Flight Attendant Term Sheet
- Thread starter jimntx
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #77
Either you are not an American flight attendant or you must have been on the sick list the day the former TWA flight attendants were added to our seniority list at the bottom. I am senior (for bidding purposes) to the most senior of the former TWs. Not by much, but I am senior to all of the former TW f/as. They received credit for their years at TW in company seniority (for benefits, like retirement and travel), but not for bidding purposes.
And, the bidding seniority list is what controls the order in which people get furloughed. Thus my original statement that I am "just north" of the middle of the 2800. Almost all of the people between me and #2800 are former TW f/as. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. It's just the way it is.
- Thread Starter
- #78
Yes, but the 500 who are subject to furlough on 01APR are not included in the 2300. The company made that specific when they announced the beginning of the furlough process to be effective 01APR. That's where people are getting numbers higher than 2300. I agree that 2500 is wrong. It's actually 2800.
The 2300 is the number by which the company wants to permanently reduce the total f/a corps. This is their estimate of how many positions would be saved by having a combined f/a corps and not have to maintain two separate groups of reserves.
When the union says that 3000 would retire if the company would offer a package and then the company could immediately hire 500 f/as at new hire wages, it's just not so. As of 01Jan2012 there were still 217 f/as on the furlough list with a possibility of up to 500 more going on furlough 01APR. Those f/as would still have to be recalled before the company could hire again. If it is as many as 700 on the furlough list, we are back over the 2300 that the company wants gone.
Just a thought: Do you honestly think the company wants to be locked into not being able to hire again for AT LEAST 5 years? They have already agreed (in principle) to unlimited recall. The company wants to be able to hire off the street. And then you have those pesky little CMSs who are able to gain seniority and benefits while more senior are still on the street.
- Thread Starter
- #80
That's just my point. The company says it wants to permanently reduce the f/a corps by 2300 bodies. Fine. The company wants to hire off the street. Fine. Then they will need to offer something worthwhile to interest top of scale f/as in retiring. As long as there is a furlough list, there will be no hiring (well, other than CM speakers and any other exception that the company can talk the APFA into 
).
).As long as there is a furlough list, there will be no hiring
...and that's a fact that many don't quite grasp
...and that's a fact that many don't quite grasp
Nancy, with all due respect, those "pesky" CM speakers were hired because not enough current fas, both on the furlough list, and on the line qualified for the language. The offer was given to those on furlough to qualify for the language before the hiring ad was posted. I flew with two former TWA fas in LGA who are ethnic American chinese. One was never taught by her parents to speak Chinese and the other refused to qualify because she couldn't stand mainland Chinese.
Those "pesky little CMs" triggered the recall of 200 additional FAs off the furlough list who obviously were not needed and who have just escaped furlough on 4/1. I think it's time we got over the CM issue.
MK
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
On Thursday, a dubious industry consultant called me up to ask me what I thought about the $1 billion goal. On Friday, analyst Hunter Keay of Wolfe Trahan dumped a whole bunch of skepticism on American's plans.
Wrote Hunter, with the headline "The AMR revenue plan begs questions":
"We think AMR believes high costs and restrictive labor contracts were and are the main drivers of, if not the only reasons for, its revenue deficiency. We believe differently.
"The cost/labor argument as a facilitator of a revenue deficit was probably true when AMR competed for price sensitive customers against low cost carriers but less true when AMR competed for corporate contracts against other network carriers with more powerful networks.
"Given that AMR is apparently intend on winning back large corporate customers predominantly by restructuring labor contracts but operating a network that closely resembles the network that it had entering bankruptcy, we see a low probability of success. We conitinue to believe that AMR has a low likelihood of emerging from bankruptcy as a viable standalone airline."
Any one surprised by this?
Wrote Hunter, with the headline "The AMR revenue plan begs questions":
"We think AMR believes high costs and restrictive labor contracts were and are the main drivers of, if not the only reasons for, its revenue deficiency. We believe differently.
"The cost/labor argument as a facilitator of a revenue deficit was probably true when AMR competed for price sensitive customers against low cost carriers but less true when AMR competed for corporate contracts against other network carriers with more powerful networks.
"Given that AMR is apparently intend on winning back large corporate customers predominantly by restructuring labor contracts but operating a network that closely resembles the network that it had entering bankruptcy, we see a low probability of success. We conitinue to believe that AMR has a low likelihood of emerging from bankruptcy as a viable standalone airline."
Any one surprised by this?
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Probably not a discussion for this thread, but anyone who thinks AA is going to stick with the status quo on the network is an idiot. And I'm not exactly impressed with Keay's research, or that of anyone else who gets quoted on a regular basis by USA Today or Bloomberg... Real analysts (e.g. Gary Chase, Jamie Baker, Kevin Crissey) don't need to give away their analysis in McPaper, mainly because they have people willing to pay for their opinions...
If AA haven't planned to expand beyond the present footprint, why go thru all the trouble of eliminating the commuter restrictions in the TWU contract, re-writing the cap on 88 seaters & below to be 50% of mainline aircraft, allowing for more domestic codesharing, etc.
DL and UA haven't made gains simply because they operate a lot of capacity in the top 20 markets. They've made gains because they also can offer a reasonable two-cabin product in markets which AA couldn't afford to serve with an MD80 and were beyond what Eagle could serve with a single cabin 50 seater.
Ironically, it appears that UA may be undoing some of those gains as the battle with their pilots over scope continues.
Again, it's off the topic, and been beaten to death elsewhere...
jersey777
Veteran
- May 24, 2006
- 627
- 73
It is not a bit off topic. If American Airlines is asking the flight attendants for massive cuts in their term sheet then they had better have a business plan to back up their claim that severity of the cuts are needed. Clearly, their business plan has not changed from the same lousy one they had the last 8 years as far as revenue goes. This whole "right sizing" of the airline, which I don't think is a bad thing, looks to me as a cost cutting measure and not a revenue producer. Of coarse YOU of all people would discount this analyst....I was expecting this. I don't see how any clear thinking individual cannot see this bankruptcy for what it is......American Airlines is attempting to get its lifetime dream of gutting ALL their labor contracts.
As far as the "negotiations process goes, I am going to quote a friend regarding AA's latest press release about the need to speed up the negotiations process......I don't think I could have said it better.
"Really AMR Corporation? You are so damn full of sh+*. Actually, there is more than ample time for something fair to be hammered out. You're just not interested. This is exactly what Laura warned me about. The company has demonstrated that they are utterly uninterested in negotiating with any of their unions. They aren't even at the table -- their consultants -- pawns -- are. AA want to go straight to the judge and abrogate the contracts under section 1113. They have wanted this all along -- since way before the bankruptcy filing. They are simply letting the required number of days pass until that becomes legally possible and half-heartedly going through the motions. It will end up backfiring on them."
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Part of my day job is reading what the various analysts say about our potential clients.... There are a handful of analysts who get quoted for no other purpose to drum up business for their firms. Hunter and Ray Neidl top that list, along with Bob McAdoo. The difference with McAdoo is that he's been around and worked in the airline industry before becoming an analyst. He's earned his credibility (even if I don't agree with him). Keay & Neidl on the other hand have never worked on the inside, nor have they been around long enough to have credibility.
Then there are boutique consultants like Mike Boyd, George Hamlin, Henry Harteveldt, and Darryl Jenkins. They get quoted, and yes, that markets their services, but they aren't selling investment advice. Their clients are either the airlines, airports, or labor unions, most of whom know a load of BS when they hear it. And all four of these guys have been on the inside, which clearly separates them from the cookie cutter/parasitic consultants like Accenture, BCG, and McKinsey. I put more faith in one quote from Henry than I do in a page of Hunter's "advice".
I'm fairly certain that AA knows what they want to do as far as network changes. And until they have a full confidence in what the new labor terms will be, there's no point signaling those changes to UA & DL. Why let them launch competing service before AA has approval to implement the contract changes, let alone start the new service?...
Similar threads
