Why would anyone want to work at AA? It's such a crappy airline anyway. OMG! staple staple...my ass.
Preliminary FA Recall Acceptance Numbers
- Thread starter kirkpatrick
- Start date
GroundedBoricua
Senior
- May 29, 2004
- 300
- 0
What this guy(or girl) is saying is 100% correct
Watch watch you wish for fly, you might have a staple in your ass along with a paper clip
Typical AA f/a uninformed response (and I'm one also). FYI, 65% of the active seniority list is at top of scale or will be by July, 2008. The ones that are leaving are TOS, the ones that would be coming back are TOS. It is a financial wash for the company. (I bet you are like so many senior AA f/as who think that all the f/as at STL are former TWA--when in fact, none of us are. I'm on layover in MIA today, and a senior DFW f/a just asked me this morning if I were former TWA when I told her I was based in STL.
)Though hiring off the street would be at a lower pay rate. You can not discount the expense of training those new hires. Not only salaries and facilities for the trainers and the training center, but also, room and board for the trainees for 5.5 weeks. And, since the trainers are trip-removed flight attendants, the company has to pay another f/a to fly those trips. Not an inconsiderable amount all told.
It takes quite awhile to amortize the cost of new hires. But then, there I go applying logic again. I hope I didn't confuse you.
Gee a F/A at max pay can make 60k plus a year while a junior ( on rsv every other month ) F/A can make 20k a year... you do the math!!!Typical AA f/a uninformed response (and I'm one also). FYI, 65% of the active seniority list is at top of scale or will be by July, 2008. The ones that are leaving are TOS, the ones that would be coming back are TOS. It is a financial wash for the company. (I bet you are like so many senior AA f/as who think that all the f/as at STL are former TWA--when in fact, none of us are. I'm on layover in MIA today, and a senior DFW f/a just asked me this morning if I were former TWA when I told her I was based in STL.
Though hiring off the street would be at a lower pay rate. You can not discount the expense of training those new hires. Not only salaries and facilities for the trainers and the training center, but also, room and board for the trainees for 5.5 weeks. And, since the trainers are trip-removed flight attendants, the company has to pay another f/a to fly those trips. Not an inconsiderable amount all told.
It takes quite awhile to amortize the cost of new hires. But then, there I go applying logic again. I hope I didn't confuse you.
And I'm quite aware that any F/A that is based in SLT in NOT a former TWA F/A....
BTW ...You are just too a head of the game .... You have all the answers... ever thought of becoming the next CEO of AMR?? Bet you could do it better !!!
Mark is correct. Even though they need f/a's to train, that is basically 6 weeks. If they are at top pay, which is more like 48,000 a year, that is approximately $5500 per 3 bodies that train about 50 trainees. These trainees will make about 18,000 the first year for a total of $900 K. Subtract that from the 2.4 million that would have been paid to 50 top pay flight attendants, that is $1.5 million minus the trainers expense, that is $1,483,500. Do you really think that AA is not coming out ahead, even the first 6 months? Spread it our over the 15 years it takes to get to top pay!
Jim, why do you always have to be a smart AAss and try to be right? Your business sense sucks, it is no wonder you are a flight attendant at your age! Stick to kissing customers AAsses. You are really arrogant!
OK so you think Jim is an Idiot, yet all the people who believe that AA purposely kept expansion off, and manning tight to keep a few thousand "A" scale exTWA FA's from flying are somehow well informed. I guess it was just a wash for the company and taking many of the top pay baggage handlers, mechanics and pilots was all OK since the saving from keeping out those high paying FA's made it all possible. Think about it people
AA did not grow and expand because of the F/A's being at top pay.... Have you taken a look at our debt ?? The company had to shape up the balance sheet before any thought of growth ..... And those other work groups did not take on 5000 plus top tier employees to their work groups...
Amazing isn't it? That 4300 ex TWA flight attendants could stop a fortune 500 company and the worlds largest airline from growing or taking advantage of opportunity's in the market place. Over the last few years AA's corporate strategy has been run out the clock on the FA's so we can once again compete in the market place. Good thing TWA pilots and mechanics and ground handlers were not on the same corporate back breaking pay scale as the AA flight attendants. Maybe you were not aware we have more than 5000 ex TWA people in the system and most if not all are making "A" scale wages in there respective work groups.
Not recalling F/As was only a very small part of the overall cost saving picture... It was not the deal breaker... Many cost cutting and conservative actions like not recalling top paid F/A's have strengthened the balance sheet and have postioned us to start to grow and expand..... You have to look at the whole picture...
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The notion that flight attendant recalls were avoided due to their hourly rate is downright laughable...
As already pointed out, the agents, rampers, mechanics, and pilots from TWA were also brought over at top pay. Plus, AA knows their getting more for their value with FA's who are already experienced than they would with an equal number of 20 year old beauty school dropouts.
The lower pay rates that hiring off the street don't even enter into the decision to recall. It's based entirely on the expenses related to understaffing pay and the cost of flight cancelations due to inadequate staffing.
As already pointed out, the agents, rampers, mechanics, and pilots from TWA were also brought over at top pay. Plus, AA knows their getting more for their value with FA's who are already experienced than they would with an equal number of 20 year old beauty school dropouts.
The lower pay rates that hiring off the street don't even enter into the decision to recall. It's based entirely on the expenses related to understaffing pay and the cost of flight cancelations due to inadequate staffing.
Very wrong, your union did not protect your rights, it stole the rights of others to their jobs. Specifically in stapling your union gave you rights to fly aircraft that belonged to TWA along with the employees who flew and serviced them. When 9/11 came along you used those stolen rights to keep your jobs at the expense of the TWAers who brought those assets with them. You are nothing more than common theives. Actually worse, for unions are supposedly fair minded towards the working man. APFA excepted of course.
When AA began parking MD-80s a couple years ago, 25 at a time, it was obvious that it would be very cautious about FA recalls. Then AA announces that it's returning 19 757s to the lessors. With fuel bouncing around $2/gal for over two years now, further reductions of MD-80s would not have been unexpected. It's almost always cheaper for employers to pay overtime rather than to recall/hire more bodies. So AA paid out some understaffing pay rather than find itself saddled with a bigger surplus of FAs if it needed to park more MD-80s in a hurry. Attrition has now caught up and even surpassed the reduced need for FAs due to airplane parking, so AA was forced to recall a few. Grand conspiracy? I don't think so. Refusal to recall the former TWA FAs because of their high wage scale? Doubt it. Just super-conservative management decisions, that's all.
For one... we never see understaffing pay and two , in all my years I have never heard of an AA flt. being cancelled due to staffing.... so no costs problem there ...
Ok bringing 4300 plus TWA F/A's at top pay is financially smarter than hiring 4300 off the street.... the recalls have to go to training which is PAID and new hires DO NOT get paid so thats a wash in terms of cost...
Also AA does not care about experience... they see numbers only... and who wants bitter F/As brought on from another company ... fresh blood is good...
Remember who BOUGHT who.... those are AA jobs ... bought and paid for... end of story...
But not bought and paid for by you. They are AA jobs, not APFA jobs. Your response was entirely expected given your over developed sense of entitlement that shine through your posts. Your motto is obvious, what is yours is mine if I want it! You'll go far with that greedy approach to human relations.
Similar threads
