Flight Attendant Term Sheet

[WorldTraveler]

thanks, Jim. I was aware that the language speakers were subject to layoff... I'm just a little surprised that AA did not come up w/ some revision that would have given them the right to keep and use these and other language speakers as they wished - since so much else is being changed.
.
Just for perspective, what percent of AA's Latin America flights are flown by US based FAs and how much by Latin based FAs and can crews ever be made up of both US and Latin based FAs? Since AA's largest int'l operations are in English speaking (most of the time we can understand them) UK and Latin America (with foreign crews), maybe the language issue isn't as big at AA as it is at other carriers.
.
I believe the NW concept of language FAs was that they were technically not part of the FA complement - and that was part of what changed w/ the final labor board decision giving DL freedom to staff as it wishes - so DL is now (or will be) using its US based language FAs (which are part of the working complement crew) as well as the intra-Asia FAs on flights within Asia.

 

[jersey777]

First off I am waiting for an apology from my elected negotiators........yeah I know you have to play hardball....and try to get all you can......but at some point you need to be able to see the writing on the wall and cut your losses........they didn't!!!!

Now instead of having a zero sum contract....we have a loss on every single line item......and we have absolutely ZERO leverage......hold on to the Golden goose of the pension all these years when you could have negotiated it away and got a lot for it.......but no.....now we will give it away for free....and have pretty much no say in it....

Still pissed....still not ready to vote for either one of them because they both have dirt on their hands over this......I will calm down....but not yet!!!!!!

Butch.....steaming in ORD!!!
[/quot



Your anger is so misdirected! Your elected negotiators were trying to get you the best deal possible yet you dump on them! Why don't you write a nice little letter to Lauri Curtis and tell her how you feel and maybe everything will change and American Airlines will give you everything your heart so desires!

 

[czerny]

Where did you come up with 2500?

That was the amount the Company came up with if all the terms on the sheet were fulfilled. The current overage is 500, but if there is one rsv pool with dual qualified fas and with the number of flight hours planned, the overage, according to AA, will be 2,500 in our work group.

 

[butchord45]

not misdirected at all......I have plenty of disappointment with the way the company handled everything as well........


Your anger is so misdirected! Your elected negotiators were trying to get you the best deal possible yet you dump on them! Why don't you write a nice little letter to Lauri Curtis and tell her how you feel and maybe everything will change and American Airlines will give you everything your heart so desires!

 

[jimntx]

That was the amount the Company came up with if all the terms on the sheet were fulfilled. The current overage is 500, but if there is one rsv pool with dual qualified fas and with the number of flight hours planned, the overage, according to AA, will be 2,500 in our work group.

Actually, Byron if you are counting the 500 to be furloughed 01APR, the total is 2800--500 now and 2300 as a result of combining the domestic and International corps. The number the company announced (not counting the current 500) was 2300.

 

[kirkpatrick]

One other option for the company would be to rehire the speakers as just speakers. They would fly the trips, do PAs and translate as needed, have no flight attendant duties, and would occupy a passenger seat for takeoff and landing. In this case, I think any who did this would lose their flight attendant standing and could not be recalled as a flight attendant. (But, I don't know that for sure.)

They've done that in the past, I believe. I see nothing that could stop them from hiring the Mandarin speakers in another capacity, as you mention, and then recalling them as FAs when their numbers come up.

I see two things that can save us, and let's hope they do. One is bargaining down the company's proposals a bit (see ORD78's post above - the judge isn't likely to rubber stamp the company's demands) and the other is to offer some sort of retirement incentive, if not money, then allowing FAs to retire under the "old rules" if they go by a certain date. It happened at UA, and if done correctly, could attract a large number here as well.

MK

 

[jimntx]

IIRC, they did hire some speaker only folk for the ill-fated Moscow service because there were already people on furlough from 9/11. However, they were never trained/qualified as flight attendants. If they were going to do that, they would have made some deal with the union to recall the former TW Russian speakers--which I believe you had. IORFA jump in here.

Before the LAX speakers could be "hired" as speakers only, they would have to resign/be terminated as flight attendants. I'm fairly certain that even AMR can not have someone on furlough from a union position and hired back into the same job as a non-union position, but with fewer responsibilities. If they can, then the union has not done its job.

Your second paragraph is going to get you in trouble. I warned you yesterday about using logic in connection with AA operations/policies/procedures. I shall have to report you for a Rule 32 violation.

Actually, I heard some time ago that the company was going to make a "this is your last chance" type offer to get some of the very senior to retire--something similar to what you were suggesting. However, now that they have made it public that they intend to eliminate retiree medical, can they legally say that "you can still have it if you leave now?" Besides, many of them were warned a few years ago that if they did not leave "soon" then the reduced pay rates from the 2003 concessions would have to be included at least partially in their pension calculation and would reduce their monthly benefit. Made hardly a dent. And, this is the last year that ANY pre-2003 earnings can count.

In fact, according to someone who attended some of the retirement seminars, more than one insisted that "when I get ready to retire, I'm going to fly high time for 4 years to build up my pension." When it was pointed out that wouldn't really work because only the first 85 hours each month counts for pension credit. The seminar leader was informed by the flight attendants that she was wrong. Every hour flown counted. The source of their information? "My girlfriend flew over 100 hours each month for the last 4 years and every minute of it counted toward her pension."

 

[IORFA]

The Russian Translators were trained as quasi F/A's. They needed to be so the FAA would let them be up when the seat belt sign was on. Just no service training. No sitting in the jump seats though, for take off and landing. They had coach seats, last row AB or just B if full. Even they ruined the ability to sit in F/C, some people just can't handle themselves. They also had to work in the office. It was a 5 day a week job. They met the flight in customs and worked the departure. Helping start forms and pass out activity literature in the boarding lounge. Went on sales calls and did some translating of documents. I don't think they CM speakers have to resign if AA wants to hire them into any open position with in AMR. At least that has been the case in the past. Just for perspective, the 2800 goes past the former Reno Air F/A's. That is amazing. I hope that helps.

P.S. Let hope they come up with something to entice people to retire. Also, on that subject, yes the FAE is going to be less the years of service is also going to be greater. Thus it usually makes up for the difference fore the lower FAE.

FAE = Fainl Average Earnings

 

[jimntx]

I am "just north" of the middle of the 2800. Last June when they published the 2011 Seniority List I was 1601 from the bottom of the active list. However, some of those below me have left since then--particularly former TW people who were forced to endure 5 weeks of training (at company expense) in order to get one day on the payroll so they could retire. I'm guessing that I am about 1500-1550 from the bottom right now. Depending on how the current OLOA/partnership flying proffer goes, I will be even closer on April 2nd.

I've heard conflicting rumors. One I mentioned above about a retirement incentive package. the other that a f/a I know worked a flight with Liz Geiss, or she was traveling on the flight (that part is not clear), and that Liz told the f/a that furloughs were inevitable. I guess we will wait and see.

Back to the term sheet...what does everyone think of the requirement that f/as will have to fly a minimum of 200 hours/yr in a rolling 12-month lookback in order to maintain employment? Now, I made my feelings known some time ago on the subject of flight attendants who never fly. I think they should have made the threshold at least 400 hours. Under current scheduling, 200 hours/year is approx. 1 3-day trip per month.

There will be no more "Oh, I haven't flown a trip in 10 years. The only time I even get on an airplane is to come to Dallas for EPTs." It should also put a stop to the flight attendants who have full-time jobs elsewhere or their own businesses and keep quals for the non-rev travel benefits. I think that if you want to call yourself a flight attendant, you should have to be a flight attendant on occasion. Working with the mockup doors to the endless delay of others at recurrent until you get the commands right is not being a flight attendant. At recurrent last October, I almost missed the start of the security session (which would mean I would not get qualified that day) because I am 777 qualified, and there was an older 777 flight attendant who couldn't get the commands correct; so, they went over and over it with her for over 30 minutes while everyone else waited. I said to the instructor that she should have been made to step aside and try again later. The response was "that is not our procedure. We work with the person until they pass." I wonder if the FAA knows that. Another case of passenger safety be damned.

 

[ord78]

what does everyone think of the requirement that f/as will have to fly a minimum of 200 hours/yr in a rolling 12-month lookback in order to maintain employment?

I for one agree with that but would like it even higher. Although i'm at 32 years i still fly at least 2 extra trips per month, the reason is simple economics. Our pay has been eroded not only by the 2003 debacle but simple inflation as well. I have always thought that one of the reasons in managements mind for having flexible flying options up to and including almost no flying is to dilute the workforce with workers who don't really care to much about a CBA. And the proof is here for everyone to see, just look at the last tally for officers election. Really? Only 6800 or so voted out of a pool of 13500 or so? And it could not have been easier, just pick up the freaking telephone. I too am tired of having to explain to the non-flying f/a's i work with the details of whats what with negations and the union and the company..and on and on. I want full time all the time workers, people who give a rats #^%$ about our working conditions. So if this process weeds out the hangers-on then so be it. The more economically devoted the employee the better for everyone, including the employer.

...just my 2 cents

 

[jersey777]

what does everyone think of the requirement that f/as will have to fly a minimum of 200 hours/yr in a rolling 12-month lookback in order to maintain employment?

I for one agree with that but would like it even higher. Although i'm at 32 years i still fly at least 2 extra trips per month, the reason is simple economics. Our pay has been eroded not only by the 2003 debacle but simple inflation as well. I have always thought that one of the reasons in managements mind for having flexible flying options up to and including almost no flying is to dilute the workforce with workers who don't really care to much about a CBA. And the proof is here for everyone to see, just look at the last tally for officers election. Really? Only 6800 or so voted out of a pool of 13500 or so? And it could not have been easier, just pick up the freaking telephone. I too am tired of having to explain to the non-flying f/a's i work with the details of whats what with negations and the union and the company..and on and on. I want full time all the time workers, people who give a rats #^%$ about our working conditions. So if this process weeds out the hangers-on then so be it. The more economically devoted the employee the better for everyone, including the employer.

...just my 2 cents

I agree with you on this. I would be interested to see how this change to the contract has been costed out by the company and how much credit goes toward their 1.25 billion in concessions.

 

[conniegirl]

I agree with you on this. I would be interested to see how this change to the contract has been costed out by the company and how much credit goes toward their 1.25 billion in concessions.

There would have been considerably more votes had the TWA people not had to pay a "poll Tax" to do so. APFA and it's membership (excluding the TW people) decided that they certainly didn't want the nagging little problem of the fact that the TW people voted and voted in bloc. Thus the tax that meant that, even though they were out on the street, they were required to pay their full amount of dues - past and present- in order to vote in the election.

What may be the most interesting thing to come out of this whole debacle will be the outcry from the "native" flight attendants when they too are looking down the barrel of the tax-gun. Wonder if things will be magically changed at that time by the APFA Board.

 

[IORFA]

Don't forget that you had the opportunity, as you say to "vote in bloc", to not enact the dues requirement. I'm not worried about it, if it gets bad enough APFA will change it eventually. I am sure those that get furloughed will not pay the dues, just so they can vote. If there is only half the membership allowed to vote, things will change.

 

[conniegirl]

Don't forget that you had the opportunity, as you say to "vote in bloc", to not enact the dues requirement. I'm not worried about it, if it gets bad enough APFA will change it eventually. I am sure those that get furloughed will not pay the dues, just so they can vote. If there is only half the membership allowed to vote, things will change.

I'm afraid you're mistaken...the" vote" was taken away long ago and the Poll tax just cemented it in place. We had no option of voting either for or against the dues requirement. That was implemented by the Board without a membership vote. Do you remember voting on this issue? Thought not.

 

[jimntx]

If there is only half the membership allowed to vote, things will change.

I doubt that very seriously. As ORD78 pointed out in a post above, with 16,000 (give or take) f/as, only 6800 voted in the union election. With apathy like that, the company need not fear any action by the union. The "know-nothing-and-proud-of-it" majority will just keep coming to work. The alternative might be to go get a real job where you have to actually show up on a regular basis and do something in order to get paid and/or call yourself an employee.

I'm one of the most junior f/as in the system, and like ORD78, I have f/as with over 20 years asking me what's on the term sheet and what does it mean. I gave them the link to go look at it themselves, but they just want someone to tell them so they don't have to take the time to read it.

If you don't take the personal responsibility to learn your contract and know what it says--they have wonderful Contract and Scheduling classes at union headquarters--you deserve whatever treatment the company doles out to you. I heard a crew scheduler say one time (he didn't realize I was a flight attendant) that they know they can break the contract if they are in a bind and assign flight attendants that are technically not legal because they know that most of the f/as don't know if and when they go illegal.