Good News/bad News For Fa's

meechy36

Member
Apr 2, 2003
48
1
The good news is the minimum layovers and crew meals are better, the bad news is that with the reduction in staffing we don't need as many flight attendants.


Title: AA / APFA Reach Breakthrough Agreement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Lauri Curtis and today is Friday, October 21, 2005.


I’m very happy to share that together with the APFA, we’ve reached an agreement to improve layover rest provisions, provision flight attendant crew meals on long-range and extended long-range flights, and provide enhanced voluntary aircraft and service training options for our flight attendants.


I know that many of you are interested in the specifics associated with these changes, so let me target a few of the highlights and share them with you. The full details are outlined on the website, including implementation dates, so I encourage all of you – right up front – to visit AAFlightService.com and APFA.org.


As I mentioned, the agreement improves layover rest provisions. On the domestic side and for non-IFS/AIFS international flying, we’ve agreed to new provisions that will provide you with “eight hours behind the door†minimum rest and are comparable to the current pilot domestic layover rest rules in the actual operation.


For flying to Europe, Deep South America and Asia, we’ll move to a scheduled minimum layover of 10:30 so that it cannot fall below a ten-hour minimum in actual operations.


In terms of meal provisioning, we’ll be returning flight attendant crew meals to long-range and extended long-range flights, which covers our new Chicago-Delhi service as well as flights to and from Japan out of our DFW, Chicago and New York bases. We’ve also agreed that we’ll meet quarterly to identify other sequences that involve long duty days and the inability of flight attendants to get food. As part of these meetings, we’ve agreed to explore food options on the most egregious sequences based on catering or vendor availability.


Under the training enhancements, flight attendants will have voluntary options for acquiring additional aircraft and service qualifications offered on-line.


Because it was important to maintain cost-savings and efficiencies we’ve already achieved – and in the interest of being fair to all of the employees who’ve accepted changes to their work – there are also offsetting changes that will allow us to reach our cost goals while providing these enhancements.


Based on changes to our in-flight service and with the introduction of Buy on Board, we will make changes to our staffing formulas for Hawaii and some Transcon flights. Beginning in January 2006, the staffing formulas for these flights will decrease by one flight attendant. In December, we’ll reduce staffing by one flight attendant on domestic short-haul beverage flights under 1:30, as well. To accommodate this change, we will be adjusting the delivery of the service aboard these flights.


Beyond this agreement’s tangible changes, it also creates an understanding between the Company and APFA on how to move forward collectively to identify continuous improvement opportunities in the area of staffing. Under the agreement, we’ll work together to make joint assessments of flight attendant tasks and workload, exploring a staffing model developed for use by the APFA that is based on scientific, objective analysis.


I believe that what we’ve put together achieves the savings reached by all of our employee groups in 2003 while addressing some very real quality of work-life concerns for our flight attendants. I am confident that in achieving these, we’ve met both of those goals and taken a very important step forward in the working together process.


This agreement covers a lot of information. So I want to again encourage you to take a few moments to visit the Flight Service website, as well as www.apfa.org since we worked jointly on these communications.


We all have a stake in the future of American Airlines. Working together isn’t a temporary solution – it’s an approach to building a strong company that ensures a secure future for all of us. Pulling together really is our best asset when it comes to achieving success. We’ve got to ensure that we stay focused on our collective interests and work from those challenges toward a more solid financial foundation for our airline.


Very quickly, I want to remind all of you that the company released third-quarter financial results on Wednesday of this week. For the third quarter, we posted a loss of $153 million. Links to detailed information on Jetnet are posted on the home page of the Flight Service website. And while you’re there, take a look at the USA Today article that came out as a follow-on to our financial results. It’s a very interesting article that makes some very good points about our efforts to work together – to work differently than our competitors.

Thanks for checking in. Until next time, please fly safely and take good care
 
If AA is planning for a reduction in force for flight attendants, they must offer LOA's to reduce the staffing first. It's part of the AA/APFA CBA.
 
Is GREAT news all around. #1 concern of rest has been improved upon-and we can all use it. Is a good example of the new "joint" work being done and played out as such by the company and union-hey if it works I am all for it. In reading the agreement it really is a win for us on the line- as there was slim to none to gain on the staffing fight-I dont see this doing much to change recalls-in early 06 we will see them if not sooner..
AC
 
I dont see this doing much to change recalls-in early 06 we will see them if not sooner..
AC
Well, it certainly isn't contributing to getting us furloughees back to work, but I don't think the numbers will be devastating. Probably just a couple of months' attrition.

Maybe one of you guys on the "inside" could post any headcount reduction numbers if they show up on the Flight Service website?

MK
 
The latest numbers for September attrition have yet to be posted on the flt svc website. As soon as they are, I'll post them if someone else doesn't get to it first.

Best,
Art Tang
IMA

Well, it certainly isn't contributing to getting us furloughees back to work, but I don't think the numbers will be devastating. Probably just a couple of months' attrition.

Maybe one of you guys on the "inside" could post any headcount reduction numbers if they show up on the Flight Service website?

MK
 
The latest numbers for September attrition have yet to be posted on th flt svc website. As soon as they are, I'll post them if someone else doesn't get to it first.

Best,
Art Tang
IMA
Attrition for Sept was 73, plus 15 TWA people retired from furlough status. I've had this for two weeks. Did I forget to post it here?

However, I was referring to any headcount reduction made possible by the cuts in staffing just announced. Personally, I don't think it will amount to much. For one thing, the increased layovers may actually increase FA requirements slightly. Second, the extras cut were often not put on board anyway due to short staffing.

Another thing: this removes a safety valve. In the past, the company could eliminate extras if a base was short staffed; now they won't be able to. Eventually, barring any Huge Unforeseen Disaster, they will have to recall.

MK
 
Sorry about that...I didn't realize you had posted the numbers from September. Where are they located on the flt svc web site? I can't seem to find them. Also, I understand now that you were referring to headcount reduction made possible by the staffing cuts. Sorry about that too. I didn't see any reference to such numbers on the flt svc website or on the union site.

Take care,
Art Tang
IMA


Attrition for Sept was 73, plus 15 TWA people retired from furlough status. I've had this for two weeks. Did I forget to post it here?

However, I was referring to any headcount reduction made possible by the cuts in staffing just announced. Personally, I don't think it will amount to much. For one thing, the increased layovers may actually increase FA requirements slightly. Second, the extras cut were often not put on board anyway due to short staffing.

Another thing: this removes a safety valve. In the past, the company could eliminate extras if a base was short staffed; now they won't be able to. Eventually, barring any Huge Unforeseen Disaster, they will have to recall.

MK
 
Sorry about that...I didn't realize you had posted the numbers from September. Where are they located on the flt svc web site? I can't seem to find them. Take care,
Art Tang
IMA

Art, from the Flight Service homepage...
1. Over on the left-hand side, click on Flight Service
2. Select Department Home
3. When that page comes up, there is a heading (a URL actually) labeled Retirements.
4. When that page comes up, they give you the total attrition for the month, split out by Domestic and International. You can subtract the total number of retirements from total attrition to determine how many quit, died, or got fired.

Interestingly enough, it is the 22nd of the month and they have yet to post the September attrition. But, Kirkpatrick's number are almost always right on. I think he was wrong by one a few months ago.
:shock: :lol:
 
Thanks, Jim!

Art Tang
IMA


Art, from the Flight Service homepage...
1. Over on the left-hand side, click on Flight Service
2. Select Department Home
3. When that page comes up, there is a heading (a URL actually) labeled Retirements.
4. When that page comes up, they give you the total attrition for the month, split out by Domestic and International. You can subtract the total number of retirements from total attrition to determine how many quit, died, or got fired.

Interestingly enough, it is the 22nd of the month and they have yet to post the September attrition. But, Kirkpatrick's number are almost always right on. I think he was wrong by one a few months ago.
:shock: :lol:
 
For flying to Europe, Deep South America and Asia, we’ll move to a scheduled minimum layover of 10:30 so that it cannot fall below a ten-hour minimum in actual operations.

OMG!!!! That is serious?!? How can the layover be only 10 hours. I thought 28 hour layovers were too short for Europe. I guess if that is the case, I'm very, very glad we chose to take more paycuts to retain our workrules.
 
Fortunately, for the time being, most of our Europe layovers are stiill around 24 hours due to the fact that most of the European cities only have one flight a day to each respective base in the US. For JFK and BOS, however, there are probably layovers in London or even Paris that are shorter due to the frequency of return fligths. I am speculating about this, however.

I do know that the layovers from Miami to, say, Buenos Aires or Sao Paulo, are now about 12 hours...double all-nighters too. These tend to run extremely senior, but I don't see the appeal unless you're a commuter (I do not function well when I lose two full nights of sleep in a row). At any rate, most layovers in Europe remain over twenty hours.

Art Tang
IMA

OMG!!!! That is serious?!? How can the layover be only 10 hours. I thought 28 hour layovers were too short for Europe. I guess if that is the case, I'm very, very glad we chose to take more paycuts to retain our workrules.
 
Senior is an understatement for people flying deep south. They are even hard to buy. The change in work rules for me translates to working 3 to 4 days less a month.

Since United FA's dont go downtown for layovers under 18 hours. I would rather be home, than the end of some airport runway.
 
We don't have international layovers that are short (except maybe the 2 day MEX but considering that they only work one 4:30 hour leg/layover/one leg home who could complain about a 12 hour layover). Wow.

Just got back from a 36 hour layover in Sao Paulo which I find to be just about right to recover from. I am not trying to be rude, I'm astounded that you can physically do it.

Again, I'm very glad we didn't give away our work rules now that I've seen this. Considering that it looks like most of your layovers are under 18 hours, I can totally understand why you'd be concerned about airport hotels. :shock:
 
We don't have international layovers that are short (except maybe the 2 day MEX but considering that they only work one 4:30 hour leg/layover/one leg home who could complain about a 12 hour layover). Wow.

Just got back from a 36 hour layover in Sao Paulo which I find to be just about right to recover from. I am not trying to be rude, I'm astounded that you can physically do it.

Again, I'm very glad we didn't give away our work rules now that I've seen this. Considering that it looks like most of your layovers are under 18 hours, I can totally understand why you'd be concerned about airport hotels. :shock:


Typical BS from this United loser trying to tell us how much better off they are in bankruptcy.
 
Loser because I prefer longer layovers? OK, to each his own. (wow, I scanned my post and can't seem to find where I posted things were better off in BK......have a link to that?)