I'll find my own 15-20 hrs to PU, let us chose our own crap, since the lines and trips are ugly anyway.
FA contract thought
- Thread starter bigjets
- Start date
I'll find my own 15-20 hrs to PU, let us chose our own crap, since the lines and trips are ugly anyway.
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
I agree! The only exception I would make is for long haul flying which is what Continental has. There is a reason that historically flight crews are scheduled between 70-80 hrs. Now all of a sudden they want to change that. I tell you what....when management starts being scheduled for a 52 hour work week every week then we will talk.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
I think if you look close enough and include all the stuff done remotely, many in management already work a 50-52 hour work week... they're just paid for 40.
At AA, I'd regularly put in my 9 hours in the office, and at least an hour at home responding to emails from everyone else getting around to their email after 6pm... Throw in an hour or three on the weekend, plus budget season (easily a month of 10-12 hour days), plus keeping up with the Blackberry, and 52 may be understating things a bit...
Unlike shift work, managers don't punch in/out and can't just turn off the Blackberry when their 8 hours is up. But you knew that, didn't you...
At AA, I'd regularly put in my 9 hours in the office, and at least an hour at home responding to emails from everyone else getting around to their email after 6pm... Throw in an hour or three on the weekend, plus budget season (easily a month of 10-12 hour days), plus keeping up with the Blackberry, and 52 may be understating things a bit...
Unlike shift work, managers don't punch in/out and can't just turn off the Blackberry when their 8 hours is up. But you knew that, didn't you...
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
Well I also show up early for work every trip. The first hour I work is free. Then I get to sit around the airport sometimes between flights...for free. Last week I got to work an extra 6 hours in Santo Domingo because we had a mechanical issues with an engine. I got paid the same. I'm not complaining. I love my job. I'm just trying to compare apples to apples.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
It's not even worth trying, Jersey -- the differences between what the two job classifications require is apples to green peppers and always will be. There are no reserves in management, and it's rare outside of line management that you have a backup. What you see is what you get, and the expectation is that if it's in your area, you deal with it regardless if you're at home, asleep, or out of town at your daughter's wedding.
And I'm not complaining either. I chose to go into a salaried position knowing the downsides.
- Thread Starter
- #21
I think Jersey is a little lite on the amount of FA not working, I believe it is a lot more then 200, and I would not offer this huge concession without expecting to be the highest paid FA's in the industry.
Lets look at this another way, I had heard that if a mechanic is out on a leave for more then 3 months (I think that was the amount of time) that mechanic starts to lose seniority one day for every day past those 3 months. I don't believe because you worked as a FA for 10 years you don't have to work at AA any longer, and you get to hold a bid position and have a TT service sell the high seniority trips to their clients, bypassing seniority. Not attacking the TT service's they provide a valuable service. So in a nutshell I believe a compromise would be, if you don't work you don't accrue seniority.
Lets look at this another way, I had heard that if a mechanic is out on a leave for more then 3 months (I think that was the amount of time) that mechanic starts to lose seniority one day for every day past those 3 months. I don't believe because you worked as a FA for 10 years you don't have to work at AA any longer, and you get to hold a bid position and have a TT service sell the high seniority trips to their clients, bypassing seniority. Not attacking the TT service's they provide a valuable service. So in a nutshell I believe a compromise would be, if you don't work you don't accrue seniority.
There may be just 200 who regularly drop every trip, but there are probably hundreds more who drop most of their trips; during the timeframe of the chart linked above, there were 1,300 who flew fewer than 20 hours per month on average over that 12 months. That's fewer hours than one trip to Tokyo per month.
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
For every flight attendant who drops a trip there is another one to pick it up. We all bid a schedule and then from there it is up to the flight attendant to decide how little or how much to fly. On average, there are more people on the international side that are looking to pick up trips. That is why we pay trip trading services a fee to pick up trips and there is no fee to drop trips. If you say there are 1300 who fly less then 20 hours per month, I say there has to be twice that amount who pick up those hours. It is all a wash as far as the company is concerned and it is mutually beneficial to American Airlines and working flight attendants. We have the most flexibility of any airline and it is a low cost item to the company....flight attendants who drop trips lose pension accrual, have to pay for medical,lose sick and vacation time while those of us who fly 120 hours have an 85 hour cap on our pension and we don't accumulate anymore sick or vacation time. So the company has coverage and does not have to pay benefits for those who drop trips.
Jersey777: You're probably right, and I've got no argument. AA doesn't claim that the flexibility you describe is the problem; AA claims that its cost disadvantage stems from the monthly scheduling maximum of 77/82, which is the lowest of any competitor:
http://www.aanegotiations.com/apfaProductivity.asp
DL and NW are limited (dunno by what) to scheduling FAs to 100 hours/mo, UA to 92 and CO to 92.5/97.
As you point out, AA's FAs have lots of flexibility - AA appears to want the same flexibility. And if AA did have the power to schedule its FAs to a max of 100 hours per month, the FAs could always drop their unwanted trips, right? Sounds like a low-cost (or even no-cost) item from the FA perspective. Except for the quality of life for the FAs unable to get rid of their unwanted additional flying, of course.
http://www.aanegotiations.com/apfaProductivity.asp
DL and NW are limited (dunno by what) to scheduling FAs to 100 hours/mo, UA to 92 and CO to 92.5/97.
As you point out, AA's FAs have lots of flexibility - AA appears to want the same flexibility. And if AA did have the power to schedule its FAs to a max of 100 hours per month, the FAs could always drop their unwanted trips, right? Sounds like a low-cost (or even no-cost) item from the FA perspective. Except for the quality of life for the FAs unable to get rid of their unwanted additional flying, of course.
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
The devil is in the details. First of all, AA has the ability of scheduling more then 82 and 77 as long as they are pure lines. We regularly see 86 hour lines on JFK-Europe. Look at the summer bid sheet for JFK-MXP. The January bid sheet shows all of the JFK-ZRH lines being worth 84.35 hours. Also, all of the JFK-LAX transcon lines are consistently built in the 79-81 hour range so their claim is false. Also, other airlines only schedule in the 90 hour range for ultra long haul flying and other airlines are capped at a percentage of lines that they are able to do that....maybe in the 15% of lines. I can guarantee you that Southwest flight attendants are not scheduled 100 hours. They have a lower duty day max then us and their stage length is less on domestic. Maybe they have that ability to schedule but the number of lines that they are able to attain that is very very small. So the idea that we are just so inefficient is just not true. There might be room for some improvement but the idea other airlines have this great advantage is simply a fallacy.
No other company will allow an employee to "remain" an employee without showing up for work. If you worked for Dell or Microsoft and you don't show up for work, and you are not on a company approved leave, then you are dropped.
The threshold idea is fair to everyone. No flying, no benefits, no seniority accrual unless you are on a company approved leave such as sick/overage leave. Just dropping trips and going to EPTS once a year and remain an employee---that's ridiculous and unfair to those of us who treat this job as a career and actually show up for work.
The 420 threshold should be tied to company seniority/travel benefits accrual. I think it should be raised to 58hrs a month as is the case with another major airline.
So over 85% fly over their 420. The 15 % that didn't paid the company for their benefits if they chose to continue them Does this chart show if this is the same flight attendants every year? We are an aging workforce, you don't know the reasons this 15 % chose to fly below 420. This chart also shows that the amount who fly over 80 hours is over 3000! Give me a break you can use statistics and charts to say anything depending on how you look at it. If we were not able to drop, it would be a hardship for those 3000 flight attendants!
According to some measures AA FAs are already the highest paid in the industry. They're certainly among the least productive in terms of work rules. So the result you're proposing already exists.
