AA ending leaves for 400 flight attendants

[Hatu]

DALLAS (AP) -- American Airlines thought it had more flight attendants than it needed in February, so it wanted to furlough 500 of them.

Eventually no layoffs were needed because so many attendants took voluntary one-year leaves of absence — more than 400 of them.

Now American needs them back on the job.
The airline is cutting the attendants' leaves in half and ordering them back to active duty by Aug. 15.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aa-ending-leaves-400-flight-225058208.html

 

[IORFA]

Somebody sounds a little nervous about staffing around the judges magical date! Not sure I blame them.

 

[Hatu]

No doubt!

 

[jimntx]

So now, we will have flight attendants sitting around with no flying to do in the Fall, and the company complaining that we are not productive. As they used to say in the good ole days, "Helluva way to run a railroad."



Note: The good ole days...formerly known as these trying times in which we live.

 

[bluebird]

"...The airline is cutting the attendants' leaves in half and ordering them back to active duty by Aug. 15."

I hope they get that certified letter ok.
They didn’t really think they were on vacation did they?

“What’s vacation?”

~ Forest, Forest Gump

 

[FWAAA]

AA is simply counting on ratification of the LBO and thousands of early out acceptances. Might as well get all hands on deck in anticipation of future staffing shortages.

 

[care2purchasefood?]

Lets just all walk out after the NO vote is cast and the term sheet is imposed. What do we have left to stay for? The $40,000 early out is only $26,000 after taxes.

 

[IORFA]

You'll get about half what they took out in April when you do your taxes. So not as bad as you make it out to be. I hope you like work to be really crappy if you vote no. I prefer bad as opposed to crappy. Just my opinion.

 

[nbmcg01]

I'm curious..why would limiting PVDs be an item agree to by the APFA. PVDs are only awarded based on head count. It certainly doesn't affect the bottom line. Just goes to show how shady this is...Why would I vote No? 1. 6 years 2. APFA for 3. Increased hrs for everything..
I can't wait to read this board after you fly under the new rules. 4. The sick policy. You are going to have the company in your HIPAA protected business. Lets have a medical panel decide whether your illness is worthy...very costly for a company wanting to save money. They (and you) would have been better served by a perfect attendance incentive program based solely on the saving generated. 5. Screwing the current retirees out of promised benefits. Kind of a shady bait and switch. (no I don't use AA's benefits) There was an implied promise by charging and accepting pre-funding and supplemental payments and no I don't think returning them relieves them of that obligation. Change it for future which would be with proper knowledge. Maybe current retirees should be offered their jobs back..(don't get your panties in a bunch, I'm kidding)
This relegates work rules back to the 60s and may change the career to a job again. So much for "industry leading" anything.

 

[jimntx]

I agree, Nancy. I find it hard to believe that any f/a would agree to even the possibility of 3-day trip, 1 day off, 3-day trip, 1 day off, 3-day trip, and so on and so forth. The loss of the 5 "48's" alone (coupled with the loss of 30-in-7) is sufficient reason for a NO vote as far as I'm concerned.

And, to anyone who thinks the company wouldn't do such a thing...who thought they would have the chutzpah to award themselves bonusses after gutting our industry-leading contract in 2003?.