underfly vote

[jimntx]

----------------
On 7/13/2003 10:24:40 PM s80dude wrote:


"Either way, given the operational shortage we seem to be experienceing, I feel we may not see any furloughs as we seem to be short flight attendants as it is."

And at what point did you begin to think that AA cared a whit about whether or not you were being flown til you dropped? Patrick O''Keeffe himself has put into writing that the normal end-of-summer cutback in flying, the end of the partnerships in September, and the grounding of half the remaining Fokkers (scheduled for Sept.) would result in additional overages. He also said that, of course, OVLs and partnerships would be offered--the implication being that if the overages were not offset by OVLs there would be additional furloughs. And, when you add the probable closing of the STL hub and base that''s another 900 f/a''s that have to be slotted back into the AA system. Some of them are rather senior (some of the ones who volunteered to go to STL) and they will have no problem bumping someone for a place at their old bases.

I think you are wrong about no more furloughs. After all, AMR''s problems were and continue to be caused by the flight attendants. Everyone know that.

 

[DFWCC]

----------------
On 7/12/2003 1232 PM MiAAmi wrote:

----------------
On 7/12/2003 12:06:08 PM DFWCC wrote:

Ok for us under the wing type. What is option #2?

----------------​

Part of the concessions the company wanted us to agree to was an underfly agreement. Say a trip MIA-NYC is scheduled to take 3hrs and you actually make it in 2.5 hours. The company only wanted to credit us for the 2.5 hrs. Since the membership was not happy with this item the company offered to exchange this item for 1 of 2 other options. The 2nd option basically changed the length of duty a domestic f/a can be flown and accounted for an additional 200 or so less positions. The 3rd option played with our sick time and accounted for even less positions. Obviously I am giving you the general terms and there are a few little details I am leaving out but I hope you understand. Option 2 seemed the least offensive in my opinion. Even with the 200 or so positions lost the company must still offer leaves. I really doubt that there will be any furloughs in the end with this option.

----------------​

MiAAmi Hye thx for the info. seems like AA loves you as much as they do us

 

[s80dude]

 

[TWAnr]

----------------
On 7/13/2003 9:24:54 PM and 922 PM FA Mikey wrote:

I think not STL voted 914 to keep the underfly. The wonderful always giving benevolent LLCers are looking to give a few more screws to the original AAers on top of the lawsuits.

I doubt we will see additional furloughs. They was a further seniority ajustment. We lost another 200 flight attendants off the top. This option II was planning for just over 200 furloughs

----------------​

So voting to preserve jobs and hopefully, but unrealistically, speeding up recalls is voting to put the screws to you. Your selfishness and self centeredness never cease to amaze me.

As far as additional furloughs are concerned, just wait until the next round of route restructuring and cutbacks expected to be announced this week. Numerous non stop flights will be cut and STL will lose its hub status. When you combine that with the annual fall seasonal schedule pull down, you will see hundreds, if not thousands of additional lay offs.
By the way, thanks for signing me up for every spam mailing list on the face of the planet. I must admit that the name that you chose for me, Twan Russell, was quite imaginative.

 

[TWAnr]

----------------
On 7/13/2003 9:17:10 PM MiAAmi wrote:

Thats what the remaining membership is trying to maintain, a profession worth coming back to. TWAnr, if your wife is to be recalled wouldn''t she rather come back to a job that you get paid your schedule?

----------------​

Longer duty days with inadequate minimum rest periods in between make a profession that is worth coming back to? Whom are you trying to kid.

It is not all about money. It is about quality of life issues and preserving jobs.

Besides, unless we prevail in the seniority law suits, no one at TWA (well, except for Kirkpatrick) expects to ever be called back.

 

[MiAAmi]

I think Mikey was referring to the 200 less positions that were associated with Option 2. I don''t feel anyone really thinks that there might not be more furloughs down the road. I admire anyone that has intentions of retaining jobs. But at what price? Should we all work at minimum pay to make sure that everyone has a job? If the former TWA''ers get called back they go back to DOH pay. Not so for all the other AA f/a''s if called back. Thats a big difference when you are considering underfly.

 

[kirkpatrick]

----------------
On 7/13/2003 9:24:54 PM FA Mikey wrote:

I think not STL voted 914 to keep the underfly. The wonderful always giving benevolent LLCers are looking to give a few more screws to the original AAers on top of the lawsuits.

----------------​

The benevolent LLCers (myself included) voted for option one to save 208 jobs, which, by the way, are AA jobs since we''re all history now.

Although I don''t think there will be another furlough due solely to the underfly vote, the loss of those jobs still hurts, since that number of people will have to be absorbed by the system before recalls begin.

MK

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 7/14/2003 9:02:32 AM TWAnr wrote:

By the way, thanks for signing me up for every spam mailing list on the face of the planet. yes I must admit that the name that you chose for me, Twan Russell, was quite imaginative.

----------------​

I guess you think I did something to you. Sorry to let you down. Not my style. But your unfounded accusations are of no surprise.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 7/14/2003 9:02:32 AM TWAnr wrote:
So voting to preserve jobs and hopefully, but unrealistically, speeding up recalls is voting to put the screws to you. Your selfishness and self centeredness never cease to amaze me.
----------------​

The selfishness of destroying all quality of life in the job is some how better than 200 only possible furloughs. How great will this job be to come back to had the underfly gone through?

 

[TWAnr]

Mike,


I accept your denial that you are responsible for signing me up for all the spam email lists. It just so happened that the avalanche unwanted of porn and other email messages started coming right after I sent you an email through the private messaging system of this board.

I apologize for jumping into an unfounded conclusion and for accusing you for being responsible for something which you did not do.

On the quality of life issue, in my opinion, fifteen hours duty days followed by only eight hours rest periods, are far worse than losing pay when flights arrive early. Money is not everything, but then we have always differed on this issue.

 

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 7/14/2003 10:57:36 AM TWAnr wrote:


On the quality of life issue, in my opinion, fifteen hours duty days followed by only eight hours rest periods, are far worse than losing pay when flights arrive early. Money is not everything, but then we have always differed on this issue.

----------------​

The layover rest was not a part of the vote. That is something to be taken up in the next negotaitions.

 

[TWAnr]

----------------
On 7/14/2003 1138 AM FA Mikey wrote:

The layover rest was not a part of the vote. That is something to be taken up in the next negotaitions.

----------------​

I am well aware of it.

I was referring to the cumulative effect of the work rule changes in the restructuring agreement, combined with this new increase in maximum duty day. It can result in fifteen hours on duty, with no crew meals, followed by inadequate rest between workdays. This is an inhumane working environment. I can just imagine flying all day, with insufficient breaks between flights to obtain something to eat, followed by a mad rush to the hotel to get some minimal amount of sleep before another day of slaving fifteen hours on duty.
I know that this has been the subject of lively discussion on both the APFA and the 4M boards.

 

[FA Mikey]

Best of all for those of us who have lives at home, we have more time there.

 

[FA Mikey]

The maximum scheduled duty day was extended 30 minutes to 13 hours. Its unlikely that the company will schedule trips to such an extent. They have been willing to change schedules to accommodate rest for weary crews in the past. Case in point was the all nighter tag legs to Belo Horizonte and Asuncion.

You will also find for all the whining that these trips that have duty days with lots of flying go so senior. Look at Rio. Now a two day, and as senior as trips go.

I held by R1 a Fll schedule that has 8 hour turns and 21 hour 3 days. Works 11 days and the only reason it went junior to 7000 seniority in the fact that it is a 737 sequence.

Aruba, Santo Domingo, Kingston, and Port Au Prince as well, as the morning 2 day London. The Chicago San Juan turns, All hard long days, and go senior, senior, senior. For all the crying and complaining. 99% of the people who want these trips will never be able to hold them.

 

[MiAAmi]

TWAnr, You don't have to imagine it. International is already doing it. Mikey is right, all the short layovers on IFS went extremely senior. Now whether they continue to go senior is yet to be seen. Longer work days allow those who want to fly more do so. Those who don't can always drop their trips.