Let me get this straight?

[Flyboy4u]

OK so hypothetically we actually furlough 5,000 flight attendants and then the company has to transfer 1,000 F/A''s to STL ( Actually less than that considering those who really have thier transfer into STL already will be granted ). The remaining transfers to STL will be forced meaning Article 18 of the APFA agreement will come into play. How can AA afford to do this? I can tell you if I am forced to STL it will cost them alot of money!!! Everyone who is junior that I am talking to plan on moving to STL, and It will cost a lot of cash...The next few weeks will be VERRY Interesting...

 

[FWAAA]

----------------
On 5/5/2003 835 PM Flyboy4u wrote:


OK so hypothetically we actually furlough 5,000 flight attendants and then the company has to transfer 1,000 F/A''s to STL  ( Actually less than that considering those who really have thier transfer into STL already will be granted ).  The remaining transfers to STL will be forced meaning Article 18 of the APFA agreement will come into play.  How can AA afford to do this?   I can tell you if I am forced to STL it will cost them alot of money!!!  Everyone  who is junior that I am talking to plan on moving to STL,  and It will cost a lot of cash...The next few weeks will be VERRY Interesting...


----------------​

Yep - here''s your chance to stick it to the man. With several million dollars per day in labor savings, it won''t be too hard to pay for moving, say, 500 FAs to STL. My last cross-country move cost $6,500 with a large moving outfit. So it might cost AA a total of half a day''s concessions savings. No real problem.

 

[Flyboy4u]

I cant wait,,,,Actually, Since I am going to be furloughed anyways I can at least enjoy my summer and be recalled eventualy back to MIA under article 16D3a. I am so glad my legal education is paying off...

 

[F/A TWAA]

Any naative F/A flying out of STL after Jul 1st will be considered a "SCAAB". Good luck.

 

[Flyboy4u]

----------------
On 5/5/2003 9:34:34 PM F/A TWAA wrote:

Any naative F/A flying out of STL after Jul 1st will be considered a "SCAAB". Good luck.

----------------​

Only in your dream world... TWA no longer exists and the way its going, AA soon may no longer exist. To call those who go to STL a scab is ridiculous. All they are trying to do is make a living, however when you put the numbers together under the new pay scale, one is better finding a new job. This barely pays above minimum wage.

 

[MiAAmi]

----------------
On 5/5/2003 9:34:34 PM F/A TWAA wrote:

Any naative F/A flying out of STL after Jul 1st will be considered a "SCAAB". Good luck.

----------------​

By who? What about all the scabs that already work there? So much for bowing out gracefully. Where is all that professionalism that you all brag about? I hardly think anyone who is forced based will be considered a scab by anyone. Save the drama for the unemployement line.

 

[rampguy]

----------------
On 5/5/2003 10:25:30 PM MiAAmi wrote:

----------------
On 5/5/2003 9:34:34 PM F/A TWAA wrote:

Any naative F/A flying out of STL after Jul 1st will be considered a "SCAAB". Good luck.

----------------​

By who? What about all the scabs that already work there? So much for bowing out gracefully. Where is all that professionalism that you all brag about? I hardly think anyone who is forced based will be considered a scab by anyone. Save the drama for the unemployement line.


----------------​

Just wondering if you could make your reply singular. Only one person posted the scab comment. One person doesn''t speak for us all.

 

[AAObserver]

----------------
On 5/5/2003 835 PM Flyboy4u wrote:


OK so hypothetically we actually furlough 5,000 flight attendants and then the company has to transfer 1,000 F/A''s to STL  ( Actually less than that considering those who really have thier transfer into STL already will be granted ).  The remaining transfers to STL will be forced meaning Article 18 of the APFA agreement will come into play.  How can AA afford to do this?   I can tell you if I am forced to STL it will cost them alot of money!!!  Everyone  who is junior that I am talking to plan on moving to STL,  and It will cost a lot of cash...The next few weeks will be VERRY Interesting...


----------------​

According to your way of thinking, maybe it would be better if AMR kept the STL folks in place and laid off people like you who don''t want to move.

The STL folks are getting laid off because of the seniority rules in the union. You can''t have it both ways -- either you keep the seniority rules as they apply and be glad you''re not getting laid off, or get rid of the seniority policy and allow layoffs to come from somewhere other than the TWA so you don''t have to move to STL.

The issue you post about is just another example of why unions make no business sense whatsoever.

 

[MiAAmi]

----------------
On 5/6/2003 8:09:40 AM AAObserver wrote:

----------------
On 5/5/2003 835 PM Flyboy4u wrote:


OK so hypothetically we actually furlough 5,000 flight attendants and then the company has to transfer 1,000 F/A's to STL  ( Actually less than that considering those who really have thier transfer into STL already will be granted ).  The remaining transfers to STL will be forced meaning Article 18 of the APFA agreement will come into play.  How can AA afford to do this?   I can tell you if I am forced to STL it will cost them alot of money!!!  Everyone  who is junior that I am talking to plan on moving to STL,  and It will cost a lot of cash...The next few weeks will be VERRY Interesting...

----------------​

According to your way of thinking, maybe it would be better if AMR kept the STL folks in place and laid off people like you who don't want to move.

The STL folks are getting laid off because of the seniority rules in the union. You can't have it both ways -- either you keep the seniority rules as they apply and be glad you're not getting laid off, or get rid of the seniority policy and allow layoffs to come from somewhere other than the TWA so you don't have to move to STL.

The issue you post about is just another example of why unions make no business sense whatsoever.


----------------​

Your right sort of. Depends of what you consider business sense. If you want your employees to work for $5 an hour while you rake in millions then your right unions make no business sense. Unions were not established to make business sense. Unions were established to protect workers from unfair business tatics. If management treated workers with more respect then there wouldn't be a need for unions. I don't think you have to look very far to see why we need unions at AA. AMR Management could care less about its employees. Management lies to its employees for their own personal gain.

 

[flydcoop]

----------------
On 5/6/2003 8:09:40 AM AAObserver wrote:

The issue you post about is just another example of why unions make no business sense whatsoever.


----------------​

If I trusted AA to deal with us fairly I would agree with the above quote. They wouldn''t and would leave everything up to "Whimsy"

Unions have their good and bad, thank-god I''m in one now.

I have recall rights...try talking to a RIFed front-line manager about when they get to come back. It doesn''t matter how many years of service or knowledge you have.

Sorry to say, when the Management RIF hits, it is not based on merit...it is purely subjective and political.

This is where a Union furlough is much more fair. Yes, a few bad apples may be "protected", but to me it''s better than the head of a dept furthering their own mediocrity through retaining the "yes" men.

Coop

 

[FlyStorms]

"If management treated workers with more respect then there wouldn''t be a need for unions"


Respect has to go BOTH ways...

 

[AAmech]

----------------
On 5/6/2003 12:58:48 PM MiAAmi wrote:
But where does it start? I think the saying goes " A fish rots from the head down"
----------------​

The main problem with AA management is with their hiring process. They seem to have a knack for finding the malcontents in a crowd and then go hiring them! To enhance you chances of employment at AA come to the interview with a bad attitude. Bash your former Company and its employees. Emphasise how you are God''s gift to AMT''s FA''s Pilots ect. ect.ect. And last but not least, try to have at least a couple years working for Eastern Airlines!

 

[MiAAmi]

----------------
On 5/6/2003 12:03:34 PM FlyStorms wrote:

"If management treated workers with more respect then there wouldn''t be a need for unions"


Respect has to go BOTH ways...

----------------​

But where does it start? I think the saying goes " A fish rots from the head down"

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/6/2003 9:56:17 AM MiAAmi wrote:

Unions were established to protect workers from unfair business tatics. If management treated workers with more respect then there wouldn''t be a need for unions.
----------------​

But why then is Southwest one of the most heavily unionize airlines in the USA? Given your statements, there should hardly be a union on the property.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

But where does it start? I think the saying goes " A fish rots from the head down"
------------------------------------------------------------

I''ll tell you where everything starts:

Management manages.
Leadership leads.

And the employees either follow or react, or a combination thereof.

As corporate culture comes from the top, change can only come from the top. And actions speak louder than words. Quite often, if the words are not matched by actions, the words are perceived as something less than the truth. This in itself will cause a reaction counter to the desired effect of the words.