AA drops LAX-LAS Eagle to replace

[DFWCC]

I suggest you look these numbers over:

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/finance/fin20053.pdf

Look closely at page 39. Who has the highest Operating Profit Margin for the previous 12 months? Hint: It's Eagle.

Yes, higher than Southwest.

What is Eagle's FPD margin? The last I heard it was around 6-8%. You do the math on who is syphoning money from who.

Smoke and mirrors. AE uses aa's ground equip most of what they have was allocated from AA. You just don't many AE carts on the ramp. They use allot of our facilities paid out of AA's budget. just 2 ex

 

[Skymess]

If I disagree with you then I'm pro-company is that your only response? If wanting AA to fly profitable routes is pro-company then yes I am pro-company. If you think that Eagle is not a fact of life at AA then it is you that is delusional. I'm not so sure that AE taking over LAX-LAS shouldn't have happened a long time ago. Higher yielding routes is where the mainline a/c should be. I don't feel like taking anymore pay cuts how about you? Any a/c that were parked in DEC were planned to be parked a long time ago. No new a/c have been assigned to be parked with the lastest route cancellations. Do I want eagle to fly all of AA's domestic system? NO! Do I want AA to go BK over smaller routes like LAX-LAS? NO. Especially when we have a tool like AE to cover the route while the mainline a/c move to more profitable city pairs. I think your over reacting to this move. I say be agressive with the schedule and build on what we already know is profitable.

Ok, what's in it for you for AE to be profitable?

We downsize AA and Eagle hires. If you are junior enough they will open up the Eagle hiring process for AA people at AE wages.

We are two separate companies when it comes to pay rates and concessions but one on the stock market and for our executives.

I'm not buying the Eagle being good for AA line. They are a convenient way for AMR to funnel AA and AE money back and forth. Unfortunately, it is more of the former than the latter.

And as other people have pointed out they use AA facilities and AA equipment to run their operation.

 

[Skymess]

While I can understand the need for fewer ground crews, how does this relate to flight crews? We are limited by block hours. It seems to me that fewer segments per person would mean more people, so it would pretty much be a wash.

MK

Fewer segments for American means fewer flight attendants needed. If they keep pulling this stuff you don't get called back. Maybe that is part of their master plan. IF they continue to change stuff to Eagle they don't need to call back furloughs. :down:

I remember two of the "insider" rumors in the past four years.

One said Eagle will take over a lot of domestic as AA expands international.

The other was that the company was going to try to do everything in their power to not have TWA flight attendants back on the property.

 

[jimntx]

One said Eagle will take over a lot of domestic as AA expands international.

This rumor goes all the way back to Bob Crandall in the early 90's...right after the f/a strike. At the time, Crandall told a group of financial analysts in New York that the long-term AMR plan was to have AE do all the domestic flying except for transcons and long-haul heavy (like DFW-YVR or DFW-ANC). This has never come to fruition because the company also planned to move all the narrow-body a/c except the 75s to Eagle. The pilots' SCOPE clause has prevented this from happening.

The other was that the company was going to try to do everything in their power to not have TWA flight attendants back on the property.

It's interesting to me that I only seem to hear this one from f/as with 10-20 years seniority (and, no I don't know if you fall into this category or not). "The company this" and the "the company that" in regard to former TW flight attendants.

I just had this conversation with a fellow crew member two days ago. He was going on about how "the company" doesn't want the TW flight attendants back because they are all top of scale. I pointed out that the flight attendants who are leaving are top of scale and the ones who would be coming back are top of scale; so, for the company it is a zero sum game. He just insisted that I did not know what I was talking about. He had his information on the highest authority[/] (aka galley gossip).

The company doesn't much care one way or the other about the former TW flight attendants. Unlike the f/as, the company is realistic. If they need to recall more than 96 f/as between now and July, 2008 (very likely), the next 3000 after the 96 nAAtives at the top of the furloughee list are going to be former TW flight attendants.

Granted, some of those 3000 are going to lose their recall rights this year but so are the 1000 nAAtives below them on the list. The fact that most of the CM speakers hired in 2001 are in that group is of no consequence. They are reaching the end of their 5-year recall. There are about 1500 of the former TW flight attendants who have recall rights until July, 2008. There ain't gonna be no new hires until these people are recalled and the rest lose their recall rights. Some f/as are going to have to accept the fact that if they want the company to follow the contract, then they are going to have to abide by it also.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Fewer segments for American means fewer flight attendants needed.

I still fail to see why this is so. Maybe there's a small increase in efficiency with less ground time, etc, but the way I see it, if I fly transcons from NY, for example, I'll do say seven trips, or fourteen segments per month. If I do turns, it might be twenty-eight or thirty segments per month. Block hours are the determining factor, not number of legs.

One said Eagle will take over a lot of domestic as AA expands international.

The other was that the company was going to try to do everything in their power to not have TWA flight attendants back on the property.

See my response to Jim.

MK

 

[kirkpatrick]

The company doesn't much care one way or the other about the former TW flight attendants.

I agree wholeheartedly. It never ceases to amaze me how people on both sides continue to think the company gives a damn. Granted, we TWAers will require some training, but so will the others recalled, at this point. As for being top of scale, so are over half of AA FA's, and if you include those close to top of scale, the number is even higher.

On the other hand, I won't be much of a pension liability problem for the company, as I haven't accrued much in benefits. It's the senioritas who've been around thirty years or more who run up costs in this area.

As for Eagle taking over the world, people tend to forget that AE has no more aircraft on order, and those flying can only do so much. Routes will be shifted back and forth, and you will only hear about it when a mainline route goes Eagle, not the reverse.

Bottom line: When the company needs bodies, they'll recall. That's the long and the short of it.

MK (#633)

 

[will fix for food]

Smoke and mirrors. AE uses aa's ground equip most of what they have was allocated from AA. You just don't many AE carts on the ramp. They use allot of our facilities paid out of AA's budget. just 2 ex

Eagle pays for everything they get from American. Eagle rents the facilities from AA and purchases supplies. I literally saw a bill for paperclips and office supplies from AA. We have training going on this week in one of AA's training rooms. AA is giving Eagle a bill for it. Anybody who thinks Eagle gets a free ride is mistaken. Hell, Eagle pays American a fee to ride the shuttle bus!

 

[jimntx]

As for being top of scale, so are over half of AA FA's, and if you include those close to top of scale, the number is even higher.
MK (#633)

I got curious about the percentage and started playing with the numbers from the last seniority list (June, 2005).
More trivia for musing...

As of June, 2005 Seniority list

Total active flight attendants - 18921

Seniority of most junior f/a with January, 1991 hire date -11551
Percentage of f/as at top of scale: 62.11%

Seniority of most junior f/a with January, 1993 hire date (13 years this month) - 13899
Percentage of f/as at TOS or within 2 years of TOS - 74.76%

These numbers are not exact because there has been attrition since then. For instance, my seniority number has dropped 396 since the list was published. The seniority of the most junior active flight attendant has dropped 408 (so much for the rumor that over 100 of the f/as have quit that were recalled at the same time I returned in NOV04. Going by this morning's numbers, only 12 people between me and the most junior active f/a have left.)

 

[kirkpatrick]

Percentage of f/as at TOS or within 2 years of TOS - 74.76%

Exactly my point. And one of the pitfalls of being an old company not currently growing. Jet Blue actually has a starting hourly rate slightly higher than American's, and actually has a published TOS rate which of course no has reached yet.

When and if AA starts to grow again, seniors will make up a smaller percentage of the work force and FA costs will go down without any concessions being necessary.

MK

 

[DFWCC]

Eagle pays for everything they get from American. Eagle rents the facilities from AA and purchases supplies. I literally saw a bill for paperclips and office supplies from AA. We have training going on this week in one of AA's training rooms. AA is giving Eagle a bill for it. Anybody who thinks Eagle gets a free ride is mistaken. Hell, Eagle pays American a fee to ride the shuttle bus!

"Paper Clips"? Yeah well let me tell you AE employees come into our lunch room to use our facilities, (mike fridge etc) bec AE won't buy one for their people. Ours pd fro by AA.
All one family. Not even. Clerks have complained to me about it. Hell I had to ask one of them to get their bare feet off our eating tables and I was taken to HR bec that was her culture????? :angry: but thats another story. Now the union got on me and took AE's side bec I spoke up for my charges.
End of story we now have stinky "cultural fish" in our break/lunchroom thanks to non-AA employees.
F-A-C-T.. now that is BULLSHIP

 

[Skymess]

I still fail to see why this is so. Maybe there's a small increase in efficiency with less ground time, etc, but the way I see it, if I fly transcons from NY, for example, I'll do say seven trips, or fourteen segments per month. If I do turns, it might be twenty-eight or thirty segments per month. Block hours are the determining factor, not number of legs.

MK

The only way I see your block hours making sense is if you look at it that the number of FA's currently working will still have to make their monthly hours.

Here's how I see it: If AA cuts down on flights and gives them to Eagle without getting any new flights than AA has less flights. Less flights means less work and less block hours to go around. This, to me, means no call backs. I don't think it would mean layoffs because we still haven't put into effect all the staffing changes. There is also the fact that we are having more people quit/retire every month which is cutting back the work force.

 

[Skymess]

The company doesn't much care one way or the other about the former TW flight attendants.

I agree wholeheartedly. It never ceases to amaze me how people on both sides continue to think the company gives a damn. Granted, we TWAers will require some training, but so will the others recalled, at this point. As for being top of scale, so are over half of AA FA's, and if you include those close to top of scale, the number is even higher.

On the other hand, I won't be much of a pension liability problem for the company, as I haven't accrued much in benefits. It's the senioritas who've been around thirty years or more who run up costs in this area.

As for Eagle taking over the world, people tend to forget that AE has no more aircraft on order, and those flying can only do so much. Routes will be shifted back and forth, and you will only hear about it when a mainline route goes Eagle, not the reverse.

Bottom line: When the company needs bodies, they'll recall. That's the long and the short of it.

MK (#633)

I don't really understand how you guys think. I'm trying, but the math is not adding up to me.

I don't think the company is thinking about TWA as the enemy in terms of TWA vs. AA. I do think they are thinking about the bottom line by possibly not wanting to call them back.

If you owned a company that was struggling and you had all of your workers making the top of the pay scale would you want to hire more workers at the top of the scale who would be retiring after 5 years or would you want to hire young people who made bottom scale? I think that is really the argument why they don't want ANYONE at the bottom making top scale.

Yes, there are many people currently employed at or near top of the pay scale. If they wait out the 5 year recall they have eliminated the need to add to the work force with more costs. New hires make less than half the salary of top pay scale FA's. They have the factor of having people on the planes who will probably be the oldest TWA had, top of the scale, possibly bitter over the merger and talking with passengers about it, and who will most likely retire after 5 years costing even more money.

I have no problem with AA calling people back and I wish they would. I don't think 5 years will go by without calling back some, but I do think part of their plan is to have as little come back and they can get away with.

I think it has all been thought out and they have figured out more ways to lower staffing on other flights. The plan is to save labor costs not add to them.

 

[will fix for food]

"Paper Clips"? Yeah well let me tell you AE employees come into our lunch room to use our facilities, (mike fridge etc) bec AE won't buy one for their people. Ours pd fro by AA.
All one family. Not even. Clerks have complained to me about it. Hell I had to ask one of them to get their bare feet off our eating tables and I was taken to HR bec that was her culture????? :angry: but thats another story. Now the union got on me and took AE's side bec I spoke up for my charges.
End of story we now have stinky "cultural fish" in our break/lunchroom thanks to non-AA employees.
F-A-C-T.. now that is BULLSHIP

Let's break that down:

1.Eagle is too cheap to buy it's employees a fridge or microwave.

2.AA employees don't want to share theirs.

3.Eagle employees are doing whatever they can to irritate the AA employees and hiding behind the cultural diversity rules to do it.

I have no doubt that this is all true, but I think it is a better example of the kind of attitude displayed to Eagle employees by American employees and even Eagle management than an example of Eagle's "free ride".

 

[FWAAA]

On the one hand, mainline employees bemoan the fact that Eagle and its lower costs will eventually result in Eaglefication of most domestic routes.

On the other hand, they then bemoan the (made-up) fact that Eagle doesn't pay for everything it uses and is therefore not as low-cost as it appears.

Which is it? Ya can't have it both ways. 😀

Eagle pays every one of its employees less money and fewer benefits than the same job would pay at AA. Many of Eagle's employees are cross-trained (check in agents then marshal the airplane and then unload the bags, etc). Its airplanes are much cheaper than mainline jets. Its fares can be salty. If the scope clauses were amended such that AMR could no longer operate Eagle as the low-cost feeder airline, lots of places would no longer see AMR flights unless mainline costs were dramatically reduced. It's not like mainline planes would magically reappear at all those Eagle cities with 100k - 400k populations.

 

[kirkpatrick]

The only way I see your block hours making sense is if you look at it that the number of FA's currently working will still have to make their monthly hours.

That's it in a nutshell.

Here's how I see it: If AA cuts down on flights and gives them to Eagle without getting any new flights than AA has less flights. Less flights means less work and less block hours to go around. This, to me, means no call backs.

Eagle has no more aircraft on order. If mainline cuts back on block hours, that means either 1) underutilizing existing aircraft or 2) getting rid of aircraft. I don't see any signs that this is in the plans.

But notice the subject has changed from average stage length to cutbacks. Of course, cuts in service would be devastating to those of us awaiting recall. But I don't see how an increase in the average stage length in itself would bring this about.