Pilots On Furlough

[LaBradford22]

Actually, if you read the contract, LAX has several satellite bases (SNA, ONT, LGB) that the company can use to terminate a trip sequence for an LAX-based pilot. So, in the case that you described (LAX-based pilot terminating his trip sequence in SNA), the per diem clock was not running and there was no company-paid hotel room.

The only part that doesn't make 100% sense is the deadhead segment from LAX to SAN. Although, as someone else pointed out, that may make sense if you look at the larger picture and all of the other constraints that come into play when scheduling crews. Come to think of it, LAX to SAN doesn't cost the company much in terms of deadheading (about a 1-hour segment).

One thing the company could do to make crew scheduling more efficient is to isolate parts of the fleet, perhaps in hubs. For example, the B757 and A300 have had seats put back because it makes sense to do that in high demand / low yield leisure routes (i.e. Florida and the Caribbean). Maybe the A300 and B757 could be completely isolated in MIA. If the 737-800 fleet grows enough, maybe that one could be isolated in ORD, and the MD80 fleet (~360 today, should shrink in the future) could be isolated in DFW. Then, the crew scheduling for each fleet becomes similar to the way it works at WN - lots of 1-day trips with out and back turns right back to the hub city. Of course, APA may not be too crazy about this, because it limits their pilots' base city options when they move up fleets. For example, an MD80 CA moving up to B757 CA may not like having to relocate to MIA.

 

[jimntx]

Actually, if you read the contract, LAX has several satellite bases (SNA, ONT, LGB) that the company can use to terminate a trip sequence for an LAX-based pilot. So, in the case that you described (LAX-based pilot terminating his trip sequence in SNA), the per diem clock was not running and there was no company-paid hotel room.

The pilot showed me his HI3. It was not a trip termination at SNA. He had a layover in SNA. As I said the first time, that was day one of a 3 day trip. There was ODL time for the SNA "layover." And, he told me that he tried to cancel the hotel room to save the company money. The hotel would not cancel on his say-so and the hotel desk didn't seem to care very much that the room was going to be empty. I forgot to mention that the pilot had been flying this line (different leg combinations on days 2 and 3, but same first day with a paid layover in SNA ) for 3 or 4 months straight. But then what do I know? I only saw the actual paperwork and heard the details from the person flying the trip.

 

[Flyboy4u]

Jim

It's funny that you bring up that capt's story on his sequence. I remember my first year based in ORD. It was 4th of July weekend. The trip I was assigned on reserve started on the 3rd of July. It turns out on the second day of that trip consisted of a LGA turn out of ORD with an 18 hour layover in ORD. I thought how crazy this sequence was so, as the #1, I verified twice with scheduling that they for sure wanted an entire Super 80 ORD based crew to LAYOVER on the 4th of July at their home base. Both responses from scheduling was Yes...This is correct. We got up the next day ending our 3day doing a DFW turn. These examples are just a small fraction of the costs that could be saved if the company would take the time to examine, and correct them. Instead, AA like any other major corporation just goes by the same old standards. Get rid of overhead, and your company will start to see a profit. Too bad those same standards won't work in today's environment. Hopefully, someday Mgmt will wakeup and see where their flaws really are. If not, AA will go down in the history books as just another legacy carrier that used to fly the skies.


What Unity?

 

[AirLUVer]

SAN is a Satellite crew base for pilots only. Crews can bid for the SAN trips but if there are not enough that bid for the trips they have to send them to the regular LAX crews (this is only for S80's and 767/757 crews). For any pilot that is forced to pick up this line that is not a volunteer or bid SAN pilot, the company must provide transportation. If the trip happened to be an early trip the company would have to provide the dead head leg the night before and a hotel in SAN. Also LAX/SNA/LGB/ONT are not considered co-terminals like DCA/IAD or LGA/EWR/BOS and company transportation must be reflected in the sequence.

Most trips anymore with long sits are for widebody/large narrow body crews. Although there are some s80/100 trips with longer sits, but not often.

 

[LaBradford22]

The pilot showed me his HI3. It was not a trip termination at SNA. He had a layover in SNA. As I said the first time, that was day one of a 3 day trip. There was ODL time for the SNA "layover." And, he told me that he tried to cancel the hotel room to save the company money. The hotel would not cancel on his say-so and the hotel desk didn't seem to care very much that the room was going to be empty. I forgot to mention that the pilot had been flying this line (different leg combinations on days 2 and 3, but same first day with a paid layover in SNA ) for 3 or 4 months straight. But then what do I know? I only saw the actual paperwork and heard the details from the person flying the trip.

After reading the contract a bit more closely, this is an example of where the company violated the letter of the contract (although probably not the spirit or intent of the contract) and paid for it.

Section 2-KK of the contract reads, "A satellite base is a station where pilots domiciled at a certain crew base as specified herein may be scheduled to originate and terminate trip sequences. All satellite trip selections must contain only sequences which are scheduled to originate and terminate at the same satellite for the entire contractual month, unless excepted below. The following satellites shall become and remain in effect when crew bases are maintained in the respective cities:
LAX - ONT/SNA/LGB
SFO - OAK/SJC
DCA - BWI
TPA - SRQ
MIA - FLL/PBI
The contract goes on to state that "...any Los Angeles based reserve pilot who originates and terminates a trip at a Los Angeles satellite will have off duty periods immediately preceding and immediately following such trip sequence extended by one hour (1:00) each..."

So, yes, you're right about the technicality of the contract and that this guy did get paid per diem for being at home, and the company did pay for two empty hotel rooms. Then again, if the company tried to not pay the guy and cancel the two hotel rooms, APA would probably file a grievance, in several years it would probably go to arbitration, and APA would probably win based on the contract language quoted above.

It would appear, then, that the company is being foolish in its scheduling practices, and it's quite possible that they are.

On the other hand, there are all kinds of constraints and inefficiencies when it comes to scheduling reserves and building reserve trips anyway, so who's to say - even this seemingly inefficient pairing (with deadhead pay to start and per diem and hotel costs incurred in Los Angeles due to the day one sequence originating and terminating at two different Los Angeles airports) may have been the best way to go. The lines are built each month by an optimizer that uses linear programming to minimize costs. This may be one of the most sub-optimal trips in the whole system, but any way you slice it, with an operation as vast and complex as AA's, you are going to have some sub-optimal trips in there. 17 hours of per diem for two domestic pilots is 17 x 2 x $1.80 per hour = $61.20. Two hotel rooms at the company's bulk rate in Los Angeles probably cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $150. So, a little over $200 was spent. But, this may have saved the company money somewhere else in the bigger picture when all the pieces have to fit together.

I will agree with you on one thing for sure - when it comes to covering trips with reserves, I know that crew scheduling is not cost-conscious when they are trying to cover trips and prevent delays/cancellations. They're much more concerned with getting trips covered, period. Another point - had these guys been reserve pilots, then the deadhead time is not really a cost to the company at all, since the vast majority of reserve pilots do not break guarantee (in fact, under the new system, almost no one breaks guarantee). Reserve sequences are almost always going to be sub-optimal in terms of efficiency, pay and credit, per diem, hotel costs, etc.

So, the company may be being foolish here, or they may not. Who's to say? I'm not a crew scheduler, neither are you - all we can do is lay out the facts and considerations and make a semi-informed guess.

One last point - did the pilots in question ever contact anyone in the Flight department or Crew Scheduling about the apparent inefficiency in their line? Did they point it out to their Base Chief? Perhaps this is an area where an employee suggestion could save the company some money.

 

[LaBradford22]

I forgot to mention...regarding the original topic of this thread, a little birdie told me to expect a furlough of about 200 pilots in September (to be announced by the company by the end of this week). Bank on it...

After that, the furloughs are done, barring something unexpected (another terrorist attack, another serious downturn in the economy, etc). Expect pilot recalls to begin perhaps as early as summer 2005, but more than likely they won't start until the fall of 2005.

 

[IORFA]

AirLUVer

I think you missed it, but SAN is also a F/A satelite base as well. I must have missed the memo that made BOS a satelite of LGA and EWR. I bet the BOS based pilots would be able to correct you on that subject. I am sure it was a small misstep on your part.

 

[mweiss]

However, they are still building schedules for flight attendants and pilots that require that they sit for 4 hours in that hub between flights.

OK, that's just plain stupid. The hubs are rolling, and the crews aren't sticking with a single aircraft for their shifts? How on earth does this make any sense?

Layover for 17 hours (need I point out that this is at their home base, on the clock with per diem being paid). Coincidentally, both Capt and FO lived in Orange County.

Now, how hard would it be to set up scheduling so as to maximize the number of people that have layovers in their home bases? And not pay for hotel rooms if they are on a home layover? And how much money woult that save?

Granted, it's not true "point to point" because in every case the origin or the destination is an AA hub, but that's not what you said.

Well, given that AA has more than two hubs, the only way, based on your odd interpretation of "overfly," that AA could not overfly is to somehow have every flight originate and terminate at every hub. What do you think I might have meant by "overfly?" Honestly... :wacko:

Didn't realize AA FAs were already cleaning the planes. I still think it makes a great deal of sense, as a means of keeping productivity up. I figure it's perfectly OK for WN's FAs to drop the cleaning, as long as they're also willing to have the cost of adding the cleaning crew deducted from their paychecks. Productivity goes down, so should the paycheck.

 

[jimntx]

Didn't realize AA FAs were already cleaning the planes. I still think it makes a great deal of sense, as a means of keeping productivity up. I figure it's perfectly OK for WN's FAs to drop the cleaning, as long as they're also willing to have the cost of adding the cleaning crew deducted from their paychecks. Productivity goes down, so should the paycheck.

Cleaning or not cleaning is not really the issue. Cleaning the plane for free is an issue. Remember flight attendants are not paid if the plane is on the ground and the brake is set.

 

[jimntx]

It would appear, then, that the company is being foolish in its scheduling practices, and it's quite possible that they are..

Well, duh! That was my point in my original post.

On the other hand, there are all kinds of constraints and inefficiencies when it comes to scheduling reserves and building reserve trips anyway, so who's to say -

Try to focus. I never said anything about reserve, did I? And, as I stated the pilot told me that the trip was part of a line on the LAX bid sheet, and he had been bidding this line for the last 3 or 4 months because every trip began with a deadhead from LAX to SAN, followed by SAN-DFW-SNA workday, followed by a layover at SNA on the first day of a 3 day trip.

One last point - did the pilots in question ever contact anyone in the Flight department or Crew Scheduling about the apparent inefficiency in their line? Did they point it out to their Base Chief? Perhaps this is an area where an employee suggestion could save the company some money

Did I not say that the pilot had been bidding it for 3 or 4 months because it gave him a night at home with pay? He liked the line just fine, thank you very much. He was not concerned about the inefficiency. He was just concerned that someone in management might catch on to the stupidity and cost of the scheduling.

 

[jimntx]

OK, that's just plain stupid. The hubs are rolling, and the crews aren't sticking with a single aircraft for their shifts? How on earth does this make any sense?
Now, how hard would it be to set up scheduling so as to maximize the number of people that have layovers in their home bases? And not pay for hotel rooms if they are on a home layover? And how much money woult that save?
Well, given that AA has more than two hubs, the only way, based on your odd interpretation of "overfly," that AA could not overfly is to somehow have every flight originate and terminate at every hub. What do you think I might have meant by "overfly?" Honestly... :wacko:

Didn't realize AA FAs were already cleaning the planes. I still think it makes a great deal of sense, as a means of keeping productivity up. I figure it's perfectly OK for WN's FAs to drop the cleaning, as long as they're also willing to have the cost of adding the cleaning crew deducted from their paychecks. Productivity goes down, so should the paycheck.

AT AA it is rare for a crew of flight attendants and cockpit to stay together all day because the on-duty restrictions for cockpit and cabin are so different. It is all but unheard of for a crew and an a/c to stay together for the whole day. As a general rule any time a flight attendant crew passes through a hub airport, they change equipment--unless the inbound leg was very short, say like AUS-DFW.

 

[mweiss]

Cleaning or not cleaning is not really the issue. Cleaning the plane for free is an issue.

"For free" is a loaded term. If it was part of your job responsibilities, then it wasn't truly for free in the first place. Now, granted, the current metric means that a FA that does nothing but transcons gets paid more per hour of labor than one who does nothing but sub-500s. You'd think that your infallible unions would have fixed this a long time ago. Wonder why they haven't...

 

[Winglet]

We could have Pilots and FAs come in and do the company financial reports, clean the executive toilets and load baggage too, by that logic. If that's what the management wants PUT IT IN THE CONTRACT. The pilots and FAs do A LOT of free work for the company. I myself have spent many many many hours working maintenance issues, making up for management dropping the ball, coordinating change of schedules etc etc etc. GUESS WHAT. I don't get paid for that because I don't get paid until the cabin door is closed and the brakes are released. But I do it to make the airline better . . . . compensating for management ineptness and buffonery. If you want to see an airline really hit the skids, watch what happens when pilots and FAs do JUST THEIR "JOB" according to what management says they want them to do in the contract.

mweiss' comments are inane and display a gross degree of ignorance.

 

[jimntx]

"For free" is a loaded term. If it was part of your job responsibilities, then it wasn't truly for free in the first place. Now, granted, the current metric means that a FA that does nothing but transcons gets paid more per hour of labor than one who does nothing but sub-500s. You'd think that your infallible unions would have fixed this a long time ago. Wonder why they haven't...

Well, no. For free is not a "loaded" term. When I was making a near 6-figure income, I did not question that certain duties--such as, working on weekends or at night or entertaining the "visiting firemen" on boss's orders--were part of the job.

But, when one is paid a gross wage of less than $20k/yr ($22.10hr x 75hrs/mo x 12), being required to perform work duties while not on the clock is against the law in any industry except the airline industry. Wal-Mart was just caught recently requiring employees in some locations to clock out then return to work so that they wouldn't be paid overtime. In fact it is illegal for the airline to require anyone in the non-exempt job categories to do same, except for the flight attendants. I'm not including pilots here because their gross wages exceed the non-exempt limitations even though they are paid on an hourly basis and they also are not paid until the a/c moves.

The airlines have been hiding behind the Railway Labor Act of 1934 (I think the date is correct) for way too long. Years ago, the airlines got the courts to rule that flight attendants were like Pullman porters for the railroads. In the good ole days of segregation and such, the railroads got a provision included in the RLA which said that porters did not have to be paid for any duties while the train was in the station because they weren't really working then. Same for when the a/c is parked at the gate. And, I know that you'll find this hard to believe, but airline CEO's and their companies are financially able to contribute more to politicians than flight attendants can; so, the provisions of the law stand even though the Pullman service is history.

And, yes. Technically, a transcon f/a makes more per hour because they never have to clean the a/c. But, it takes a number of years to have the seniority to bid nothing but transcons AND once you reach 15 years you stop getting hourly raises. At some airlines it's an even shorter time. I interviewed with one airline where the flight attendants maxed out at 9 years.

I do not believe there is a defense in a decent society for requiring hourly employees to perform work without pay just so one does not have to pay someone else to do it. That practice was common in former times, but it was called slavery then.

 

[Oneflyer]

AA F/A do not clean the planes in sense that AA still has to schedule TWU clerks to clean the planes during day time turns. Some F/A do a better job than others. If the F/A would clean the planes, even if paid, it would save AA a lot of money and eliminate a signifigant number of ramp positions.