Flight attendant overages
- Thread starter damajagua
- Start date
I just read the letter, and no where does it say that they are going to furlough if they don't get enough volunteers. In fact AA says they will be back to full strength by April 1, 2012. I don't think they will go through the trouble of furloughing for 3 months. Never say never, but I don't see it. Plus AA doesn't say it either. They can't even do the involuntary 2-3 month furlough if they want to keep any LAX-I CM speakers. They would be the first 29 to go. Plus, Nancy says they are going to have to recall more F/A's because of the grievance they did/are filed to protest the CM LOA to recall "200" F/A's. Anyway, things change, but the way I read it AA won't be furloughing anytime soon. This just makes it a little more palatable for people to take some time off, or leave with some travel privileges. Also, what if something crazy happens and all 29 CM speakers in LAX-I want the overage or Modified Partnership flying, then what does AA do? I would laugh, but that is just me.
If the compAAny were to remove a few seats per aircraft to lower f/a usage, would that not trigger a furlough without enough volunteers?
I hope you are right. Would hate to see anyone forlough. But how long can AA go with
this overage. Even before the 3% reduction in flying the company has been offering
monthly leaves. So it is obvious that there is an overage. Wether they choose to
forlough or not remains to be seen.
jimntx
Veteran
Now, that's a really impractical idea. Let's see, to reduce the f/a staffing by 1 per a/c, the "few seats" on the S80 would be 40--not quite 30% of the existing seats. On the 757, it would be a minimum of 32 seats up to 40 seats depending on configuration. On the "new" 737s they could get away with removing only 10 seats, but there aren't that many of them. The "old" 737s, you would have to remove 48 seats--almost a third of the current arrangement. That's a lot of revenue to give up just to reduce staffing on the a/c by 1 f/a.
Remember, the FAA minimum flight attendant stafffing is 1 f/a for each 50 seats on the a/c. Doesn't matter if the seats are occupied on not. 100 seats requires 2 f/as. 101 seats requires 3 f/as. No exceptions. Most of our a/c are already staffed with FAA minimums. If you can imagine, the minimum staffing for a 767-200ER is only 4 flight attendants because the total seating is only 168 passengers.
A few years ago, JetBlue removed two seats from one of their configurations because those two brought the total to 152 which requires 4 f/as. By removing two seats, the requirement was 3 f/as. We don't have a configuration where a minor adjustment in seat total would eliminate the need for 1 f/a.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
Do you not believe that the company would do anything impractical? What might seem impractical, could be a solution to a problem that has not been looked at before.
jimntx
Veteran
I just talked with my "source" at Centreport. Furlough is not what they want to do, but if enough people don't take the leaves and partnerships, they may not have a choice. As you say, the thing they are most concerned about is the LAX-I CM speakers. But, let's not forget that if they were forced to furlough them, the company without the union's permission could hire them back as strictly speakers who would occupy a passenger seat, and have no duties other than translation and making CM pa's.
I am concerned that on the Flight Service website, you access the information about the leaves under the heading Overage Leaves. And, there is a copy of a letter to Laura Glading dated November 1, 2011 under this heading also that informs her of the leaves with the reason being stated in the letter that there is an overage of flight attendants. This meets the WARN Act requirement for a 60 day notice prior to furloughing flight attendants. The WARN act does not require that they state explicitly they intend to furlough, just that they give 60 days notice before doing so. I think this would also meet the requirement that they offer OLOAs prior to furlough. They need to reduce headcount by 500 or so f/as. Two f/as in a partnership is counted as a reduction of one. If some elect the 5/10 travel separation that is even better because those are permanent reductions.
I think there are a number of flight attendants in my situation. I am too close to retirement eligibility right now to take any more time off any time soon. I will finally get my 10 years on the payroll on January 24th. After that I can retire with benefits if I have to. (Plus, I need to get last year's birthday present paid for--a new car.)
Just because an NOD has been filed does not mean the APFA will "act" on it. They have not been know for "fairness practices" when it comes to the most junior. Maybe is comes down to, "Oh **** how could we have written language that could be interpreted in a way that goes against "past practices". "Oh well, we'll just say, we've always done it that way". I encourage all of you to read the language and see if you agree. It clearly states "return to payroll". That doesn't mean offer, it means return to payroll. In any grievance you need to have opposing positions. It the APFA will not stand up for what is right, this issue will "die" like so many others involving the bottom seniority. The APFA and AA would do much better if they would put that LOA ability to good use and enhance the LOA provisions. Why should someone lose seniority, passes, insurance when they are saving a job? Ah, the 2003 RPA.
The APFA is dealing with a beast named American Airlines. AA calls the shots. The union does their best to get issues resolved. It easy to be on the outside looking in and stating your view on how these issues should be dealt with but it's a whole different ballgame when you are sitting across the table starring at AA management. They are ruthless and they dont care! Get this image of AA management being this fair and balanced bunch of individuals ...... so not the case.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
I'll add to what Jim and others have said. The 737 is the only AC where this would be even remotely feasible. The company elected to put 160 seats in the new ones and is busy converting the older ones to the newer configuration. They must have done their homework and if keeping the minimum FA staffing at three had been cost effective they certainly would have done so. A couple of years ago the company started putting 4 FAs on all 737s including those with the old configuration of 144 seats in order to avoid scheduling difficulties if a 4 FA airplane should show up in a layover city where a 3 FA airplane had left a crew the previous day. This tells me we're simply not that expensive, no matter how much huffing and puffing they do at contract time.
MK
I think your giving them more credit than they deserve. Don't be surprised if 10 seats on the 73's vAAnish.
And put bAAck the two trash cans in the aft galley that AA removed 3 yrs ago. Lets see more trash or more revenue ???
Actually, a few years ago, jetBlue removed one row of six seats, leaving its A320s with 156 (down from 162). That gave B6 it version of MRTC. That matched UA's Ted configuration. Many armchair analysts (me included) wondered why UA and B6 didn't remove those last six seats so they could fly with just three FAs instead of four. UA finally admitted that Ted was a mistake and B6 was fined for lack of onboard wheelchair stowage space and decided to remove another row of six seats to accomodate its EMLR seats plus make space for pax wheelchair in the cabin.
When AA debuted the 738s in 1999, they were configured 20F/126Y. Then, in 2000, MRTC saw 12 Y seats removed, leaving the 738s with 20F/112Y. Those were comfortable days. Then AA removed four F seats. Many FA posters here said that 20F was too many. And AA began adding more and more coach seats. Now, the new 738s are 16F/144Y and the existing 738s are being reconfigured from 16F/132 to 16F/144Y.
When AA is inveitably forced to increase legroom for at least some coach seats (matching UA/CO and DL), I could see AA adding back the four missing F seats and expanding seat pitch in four or five coach rows by removing two rows of coach. That would leave 152 total seats, so at that point, I could see AA removing two seats so they could again fly with just three FAs. 160 seats on a 738 is inhumane, unless you're short like Arpey. For normally tall Americans, the 738s have become miserable.
