Voluntary Options Opening

[bluebird]

Senior FAs do not do not want to qual for any additional A/C. They will probably be able to build a schedule without S-80 for example. They tend to drop quals not pick up. I’ve dropped 727, DC10, A300, 747, etc. but I did have to pick up 777 of course to fly Europe.

 

[jimntx]

Uh, as stated some time back. Senior f/as (and by that I mean, senior enough to be free of reserve) do not have to do anything. Only f/as subject to reserve (and at DFW that might be as senior as 25 years depending on how many of us leave the bottom of the list as furloughees) have to be qualified on everything. If you are comfortably off reserve (no slipping on to the backup list some months), you don't have to do anything. But then, I never said anything different.

Until everyone gets used to PBS, some people may find themselves given trips they wouldn't fly in a million years voluntarily, but you have to learn your particular PBS system--know where the bidding glitches are, know how to rank preferences, etc--before you can make a flat statement that "I won't bid any trips that (fill in the blank)."

I have a friend who flies for Alaska and another who flies for Frontier. Both airlines use PBS, but according to the one at Alaska, Frontier has the better system. The software is more user friendly, and offers more options. The one at Frontier says, "Yes, on paper, but since Republic took over Frontier, they took control of the parameters, tweeked the system to their advantage, and now f/as (particularly middle seniority f/as like her) are back holding trips that they thought they were done with."

But, to get the schedule covered, the company has the power to stick uncovered trips on your schedule (need I even mention that these are the truly ugly trips?), then you have to just stick them on the PBS version of HIBOARD or pay a trip trader to dump them for you. Fortunately for all of us, there are always f/as out there who HAVE to fly whatever is available that block of days in order to make ends meet.

 

[bluebird]

I have a friend who flies for Alaska and another who flies for Frontier. Both airlines use PBS, but according to the one at Alaska, Frontier has the better system. The software is more user friendly, and offers more options. The one at Frontier says, "Yes, on paper, but since Republic took over Frontier, they took control of the parameters, tweeked the system to their advantage, and now f/as (particularly middle seniority f/as like her) are back holding trips that they thought they were done with."

My friend asked our number 1 in seniority FA once why she put in two bids. She said, “With this company, you never know.” It remains true. We need to be prepared for anything.

 

[kirkpatrick]

But, to get the schedule covered, the company has the power to stick uncovered trips on your schedule

True, there's always gonna be something left over. If the company could loosen up the open time rules, like allowing us to pick up from open time without going through crew schedule like MU and option II, they could get rid of a lot of those trips without unloading them on the unwilling.

The company should look for its desired ALV (Average Line Value) and go for that. There's no reason why everyone should fly exactly the same number of hours. If one flies 75 and one flies 95, they average 85. Flexibility is the word.

MK

 

[jimntx]

Mr. Kirkpatrick, I thought we had made it clear that using logic in connection with AA operations is a Rule 32 violation. It's the same as talkin' dirty. Their minds are made up. Do not attempt to confuse them with facts.

 

[bluebird]

True, there's always gonna be something left over. If the company could loosen up the open time rules, like allowing us to pick up from open time without going through crew schedule like MU and option II, they could get rid of a lot of those trips without unloading them on the unwilling.

The company should look for its desired ALV (Average Line Value) and go for that. There's no reason why everyone should fly exactly the same number of hours. If one flies 75 and one flies 95, they average 85. Flexibility is the word.

MK

I agree. To me, flexibility is invaluable.

 

[bluebird]

Just out from APFA: “…A vast majority of American Airlines’ flight attendants – approximately 80 percent – are at the absolute top of the pay scale. Under the company’s proposal, 2,300 of these employees would be furloughed, meaning they would be the first to be called up again, at the height of their contractual salaries, when the company will require new hires. Under the APFA’s plan the company could immediately begin hiring as many as 500 new flight attendants, providing cost-savings and efficiency.”

Top pay scale? Huh?

 

[jimntx]

Top pay scale? Huh?

Yes, there have been no new hires since 2001. Prior to 2000 when I was hired there was a lull in hiring for several years. So, the majority of the "nAAtive" f/as started in 1997 or earlier. Which means they are TOS. Also, the former TW flight attendants were given their seniority for company benefit purposes--such as rate of pay. So, most of them are TOS also. First furloughed, first called back.

You would think the company could figure this out on their own and offer some sort of package. The Dallas Independent School District is having to cut staff for next school year. Instead of laying off people who want to keep their jobs, the DISD offered a package--including $10,000 cash--to people willing to retire or resign at the end of this school year. The package which also offers a percentage of their current annual salary shrinks in size as time goes on.

This morning they already had a line out front of DISD headquarters at 6:00AM of people putting in for the package--some retiring, some resigning. But then, that makes too much sense.

Several years ago, I sat down with an upper level AMR manager that I know socially and showed him where they could offer a retirement package of $10,000 cash plus half of accrued sick leave, and could pay for all of it in less than 2 years with the pay savings from hiring newbies. His response was "We don't have the money to do something like that." Two months later the executives collected that $9 million bonus on the same day we were reporting a $324 million loss for the 1st quarter of that year. Go figure.

 

[commavia]

Several years ago, I sat down with an upper level AMR manager that I know socially and showed him where they could offer a retirement package of $10,000 cash plus half of accrued sick leave, and could pay for all of it in less than 2 years with the pay savings from hiring newbies. His response was "We don't have the money to do something like that." Two months later the executives collected that $9 million bonus on the same day we were reporting a $324 million loss for the 1st quarter of that year. Go figure.

I know it helps make your case, but AMR's employees and their unions just lose so much credibility when they continually restate this false stuff again and again. Why do the unions insist on continue to mix what would be cash payments for employee buyouts - or for whatever else the unions think AMR should have been spending their scant cash on in the last few years - with the entirely non-cash stock options? For the millionth time, most if not all of the "bonus" that went to executives was in the form of stock options - not cash. (You know - the stock options your union not only agreed to, but actively encouraged. But that's another story.)

Just like the stock options you and every other full-time U.S. employee got, those executive stock options had an effective "cost" to the company - cash or otherwise - of zero. And, incidentally, much of those stock options now also have a value to their holders of zero as well. Those stock options were not competing with any other investments, projects, buyouts or anything else AMR could have spent money on - because AA didn't "spend" any money on those stock options!

Thus, your upper level AMR manager acquaintance was right: AMR has not - for some time - had the available cash to pay for early out packages, because AMR has had to be so ultra-conservative with their cash deployment. Every bit of cash AMR's operations have been generating for much of the last decade has been going pretty much entirely to one of three places: paying debt, contributing to the pensions, or buying new 737s.

However, I agree with you 100% that they should definitely do some form of buyout, or maybe a 5+5 like they did several times in the 90s. Today, AMR is using the bankruptcy process to restructure and shield themselves from obligations, just as their competitors did years ago, and this is freeing up cash, just like it did for their competitors years ago. A very smart way to deploy some of that cash - in addition to the new fleet, cabin upgrades, etc. - would be to buy out as many of the senior, topped-out employees as possible. As you say - it would require a cash outlay upfront, but would likely pay for itself in very short order.

But, having said all that, I have asked this question to the FAs I know, and I have gotten a different answer from each one: how attractive would they have to make the deal in order to get a lot of takers?

 

[jimntx]

Do you suppose that the seller of the $30 million townhouse in London took stock options instead of cash? Or, the apartments in NYC? The lack of cash is only an argument when trying to deny benefits to the peons.

Perhaps we could say that keeping a route for 10 years that lost $45 million every year it operated was being "ultra-conservative with their cash deployment?" (Your words, not mine) Or, on the domestic side, running 10 empty a/c a day almost every day between DFW and ATL was "protecting market share." (The phrase given to me by a member of management.) I pointed out that when you have 12 passengers on a 737 on a weekday morning, your market share is measured in decimal points. It was not until AFTER they filed for bankruptcy that they decided to terminate the ORD-DEL route and reduce service to ATL. Yeah, that's being ultra-conservative with their cash deployment for sure.

 

[commavia]

Do you suppose that the seller of the $30 million townhouse in London took stock options instead of cash? Or, the apartments in NYC? The lack of cash is only an argument when trying to deny benefits to the peons.

Huh? First off, the townhouse in London didn't cost AA $30M in cash - far from it. And either way, what does any of that have to do with the fact that the stock options granted to you and everyone else at AMR - including the executives - was a non-cash transaction for the company? Of course the stock options were a cash benefit for those receiving them - including you. Nobody ever disputed that.

But your implication that somehow AMR could have been spending money on buying out costly, topped-out employees and instead decided to spend that money on "bonuses" for executives is just disingenuous and false, just as is the comically dishonest faux intrigue from the unions that enthusiastically supported the stock option-based incentive compensation plan right up until the moment it started doing what everyone knew it was going to do.

Perhaps we could say that keeping a route for 10 years that lost $45 million every year it operated was being "ultra-conservative with their cash deployment?" (Your words, not mine) Or, on the domestic side, running 10 empty a/c a day almost every day between DFW and ATL was "protecting market share." (The phrase given to me by a member of management.) I pointed out that when you have 12 passengers on a 737 on a weekday morning, your market share is measured in decimal points. It was not until AFTER they filed for bankruptcy that they decided to terminate the ORD-DEL route and reduce service to ATL. Yeah, that's being ultra-conservative with their cash deployment for sure.

First off, I have no way of verifying if the ORD-DEL route lost $45M "every year it operated." Do you? So far all I've heard on that is the "analysis" of one guy who is outside AMR and basing his estimates on publicly available data.

And either way, yes, sometimes it is a smart cash management decision to fly something at a loss if there is nowhere better to put that plane. I'm not saying that's the case with ORD-DEL specifically, or with other lighter-load domestic flights on high-frequency routes like DFW-ATL, as you stated. Again, I don't know - I'm not in charge of capacity planning. But what I do know is that if those planes were either going to flying, generating at least some cash, or sitting parked doing nothing but eating up cash (which is what happens when you can't get rid of leaves via bankruptcy), then yes, it may well have been a smart decision to fly those planes at lighter loads on competitive domestic routes, particularly if it allowed AA to keep some pricing power with more-time-sensitive business customers.

Bottom line: I'm not here to hijack your thread and defend what AMR did or didn't spend their cash on, or what routes AMR did or didn't, or should or shouldn't, have been flying. I was simply making the point that your "go figure" line about comparing tens if not hundreds of millions in cash outlays to buy out senior employees with cashless stock option disbursements to AA employees and executives was disingenuous, and not at all a valid comparison to make, in my opinion.

 

[jimntx]

Huh? First off, the townhouse in London didn't cost AA $30M in cash - far from it. And either way, what does any of that have to do with the fact that the stock options granted to you and everyone else at AMR - including the executives - was a non-cash transaction for the company? Of course the stock options were a cash benefit for those receiving them - including you. Nobody ever disputed that.

But your implication that somehow AMR could have been spending money on buying out costly, topped-out employees and instead decided to spend that money on "bonuses" for executives is just disingenuous and false, just as is the comically dishonest faux intrigue from the unions that enthusiastically supported the stock option-based incentive compensation plan right up until the moment it started doing what everyone knew it was going to do.



First off, I have no way of verifying if the ORD-DEL route lost $45M "every year it operated." Do you? So far all I've heard on that is the "analysis" of one guy who is outside AMR and basing his estimates on publicly available data.

And either way, yes, sometimes it is a smart cash management decision to fly something at a loss if there is nowhere better to put that plane. I'm not saying that's the case with ORD-DEL specifically, or with other lighter-load domestic flights on high-frequency routes like DFW-ATL, as you stated. Again, I don't know - I'm not in charge of capacity planning. But what I do know is that if those planes were either going to flying, generating at least some cash, or sitting parked doing nothing but eating up cash (which is what happens when you can't get rid of leaves via bankruptcy), then yes, it may well have been a smart decision to fly those planes at lighter loads on competitive domestic routes, particularly if it allowed AA to keep some pricing power with more-time-sensitive business customers.

Bottom line: I'm not here to hijack your thread and defend what AMR did or didn't spend their cash on, or what routes AMR did or didn't, or should or shouldn't, have been flying. I was simply making the point that your "go figure" line about comparing tens if not hundreds of millions in cash outlays to buy out senior employees with cashless stock option disbursements to AA employees and executives was disingenuous, and not at all a valid comparison to make, in my opinion.

As a matter of fact Mr. Company Cheerleader (I bet you look cute in your skirt and pom poms), the company included the information regarding the 10 years of losses in their announcement that they were terminating the ORD-DEL service. If you don't believe me (and I really, really do not care) about DFW-ATL, feel free to go look at the loads and the frequencies. The planes are all but empty just about every day.

The day I was referring to with the 12 passengers on the 737? That was a Monday--big business travel day. The 73 departed at 0615 with 12 passengers. I worked the 0700 S80. We had 22 passengers. The 0830 S80 had 40 passengers. Check almost any day, you will see similar loads.

 

[commavia]

As a matter of fact Mr. Company Cheerleader (I bet you look cute in your skirt and pom poms),

So either you agree with the union line, or you're a company cheerleader? There's no in-between? Rather than calling me names because you don't like what I'm saying, why not actually dispute the facts of what I'm saying?

What, exactly, do you disagree with? I must have missed the company statement that ORD-DEL was losing money "every year it operated," so sorry if I was mistaken about that. But was I wrong to say that the stock options you and every other AA employee and executive got was non-cash, and that the buyout you proposed would be very much a cash cost?

I got it that you "really, really do not care," but I would submit that if you want to get the public on your side, and perhaps more importantly if you want to get the bankruptcy court on your side, and if you want to turn this into a crusade on behalf of the entire U.S. middle class ("our struggle is America's struggle," etc.) you should try argue with facts rather than emotion.

the company included the information regarding the 10 years of losses in their announcement that they were terminating the ORD-DEL service.

Interesting. Must have missed that. Where was that "inclusion?" In the Jetwire?

If you don't believe me (and I really, really do not care) about DFW-ATL, feel free to go look at the loads and the frequencies. The planes are all but empty just about every day.

The day I was referring to with the 12 passengers on the 737? That was a Monday--big business travel day. The 73 departed at 0615 with 12 passengers. I worked the 0700 S80. We had 22 passengers. The 0830 S80 had 40 passengers. Check almost any day, you will see similar loads.

Who was disputing what your point that there are plenty of flights flying around with low loads? Not me!

I never disputed that, and I entirely agreed with your point about AA now offering a buyout. The only thing I disputed was your false implication that somehow AA should have spent money on buyouts before, but instead spent that money on "bonuses."

 

[jimntx]

You must not be able to sleep at night worrying about your non-rev travel privileges from your mom. What if they cut those in bankruptcy and you have to start paying for seats on the airplane?

 

[commavia]

Still talking about me, and not the points I'm making? Alright.