AA drops LAX-LAS Eagle to replace

[kirkpatrick]

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

I'm just one guy and don't pretend to speak for my group or any other group. And the math is pretty simple if nothing additional is read into what I'm saying.

My point is simply this: of course the company would rather not have people come in at the top of the pay scale. I predict no more than 1500 TWA people will actually undergo training and return to the line. AA will do it because they have no choice, just as Icahn would have preferred to keep strikers on the street in 1986 but was required by law to bring us back.

If AA could possibly make it until July of 2008 without a single recall then I have no doubt but that they would do so. And I would take it as a sound business decision, not something personal. But doing the math, as you say, tells me they can't possibly make it another two and a half years without recalling us. That would require a massive cutback in service and it just doesn't look like that's in the cards.

MK

 

[jimntx]

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

If you are talking about a company that is not bound by collective bargaining agreements, and the company has no need for experienced workers, (see also McDonalds), then your reasoning might be "reasonable."

However, in the case of AA, they can not hire new f/as until all furloughed workers have been recalled or lost their recall rights. Now, if you believe that there is even the slightest chance that the company can go until July, 2008 with no recalls then I want some of what you are smoking. The point I was trying to make is that it DOESN'T MATTER what the company might want, or rather what some AA f/as THINK the company wants or does not want. The reality is that we are only 96 bodies from the most senior former TW flight attendant on the furlough list. With us losing almost 1000 flight attendants per year, there is no chance those 96 furloughees will cover our needs for the next 2.5 years.

Yes, there are many people currently employed at or near top of the pay scale.

When 75% of your workforce is at or within 2 years of TOS, to say that "there are many...at or near" is euphemistic. The correct phrase is "a large majority of the people are at or near."

If they wait out the 5 year recall they have eliminated the need to add to the work force with more costs.

Yes, and if the Israelis and the Arab world would just kiss and make up, there would be peace in the Middle East.
Neither supposition is anywhere near to possible any time soon.

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...

Don't project onto the former TW flight attendants how you would behave in the same situation. I have met many of them while I was on furlough, and I flew TWA often when I worked for Texaco. In my estimation, they are head and shoulders above the average AA flight attendant in professionalism. You should talk to some of the people who were hired as scabs during TW's 3-year f/a strike(as opposed to the glorious 3-day AA f/a strike) and how they were treated by the striking f/as when they returned to work. You might find that they were treated simply as co-workers instead AA's behaviour of still carrying around "scab lists" almost 15 years later--as if anyone really cared. Or, talk to former Ozark f/as who were proportionally about the same to TW as TW to AA in the number of flight attendants and who were given Date of Hire seniority when TW bought Ozark. And, everyone moved on with their lives and their jobs.

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.

Do you now? Well, once again, replacing a top of scale worker with a top of scale worker does not affect the company's bottom line one way or the other. (And, unlike the TOS AA f/as who bid all the best lines then sell their trips to a trip trade service, the former TW TOS flight attendants might actually show up to work on occasion. )

As far as pensions, the TW workers aren't going to get much of one from AA. Pensions are controlled by ERISA. You can't give people something they haven't earned because of the possibility of making your pension plan unnecessarily insolvent. The pensions they would collect after 5 years is what you or I would collect after 5 years with the company--not much. $49.95/month, maybe? That, of course, would be before company deductions for retiree medical. .

 

[SPG Trvlr]

If you are talking about a company that is not bound by collective bargaining agreements, and the company has no need for experienced workers, (see also McDonalds), then your reasoning might be "reasonable."

However, in the case of AA, they can not hire new f/as until all furloughed workers have been recalled or lost their recall rights. Now, if you believe that there is even the slightest chance that the company can go until July, 2008 with no recalls then I want some of what you are smoking. The point I was trying to make is that it DOESN'T MATTER what the company might want, or rather what some AA f/as THINK the company wants or does not want. The reality is that we are only 96 bodies from the most senior former TW flight attendant on the furlough list. With us losing almost 1000 flight attendants per year, there is no chance those 96 furloughees will cover our needs for the next 2.5 years.
When 75% of your workforce is at or within 2 years of TOS, to say that "there are many...at or near" is euphemistic. The correct phrase is "a large majority of the people are at or near."
Yes, and if the Israelis and the Arab world would just kiss and make up, there would be peace in the Middle East.
Neither supposition is anywhere near to possible any time soon.
Don't project onto the former TW flight attendants how you would behave in the same situation. I have met many of them while I was on furlough, and I flew TWA often when I worked for Texaco. In my estimation, they are head and shoulders above the average AA flight attendant in professionalism. You should talk to some of the people who were hired as scabs during TW's 3-year f/a strike(as opposed to the glorious 3-day AA f/a strike) and how they were treated by the striking f/as when they returned to work. You might find that they were treated simply as co-workers instead AA's behaviour of still carrying around "scab lists" almost 15 years later--as if anyone really cared. Or, talk to former Mohawk f/as who were proportionally about the same to TW as TW to AA in the number of flight attendants and who were given Date of Hire seniority when TW bought Mohawk. And, everyone moved on with their lives and their jobs.
Do you now? Well, once again, replacing a top of scale worker with a top of scale worker does not affect the company's bottom line one way or the other. (And, unlike the TOS AA f/as who bid all the best lines then sell their trips to a trip trade service, the former TW TOS flight attendants might actually show up to work on occasion. )

As far as pensions, the TW workers aren't going to get much of one from AA. Pensions are controlled by ERISA. You can't give people something they haven't earned because of the possibility of making your pension plan unnecessarily insolvent. The pensions they would collect after 5 years is what you or I would collect after 5 years with the company--not much. $49.95/month, maybe? That, of course, would be before company deductions for retiree medical. .

I love what you say but it was Ozark not Mohawk.
Thanks

 

[kirkpatrick]

Don't project onto the former TW flight attendants how you would behave in the same situation. I have met many of them while I was on furlough, and I flew TWA often when I worked for Texaco.

Jim, do me a favor, would you? Promise you won't quit or retire until I've had a chance to meet you? I'm looking forward to it.

MK

 

[jimntx]

I love what you say but it was Ozark not Mohawk.
Thanks

Oops. Post corrected.

 

[Skymess]

I'm just one guy and don't pretend to speak for my group or any other group. And the math is pretty simple if nothing additional is read into what I'm saying.

My point is simply this: of course the company would rather not have people come in at the top of the pay scale. I predict no more than 1500 TWA people will actually undergo training and return to the line. AA will do it because they have no choice, just as Icahn would have preferred to keep strikers on the street in 1986 but was required by law to bring us back.

If AA could possibly make it until July of 2008 without a single recall then I have no doubt but that they would do so. And I would take it as a sound business decision, not something personal. But doing the math, as you say, tells me they can't possibly make it another two and a half years without recalling us. That would require a massive cutback in service and it just doesn't look like that's in the cards.

MK

A certain member of management on my friends flight yesterday has told her that the company is doing the attrition math and figured that their will be a call back in the summer of at least 90 people.

He also said he doesn't see how the company can avoid calling more if the numbers keep adding up.

Not that all of us haven't been projecting this ourselves.

 

[jimntx]

Jim, do me a favor, would you? Promise you won't quit or retire until I've had a chance to meet you? I'm looking forward to it.

MK

Well, next week is my "adjusted" 4 year anniversary. I have to fly 10 years in order to get lifetime travel benefits. Since I will be 61 in March, I guess by the time I leave they will be saying (behind my back, of course), "Is that old coot ever going to retire or die?"

 

[kirkpatrick]

figured that their will be a call back in the summer of at least 90 people.

There are 99 FA's ahead of the TWA people, with seniority running 3/29 through 4/5/01. They would be the youngest and most junior people at AA, so many of those who have gone to other airlines would have little to gain by returning. I'd be surprised if half of them came back. That amounts to two or three weeks' worth of attrition.

So far the recalls have gone as follows:

Dec 2003 - 390
Jul 2004 - 233
Jul 2004 - absorbed 1350 OVL's back into active service
Nov 2004 - 610

To recall such a small number would be inconceivable.

MK

 

[AirLUVer]

To recall such a small number would be inconceivable.

MK

I love that word INCONCEIVABLE, totally reminds me of Wallace Shawn in the Princess Bride.

😎

 

[Skymess]

If you are talking about a company that is not bound by collective bargaining agreements, and the company has no need for experienced workers, (see also McDonalds), then your reasoning might be "reasonable."

However, in the case of AA, they can not hire new f/as until all furloughed workers have been recalled or lost their recall rights. Now, if you believe that there is even the slightest chance that the company can go until July, 2008 with no recalls then I want some of what you are smoking. The point I was trying to make is that it DOESN'T MATTER what the company might want, or rather what some AA f/as THINK the company wants or does not want. The reality is that we are only 96 bodies from the most senior former TW flight attendant on the furlough list. With us losing almost 1000 flight attendants per year, there is no chance those 96 furloughees will cover our needs for the next 2.5 years.
When 75% of your workforce is at or within 2 years of TOS, to say that "there are many...at or near" is euphemistic. The correct phrase is "a large majority of the people are at or near."
Yes, and if the Israelis and the Arab world would just kiss and make up, there would be peace in the Middle East.
Neither supposition is anywhere near to possible any time soon.
Don't project onto the former TW flight attendants how you would behave in the same situation. I have met many of them while I was on furlough, and I flew TWA often when I worked for Texaco. In my estimation, they are head and shoulders above the average AA flight attendant in professionalism. You should talk to some of the people who were hired as scabs during TW's 3-year f/a strike(as opposed to the glorious 3-day AA f/a strike) and how they were treated by the striking f/as when they returned to work. You might find that they were treated simply as co-workers instead AA's behaviour of still carrying around "scab lists" almost 15 years later--as if anyone really cared. Or, talk to former Ozark f/as who were proportionally about the same to TW as TW to AA in the number of flight attendants and who were given Date of Hire seniority when TW bought Ozark. And, everyone moved on with their lives and their jobs.
Do you now? Well, once again, replacing a top of scale worker with a top of scale worker does not affect the company's bottom line one way or the other. (And, unlike the TOS AA f/as who bid all the best lines then sell their trips to a trip trade service, the former TW TOS flight attendants might actually show up to work on occasion. )

As far as pensions, the TW workers aren't going to get much of one from AA. Pensions are controlled by ERISA. You can't give people something they haven't earned because of the possibility of making your pension plan unnecessarily insolvent. The pensions they would collect after 5 years is what you or I would collect after 5 years with the company--not much. $49.95/month, maybe? That, of course, would be before company deductions for retiree medical. .

Jim,

You're not saying something that isn't already said and known by me and everyone. AA has to recall from the TWA group if they need FA's. There is no way AA can go until 2008 without recalling. That is not to say they won't try. It is better for their bottom line if they are able to hold out. Whether anyone likes that idea or not. I just don't understand how you can say it is not better for AA's bottom line to have lower paid workers at the bottom of the list. If it saves us millions by removing an olive off of a salad then it surely has to save bigger money by having FA's on the property making $20 vs. $50 an hour.


I am not projecting what I think the TWA people will/would do. I am SPECULATING that this could be AA's thought process.


It is my understanding that part of the AA/TWA plan relating to FA's was that they needed to be on AA property for 5 years in order to receive their full pensions. I am not a pension expert so don't quote me on details. I just remembered reading that when the details of the acquisition came out.

We all know, in case you didn't realize it, that the TWA people will be recalled. I hope they are. I kept the seniority I thought I deserved and I have nothing to be angry or bitter about.

My bitterness lately stems from my displeasure at flying purser. But that is a whole other matter and easily fixed when I once again am free from the qualification in March.

 

[jimntx]

A certain member of management on my friends flight yesterday has told her that the company is doing the attrition math and figured that their will be a call back in the summer of at least 90 people.

He also said he doesn't see how the company can avoid calling more if the numbers keep adding up.

Not that all of us haven't been projecting this ourselves.

There may be something to this particular rumor. It all depends upon whether or not they come up with their 30 CM speakers for IOR in the current proffer--which I doubt they will.

A little known fact (well, not known to most of you probably. Certainly known to management. )...
There are 5 or 6 CM speakers in the 05APR01 class--the class just senior to the most senior former TW flight attendant.

 

[jimntx]

It is my understanding that part of the AA/TWA plan relating to FA's was that they needed to be on AA property for 5 years in order to receive their full pensions. I am not a pension expert so don't quote me on details. I just remembered reading that when the details of the acquisition came out.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the AA/TWA purchase agreement. It's Federal law. That's what I meant in my earlier post. ERISA requires that when a company has a defined benefit pension plan, the participants in the plan must be vested at 5 years of covered service--company's are allowed to specify a probationary year which does not count toward your 5 years; so, in those companies, you would actually have to have 6 years of service. AMR counts first year; so, you are vested at 5 years of service.

The obverse is that companies are not allowed to award you a pension if you have LESS than 5 years on their payroll. All former TW employees would have to be on the AMR payroll (furlough time does not count) for 5 years before they could draw an AMR pension upon retirement. However, those furloughed TW f/as who are currently flying at Eagle will vest before those who have been on inactive furlough (not working in any part of the company).

In any case, 5 years of service does not earn you any kind of a "living wage" pension. Hell, from what I hear about AA f/a pensions, 40 years of service does not earn you a "living wage" pension.

 

[nbmcg01]

Actually, it has nothing to do with the AA/TWA purchase agreement. It's Federal law. That's what I meant in my earlier post. ERISA requires that when a company has a defined benefit pension plan, the participants in the plan must be vested at 5 years of covered service--company's are allowed to specify a probationary year which does not count toward your 5 years; so, in those companies, you would actually have to have 6 years of service. AMR counts first year; so, you are vested at 5 years of service.

The obverse is that companies are not allowed to award you a pension if you have LESS than 5 years on their payroll. All former TW employees would have to be on the AMR payroll (furlough time does not count) for 5 years before they could draw an AMR pension upon retirement. However, those furloughed TW f/as who are currently flying at Eagle will vest before those who have been on inactive furlough (not working in any part of the company).

In any case, 5 years of service does not earn you any kind of a "living wage" pension. Hell, from what I hear about AA f/a pensions, 40 years of service does not earn you a "living wage" pension.

We were given vesting by the Co.( A point that former APFA Pres. JW was very angry about..) That being said, I retired 4-1 and received credit for the one year I had on AA's property before the "cleansing". Many nAAtive f/as were certain that we were getting "their" retirement, (in my case, 35 years), and we would bk the plan. Not so..just what we earned at AA.

As for recalling the former TWA f/as, there is something to be said for "old school". It was found after our long strike that our customer service ratings went up proportionately to the number recalled. When you've had a "forced vacation" away from a career you have loved, one tends to be happy to be back in the air regardless of the circumstances. Also, many of our more senior f/as were forced into starting new careers in their 50s and 60s. I don't care how many degrees you have, when you begin a new job your salary reflects the fact that you are new. IF any of our people return, they will probably enjoy the salary bump. Those with new careers that allow for some financial security and a home life will either retire (like myself) or choose not to return. The APFA (unfortunately) put a dollar value on the flight attendant job at AA, and it wasn't "top dollar". Too bad they didn't receive good counsel in this area. I believe all will share in their bad judgement. IMHO

 

[eolesen]

Back to the original intent of the post... AA replacing mainline flying with Eagle/Connection.

STL-TUL (1x MD80) gets cut on 4/3, replaced by a Connection RJ (there's already one RJ in that market).

LGA-MCI (2x MD80) gets cut on 4/3. No word where those slots are going yet.