recall list (furloughed)
- Thread starter faerynufff
- Start date
does anyone know how the company will contact us if we are one of the 200 getting recalled? Will they just send a letter? Not everyone is on USAVIATION or goes on the HUB or gets E-LINES from AFA. Just curious??? I hope they tell us something soon..the suspense is awful!!!! 
:blink:
:blink:I don't disagree with you, but there is a much, much bigger issue here. The company has made a unilateral decision to remove people from the seniority list, against the clear language of the contract. And so far, AFA seems to be doing nothing about it. Our wonderful MEC prez writes blathering messages about MEC elected reps losing unfettered access to the airline network via virtually unchecked space positive travel... affacts HIM, so he fights it no matter how much it costs the company. He writes letters to the CEO protesting a possible changing in nonrev priority because if may adversely affect HIM. Yet, hundreds of people, justified or not, sympethetically or not, are unwittingly removed from the seniority list and he seems to do nothing.
Do you not see a problem with that? Pitbull fought for the furloughed people and the junior flight attendants. Mike Flores unabashedly does not. I agree that there is no excuse for people not keeping the company updated on their whereabouts. But that should not create license for the company to violate the contract, and this should not be ignored by our union.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
DCA,
You make a valid and clear argument. The MECP is just useless. Each INVOL that either passes or that was given a "possible recall", who either doesn't respond, or didn't think had to respond needs to ensure that they remain on the list. The contract states that as long as their is a f/a junior, you do not have to accept recall. Once the list is exhausted and the company goes in inverse order, than a recall either has to be accepted or rejected. Possible recall is no excuse for the company to dwindle the list for their convenience. In fact, I think the union should get the "list" and inquire from the company how they handled those that did not respond. If they say they removed them, than an MEC grievance must be immediately filed. Contact Buddy Brannon, whose the MEC-Vice PRes and will act swiftly, and Deb McCormick MEC-Sec Treas. 412-262-3110 listen to prompts.
Contact those local LECs that actually do union work...let me name them: www.afausairways.org (to find the numbers.
BOS - Lynne Caramello
LGA - Rob Wessinger
CLT - Ann Crowley
PIT - Mark Gentile
DCA - Member of the "useless club"
PHL - Member of the "useless club"
You make a valid and clear argument. The MECP is just useless. Each INVOL that either passes or that was given a "possible recall", who either doesn't respond, or didn't think had to respond needs to ensure that they remain on the list. The contract states that as long as their is a f/a junior, you do not have to accept recall. Once the list is exhausted and the company goes in inverse order, than a recall either has to be accepted or rejected. Possible recall is no excuse for the company to dwindle the list for their convenience. In fact, I think the union should get the "list" and inquire from the company how they handled those that did not respond. If they say they removed them, than an MEC grievance must be immediately filed. Contact Buddy Brannon, whose the MEC-Vice PRes and will act swiftly, and Deb McCormick MEC-Sec Treas. 412-262-3110 listen to prompts.
Contact those local LECs that actually do union work...let me name them: www.afausairways.org (to find the numbers.
BOS - Lynne Caramello
LGA - Rob Wessinger
CLT - Ann Crowley
PIT - Mark Gentile
DCA - Member of the "useless club"
PHL - Member of the "useless club"
What if they just can't find them? Do you think the company is gonna search for these people? They shouldnt have to go looking for them. What are they gonna do, keep a involuntary list forever or until they finally contact the company like 3 years later? I think that they should maybe have a certain amount of time. The ones that did not respond at all should all just be compiled in a no contact list and after the company is finished with the invountary recall and everyone is back they should try one more time for all those that did not respond the first time. Those f/a's should not get offered to come back until the whole entire list is back that wants to be there.
Thanks, Pitbull. You Rock. I will contact the people you mention, and I suggest that everyone else do the same thing. Right is right, and fair is fair. We can't let the company get away with this and we can't let Mike Florez continue his self-serving ways. I will write Doug Parker and Larry Laseur as well.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
xo,
The company doesn't have to search. They just keep moving down the list without any removal.
Its contractual that the company continue recalling off the list until they commence inverse (which is once they reach the bottom of the list). There is no valid reason why the company needs to circumvent the contract process. A "no response" is a pass, just like it was at positions for MAA. And until the company is in inverse order, they can't remove anyone from that list unless a furloughee responds for a permanenet pass or resignation.
XOXO,
That's not what the contract says. I see no need for the company to keep them on if their number really comes up for recall and they don't respond, and no one is saying that the company should have to hunt them down. But the company is trying to clean house on its own terms and that's not contractually permitted.
OK, well I know the company is very shady, so my thinking in all this is that they want to get rid of as many people as possible? Am I correct? The AFA needs to jump on this then if it is in the contract. Why didnt anyone question it last year when they did the first recall?
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
The first "recall" occured in last May,43 to LGA and there was no issue of the company removing anyone from that list. From my knowledge, after the recall, the rest of the "list" remained intact. There were 7 f/as that were at MAA offered positions from that list as well. The company started from the top of the list again, for this recall. Therefore, they can't just now arbitrarily decide not to follow the contractual provisions because of some perceived inconvenience.
What was negotiated with the company on the 2005 May recall to LGA from the invol list, was so that the f/as in PHL who were very junior were not "displaced" again. The junior f/as in PHL asked the union to prevent a displacement to LGA, so the MECP with permission from the MEC negotiated recall from the INVOL list to give those folks an opportunity to come back to mainline.
Company accepted.
flyguy121
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 360
- 0
This is just stupid.
I'm not 100% satisfied with the Union either, but we are getting off topic with the Union-Bashing here. It's always the same story anyway...a big popularity contest that always boils down to who is friends with who, and who will back up whom?
How many times do you people need to be told that ONLY those who do not respond out of the top 200 names will be removed from the Seniority List, because only those top 200 were OFFICIALLY recalled? The rest of the list received letters stating "possibility of recall" and CANNOT be removed from the Seniority List. Like it or not, the rest of the names will remain, even if they do not respond. This has been rehashed ad nauseum because AFA has already stated it is a contract violation and do not want to be held accountable if even one person complains about it in the future.
It really is a shame for those most Junior Furloughs who cannot get close to recall because many who pass never intend to return, but will just continue passing to enjoy flying benefits for as long as possible. It also stinks that when the company is ready to recall 80 more for August, they will start at the top of the list again, instead of starting where they left off with the last recall. But whether you agree or not, like it or not...the bottom line is we can't pick and choose what we like about the contract. Like it or lump it, that's the job.
I'm not 100% satisfied with the Union either, but we are getting off topic with the Union-Bashing here. It's always the same story anyway...a big popularity contest that always boils down to who is friends with who, and who will back up whom?
How many times do you people need to be told that ONLY those who do not respond out of the top 200 names will be removed from the Seniority List, because only those top 200 were OFFICIALLY recalled? The rest of the list received letters stating "possibility of recall" and CANNOT be removed from the Seniority List. Like it or not, the rest of the names will remain, even if they do not respond. This has been rehashed ad nauseum because AFA has already stated it is a contract violation and do not want to be held accountable if even one person complains about it in the future.
It really is a shame for those most Junior Furloughs who cannot get close to recall because many who pass never intend to return, but will just continue passing to enjoy flying benefits for as long as possible. It also stinks that when the company is ready to recall 80 more for August, they will start at the top of the list again, instead of starting where they left off with the last recall. But whether you agree or not, like it or not...the bottom line is we can't pick and choose what we like about the contract. Like it or lump it, that's the job.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
It really is a shame for those most Junior Furloughs who cannot get close to recall because many who pass never intend to return, but will just continue passing to enjoy flying benefits for as long as possible. It also stinks that when the company is ready to recall 80 more for August, they will start at the top of the list again, instead of starting where they left off with the last recall. But whether you agree or not, like it or not...the bottom line is we can't pick and choose what we like about the contract. Like it or lump it, that's the job.
Passing or not responding has no effect on the most junior f/as. By those f/as who either do not respond or passes allows for more junior f/as to be contacted quicker.
flyguy121
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 360
- 0
Perhaps I did not explain myself thoroughly enough. The point I was trying to make was this: many never intend to return, but continue to retain their spot on the list skewing the actual #'s of those who really do wish to return.
Still there are others, who may not be returning at this time for whatever personal reasons (school, work, other personal obligations), but who do wish to return at a later date such as August or beyond.
The point I was trying to make (but didn't communicate clearly enough) was that being a very Junior person on the list is extremely frustrating because you are constantly guessing whether or not you will be reached or how much longer it may take because of all the names above you (whether or not many ever plan to return).
flyguy121,
Well my letter was A Possibility Recall letter and it said that if it was not returned I would be removed from the the list.
Pitbull,
There were alot more than 7 from MAA that were offered LGA mainline last may. More like 50.(give or take a few). All I can figure out is that they want to get rid of the list and this was the fasted way they knew how. Wrong or right they are doing it and it does not look like our AFA cares at this point about anyone who is furloughed, or who gets erased from U for good.
Well my letter was A Possibility Recall letter and it said that if it was not returned I would be removed from the the list.
Pitbull,
There were alot more than 7 from MAA that were offered LGA mainline last may. More like 50.(give or take a few). All I can figure out is that they want to get rid of the list and this was the fasted way they knew how. Wrong or right they are doing it and it does not look like our AFA cares at this point about anyone who is furloughed, or who gets erased from U for good.
