Summer timetable...new services/service changes

[jimntx]

Heard through the grapevine that Lauri Curtis made reference at a recent staff meeting to "a cutback in flying in the Fall." Anyone else heard anything like this or know what's up?

She said that the "planned cutback in the Fall" had allowed them to cancel the flight attendant recall planned for this year.

 

[FWAAA]

Gotta assume that a few more MD-80s will be parked if fuel prices stay near $2/gal - like the three parked in December. The two new 777s are the only new airplanes on the horizon, and although the PVG flight probably requires a substantial number of FAs, the potential parking of a few more narrowbodies probably cancels it out and then some (covering the attrition).

Nevertheless, I'll be happy when AA finally announces recalls. Even better when AA recalls everyone off the furlough list and is forced to hire new FAs again.

 

[nyc6035]

Gotta assume that a few more MD-80s will be parked if fuel prices stay near $2/gal - like the three parked in December. The two new 777s are the only new airplanes on the horizon, and although the PVG flight probably requires a substantial number of FAs, the potential parking of a few more narrowbodies probably cancels it out and then some (covering the attrition).

Nevertheless, I'll be happy when AA finally announces recalls. Even better when AA recalls everyone off the furlough list and is forced to hire new FAs again.

I'm personally convinced this company will continue to park as many Md80s and PW 757s as required to see to it that they never recall a single former TWA F/A at the higher pay scale. :angry: :angry: :down: :down:

 

[local 12 proud]

Heard in Tulsa that as many as 25 MD-80's to be parked, mostly those crappy TWA's.

 

[jimntx]

I'm personally convinced this company will continue to park as many Md80s and PW 757s as required to see to it that they never recall a single former TWA F/A at the higher pay scale. :angry: :angry: :down: :down:

Do you really think the company cares about the salaries? Dream on. First off, it was the COMPANY that awarded them that top of scale pay. The flight attendants who are leaving are top of scale. The TW flight attendants when recalled are top of scale. As far as the company is concerned it is a financial zero sum game. Dollar in, dollar out.

And, even though this has been discussed time and time again, I'll repeat. As of July 1, 2005 (date of last published seniority list), there were 18,921 active flight attendants. 12,885, or 67.94% have a seniority date prior to 01FEB92--you reach 15th year pay scale (TOS) at the beginning of the 15th year[/]. 13, 984, or 73.94% are at TOS or within 2 years of TOS. It will not cost the company a single extra dime in salary to recall TW flight attendants.

To avoid a recall before July, 2008, the company will have to forget about the China service or any other expansion internationally--remember additions to the International f/a corps will come from domestic--or they will have to almost eliminate domestic service. Seems an awfully high price to pay just to avoid those "evil" TWA f/as.

 

[FWAAA]

While I predict that some more MD-80s will be parked, I don't think it will be for the purpose of never recalling the beleaguered, furloughed TWA FAs. Sadly, another cost item will trump the FA pay scale: fuel.

In 1998 and 1999, AMR paid an average of $0.55 per gallon. In 2005, AMR paid an average of $1.723. In the fourth quarter just ended, AMR paid an average of $2.021. Arpey and Beer hinted that AMR will probably pay that (or more) in the first quarter, and the price has continued to spike skyward again.

Old JT8Ds could be forgiven their fuel-guzzling sins at 55 cents a gallon; not so sure the same can be said today at over $2/gallon. There's definitely some fuel price at which AA will reconsider the wisdom of chasing low-yield domestic fares on routes in competition with LCCs - and $2/gal for an entire year may be that price. Especially if fares continue to be depressed due to capacity issues.

 

[jimntx]

FWAAA, not only cost, but let's be realistic, the MD-80s are coming to the end of their useful lives, high jet fuel prices or no. The problem, though...replace them with what? Are we in any financial condition now to buy new airplanes?

Barring new rolling stock, what are our options?
1. Give more and more flying to AE. This option is about to max out, I think. AE has no a/c on order that I know of. Plus, I know several FFs who have told me they will desert AA if they have to start flying on RJs domestically.
To them, flights like DFW-BUF on an RJ are NOT an option.
2. Just pull out of a number of markets. Does anyone believe that shrinking to profitability would be successful? And, what does that do to the feed into the domestic and International hubs?
3. What else? (Let's all try to be serious here and not just turn this into another management-labor whine.)

 

[nyc6035]

Do you really think the company cares about the salaries? Dream on. First off, it was the COMPANY that awarded them that top of scale pay. The flight attendants who are leaving are top of scale. The TW flight attendants when recalled are top of scale. As far as the company is concerned it is a financial zero sum game. Dollar in, dollar out.

And, even though this has been discussed time and time again, I'll repeat. As of July 1, 2005 (date of last published seniority list), there were 18,921 active flight attendants. 12,885, or 67.94% have a seniority date prior to 01FEB92--you reach 15th year pay scale (TOS) at the beginning of the 15th year[/]. 13, 984, or 73.94% are at TOS or within 2 years of TOS. It will not cost the company a single extra dime in salary to recall TW flight attendants.

Jimntx,

I certainly wasn't angling to pick a fight with you....however consider it this way...if AA waits until late 2008 to begin hiring FAs they get to do that at starting scale...not TOS. I don't know the specific numbers but we can easily assume that paying 3 FAs to fly an MD80 from PHL-DFW is going to cost less per ASM with new FAs than with TOS FAs. This makes it 'easier' to compete with the likes of B6, NK, etc. who don't have long tenured TOS FAs.

I believe to think that AA doesn't have this considered in their calculus is naive. (No disrespect intended).

As to why the company agreed to TOS initially...well probably to get the deal done...and get the capacity out of the domestic and Carribean System...and so the TWA MD80s could be used to replace the 727s and F100s.

 

[jimntx]

Jimntx,

I believe to think that AA doesn't have this considered in their calculus is naive. (No disrespect intended).

There were two recalls in 2004. That year 705 furloughees were recalled--I was in the second recall. Since July, 2004 (the month of the first recall that year), we have lost approx. 1200 flight attendants to attrition--quit, died, retired, or got fired. So, we now have approx. 500 fewer f/as than we did in the Summer of 2004 when f/as were being reassigned constantly to make up for shortages.

The attrition rate shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, I have talked with a number of flight attendants who were active that summer, and they all say that if there is another summer like the summer of 2004, they will quit. As one put it...It's one thing to call your neighbor on occasion and ask her to pick up Suzy at school or take Tommy to soccer practice because you are stuck somewhere with a mechanical. It's another thing entirely to call week after week after week because you have been reassigned AND you are never home to return the favor. The neighbor gets tired of that really quickly.

As we are losing an average of 75 f/as a month, what would be naive would be to believe for a second that the company can sustain that rate of attrition for two and a half years without recalling more furloughees. And, even if they could, by July, 2008, approx. 80% of the remaining f/as would be at top of scale or within 2 years of TOS. How many new hires would they have to bring on board to reduce the average hourly salary to the point that it would pay for decimating the domestic system just to avoid a recall? By then we would have approx. 16,000 f/as. Approx. 13,000 of them would be at top of scale. With 13,000 f/as at 40/hr (for the sake of argument), you would have to hire 7,000 at $20/hr just to reduce the average hourly pay to $33/hr.

The training center operating full tilt boogie can process approx. 1000-1500 trainees per year--maybe less now that we have leased most of the training center to the insurance company. In any case it would take over 7 years to get 7000 new hires on board--if you start 1000 trainees, you do not graduate 1000 f/as.

Now your 13,000 TOS flight attendants are still at top of scale with more f/as joining them each month. In addition the people that you hired in July, 2008 and in following months are going to be getting raises each year; so, that average hourly salary that you are trying to get low to pay for not bringing back the TOS former TW flight attendants continues to creep back up toward the neighborhood of $40/hour.

 

[jj]

Heard in Tulsa that as many as 25 MD-80's to be parked, mostly those crappy TWA's.

Hey local I was just on one of your "Crappy 757 s" from AA.Planes on both sides are a little worn.

 

[kirkpatrick]

--or they will have to almost eliminate domestic service. Seems an awfully high price to pay just to avoid those "evil" TWA f/as.

I'll repeat a point I've made before - TWA FA's may be mostly top of scale, but we're way down on the pension liability cost. We're vested, but only for our years of service at AA, which is very low. Those retiring now are only collecting 50 or 60 dollars a month.

As for retiring aircraft, we already have AA's plans for this year. A 4% reduction in domestic service, accompanied by a 4% increase in international flying. I don't think any large scale reduction will be happening in the next few weeks, or we'd know about it.

Of course, the MD80's are getting a bit old, but you don't just dump 350 airplanes all at once. We'll be seeing them around for quite a few more years.

But back to the FA shortage. That's something that's going to have to be dealt with in the next few months, not years. We've heard from a number of sources that a recall of 300-500 was planned for the winter, but was put off by the schedule reductions and loss of extra positions. That gives rise to two questions:

1) Why was a recall planned? Answer - because it was needed.

2) How much of a headcount reduction was achieved by the above mentioned measures? Answer - uncertain, but the schedule reduction was less than 1% and that and the lost extras couldn't possibly amount to more than a couple of hundred.

Attrition for the period Nov 2004 through Dec 2005 was 1063, and from Jan 06 through Apr 06 another 275-300 will drop out. This simply cannot last much longer without one of two things: A significant reduction in service or a fairly significant recall.

MK

 

[jimntx]

Heard in Tulsa that as many as 25 MD-80's to be parked, mostly those crappy TWA's.

Exactly what is "crappy" about them? As someone who flies them almost every day, I see very little difference in them and the AA MD-80s other than the galleys which is of no consequence to anyone except a f/a and the smaller overhead bins. And, I've noticed that as the TW 80s go in for heavy maintenance, the galleys are being swapped out for AA style galleys and the expanded o/h bins are being installed.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Heard in Tulsa that as many as 25 MD-80's to be parked, mostly those crappy TWA's.

TWA's MD80's averaged very slightly newer than AA's, and included the newest 24 built just before the line was shut down.

As for "crappy," who's been maintaining them for the last five years? AA replaced their own small overheads for larger ones; now that ours are yours, nothing stops the company from doing the same.

MK

 

[FA Mikey]

Jimntx,

I certainly wasn't angling to pick a fight with you....however consider it this way...if AA waits until late 2008 to begin hiring FAs they get to do that at starting scale...not TOS. I don't know the specific numbers but we can easily assume that paying 3 FAs to fly an MD80 from PHL-DFW is going to cost less per ASM with new FAs than with TOS FAs. This makes it 'easier' to compete with the likes of B6, NK, etc. who don't have long tenured TOS FAs.

I believe to think that AA doesn't have this considered in their calculus is naive. (No disrespect intended).

As to why the company agreed to TOS initially...well probably to get the deal done...and get the capacity out of the domestic and Carribean System...and so the TWA MD80s could be used to replace the 727s and F100s.

Lets see there is a lifetime recall on all the former TWA pilots, But have somehow contrived and elaborate agenda to keep the former TWA f/a's out because of cost.

AA is willing to shrink and give up market share just to keep a couple thousand hard working people on the street.

Anyone who believes that is in there own little padded room.

 

[nyc6035]

There were two recalls in 2004. ...


As we are losing an average of 75 f/as a month, what would be naive would be to believe for a second that the company can sustain that rate of attrition for two and a half years without recalling more furloughees. And, even if they could, by July, 2008, approx. 80% of the remaining f/as would be at top of scale or within 2 years of TOS. How many new hires would they have to bring on board to reduce the average hourly salary to the point that it would pay for decimating the domestic system just to avoid a recall? By then we would have approx. 16,000 f/as. Approx. 13,000 of them would be at top of scale. With 13,000 f/as at 40/hr (for the sake of argument), you would have to hire 7,000 at $20/hr just to reduce the average hourly pay to $33/hr.

The training center operating full tilt boogie can process approx. 1000-1500 trainees per year--maybe less now that we have leased most of the training center to the insurance company. In any case it would take over 7 years to get 7000 new hires on board--if you start 1000 trainees, you do not graduate 1000 f/as.

Now your 13,000 TOS flight attendants are still at top of scale with more f/as joining them each month. In addition the people that you hired in July, 2008 and in following months are going to be getting raises each year; so, that average hourly salary that you are trying to get low to pay for not bringing back the TOS former TW flight attendants continues to creep back up toward the neighborhood of $40/hour.

You bring up some valid points. I guess I would need to look at the 10K to try to get a better vibe for the aircraft scheduled to come off lease...but the sense I get is that this compnay sees it's future not in servicing routes like ALB-ORD-SNA but rather in International services to places like DEL, PVG, etc. My feeling...and it is just that...a feeling...is that they are perfectly happy to parcel out nearly all of the domestic service to the likes of AE so that they can concentrate their capital on the International routes...where they believe they can see the most $. Will we see this overnight...no. Will it happen...I think so. Look at what your seeing in places like PVD, PIT, etc...outsourcing the stations and the flight service to 'partners.' I get the feeling that when you do finally see the order to replace the MD80s (with the 737 or it's successor) it will be for far far fewer than the 350 or so MD80s on the property now. TWA ran an 'acceptable' domestic network with approximatly 110 or so narrowbodies (figuring that only a portion of the 757s were domestic trunk service). I would imagine AA could cover the major swath of the country with probably about 200 narrowbodies. Enough service to keep the business traffic....so that they use AA for International Service...but not so much that you have to truly have to fight to keep all the leisure traffic tooth and nail.

I realize what I'm saying isn't the conventional view...but I think it's an alternative way of looking at it and it more or less follows the trend of what AA has been doing...particularily since fuel prices have spiked.

I guess I'm suggesting that over time they won't 'fight' the Jetblues of the world...that they will instead capitulate some of the non-stop routes to them in high density markets (i.e. JFk-SFO/OAK) and instead try to keep their business traffice over the hubs (JFK-DFW-SFO). Does that work as a business model? It didn't really for TWA...maybe AA will stay just big enough domestically to make it work.

If this were to come to fruition...how many FAs will they need to run the exisitng widebody service and about a 200-250 narrowbody fleet?