I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with much if not all of what you say, but I would just add one thing: I think it is a bit disingenuous, respectfully, to say that AMR management has "fail[ed] to engage labor as business partners," and just leave it at that. I think that, if we're being honest here, I think even the most die-hard unionists here would have to admit that the unions haven't exactly made themselves very cooperative "business partners" for AMR management to "engage" either. To at least a certain extent, it's a two-way street. When you have the head of one of the three major unions effectively calling Arpey a "murderer," it's hard for anybody to "engage." I'm not saying that management could have done more and better than they have, but I don't think they're the only ones.
To be clear: I'm not arguing here over any grievances the unions may have with Arpey personally, the management team as a whole, the company overall, etc. There is no point in arguing those things since I know that for 99% of the people on this forum, their minds are already made up, and they feel very strongly - and that's fine.
But if we're talking purely about the question of engagement, I think it is fair to say that the unions have not been any more cooperative, or, for that matter, any less, than the company.
Well, there's really no debate that the AA mainline flight attendants are essentially the costliest, although not necessarily the highest paid, among the major U.S. airlines. It would be hard for her not to "accept" that, seeing as the economist she paid told her that. Measured on a per-ASM basis, AA flight attendants cost more than just about any other airline's.
Now, the union claims that is because AA "overstaffs" 3-class international flights versus competitors (essentially, United), which I find hard to believe, but that's the union's line.
I think - though haven't dug deeply enough into the numbers - that a larger part may just be that AA generally generates less ASMs per flight and/or per aircraft, on average, than most of its U.S. competitors, for two big (and incidentally both union-contract-language-related) reasons:
1) Because of the pilot contract, AA does not operate as many long/ultra-long-haul flights as some other U.S. competitors. Each time AA wants to add such a flight, under the current contract, they must seek a separate side letter with the union, which has in at least one notable case (DFW-Beijing) become politicized with the union tying it to other conditions. As a result, AA generates relatively less overall ASMs with its fleet than some U.S. peers, and thus that overall cost-per-ASM number looks higher for flight attendants.
2) Related to #1, and again, because of the pilot contract, and more specifically its SCOPE clause, AMR still generates more of its overall network ASMs from mainline than virtually any of its major U.S. legacy competitors, and definitely more than Delta or United. As a result, those companies' flight attendants, proportionally, are flying more and more (relatively) long flights, since those carriers have handed a larger proportion of their overall network to far-lower-cost regional operators. As such, again, as the average stage length for those carriers has increased, as more and more of the shorter flying has fallen away from mainline, the ASMs generated by their remaining fleet (and thus carrying their mainline cost burden) has increased, again lowering their overall cost-per-ASM number per flight attendant versus AA.
Bottom line, though, is that Glading is a politician, just like every other union boss, and just like every other, well, politician. And as such, she has to contend with the same paradox as any other person running for a popularly-elected office: the promises one must make in order to get elected to the office, colliding with the realities of the practical limitations and real options available to said person once they actually hold the office. So sure, Glading did the song and dance to get elected, about restoring pay, and retro back to 2001, and all that, and fired up the troops and demonized Arpey, and held strike ballots to supposedly show the company the union's "unity" and "resolve," but in the end, she still can't change the economic reality in which she and her members are operating.
AMR is losing billions while other post-bankruptcy carriers with less debt and dramatically less restrictive flight attendant contracts (or no contracts at all) are profiting. Now she can say that the unions have nothing to do with that, and again, while I don't agree with that, there is no point in me arguing that point here. The more important point is that regardless of what she thinks, it's obvious that other very important constituencies beyond just AMR - including perhaps the media, large elements of the flying public, and most importantly the NMB - don't agree with her.
That's reality, and I would say that she would have a difficult time accepting that, but of course, seeing as she is a politician, and seems like an intelligent person, I have to think that - deep down - she "accepted" it ages ago.
