Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'American Airlines' started by jimntx, May 21, 2020.
I was thinking everyone new it was sarcasm. But apparently at least one didn't.
Think about this fellas. Could AA be doing their typical tactics yet again as they have in the past? They started out very early (as did United) screaming that 30% cuts are coming. Could this all be a ploy (just like back in BK when they reduced the number of people being laid off so the union would agree to it) They are calling for 30% but when the time comes the asso. and company will get together and come to an agreement for a smaller amount, say 15-25% cuts, and the asso. will claim that they saved hundreds and/or thousands of jobs by their tough nego's. When in fact it is all just a ploy from the get go. Claim 30% cuts, higher than needed, play the nego's game with the co. and asso. for several days and come out saying; we fought tooth and nail to save as many jobs as possible, when all along they are in complete agreement with the company the whole time. Another tactic would be for the asso. to come out and say; we found a way to save jobs; you guys take a 17% pay cut (sound familiar guys?) and save thousands, just so later they can still have layoffs and file for BK and get even more concessions after that. All this is what happened last time. Don't expect any different this time. Say no to pay reductions and concessions. Think about it guys. And look how many years you had to deal with that BK contract last time, it just isn't worth it in the long run...
We were easily 15-20% overstaffed before COVID in most work groups, we never had the merger job loss one would normally get.
So the 30%is actually understated IMHO, baring a quick recovery.
A more interesting thought to me is are the unions going to fight voluntary actions and force involuntary ones? The United FAs union has already said as much.
The stated 30 percent figure is for employees not even represented by the Association. Has AA publicly said a number for those who are represented? No.
We all need to stop being fixated on percentage numbers the company is posting. Real hard numbers need to be posted if available and then do the math to see what the percentages are.
30% of what and where?
There are plenty of important parameters that go into the formula trying to figure out the numbers.
Wide body, narrow body, International, domestic and so on with staffing levels. Then you have ground staffing. Again you have to look at flight schedules and equipment types. Hubs vs out stations. Mainline operations may be altered to either pick up more flights from feeders or shift away. Future bookings may delay a flight from being pulled or keep it all together. I'm looking at frontline employees including low level management (supervisors) who work along with frontline employees. So again I say 30% of what? Be careful when you talk layoffs because some of us may not have a job to come back too.
Exactly. Everyone is so fixated on a number that doesn't even apply to the overwhelming majority of this board. Nothing has been disclosed and already conspiracy theories are being ran with. Wait for the real numbers to come. It will be here soon enough. Then bust out the tin foil hats.
BTW the 30% i have heard is in cost not head count, keep that possibility on mind too.
I would agree with that except for the fact that AA has been hiring new people in all job category
30% management and admin. is how it was stated. However, some union leaders from the Pilots group has also said that they too think it means approx 30% in employee groups. No it has not been announced as of yet by AA, but it is what some union leaders are thinking especially with Pilots and F/A's.
I've seen this before. Hire new people so you can use a crisis to get rid of the ones you don't want. Then if you need to further cut you go after the new people.
However, this does not account for represented employees. Despite what the company may want, seniority still rules the day when you are talking about layoffs/job eliminations/--with the exception of voluntary leaves of absence. There are currently 25,000 (give or take a few thousand) flight attendants on the active role. Before #1 (who is probably older than dirt--like me) is laid off or leaves voluntarily, #s 25000 through #2 have to go. Unless I'm missing something, hiring a new AMT seems kind of callous if you know there is going to be a 30% reduction in force among the AMTs because those new hires have to be used for the first X number of AMTs to go. Oh wait, we are talking about AA. As Emily Latella might say, "Never mind."
I believe they were hired to cover for the 100k buy out that didn’t happen
The reason they were hired is meaningless in consideration of who gets furloughed and who doesn't with represented employees--aka, union members.
AA management isn't smart enough to say 30% when they only need 15%.
They're simply borrowing the percentages Delta and United came up with for their management reductions. Both airlines seem to be making plans for being 30% smaller during the next 18-24 months, and making sure that they can adjust their cost structures to make up for the drops in income.