Or, should everyone just get their resumes in order?
This is a letter to and response from Laurie Curtis, V-P, Flight Service at AA regarding the Dow Jones story from June that suggested 8000 more layoffs by next June. My comments at the end.
Dear Lauri:
The following Dow Jones story is showing up on chat boards indicating
that AMR is planning another round of layoffs sometime before June
2004. Here is the story as it was forwarded to me.
AMR says 8000 more layoffs by June 2004
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--AMR Corp. (AMR), the parent of American
Airlines, said it expects to reduce 8,000 jobs by June 2004 in
conjunction with Management Reductions and Modified Labor Agreements.
According to a quarterly report filed Friday with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the work-force reduction will affect all work
groups and will be accomplished through various measures, including
part-time work schedules, furloughs and permanent layoffs.
AMR said, however, that if the revenue environment deteriorates
beyond normal seasonal trends or if the company isn't able to access
the capital markets or sell assets, it may be unable to fund its
obligations and sustain its operations.
The company recorded a charge of about $60 million in the second
quarter ended June 30 as a result of the reductions. The charge was
primarily for costs related to severance.
AMR also said its minimum required pension contribution for 2003
amounted to $186 million, and its required pension contribution for
2004 probably will be at least $600 million.
Based on the current regulatory environment and market conditions,
AMR said, the company expects its 2005 minimum required pension
contributions to "significantly exceed" its 2004 minimum required
pension contributions.
The company's capital expenditures for the first six months of 2003
amounted to $847 million, the filing said.
Ben Siegel; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-3544
It seems we are already short flight attendants, how can we do
without any more of us? Even though you have said that we don't
foresee additional furloughs in the fall, the media is saying that's
not true. What's the real story?
Lauri's Response:
First and foremost, the date that is attached to this story is
incorrect. It was released on July 18, which was also the day that we
released our 2Q financial results along with a number of
announcements about changes we would be making to our STL hub. So to
position this story as current removes it from the context that gives
it the perspective it needs.
The second point I think is worth noting is that between setting-down
the F100s and changes to our Maintenance and Ground Operations, this
8000 should not impact Flight Service any further than the 3000
furloughs that took effect at the beginning of July. Having said
that, our business remains fluid and changes in our current situation
could have the ability to change our plans for the future.
However, as I mentioned in my hotline a couple weeks ago, we do not
currently foresee additional furloughs.
As we move into the fall, there are several "unknowns" that could
impact our manning situation. As we've already announced, the
accelerated grounding of the F100s will mean fewer planes by the
middle of 2004. Depending upon whether the F100 flying will support a
S80 versus regional jet flying will impact our manning. We also
continue to review attrition to see what impact it will have.
There are any number of factors that continue to drive the question
of whether or not we will see additional furloughs in the future. I
hope that this explanation clarifies the 8000 furloughs related to
this Dow Jones news story. As we finalize numbers about manning, I
will continue to share that information with all of you as soon as I
can. I appreciate you bringing this information to my attention and
giving me the chance to talk about it. I know that times are tough
right now and communicating the facts is extremely important.
Best regards,
Lauri Curtis
Vice President, Flight Service
IMHO...
First off, call me paranoid, but the Dow Jones news service is not exactly tabloid press. The article said that the reduction would be 8000 employees from ALL work groups. The word, furlough, was used, and as far as I know that term is used only with pilots, f/a's, and mechanics. Most importantly though, it seems that everytime AMR management denies a news story from a reputable source this strongly, it ends up being true down the road. Note that Lauri Curtis says that the story is out of date because of the time it was originally published. Of course, we don't know how long ago the flight attendant wrote to her or how long she took to finally respond. Wait long enough and almost any article can be said to be out of date.
Also, note the wording on this sentence...
"Depending upon whether the F100 flying will support a S80 versus regional jet flying will impact our manning." Is this just a shot across the bow to let everyone know that a lot more cities are going to Eagle? The company will fly S80s into some of these cities for a few months (DFW-BHM has already switched to 2 S80s and 1 F100 per day) then switch them to AE with the announcement that the traffic just does not support S80 service.
This would have a significant impact on f/a staffing needs at DFW, LGA, and ORD.
This is a letter to and response from Laurie Curtis, V-P, Flight Service at AA regarding the Dow Jones story from June that suggested 8000 more layoffs by next June. My comments at the end.
Dear Lauri:
The following Dow Jones story is showing up on chat boards indicating
that AMR is planning another round of layoffs sometime before June
2004. Here is the story as it was forwarded to me.
AMR says 8000 more layoffs by June 2004
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--AMR Corp. (AMR), the parent of American
Airlines, said it expects to reduce 8,000 jobs by June 2004 in
conjunction with Management Reductions and Modified Labor Agreements.
According to a quarterly report filed Friday with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the work-force reduction will affect all work
groups and will be accomplished through various measures, including
part-time work schedules, furloughs and permanent layoffs.
AMR said, however, that if the revenue environment deteriorates
beyond normal seasonal trends or if the company isn't able to access
the capital markets or sell assets, it may be unable to fund its
obligations and sustain its operations.
The company recorded a charge of about $60 million in the second
quarter ended June 30 as a result of the reductions. The charge was
primarily for costs related to severance.
AMR also said its minimum required pension contribution for 2003
amounted to $186 million, and its required pension contribution for
2004 probably will be at least $600 million.
Based on the current regulatory environment and market conditions,
AMR said, the company expects its 2005 minimum required pension
contributions to "significantly exceed" its 2004 minimum required
pension contributions.
The company's capital expenditures for the first six months of 2003
amounted to $847 million, the filing said.
Ben Siegel; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-3544
It seems we are already short flight attendants, how can we do
without any more of us? Even though you have said that we don't
foresee additional furloughs in the fall, the media is saying that's
not true. What's the real story?
Lauri's Response:
First and foremost, the date that is attached to this story is
incorrect. It was released on July 18, which was also the day that we
released our 2Q financial results along with a number of
announcements about changes we would be making to our STL hub. So to
position this story as current removes it from the context that gives
it the perspective it needs.
The second point I think is worth noting is that between setting-down
the F100s and changes to our Maintenance and Ground Operations, this
8000 should not impact Flight Service any further than the 3000
furloughs that took effect at the beginning of July. Having said
that, our business remains fluid and changes in our current situation
could have the ability to change our plans for the future.
However, as I mentioned in my hotline a couple weeks ago, we do not
currently foresee additional furloughs.
As we move into the fall, there are several "unknowns" that could
impact our manning situation. As we've already announced, the
accelerated grounding of the F100s will mean fewer planes by the
middle of 2004. Depending upon whether the F100 flying will support a
S80 versus regional jet flying will impact our manning. We also
continue to review attrition to see what impact it will have.
There are any number of factors that continue to drive the question
of whether or not we will see additional furloughs in the future. I
hope that this explanation clarifies the 8000 furloughs related to
this Dow Jones news story. As we finalize numbers about manning, I
will continue to share that information with all of you as soon as I
can. I appreciate you bringing this information to my attention and
giving me the chance to talk about it. I know that times are tough
right now and communicating the facts is extremely important.
Best regards,
Lauri Curtis
Vice President, Flight Service
IMHO...
First off, call me paranoid, but the Dow Jones news service is not exactly tabloid press. The article said that the reduction would be 8000 employees from ALL work groups. The word, furlough, was used, and as far as I know that term is used only with pilots, f/a's, and mechanics. Most importantly though, it seems that everytime AMR management denies a news story from a reputable source this strongly, it ends up being true down the road. Note that Lauri Curtis says that the story is out of date because of the time it was originally published. Of course, we don't know how long ago the flight attendant wrote to her or how long she took to finally respond. Wait long enough and almost any article can be said to be out of date.
Also, note the wording on this sentence...
"Depending upon whether the F100 flying will support a S80 versus regional jet flying will impact our manning." Is this just a shot across the bow to let everyone know that a lot more cities are going to Eagle? The company will fly S80s into some of these cities for a few months (DFW-BHM has already switched to 2 S80s and 1 F100 per day) then switch them to AE with the announcement that the traffic just does not support S80 service.
This would have a significant impact on f/a staffing needs at DFW, LGA, and ORD.
