Layoffs

[American Air Surf]

WORD HAS IT, THE LAYOFF NUMBERS WILL BE OUT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THIS IS FROM A VERY REUPTIBLE SOURCE- "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS", IT IS GOING TO BE A ROUGH RIDE....

DFW- Fleet Service Layoff....

Best Case- 40+
Most Likely- 70+
Also, add bumps from AA/DFW Freight 11-30
And...bumps into DFW from the System....

My guess is packages will be out around April 15th, 2009, talk about a taxing situation..

 

[American Air Surf]

Where are the WARN letters? We haven't seen anything in our department at DFW. Then again, we were filling spots until a few weeks ago too.

Facilities Maintenance

Here is DOT/ WARN Stipulations...Your questions will be answered here...

http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm

 

[American Air Surf]

DFW- Fleet Service Layoff....

Best Case- 40+
Most Likely- 70+
Also, add bumps from AA/DFW Freight 11-30
And...bumps into DFW from the System....

My guess is packages will be out around April 15th, 2009, talk about a taxing situation..

UPDATE for DFW....3/25/09 ...

Layoffs are now projected to go as high as 141- Fulltime equilivent heads, and this does not include System Bump & Roll... Stay tuned..

 

[Barfbag]

AA still hiring at AAcareers.com but laying off 323 Flight attendants. ???????????????????????????

What's the total # of F/A........ over 35K..........323 that's less than a 1% reduction, is that right?

In this economic environment that's not bad, for now anyway.

 

[jersey777]

There were just a little over 17,000 flights attendants before the furlough...not 35,000. The highest number we had was around 24,000 in 2001....right after we purchased TWA.

 

[Barfbag]

There were just a little over 17,000 flights attendants before the furlough...not 35,000. The highest number we had was around 24,000 in 2001....right after we purchased TWA.

Thanks Jersey, still it amounts to less than 2%. Not bad nimbers..if this carries through other departments, it's actually great news ( except if you're not sitting in a chair, when the music stops ).

2 %, you lose more in attrition, and turnovers at other industries.

That AMR is not solely a domestic no-frills carrier, makes it well positioned to weather this economic storm into 2Q of 2010.

 

[jimntx]

Thanks Jersey, still it amounts to less than 2%. Not bad nimbers

You have to look at this in context. The fact that 323 f/as are being furloughed has nothing to do with the actual overage numbers. It has to do with how many f/as they could furlough at one time and stay below state and Federal WARN law threshholds.

Nationwide, if the number of employees in a work group subject to furlough is less than 500, the Federal WARN act does not apply.

The reason the number of f/as subject to furlough was 410 (of which 323 are actually being furloughed) is that is the maximum number they could furlough and not activate the New York state WARN law. The NY law requires a 90-day notice if the number of NY-based employees in the workgroup being furloughed is 250 or greater. It is no coincidence that out of the 410 that were notified they were subject to furlough, 249 were LGA-based f/as.

I expect additional furlough announcements of f/as later this year--the first being right after Labor Day. None of the announcements will be for as many as 500 f/as, nor will any include more than 249 New York-based f/as. (Yes, that's correct. Whenever things look blackest, I'm always there with the voice of doom. )

 

[FA Mikey]

I dont know how the NY law works, but could AA if they chose to furlough another group next month and each month beyond and possibly stay within the letter although not the spirit of the law?

 

[jimntx]

Yes. And, I think that will be their modus operandi in the future unless there is a situation as we had in 2003 where they had to furlough so many of us at one time to stay out of bankruptcy. And, let me also add that I don't think that bankruptcy is the big bugaboo to them it used to be.

It is a very real possibility that AMR will go the bankruptcy route--particularly if the unions get the upper hand in contract negotiations. Say, if something un-American happens, such as an arbitrator taking our side.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Methinks that if they keep "cherry pickin' " LGA, that sooner rather than later, it won't be the junior base anymore.

 

[American Air Surf]

UPDATE for DFW....3/25/09 ...

Layoffs are now projected to go as high as 141- Fulltime equilivent heads, and this does not include System Bump & Roll... Stay tuned..

DFW/FSC. (new bid) ...Bidding, Starting April 6th, 09 for Crew Chiefs, and FSC, has been post phoned. So...new bid effective May 2nd, 09 will probably be pushed back- I hear HDQ, is having trouble getting their "numbers" together. Will advise of any future developments......

 

[Hopeful]

Same thing with JFK. They are closing EWR for AA employees. JFK-EWR-LGA fall under the one station agreement........Let the bumping and rolling begin.......................

 

[Bob Owens]

Nationwide, if the number of employees in a work group subject to furlough is less than 500, the Federal WARN act does not apply.

FAMikey
I dont know how the NY law works, but could AA if they chose to furlough another group next month and each month beyond and possibly stay within the letter although not the spirit of the law?

Here's how the WARN Act adresses that.
An employer also must give notice if the number of employment losses which occur during a 30-day period fails to meet the threshold requirements of a plant closing or mass layoff, but the number of employment losses for 2 or more groups of workers, each of which is less than the minimum number needed to trigger notice, reaches the threshold level, during any 90-day period, of either a plant closing or mass layoff. Job losses within any 90-day period will count together toward WARN threshold levels, unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses during the 90-day period are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes.

So if they lay off 500 people in total, not just from any one group, within the 90 day period the WARN applies.

What I'm wondering is if they offer the VBR again could they get the numbers below the trigger?

 

[Bob Owens]

Same thing with JFK. They are closing EWR for AA employees.

Haven't heard that. As far as the JFK bid for Fleet I think there were lingering questions as far as the implementation of Kasher DRC32 so they couldnt bid till the seniority list was correct.

There were less corrections to be made in Maint and they were cleared up at the last minute so the maintenance bid went ahead as planned, otherwise it would have been held up as well.

 

[jimntx]

Here's how the WARN Act adresses that.
An employer also must give notice if the number of employment losses which occur during a 30-day period fails to meet the threshold requirements of a plant closing or mass layoff, but the number of employment losses for 2 or more groups of workers, each of which is less than the minimum number needed to trigger notice, reaches the threshold level, during any 90-day period, of either a plant closing or mass layoff. Job losses within any 90-day period will count together toward WARN threshold levels, unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses during the 90-day period are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes.

So if they lay off 500 people in total, not just from any one group, within the 90 day period the WARN applies.

What I'm wondering is if they offer the VBR again could they get the numbers below the trigger?

Not really, Bob. Be careful that you don't confuse "people subject to furlough" and "people actually furloughed." The Federal WARN act is activated if the number of people who might be furloughed is over 500. The letters must be sent at least 60 days prior to the expected furlough date. AFTER the letters are sent, the furlough mitigation options--such as the VBR, partnership flying, leaves of absence--are offered.

What you quoted does prevent them from doing monthly furloughs--something I didn't know; so thanks. However, as I read it, they can still do furloughs every 91 days without WARN letters as long as the total number subject to the furlough is less than 500.

As far as the VBR, I doubt offering it again would have made much difference. The people who wanted it, took it last summer. Since then there probably has not been a substantial increase in the number of people eligible for it--more than 20(?) years, age 50 or over. Beside that with the economy in the toilet, we have f/as who had planned to retire this year choosing to stay longer. So, I doubt anyone would be interested in resigning from the company (which is what the VBR is) before they are eligible for retirement.