Overage Leave Numbers

[jimntx]

A friend just called. Said these numbers have just been posted to the flight service website...

1353 Due back from Overage Leave 01JUL
959 Actual Returnees
394 Retired or Resigned (almost 30%)

 

[FWAAA]

That's good news. Add to that the expectation that lots of older FAs might retire after the 777 arbitration award is paid out this fall, the positive operating results and things are looking up for the furloughed. Hope you are recalled soon (along with all other AA/TWA furloughees). B)

 

[jimstras]

Be careful about the rumors of troves of Flight Attendants leaving. It brings back memories of the 93 contract and the "early out package". Lets face it, one of my best friends is 35 years and her seniority number is around 1100 or 1200. She is not going anywhere. She still has 5 more years to go. Even we lost the top senior 1000 and that will not happen it would not mean didley squat. Look at the big picture. and P.S. F/As don't retire or quit they just drop trips. <_<

 

[jimntx]

Be careful about the rumors of troves of Flight Attendants leaving. It brings back memories of the 93 contract and the "early out package". Lets face it, one of my best friends is 35 years and her seniority number is around 1100 or 1200. She is not going anywhere. She still has 5 more years to go. Even we lost the top senior 1000 and that will not happen it would not mean didley squat. Look at the big picture. and P.S. F/As don't retire or quit they just drop trips. <_<

Oh, I don't expect that the supposed stampede for the door following the 777 arbitration award will materialize. However, the attrition rate does seem to be picking up.

Total attrition (quit, died, retired, terminated) for the first 4 months of this year was 191. In May, it was an additional 70, and in June it was another 87.

 

[Oneflyer]

Once again, if being a F/A is so tough and they are so underpaid, why is it so hard to get them to quit?

 

[LiveInAHotel]

Once again, if being a F/A is so tough and they are so underpaid, why is it so hard to get them to quit?

Because AA is to cheap to offer a great retirement! :angry:

 

[SkyLiner]

Once again, if being a F/A is so tough and they are so underpaid, why is it so hard to get them to quit?

Because regardless of the complaining and bitching, it really is a great life, and hard to leave/loose. I think people become spoiled, and blinded to the realities out here in the real world. My last year at twa I made 40K (and thought that was peanuts). We always think that we are worth more than we're getting paid. I went to an airline interview yesterday and the starting pay was 15K. Reality 101...be thankful for what you've got/had.

 

[LiveInAHotel]

Oh, I don't expect that the supposed stampede for the door following the 777 arbitration award will materialize.

That's all I'm waiting for. After I get paid it's buh bye to this rat hole!

 

[RogerRoger]

Remember the "underfly" issue. The one voted on seperately after the RPA?

The "underfly" piece had a cost of $2.3 million per month and that is the amount the APFA had to find to cover it while they sorted out what to do about it. That process took about 3 months IIRC and as such the total carrying cost was about $6.9 million dollars.

Where did that money come from? You guessed it the 777 Award.
That is $6.9 million dollars of the
777 F/As money they will NEVER SEE. Its gone.

I wonder how much more they would have received if JW had not given away the "underfly" and then scrambled to save it and his ass when the membership went wild over it?

 

[FA Mikey]

Remember the "underfly" issue. The one voted on seperately after the RPA?

The "underfly" piece had a cost of $2.3 million per month and that is the amount the APFA had to find to cover it while they sorted out what to do about it. That process took about 3 months IIRC and as such the total carrying cost was about $6.9 million dollars.

Where did that money come from? You guessed it the 777 Award.
That is $6.9 million dollars of the
777 F/As money they will NEVER SEE. Its gone.

I wonder how much more they would have received if JW had not given away the "underfly" and then scrambled to save it and his ass when the membership went wild over it?

The 777 award is being paid out the exact amount that was awarded by the arbitrator.

 

[L1011Ret]

Mikey, there is some dispute about the 777 award. If it turns out that the 777 award was used to fund the underfly, a lot of F/As will be quite unhappy. Funny, when people suggested that 777 monies be used to offset furloughs and other items before the RPA was voted down, they were shot down.

Of even more interest is the fact that DOL has ruled that the 16 ballots in question are legal ballots and should be counted.

Doing nothing on the election issue is no longer an option. It appears that either the ballots get opened or a new election takes place. Around the beginning of September the DOL will make its final determination.

 

[FA Mikey]

Mikey, there is some dispute about the 777 award. If it turns out that the 777 award was used to fund the underfly, a lot of F/As will be quite unhappy. Funny, when people suggested that 777 monies be used to offset furloughs and other items before the RPA was voted down, they were shot down.

Of even more interest is the fact that DOL has ruled that the 16 ballots in question are legal ballots and should be counted.

Doing nothing on the election issue is no longer an option. It appears that either the ballots get opened or a new election takes place. Around the beginning of September the DOL will make its final determination.

That is disgusting that jw and the board allowed the monies owed to a few used to support the entire membership who were gainfully employed and collecting pay. Yet apparently balked at the idea of making it available for the ones facing a no check or pay at all.

Aug 3 is the date for the DOL decision correct?

 

[jimntx]

Aug 3 is the date for the DOL decision correct?

No. Mikey I attended the BOD meeting. L1011 is not correct as far as I understand it regarding the 16 ballots. That is the supposition, but I don't think it was ever said that the DOL has said they must be counted.

This is what I was told at the meeting by one of the other observers--someone from JW's court...

1. The DOL has requested an extension until sometime in September to publish their rulings.
2. The DOL has focussed on 4 charges--which seems to indicate that they have in fact found some wrongdoing/errors/valid charges. However, at this point it is not known which 4 of all the charges that were filed.

I "heard" the same rumor about the 16 ballots. However, the version I heard--from someone not in attendance at the BOD meeting who called me the day after the close of the meeting....
"The BOD voted to count the 16 STL ballots, but adjourned before they set a date for the count."

Problem with both versions of the rumor...
1. The DOL is not in the habit of ruling piecemeal on situations where multiple charges are filed, And, a ruling that those ballots must be counted almost makes the other charges moot.
2. I don't think it is legal for the BOD to make any decisions/take any votes which materially affects the membership while "off the record." The entire DOL agenda item was discussed "off the record" which means that the video recording is turned off and those of us in the peanut gallery had to leave the room.

I guess we are going to have to wait until September before this mess gets cleared up.

 

[TWAnr]

Aug 3 is the date for the DOL decision correct?

That was the original date by which the DOL intended to conclude its investigation and make its ruling. It has now been extended to September 3, however, the DOL has made a preliminary finding that the 16 ballots in question should have been counted. Should that preliminary ruling stand, these ballots could be opened, counted and the election certified or a new runoff may take place.

 

[TWAnr]

This is what I was told at the meeting by one of the other observers--someone from JW's court...

Jim,

The source that L1011 and I rely upon is definitely not in the John Ward camp. The DOL preliminary ruling was discussed in a closed Board of Directors meeting. A resolution to require the National Balloting Committee to open and count the disputed ballots with the assistance of Whitley Penn & Assoc. and the DOL was voted down eleven to seven.