People like the teamsters regardless will not cross a picket line. Other unions like APA and TWU will. They have like APFA does a no strike no lockout clause in their CBA. In 93 I didnt expect them to, or want them to form a sympathy strike. If they had, all we would still hear is how they saved us. A strike is a strike, and if you cannot hold your membership with out others. You dont deserve what you are asking for.
The Future Of BA Cabin Crew May Just Be The Future Of AA F/a's
- Thread starter galleyguy4u2
- Start date
- Status
I am still confused about how CHAOS can be seen as ineffective. Like many have said, if AA FA's were to walk out, management could have replacements trained in a heartbeat, bad economy or not.
If you look at how CHAOS was used in the 1993 dispute between Alaska Airlines and the AFA, for example, it would seem it was a success. AS already had replacements ready to go. The beauty of CHAOS is that it creates uncertainty throughout the system. It's unpredictable. Management is not able to replace crews in outstations, or at the last minute in the hubs on a full flight to London.
There is no uncertainty when all of the FA's (minus the scabs) walk off the job; the company prepares for it and will have your replacements waiting in the wings weeks before.
A simple google of "CHAOS AFA" will return stories of how this approach can be effective.
From WIKI:
Within two weeks of the court decision, with AFA on the eve of more CHAOS strikes and without any further discussion at the bargaining table, Alaska's CEO made a new bargaining proposal. The company offered to enter into an agreement with AFA that included as much as a 60% raise and addressed all of the other issues sought by the Alaska flight attendants during the campaign for a new contract. Within an hour, a tentative agreement was signed. The members later ratified the new agreement by an overwhelming margin.
After striking only seven flights in a period of nine months, AFA had executed the most successful strike in airline history without harming a single union member. CHAOS is a powerful tool that is legally sanctioned and trademarked by AFA.
Doesn't sound ineffective to me....
If you look at how CHAOS was used in the 1993 dispute between Alaska Airlines and the AFA, for example, it would seem it was a success. AS already had replacements ready to go. The beauty of CHAOS is that it creates uncertainty throughout the system. It's unpredictable. Management is not able to replace crews in outstations, or at the last minute in the hubs on a full flight to London.
There is no uncertainty when all of the FA's (minus the scabs) walk off the job; the company prepares for it and will have your replacements waiting in the wings weeks before.
A simple google of "CHAOS AFA" will return stories of how this approach can be effective.
From WIKI:
Within two weeks of the court decision, with AFA on the eve of more CHAOS strikes and without any further discussion at the bargaining table, Alaska's CEO made a new bargaining proposal. The company offered to enter into an agreement with AFA that included as much as a 60% raise and addressed all of the other issues sought by the Alaska flight attendants during the campaign for a new contract. Within an hour, a tentative agreement was signed. The members later ratified the new agreement by an overwhelming margin.
After striking only seven flights in a period of nine months, AFA had executed the most successful strike in airline history without harming a single union member. CHAOS is a powerful tool that is legally sanctioned and trademarked by AFA.
Doesn't sound ineffective to me....
They had some management and support staff trained. They could not have handled a true strike for long with that.
History says No. I lived through it and that wasnt the case.
No sounds like it was written by AFA, which it was. Pardon me for not buying there bull version. Interesting they were able to secure a 60% raise. I used to think a 6% was good. It almost seems to good to be true. We all know what it means when something sounds too good to be true.
Alaska also replaced some of the strikers. They were out of work waiting for a recall. I wonder how many people could or would be willing to risk everything, while the vast majority risks little to nothing. That drama lasted months after the cooling off period. The APFA stike was done and over in less than 5 days.
So can you post information that proves that AS FA's did not receive the enhancements to their contract that they were seeking?
Are you still arguing that the CHAOS strike was ineffective, or are you saying that CHAOS works? The longest any AS FA was out of work was 2 months, and they were receiving full pay/ benefits from the AFA Strike Fund. And yes, the CHAOS program allows FA's to "volunteer" to strike: ones that maybe are in a better financial/ life position to be out of work for a period of time. I don't see that as them baring the brunt of everyone as you infer, I see it as creative and beneficial to those FA's who would face severe hardships in a full on walkout. Nobody is saying they all weren't prepared to walk out, but clearly that was not necessary.
Would APFA have guaranteed full pay for all the AA FA's if they were locked out immediately, and scabs replaced them?
I think that Crandall honestly didn't think that AA FA's had the ballz to walk off the job. You called his bluff, and I think that's great! I highly doubt that AA would be as unprepared for future threats, as they were in 1993. I am not saying full strikes are not effective, but I would like for you to show me where CHAOS was ineffective, in this case, as you stated earlier.
You show me the 60% raise.
No, would AFA? No they were paid by contributions from other flight attendants. Not out of Pat friends personal accounts.
Bluff or not in the past AA has had replacements ready. Simply there is no way to train enough people in enough time and be able to have them accessible and ready. Perhaps if they started now, and hoped the they had 3 years running day and night to have that many people trained. How many people will be willing to spend weeks training with out pay and with out knowing for sure there will be a job and when. They cannot get 16,000 local Dallas Dollies so an additional investment in hotels and food for these people as well.
You think the company has the employees at the edge of a cliff. I see them standing side by side. One is not going with out the other.
see previous post for answer.
It wasn't a 60% pay raise, it was a 60% raise in pay and benefits. Instead, you show me that they did not receive it. You're the one arguing that it is false, not me.
Uh, no, AFA wouldn't have. That is the point of CHAOS. Through dues and donations from other FA's, AFA was able to pay these select strikers full pay and benefits during the time they were out, which ranged from 4 weeks to 2 months. Only a handful of FA's were affected, and results similar to, or better than, your all out strike were obtained.
If it's looking like a group is going to strike, I am sure AA could have enough replacements trained, and waiting in the wings, within 2-3 months. So what? They start training them early, and then pay them a weekly stipend to remain "ready to go", should they be needed. This isn't hard.
Just because only certain members strike during CHAOS by no means shows that a group is not unified. Others are picketing, volunteering, etc. Do you think the rest just sit back and conduct business as usual, while the strikers suffer?
My previous post where I say that CHAOS was effective, or yours where you say it is ineffective?
Oh I see. Well your original post says they received a 60% raise. Go back and see.
With all anxiety and the aggravation and the months of drama. We were done in less than 5 days. Very little drama or anxiety. Pull the band-aid off quickly, or slow and painfully?
How would they train 16,000 people in 2 to 3 months? Not only Impossible, its impractical. AA doesnt have the time resources or money to waste on a threat, that likely wont materialize.
YES! Its all for one and one for all. Not Mary who brings doughnuts and walks for an hour with an informational picket sign, while Bill sits at home hoping to get back to work in a few months.
Read and you shall find.
No, I copied it from Wiki. Not my words. Wait. You didn't think it was a 60% pay raise, did you? Obviously work rules and benefits are included in a 60% "raise". Sorry if that confused you, just thought that was a given to everybody.
That's just it! With CHAOS, there is very little anxiety or drama for the line flight attendant. The anxiety and drama lies in the lap of management, which is what you want. Again, results were same as/ better than yours, so pleas show me how CHAOS is ineffective. You are disrupting fewer lives, and the lives that were disrupted, were protected with pay and benefits.
You're not serious. Do you know how many third party training facilities would pop up if AA needed to train replacement workers in 2-3 months? Simulators, warehouses, instructors, etc. Not to mention how much of our yearly recurrent can be done online now. It would not be a hard as you would think.
If AA were facing an all out walkout, you don't think they'd pay for replacements? In this day and age, they could pay pretty low, and as jimntx said, the line would be out to the cow pastures down there in Dallas, y'all. Sad, but true.
Nope. Again, the people that volunteer for CHAOS are often times ones that can afford to do so. Remember Bill was not sitting at home hoping for work, he was receiving full pay and benefits, and probably walking the line every day he could. Something that no union could guarantee in an all out walkout.
Got it. You were saying CHAOS can be effective.
No not at all. It says a 60% raise. I guess its more of those AFA smoke and mirrors. Doesnt sound as good when you break it down and it ends up being an actual 3% raise.
And it went on for months. Just shows how weak the effort was. Ours was less than 5 days. Yea I am sure management was dying in anxiety. Wondering when the next 5 flight attendants would go on strike.
No how many? How long does it take to hire and train a qualified training staff? How long for them to become FAA certified? Whats the cost on something like that. Can it be done in your 2 to 3 months time frame? Does AA or any airline have the $$$ to train a completely new work force, on a slim to none bet?
No they wouldn't. Jim can say and believe that. They did before I was there, and they were a joke. How much of one? The few people in training were told pack your things and you will be leaving here in a couple hours. Those people and all the applicants were thrown out and never heard from again.
Good for him, so how long and how many suckers are the rest of the membership willing to support. A dozen? What if had been a hundred or two hundred, how long will the rest of the people agree to keep sending money? In this econpmy how many would be able to afford to send money for the people out on the street? We have thousands and still with and overage how long util someone returns could be a year.
Where did you read that?Got it. You were saying CHAOS can be effective.
Smoke and mirrors? It said nothing about a pay raise, that is what you read into it. How do you know it was just a 3% raise? 3% raise in what? Do you even know what you are referring to? Compare the before and after contract, and get back to me.
It really didn't go on for months. The whole thing lasted about 9 months, but day to day ops were normal. It happened infrequently and sporadically. During that time, all FA's were paid, receiving full benefits, and the outcome was the same, or better, than yours. If management wasn't concerned, then why did they offer such a nice benefits/ pay package? Why didn't they just continue on with the threat of CHAOS down the road? 🙄
Again, you're pulling my leg. Skip the service aspects of training, and we can be trained/ FAA certified real quickly. Probably less than 2 or 3 months for all 16,000. They'd work the scabs at min staffing, so 16,000 is a bloated number. Also, isn't AA currently overstaffed? They could replace y'all with 10k. And yes, AA would have the $$ to train a new workforce, especially one that is willing to take the current flight attendants job for mere peanuts. Don't believe me? Don't think they're out there? Look at Republic. Doing tons of USAir's former flying at half the pay.
Again, that was then. If an airline wanted to , they could line up replacements out the door and down the street for cheap. Have them waiting at home, with a weekly stipend. (Why not? They're getting paid to not work!) You think AA cares if they are a joke? They want their planes in the air. Float all the scabs a $200 weekly stipend to "sit tight".
You still don't get it? They supported each other, there was minimal impact to members, and they received a greatly enhanced contract, which they were fighting for.
AFA has funds set up for just this, and more people would find the money to donate than you would think. It wasn't just FA's donating. Senators, businesses that supported the FA's, etc. Keeping the membership working while being able to strike, turned out to be advantageous. Nobody suffered a hardship, as often happens in lengthy work stoppages. If your strike had turned out to be 2 years as opposed to 5 days around a holiday travel period, the end result would've been much different. Especially in this economy. Just ask a TWA friend of yours what tolls lengthy strikes can have on people, families, and lives.
Look, we can agree to disagree, but I think you should retract your statement that CHAOS was ineffective. I'm not arguing that your strike was ineffective. Why can't you admit that AS CHAOS was effective? You really hate AFA that much?
AFA says in your post 60% raise.
Lets see you say it didnt go on for months it lasted 9 months. Wow what a contradiction.
This is your professional opinion based on what? Nothing. BTW 16000 is based on being multi plane qualified. If you cannot use crew members on S80 737 and 757 you will need more even with min staffing which the domestic operation already has.
You wish. Everyone doesnt want to be a flight attendant. You can tell by the caliber of people hired over the last years they were hiring.
You mean that 60% raise. They sure did support each other. A half dozen people sat with out a job while al the rest worked extra hours and threw a couple bucks in a hat for them to eat. At APFA I stood next to my fellow crew members I knew they had my back and I had theirs. We stood together strong and proud, TOGETHER!
Wouldnt have been two years. APFA called for an 11 day strike. We all stood together and no one was going to replaced.
Its a useful tool when you cannot get the membership to stand together as one.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
Interesting debate between FA Mikey and Itestwell.
If I was an airline CEO I think I would rather tolerate random disruptions to a couple (or couple hundred) flights every now and then. Especially if the airline was large with serveral thousand flights per day. All the company would need is a slick PR firm to handle it. Isolated incidents would not get the national media attention and negative publicity a strike would generate for an airline. Since disruptions would be random & isolated it gives the company time to stall and BS during negotiations and wear out the union. There would definitely be a greater emotional toll on the union members if after weeks & months still no contract. What if the months turn to year(s)? Any 'good' management team would exploit the situation and in the end win. Big-time.
With a strike public opinion may go either way, some believing it is the airline at fault others saying it is the unions at fault for the strike. The side with the better PR machine might have some advantage. The problem with a strike is that it would get national attention. Daily. It would probably put more pressure on the company to settle/make a better offer. Especially if everybody walks. Look how each time the auto makers caved to the UAW. Without a doubt UAW won each time it went on strike. In todays economy an airline might find the time and resources to line up replacements, but it is still a hassle. A much bigger hassle compared to dealing with the occasional crew walking out to strike.
Just my $0.02
If I was an airline CEO I think I would rather tolerate random disruptions to a couple (or couple hundred) flights every now and then. Especially if the airline was large with serveral thousand flights per day. All the company would need is a slick PR firm to handle it. Isolated incidents would not get the national media attention and negative publicity a strike would generate for an airline. Since disruptions would be random & isolated it gives the company time to stall and BS during negotiations and wear out the union. There would definitely be a greater emotional toll on the union members if after weeks & months still no contract. What if the months turn to year(s)? Any 'good' management team would exploit the situation and in the end win. Big-time.
With a strike public opinion may go either way, some believing it is the airline at fault others saying it is the unions at fault for the strike. The side with the better PR machine might have some advantage. The problem with a strike is that it would get national attention. Daily. It would probably put more pressure on the company to settle/make a better offer. Especially if everybody walks. Look how each time the auto makers caved to the UAW. Without a doubt UAW won each time it went on strike. In todays economy an airline might find the time and resources to line up replacements, but it is still a hassle. A much bigger hassle compared to dealing with the occasional crew walking out to strike.
Just my $0.02
goodgirl37
Senior
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 400
- Reaction score
- 2
Not a chance, as stated multiple times before, the second the crews strike, replacement crews will replace them that day and the AA flight attendants (or any airline f/as) can kiss their job goodbye.. Its a fact, this isnt 1993 or the 80s folks.. CHAOS is MUCH more effective in todays environment.. Havent you guys heard of the phrase "change with the times or the time will change you" ??? Seems like you guys are just lost on logic.
Obama administration wont allow a strike in these times so that is not going to happen for a while . An airline strike would further disrupt the economy.
Also replacing mechanics over F/As would be easier in the sense that mechanics come to an airline already knowing their skill. F/As require training on A/C types, medical, serving , emergency procedures...... etc..
Thats rich coming from someone who has NEVER had to wake up look in the mirror and judge the risks and rewards and then walk a picket line. You have no idea how gut wrenching it is to not be able to go to work at the job you love.
There is no way to have 16,000 replacements ready and available. Chaos has been threatened but never proven to work. Simply forcing a small group of employees to lay it on the line is insulting. Trying to do that on a very large scale would be a disaster.
Fine at Alaska they found half a dozen people who risked it all. Were put on the same flight and struck. It made the news and thats about it. Thats all chaos has ever done for all the time AFA has threatened it.
Would a single flight walkout matter to AA? No they would roll out another crew before the passengers new what happened. They would announce through the news about the FA's trying to disrupt passengers travel plans and how they got another crew and save the day. If they tried something like larger like no JFK flying. Locked all those people out. Called in the first round of furloughs, problem solved. They are not strike breakers, they are not on strike. Buy anyone scheduled to arrive or depart JFK is or was locked out. So now APFA members have to find a way to provide a paycheck to the 1300 people who are locked out. Not only do they not have an income, they have to go on cobra there is another 600 dollar expense. How many people can afford a couple hundred dollars a month to the people who laid there jobs on the line, and for how long?
I disagree expecting a few people to bear the brunt of the risk. Too many people who are a paycheck away from disaster to walk out while others are still working risking nothing. The risk and the reward should be equally shared.
- Status
