aa recall question

[L1011Ret]

Just what I thought. 🙄 Typical.

There you go judging without anything to judge....

 

[StraaightTaalk]

There you go judging without anything to judge....

Hypocrite.

You advocate the AA flight attendant group giving up more concessions to secure extended recall, but react with your typical bitterness when I ask a simple question about those already recalled doing something to help those still out on the street.

 

[kirkpatrick]

You advocate the AA flight attendant group giving up more concessions to secure extended recall, but react with your typical bitterness when I ask a simple question about those already recalled doing something to help those still out on the street.

Comments:

1) Those of us recalled ARE the AA flight attendant group, and presumably will be sharing in whatever is given or not given back.

2) At this point the majority of those fallen off the recall list are the natives hired after the acquisition.

3) So far no one has ventured a guess as to just what is to be given back. Granted, I don't think AA will budge an inch without something, but until we know what that something is it's hard to take a position.

What was given back to give reserves 12 days off? What was given back to give reserves a 75 hr guarantee? Numbers, people. What do you want? A million bucks or a billion? 15% or .2%? Without numbers it does little good to talk about it.

MK

 

[StraaightTaalk]

I wouldn't vote for one red cent to be given back to extend recall rights, but you already know that.

 

[eolesen]

nothing will happen baring passage of the Recall bill in the Senate.

And even that may be a crap-shoot. The devil is in the wording. If AA is willing to sue Google, it's possible they'll find a way to argue that they didn't get financial assistance post 9/11.

McCaskill's bill refers to "financial assistance provided under 49 USC 101(a):

SECTION 1. PRESERVING RECALL RIGHTS OF AIRLINE EMPLOYEES.

(a) Definitions- In this Act:

(1) AIR CARRIER- The term `air carrier' means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued pursuant to chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) COVERED EMPLOYEE- The term `covered employee' means an employee who--

(A) is not a temporary employee; and

(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).

(3) FURLOUGH- The term `furlough' has the meaning given the term in section 7511 of title 5, United States Code.

(4) RECALL LIST- The term `recall list' means a list of employees placed on furlough by an air carrier and is organized--

(A) by type of employment; and

(B) in descending order of seniority.

(B) Retention of Furloughed Employees- An air carrier that places a covered employee on furlough shall retain such employee on a recall list for not less than 10 years after the date on which the air carrier placed such employee on furlough, if the air carrier--

(1) receives more than $100,000,000 in financial assistance from the Federal Government; and

(2) places such employee on furlough not later than 2 years after receiving such financial assistance.

© Preference- An air carrier described in subsection (B) shall, before employing a person who is not on the recall list, recall a covered employee from the recall list required by subsection (B) if the employee was employed in a position comparable to the position the air carrier seeks to fill.

(d) Enforcement-

(1) IN GENERAL- A covered employee (including any labor organization that represents such employee) may bring an action to enforce this Act, or the terms of an award or agreement resulting from arbitration or a settlement relating to the requirements of this Act, in an appropriate district court of the United States.

(2) APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT- The appropriate district court of the United States referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined in accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.

(e) Effective Date-

(1) IN GENERAL- The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION- This Act shall apply to a covered employee of an air carrier, or successor air carrier, that received financial assistance before September 22, 2002, pursuant to section 101(a) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).

Here's 49 USC 101:

TITLE I—AIRLINE STABILIZATION “SEC. 101. AVIATION DISASTER RELIEF.
“(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President shall take the following actions to compensate air carriers for losses incurred by the air carriers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001:
“(1) Subject to such terms and conditions as the President deems necessary, issue Federal credit instruments to air carriers that do not, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000,000,000 and provide the subsidy amounts necessary for such instruments in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
“(2) Compensate air carriers in an aggregate amount equal to $5,000,000,000 for—
“(A) direct losses incurred beginning on September 11, 2001, by air carriers as a result of any Federal ground stop order issued by the Secretary of Transportation or any subsequent order which continues or renews such a stoppage; and
“(B) the incremental losses incurred beginning September 11, 2001, and ending December 31, 2001, by air carriers as a direct result of such attacks.

There could be a compelling argument that compensation for losses due to a federal action is not the same as assistance. Assistance implies to me that it was a loan that may or may not need to be repaid. Make no mistake -- 49 USC 101 was carefully written to only provide compensation, and not aid. There were other industries indirectly impacted by the shutdown of air travel (e.g. travel agencies, Boeing, air freight forwarders, airport concessionaires). Had this been a bailout similar to what Chrysler and Lockheed had received, the other industries would have been clamoring for the chance to put their fist into the cookie jar.

ATSB falls under another section of law, but even there, those who benefitted from ATSB loans didn't get federal funds. They got loans backed by federal funds, and to the extent that they were mostly repaid by those requesting the loans, there wasn't a need for any federal dollars to be distributed as a result of ATSB...

Ironically, there were a few people who seriously feared that when 49 USC 101 was drafted that there just might be an attempt to link the compensation to forcing airlines out of the RLA. That didn't happen, but as I have said before and as was printed in PlaneBusiness a couple weeks back, this is a very dangerous precedent. There's not much to stop someone from copying McCaskill's bill and making a retroactive change which removes airline unions from the RLA.



AA could probably also muddy the water by returning the Fed's compensation...


Another thought -- the bill could be seen as discriminatory, in that it only applies to employees covered by the RLA. There were hundreds of management/specialist employees who were also furloughed after 9/11, and given absolutely no recall rights (my wife being one of them) -- so why are they exempted? Do only union members deserve special treatment here?...


Don't take any of this as being an opinion that I'm not supporting recall rights. I do. APFA f***ed up by not trying to get this earlier while they were still on speaking terms with AA.

I just find the bill to be poorly crafted, and it might not hold up very well if challenged.

Also... McCaskill's bill doesn't have a single co-sponsor yet. It's possible it won't go anywhere at all, so I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet.

 

[L1011Ret]

I wouldn't vote for one red cent to be given back to extend recall rights, but you already know that.

We know that the spiritual meaning of charity is beyond your comphrension, it is just not possible for you. you reap what you sow.

 

[L1011Ret]

And even that may be a crap-shoot. The devil is in the wording. If AA is willing to sue Google, it's possible they'll find a way to argue that they didn't get financial assistance post 9/11.

McCaskill's bill refers to "financial assistance provided under 49 USC 101(a):
Here's 49 USC 101:
There could be a compelling argument that compensation for losses due to a federal action is not the same as assistance. Assistance implies to me that it was a loan that may or may not need to be repaid. Make no mistake -- 49 USC 101 was carefully written to only provide compensation, and not aid. There were other industries indirectly impacted by the shutdown of air travel (e.g. travel agencies, Boeing, air freight forwarders, airport concessionaires). Had this been a bailout similar to what Chrysler and Lockheed had received, the other industries would have been clamoring for the chance to put their fist into the cookie jar.

ATSB falls under another section of law, but even there, those who benefitted from ATSB loans didn't get federal funds. They got loans backed by federal funds, and to the extent that they were mostly repaid by those requesting the loans, there wasn't a need for any federal dollars to be distributed as a result of ATSB...

Ironically, there were a few people who seriously feared that when 49 USC 101 was drafted that there just might be an attempt to link the compensation to forcing airlines out of the RLA. That didn't happen, but as I have said before and as was printed in PlaneBusiness a couple weeks back, this is a very dangerous precedent. There's not much to stop someone from copying McCaskill's bill and making a retroactive change which removes airline unions from the RLA.
AA could probably also muddy the water by returning the Fed's compensation...
Another thought -- the bill could be seen as discriminatory, in that it only applies to employees covered by the RLA. There were hundreds of management/specialist employees who were also furloughed after 9/11, and given absolutely no recall rights (my wife being one of them) -- so why are they exempted? Do only union members deserve special treatment here?...
Don't take any of this as being an opinion that I'm not supporting recall rights. I do. APFA f***ed up by not trying to get this earlier while they were still on speaking terms with AA.

I just find the bill to be poorly crafted, and it might not hold up very well if challenged.

Also... McCaskill's bill doesn't have a single co-sponsor yet. It's possible it won't go anywhere at all, so I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet.

You do your homework. I think you are right, it is a bit of a crapshoot.

 

[StraaightTaalk]

We know that the spiritual meaning of charity is beyond your comphrension, it is just not possible for you. you reap what you sow.

Then, why can't the recalls be charitable and OFFER to come back in at a lower pay step to fund the extension of recall rights. It seems to me that would help their fellow furloughees.

This is an honest question. I don't know why you have your knickers in such a knot.

If you EXPECT me to give up something, why can't you open your mind to another method of givebacks?

 

[nbmcg01]

Then, why can't the recalls be charitable and OFFER to come back in at a lower pay step to fund the extension of recall rights. It seems to me that would help their fellow furloughees.

This is an honest question. I don't know why you have your knickers in such a knot.

If you EXPECT me to give up something, why can't you open your mind to another method of givebacks?

Because the furloughed have already paid over $600,000,000 for the right to come back. This is an honest answer. It is called the ultimate concession. AA gave pay seniority, much to John Ward's dismay. (which is why he gave up furlough pay for NOTHING) When AA acquired Air Cal and TransCarib they were given a choice of pay or bidding seniority. They chose bidding and won pay in court. The ones that have fallen off were already at the lowest level of "B" scale. How much lower would you propose? The highest paid are pretty much back. With negotiations coming up you probably don't want to alienate another block of voters. We learned along time ago that peace on the property is job one when it come to negotiations. Those back are managing quite well and probably have more time off on reserve then some of you holding 4 leg turn lines. When our bids were bad, reserve tended to go senior. (but then we had 12 day (in a row) spreads. Has one person (other than Bill) suggested (on this board) that ANYTHING be given up for extended recall? No.

 

[L1011Ret]

Because the furloughed have already paid over $600,000,000 for the right to come back. This is an honest answer. It is called the ultimate concession. AA gave pay seniority, much to John Ward's dismay. (which is why he gave up furlough pay for NOTHING) When AA acquired Air Cal and TransCarib they were given a choice of pay or bidding seniority. They chose bidding and won pay in court. The ones that have fallen off were already at the lowest level of "B" scale. How much lower would you propose? The highest paid are pretty much back. With negotiations coming up you probably don't want to alienate another block of voters. We learned along time ago that peace on the property is job one when it come to negotiations. Those back are managing quite well and probably have more time off on reserve then some of you holding 4 leg turn lines. When our bids were bad, reserve tended to go senior. (but then we had 12 day (in a row) spreads. Has one person (other than Bill) suggested (on this board) that ANYTHING be given up for extended recall? No.

I am firmly with Nancy on this one. They gave up their jobs, 4 years of pay, furlough pay, health insurance and the chance to have an improved retirement. Now vengeful one you would like F/As most over 55 to come back as new hires? You are making it easier for us all to understand who you really are.

 

[Maark767]

If y'all are so deadset on givebacks in return for extended recall rights, then why don't the former TWA flight attendants agree to come in at a lower scale so that AA has a financial incentive to bring them all back? If the furloughees coming back are so concerned about those behind them yet to be recalled, I am sure they will on principle alone agree to give something back to bring their colleagues back.

Just wondering if you ever considered that.

It's not up to the TWA f/As to discuss anything of that sort....It's a total APFA/AA issue and not for anyone else.. Anything like that would require a vote by the membership... Anyways who would ever even think of a "C" scale on the property. Thats what we need lower wages for our members.... hello !!!

 

[L1011Ret]

It's not up to the TWA f/As to discuss anything of that sort....It's a total APFA/AA issue and not for anyone else.. Anything like that would require a vote by the membership... Anyways who would ever even think of a "C" scale on the property. Thats what we need lower wages for our members.... hello !!!

i'm lost, why is it not up to the TWA F/As to discuss? Are they not APFA members who would be part of the process in APFA decision making? Since they are members are you saying they should not discuss what they want? That sounds pretty discriminatory towards the TWA F/As.

 

[nbmcg01]

i'm lost, why is it not up to the TWA F/As to discuss? Are they not APFA members who would be part of the process in APFA decision making? Since they are members are you saying they should not discuss what they want? That sounds pretty discriminatory towards the TWA F/As.

I didn't "hear" what you heard Bill. My take on the post is that only the APFA and AA can negotiate wages and then it has to be put to a vote of the membership (of which we are part). You saw what the former STL Base Chair "offered" and the reaction. John Ward already devalued the AA f/a's value by validating the Company's position that experience is not worthy of $$s. That is all we would need to see, a "C" scale..lol Not in this lifetime, I hope.

 

[Maark767]

i'm lost, why is it not up to the TWA F/As to discuss? Are they not APFA members who would be part of the process in APFA decision making? Since they are members are you saying they should not discuss what they want? That sounds pretty discriminatory towards the TWA F/As.

You really dont have a clue on how all this works.....

 

[L1011Ret]

You really dont have a clue on how all this works.....

I;m really glad I do not have a clue because if you believe you have the authority to tell someone not to discuss something then you are way out of line. Quote, "Its not up to the TWA F/As to discuss something of that sort..."