$17,000/yr From Each F/A?

[LGA Fleet Service]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 5:31:43 PM Bear96 wrote:



Has NO ONE at AA been paying attention to the situation at US or UA over the past year?

----------------

[/blockquote]


Nah, we've been busy complaining about the TWA boogey men/women and wondering which assets we'll be buying after your respective Chapter 7 filings.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 552 PM Winglet wrote:

I'll take my chances with the BK judge. It certainly couldn't be any worse.

----------------
[/blockquote]

You have noticed that the judges presiding over the U and UAL filings have approved virtually every motion the company has come up with regarding labor haven't you?

By all means, lets allow a judge get his hands on our contracts and decide what we should make.I'm sure he will be soooo understanding, after all the judges handling U and UAL have been sympathetic haven't they?

 

[RV4]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 12:37:31 AM LGA Fleet Service wrote:

We have our heads in the sand, so I would not be suprised to see a sizeable Farce Manure reduction in force the day after the first JDAM hits Iraq followed by the already packaged Chapter 11 filing.Don't think for a second there isn't one already in place...
----------------
[/blockquote]


And so what do you propose we do about this?

Complaints and FEAR without offering a solution are childish debate.

 

[Winglet]

"By all means, lets allow a judge get his hands on our contracts and decide what we should make.I'm sure he will be soooo understanding, after all the judges handling U and UAL have been sympathetic haven't they?"


The point is . . . the conditions a BK judge will set couldn't be any more onerous than Carty's demands which would put compensation at about 50% of DAL's current rates. I'll probably lose my job "permanently" anyway, so I'm thinking . . . pound sand. No sense in rewarding Carty for it.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 5:44:12 AM RV4 wrote:

And so what do you propose we do about this?

Complaints and FEAR without offering a solution are childish debate.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Unofficially and just my personal opinion, but what I'd do is not waste any time, and make sure that there were adequate S.1113 protections in place, just in case bankruptcy does happen.

What the unions at US and UA didn't understand at the time was how their actions were impacting the people who really controlled whether or not the company went bankrupt: creditors.

When UAL approached their unions, the IAM and AFA wasted a lot of time arguing. If they'd have coughed up the cuts the company was asking for in August or September 2002, it is possible they wouldn't be in Ch.11 right now. It certainly would have made a better case for the ATSB loan.

Likewise, had US Airways's unions fallen in line with what the company was asking for earlier in the process, the lendors who are said to have forced US filing for Ch.11 might have been a little more willing to work with the company. Instead, the IAM and CWA kept balking, and the creditors got skittish.

Contrast that with America West.

America West got their loan approval because the unions were in lock-step with management on what had to be done as far as costs. Not because of politics.

Cash reserves at times like this is like toilet paper when you have the flu -- you know you use up a lot more than normal, and it will eventually run out.

We can make sure there's extra paper in the cabinet before we run out, or we can argue about who used up the last sheet and didn't change it out. Either way, there's a much bigger mess to clean up the longer we wait to take care of the problem.

 

[Bear96]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 10:12:02 AM Winglet wrote:

The point is . . . the conditions a BK judge will set couldn't be any more onerous than Carty's demands which would put compensation at about 50% of DAL's current rates. I'll probably lose my job "permanently" anyway, so I'm thinking . . . pound sand. No sense in rewarding Carty for it.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Winglet,

That is not quite correct. A judge does not determine what conditions to set on her/his own, in terms of independently evaluating each proviusion of a collective bargaining agreement and deciding if it should be changed. S/he simply rules on management's proposal in its entirety (and of course the unions have the opportunity to argue against it in court, but the track record clearly points to the court siding with management most of the time).

Like UAL management was doing several months ago, AA management has now presented a set of ideas with the idea of reaching an agreement to avoid bankruptcy. Sure they are onerous, but at this point they are also negotiable. The unions still have some leverage, though certainly a reduced amount than they would have during traditional negotiations.

But time is your enemy. If AA's unions get caught up in rhetoric and stalling (like getting stuck on how much "soft" time is in a particular F/A pairing, to use one example I have seen posted here, which is ultimately irrelevant in the big picture of what AA is facing), soon Ch.11 will be unavoidable no matter what happens. And then, once in Ch.11, you will have lost what little leverage you have. AA will petition the court to impose the worst case conditions you see suggested today (and maybe even a worse proposal, arguing that time has run out and they have to take severe action yesterday).

Some here will probably say, "Sure, let the judge decided-- it can't be worse." I would argue that if forced into that corner, the court will impose conditions far worse than what can be negotiated outside of Ch.11.

 

[Winglet]

This is just a Kubuki dance. AA is going to file BK anyway. At least then we'll have the right to take industrial action.

 

[ArtTang]

I am not sure if this has been addressed already, but as a 17 year flight attendant at American Airlines I am "topped out" in salary and I assure everyone that the average F/A salary at AA is nowhere near the $62,000 that this person suggests. I make $41,300 a year flying my schedule without picking up overtime. As I am topped out in payscale, I will never see future raises. This salary does not include extra pay (i.e. purser, language, galley) which most of us do not earn. Also, the concessions that AA is asking of my work group would affect the flight attendants who are on active status. Those who are on furlough status are not part of the equation. Therefore, the estimated number of affected flight attendants would be approximately 19,000-20,000. The cuts would be around $16,000 per flight attendant if one calculates straight across without considering payscales. I just wanted to set the record straight so you all know the truth about our "huge" salaries.
My car is 7 years old, I have a mortgage and I am in grad school (for which I am paying up front: no loans, no rich daddy and no government hand outs). I do not lead an extravagant lifestyle by any means. If you need further proof, take a look at the employee parking lot of any airport. They look like quasi junkyards! As for our homes, I don't have a single airline friend who lives in a mansion, not even a pilot. Now, our CEO and various presidents and officers, that is another story.
If you want to debate the inefficient scheduling and wasted man-hours we crews swallow on a daily basis at AA, you will get no argument from me. We would love to be flown more efficiently so we don't have to sit around LaGuardia and O'Hare for 5 hours at a time with NO pay.
Well, I hope I have put to rest the myth of the inflated airline salaries at AA (at least for my work group). I hope I do not come across as a whiner. I like the job for what it is and I hope AA thrives and prospers. However, the truth should be known so the public can better understand labor's concerns. My union has informed AA that it is willing to help out as the situation warrants. I support that decision.
Art in Miami