NMB Ingores APFA

[nbmcg01]

All this talk about staffing and pay, yet not a peep from anyone about the lower guarantees at AA vs. other airlines like UA, CO, and DL?...

If AA could schedule everyone to the same duty rigs and guarantee as any of those three airlines, I suspect that AA's flight attendants would no longer be the most expensive. But it would be a less desirable job because you'd have to work a little more than you do today.

And believe it or not, there are people who pay for business class and first class. I'm one of them.

And it is by no means a coincidence that certain markets have F cabins while others have a J cabin. Take F off the airplanes, and you will lose some very lucrative contracts with the entertainment and banking industries, some of whom have employment (and even union) agreements requiring F class travel if offered in a given market over X hours (fact, not conjecture).

Scheduling of f/as is subjective in the way trips are put together. You don't HAVE to fly more days per month to be properly utilized. I have found AA does not effectively pair trips. WAY too much sitting. What someone who doesn't fly tends to not understand is the adrelin rush and letdown associated with flying/working vs "sitting" or practice layovers. I was told early on that planning is not able to "run" the bids multiple times to get best pairings. That is a shame because it could be a win-win for all concerned. Most f/as want to come to work, get maximum time and get home. There are still a few that want the loooooonnnnnnng layovers but given the changes in age and family dynamics, most just want to go home. Non flyers also seem to not understand that flying is not and very rarely can be a 9-5, Mon-Fri job. Even non flying spouses sometimes have difficulty with that concept. "You were ONLY gone 3 days"...well, yes BUT I got a weeks worth of work done in that time.
Bottom line, the responsibility is in plannings lap...

 

[jersey777]

FA - That's a pretty good part time job. Wow if you put in 160 hours a month like everyone else you would make over a hundred grand a year. No bad for a two week school.

For your information sassy pants, if a flight attendant works 160 hours a month then they are most likely working 25 days a month or more with duty days up to 14 hours for domestic. Hardly a part time job but thanks for adding to the legions of ignorant posters.

 

[IORFA]

sorry....i tried...go to Facebook at look at the APFA Facebook page and it is on there.

Thanks.

 

[Imjustsayin]

I agree. A total waste, but like I said, there is tremendous pressure to make it look like the union is doing something. So now you have had all 3 unions on the property going public with their dissatisfaction. You know what would end all this foolishness? ...settled contracts! American Airlines wouldn't even agree to provide a 3% year raise for each of the next 2 years for the flight attendants..... 3% per year without adding expense money, vacation, sick time or anything else. Continental just agreed to a 2.5% a year raise to their flight attendants without opening the entire contract. Even with the 3% a year that the APFA offered it would have kept us behind Continentals raise. American Airlines did not even counter offer any solution so today you have this spectacle and you will continue to see strife until they deal with their employees. They can't ignore us forever.


One more point. Laura Gladings term ends next spring. It is very likely the next APFA president will be more radical.

You sound like you may have some inside information on the negotiations. I wasn't even aware they were still negotiationg. What were the terms of the offer? Not sure if you know, but how much money would it cost American Airlines for a 6% raise? It would seem odd for American to just give Flight Attendants money after 3 years of negotiations. Did the flight attendant union offer any offset?

 

[kirkpatrick]

So those added 12 seats require a 4th flight attendant per the FAA. That was American Airlines decision. So now they can say we are more costly on a huge portion of their fleet based on their own decision! Remarkable!

Obviously they must have done their homework and figured the cost of the added FA was less than the revenue anticipated from the extra seats. It just goes to show we're not really such as expensive a labor group as they'd like people to believe.

MK

 

[IORFA]

Kirkpatrick, I totally agree. With the pace of negotiations, IF we were that expensive, it would make wAAy too much sense for AA to offer a good buyout to 1000-2000 F/A's. If they gave more than 2weeks notice and at least $10,000, I say 1000 would be NO problem. Then they could hire off the street and the F/A's would even be less of a problem. The ROI would be pretty short in the whole scheme of things. Since that hasn't been an issue, I agree with you. We aren't that big of a problem. I dare to say if they offered half of what the automakers gave, they could get upwards of 4000-5000 to leave. I am talking in the $50,000 range. It could be structured a million different ways. Say Half on last day and the rest paid out over 6 months. This way AA could get some benefit of having the new workers on payroll while paying off the buyout. Like I said you could structure it a million different ways, that is just one example. If it is just $10,000 then it would have to be one payment!

 

[kirkpatrick]

FA - That's a pretty good part time job.

I can't believe this line is coming up again. Last week I flew a three day trip that ended up being worth 14:24. I actually landed at LGA just before midnight and didn't get home until after 1am the fourth day. I was away from my wife and kids for over 60 hrs. You would have been home every night and gotten 24 hrs for your time.

Wow if you put in 160 hours a month like everyone else you would make over a hundred grand a year.

But I couldn't spend it because I'd have to live on the airplane to fly that much.

My wife is a teacher and works 180 days a year, which averages 15 days per month, about what I work, but she's home every night and makes twice what I make.

Sign me up!

If they hired you, which I doubt, you have six weeks of training, have to live where you were needed, and make 18398 per year flying 75 hr months. I doubt you'd last long.

MK

 

[damajagua]

I can't believe this line is coming up again. Last week I flew a three day trip that ended up being worth 14:24. I actually landed at LGA just before midnight and didn't get home until after 1am the fourth day. I was away from my wife and kids for over 60 hrs. You would have been home every night and gotten 24 hrs for your time.



But I couldn't spend it because I'd have to live on the airplane to fly that much.

My wife is a teacher and works 180 days a year, which averages 15 days per month, about what I work, but she's home every night and makes twice what I make.


If they hired you, which I doubt, you have six weeks of training, have to live where you were needed, and make 18398 per year flying 75 hr months. I doubt you'd last long.

MK


Well said

 

[Imjustsayin]

You sound like you may have some inside information on the negotiations. I wasn't even aware they were still negotiationg. What were the terms of the offer? Not sure if you know, but how much money would it cost American Airlines for a 6% raise? It would seem odd for American to just give Flight Attendants money after 3 years of negotiations. Did the flight attendant union offer any offset?

Anyone have an insight?

 

[jersey777]

Anyone have an insight?

http://www.apfa.org/content/view/2038/907/


Not sure if this link will work but here is the hotline concerning the unions offer.

 

[Imjustsayin]

http://www.apfa.org/content/view/2038/907/


Not sure if this link will work but here is the hotline concerning the unions offer.

Jersey, thanks that is helpful. But any idea what that would cost American? Here's what your link said:

"We offered an 18-month extension of the current contract with only two items; a 3% wage increase effective January 1, 2010 (retro) and a 3% increase the date of signing, for a 6% total wage increase. All other items would be set aside, or ‘tabled’, until negotiations picked up again at the end of the 18 months.

Laura Glading said, “This was an offer that was extremely reasonable and fair. "

Why would American negotiate for 3 years and then, just because the APFA asked for it, give their flight attendants a 6% raise with not one productivity improvement? With the pleasure of doing it all over again in 18 months.

Sorry, I don't get that.

 

[jersey777]

Jersey, thanks that is helpful. But any idea what that would cost American? Here's what your link said:

"We offered an 18-month extension of the current contract with only two items; a 3% wage increase effective January 1, 2010 (retro) and a 3% increase the date of signing, for a 6% total wage increase. All other items would be set aside, or ‘tabled’, until negotiations picked up again at the end of the 18 months.

Laura Glading said, “This was an offer that was extremely reasonable and fair. "

Why would American negotiate for 3 years and then, just because the APFA asked for it, give their flight attendants a 6% raise with not one productivity improvement? With the pleasure of doing it all over again in 18 months.

Sorry, I don't get that.

Let me ask YOU a question? Do you think it is unreasonable for you to go to YOUR boss for a 3% raise from 2008 till 2010 and then another 3% for another 18 months? That is a total of 6% over a span of 3.5 years. That comes out to a little over 2% per year in pay? Would that make YOU greedy?

 

[kirkpatrick]

APFA has said they won't sign a concessionary contract and the company says they want a zero cost contract. There's little pressure on the company to negotiate for nothing. There will be an increase in flying and there will be small increases in pay, so it's just about a wash.

Most of the contract has already been signed off. It's just pay and work hours that remain (the important stuff). Those of us at the bottom would like to see the changes in reserve, open time and availability that have been promised, but don't look forward to manpower-killing productivity improvements.

MK

 

[Imjustsayin]

Let me ask YOU a question? Do you think it is unreasonable for you to go to YOUR boss for a 3% raise from 2008 till 2010 and then another 3% for another 18 months? That is a total of 6% over a span of 3.5 years. That comes out to a little over 2% per year in pay? Would that make YOU greedy?

If I was already the thrird highest paid member of my team and had the lowest productivity of my team, no, I wouldn't ask my boss for a raise, unless I told him I would increase my productivity to get one. Well, I guess I could ask, but I wouldn't be surprised at the response.

I didn't say you were greedy.

My real question really was just to find out how much does a 6% raise cost American.

 

[jersey777]

If I was already the thrird highest paid member of my team and had the lowest productivity of my team, no, I wouldn't ask my boss for a raise, unless I told him I would increase my productivity to get one. Well, I guess I could ask, but I wouldn't be surprised at the response.

I didn't say you were greedy.

My real question really was just to find out how much does a 6% raise cost American.

Doing some rough math...here goes. 16000 flight attendants x 45,000.00 avg salary=$720,000,000 a year in salary. A 6% raise would cost an additional $43 million a year. This is in relation to a company with a 22 billion annual revenue. This is less then 1% of their annual revenue.


One more thing, please look deeper into the productivity issue surrounding the flight attendants at American. I have explained in some of my posts that we are not nearly as unproductive as the company makes it appear to be. There are so many variables that come into play and the main one....staffing...is something that the APFA has no control over and is completely controlled by AA. The other issue concerning productivity is the companies claim that they are restricted in the amount of hours that a flight attendant can work in a month vs. the competition. Please look at some of my past posts and I have tried to shed some reality on this subject. Yes, we can probably be scheduled 2 hours more a month and then that would put us in line with just about everyone else. But don't look at theirs graphs and think for one second that Southwest flight attendants are scheduled to fly well over 100 hrs a month. It is just not true. I have been trying to pull up the negotiations page for the last 2 days and it seems to be down. Maybe they are in the process of updating their lies.