decides to limit the hours they have to have a compelling reason for the change, especially since we are in the middle of negotiations and the company is supposed to maintain the status quo, I'm guessing their excuse is for safety reasons, then those limits would have to apply to OT as well.

 

[eolesen]

Arbitrations involving CS alone usually get tossed because it's not contractual. I've seen it firsthand with CS grievances at a system board. Maybe things have changed, but it was rare to see CS grievances get elevated that far unless it was somehow tangled in with the contract, and even there, the determinations only addressed the contract violation and not the secondary impact on the CS...

Making the argument on safety grounds is my assumption, but it is possible they're making it on other grounds, so good luck. Make too much of an issue out of it at the table, and I wouldn't put it past AMR to simply kill the program or restrict it to the point of only allowing a 1:1 swap as they do in SJU... And that serves nobody's interests.