APFA Demands Recall of ALL Flight Attendants

Dec 5, 2006
92
0
Visit site
"Last week, we referenced the FAA Reauthorization Bill and several of its amendments – or proposed amendments - since it was introduced into Committee in both the House and the Senate. One such attachment, generated by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), includes language that would mandate the extension of recall rights to ten years – for employees of those airlines that accepted Federal Aid prior to September 22, 2002.

The time is now. Your Leadership has heard your horror stories on the line about the understaffing, the reassignments, the misconnections and the blatant violations of our Contract. Add to that our high-seniority Reserve lists and the stagnant condition of our Bases and PVD availability and it truly makes for a miserable work environment.

Bottom line, we have done everything possible to get our members the relief they deserve and the service our passengers are craving – RECALL OUR FURLOUGHS. American started listening to APFA a few months back when they recalled 200 of our members. But it’s not enough. We need relief system wide and 140 more flight attendants is a drop in the bucket.

APFA has no choice but to ask Congress for help, as we have done on many occasions in the past. Specifically, APFA has asked Senator McCaskill to assist us in our efforts to extend recall rights for our furloughed members. McCaskill’s “Amendment #4†has the potential to be attached to the FAA Reauthorization Bill, but it will only happen with your help. This amendment coincides perfectly with the Board of Director’s Resolution #8 (detailed in the most recent Skyword Express) that passed unanimously by your Base Chairs during the February 2007 Board Meeting. And it does so without ANY changes to anyone’s seniority!"


Many thanks to Dixie Daniels and Tim Hunter as well as The APFA. Those on furlough have waited a long time for some sort of action! :up:
 

StraaightTaalk

Veteran
Sep 10, 2003
787
0
"Last week, we referenced the FAA Reauthorization Bill and several of its amendments – or proposed amendments - since it was introduced into Committee in both the House and the Senate. One such attachment, generated by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), includes language that would mandate the extension of recall rights to ten years – for employees of those airlines that accepted Federal Aid prior to September 22, 2002.

The time is now. Your Leadership has heard your horror stories on the line about the understaffing, the reassignments, the misconnections and the blatant violations of our Contract. Add to that our high-seniority Reserve lists and the stagnant condition of our Bases and PVD availability and it truly makes for a miserable work environment.

Bottom line, we have done everything possible to get our members the relief they deserve and the service our passengers are craving – RECALL OUR FURLOUGHS. American started listening to APFA a few months back when they recalled 200 of our members. But it’s not enough. We need relief system wide and 140 more flight attendants is a drop in the bucket.

APFA has no choice but to ask Congress for help, as we have done on many occasions in the past. Specifically, APFA has asked Senator McCaskill to assist us in our efforts to extend recall rights for our furloughed members. McCaskill’s “Amendment #4†has the potential to be attached to the FAA Reauthorization Bill, but it will only happen with your help. This amendment coincides perfectly with the Board of Director’s Resolution #8 (detailed in the most recent Skyword Express) that passed unanimously by your Base Chairs during the February 2007 Board Meeting. And it does so without ANY changes to anyone’s seniority!"
Many thanks to Dixie Daniels and Tim Hunter as well as The APFA. Those on furlough have waited a long time for some sort of action! :up:

How long before you start with the nasty remarks about AA flight attendants again? Not long, I bet. :rolleyes:
 

AC AA LA FA

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
630
22
mars
www.usaviation.com
This is welcome, and overdue news on this front.

APFA has to start a solidarity effort and rally all of us in preparations for openers and negotiations.

If we are as divided as we have been we will fail...do doubt.

The TWA flight attendants can teach us a lot, we all need to fight for their legislated return, and welcome them all back with open arms !!

Dont let up on your elected reps in DC !!! This could be beyond great...!!
 

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,743
9,350
I appreciate the intent, but isn't asking Congress to insert themselves into the collective bargaining process a dangerous precedent?

How would you feel if someone managed to insert language into an amendment which required companies who accepted federal aid prior to 2002 to unilaterally freeze their pensions? Given all the hoopla over AA and CO finally getting to use the same interest rate assumptions as the bankruptcy sisters, it's not exactly out of the question...
 

star power

Advanced
Dec 9, 2005
129
1
I appreciate the intent, but isn't asking Congress to insert themselves into the collective bargaining process a dangerous precedent?

How would you feel if someone managed to insert language into an amendment which required companies who accepted federal aid prior to 2002 to unilaterally freeze their pensions? Given all the hoopla over AA and CO finally getting to use the same interest rate assumptions as the bankruptcy sisters, it's not exactly out of the question...

That would be like AA asking the President of the United States to intervene into APA collective bargaining after the 30 day cooling off period to advert a strike a few years back. I think AA has already set the precedent

If the Fed manage to unilaterally freeze the pensions back in 02, then the exectives golden parachutes may of had a few more leaks and abandoments.

A 401K would be better than a max out frozen pensions after BK, which that what I've heard AA would like to do, is freeze the pensions and start a employee 401K, by paying less into the 401K than the present pensions plans require
 

Skymess

Veteran
Aug 6, 2004
1,123
6
NY
I appreciate the intent, but isn't asking Congress to insert themselves into the collective bargaining process a dangerous precedent?

How would you feel if someone managed to insert language into an amendment which required companies who accepted federal aid prior to 2002 to unilaterally freeze their pensions? Given all the hoopla over AA and CO finally getting to use the same interest rate assumptions as the bankruptcy sisters, it's not exactly out of the question...

I agree with you. They need to stay out of our business because it could backfire on us in the future.

If our crew shortage is that critical than AA will have no choice but to call people back on their own without anyone's intervention. There are crew manning guidelines per the FAA and APFA contract that must be met.
 

kirkpatrick

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,345
212
Long Island, NY
I appreciate the intent, but isn't asking Congress to insert themselves into the collective bargaining process a dangerous precedent?
Congress has no problem inserting itself in the collective bargaining process when they think an impending strike might disrupt the nation's air travel.

One of the frustrating things about this furlough is that it isn't seen to be a result of 9/11. Employees furloughed right after the event were able to have their unemployment extended because they were declared victims, but those of us furloughed later had no such extension offered.

The five year recall outlined in the AA/APFA CBA goes back to an era when it was unheard of for a furlough to last anywhere near that long. The downsizing that occurred in the years following 9/11 resulted in the layoff of 6250 FA's, a full quarter of the workforce. We're not asking the company to employ people it doesn't need; just to allow us to return when needed.

It's the right thing to do.

MK
 

kirkpatrick

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,345
212
Long Island, NY
APFA has to start a solidarity effort and rally all of us in preparations for openers and negotiations.
There are a couple of things that could have alleviated the furlough situation which we might look at during the upcoming negotiations. Both are no-cost items and won't involve senior people having to give anything up for the junior people.

First is the OVL (Overage Leave) system. In July of 2003 over 1300 people availed themselves of these leaves, saving an equal number of jobs for people who otherwise would have been furloughed. Unfortunately, a year later these people were forced to come back. If the OVL program were open-ended, as is the case at United and other carriers, many more junior people would be flying today.

The second is a recall bypass option. People on furlough who didn't find it convenient to return immediately could put it off, allowing someone who wanted to fly to return. Maybe someone in school, or with a young child, or someone waiting for a certain base to open. Of course, when the recall list was used up they'd have to come back or quit.

These are different times. Now that we know furloughs can last longer than a few months it would be a win-win situation for everybody.

MK
 

nbmcg01

Veteran
Sep 6, 2004
1,344
143
There are a couple of things that could have alleviated the furlough situation which we might look at during the upcoming negotiations. Both are no-cost items and won't involve senior people having to give anything up for the junior people.

First is the OVL (Overage Leave) system. In July of 2003 over 1300 people availed themselves of these leaves, saving an equal number of jobs for people who otherwise would have been furloughed. Unfortunately, a year later these people were forced to come back. If the OVL program were open-ended, as is the case at United and other carriers, many more junior people would be flying today.

The second is a recall bypass option. People on furlough who didn't find it convenient to return immediately could put it off, allowing someone who wanted to fly to return. Maybe someone in school, or with a young child, or someone waiting for a certain base to open. Of course, when the recall list was used up they'd have to come back or quit.

These are different times. Now that we know furloughs can last longer than a few months it would be a win-win situation for everybody.

MK


Due to the unique circumstances surrounding the massive 6000+ furlough (9-11), the more than $600,000,000 in shared sacrifice given to the Company to shore up finances, and total abdication of "doing the right thing" for one group of employees, has necessitated this drastic action. There are less than a third of the original furloughed still awaiting the opportunity to return. Many of those MAY decide at the last moment to say "goodbye". Then it will be on their terms, not the terrorists, or a Company unwilling to acknowledge the supreme concession, loss of job.
 

Nor'Easta

Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
510
1
Visit site
I'm not against recalls...trust me! I'm against extending the recall rights to the furloughees. We all know AA does not want the former TWA folks back. The longer the recall rights, the longer we fly short and can't hire fresh meat of the street.
 

nbmcg01

Veteran
Sep 6, 2004
1,344
143
SHAME ON YOU!!!! The furloughed are ALL AA f/as. Whether AA wants them back or not should not be your issue. You need to voice your extended flights, longer and more often reserve flights, and short staffing, to both the Company and YOUR Union. If AA knows they will be required to extend this recall then I'll bet you will see fast and furious recalls so they can hire "fresh meat" as you so chamingly put it. I have never seen such a self centered attitude in all my years as an airline employee. (35) Those still "hanging out" waiting for the letter really want to be there. Those of us who didn't have retired or chosen other career paths.

$600,000,000 that didn't come out of YOUR pocket has more than paid for the right to have extended recall.
 

Ifly2

Veteran
Jul 10, 2004
2,124
627
Surprise...Surprise...Surprise...

Once AAgAAin we see it...

After all we (the entire industry...) have been through...

Not a shred of compassion or concern...

Not a thought of doing the right thing...

Just "What's in it for me..."

What a plAAce...
 

L1011Ret

Veteran
Oct 31, 2002
1,326
0
The obvious implication of your post is that "old meat" is defective, tainted or somehow unworthy. We don't know at all all AA does not want the TWAers back. In fact it seems that many members of APFA do not want TWAers back and publically say so. You are showing age discrimination.