Waste, waste and more waste
- Thread starter FA Mikey
- Start date
KCFlyer
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/14/2003 9:54:09 PM FA Mikey wrote:
AA loves laying people over in crew base cities. They have been doing it for years in Miami. LIM, EZE, BOG all spend days laying over in Miami and doing turns here. If it was such a great expense, you wouldn't see Miami crews staffing JFK and BOS trips DFW staffing JFK or others. It is something AA loves to do Waste money.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I guess a difference between AA and Southwest is that a Southwest employee would point this out to their managment and be proactive in cost savings. If AA's been doing it for "years", why didn't someone in the gravy years tell them "we could save a heckuva lot of money if we stopped doing this".
----------------
On 1/14/2003 9:54:09 PM FA Mikey wrote:
AA loves laying people over in crew base cities. They have been doing it for years in Miami. LIM, EZE, BOG all spend days laying over in Miami and doing turns here. If it was such a great expense, you wouldn't see Miami crews staffing JFK and BOS trips DFW staffing JFK or others. It is something AA loves to do Waste money.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I guess a difference between AA and Southwest is that a Southwest employee would point this out to their managment and be proactive in cost savings. If AA's been doing it for "years", why didn't someone in the gravy years tell them "we could save a heckuva lot of money if we stopped doing this".
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
To RAMPGUY and LGA FLEET SERVICE:
Do you really believe it's only about the 3% Carty wants us to forego? Wake up! It is going to go far deeper than anyone here has ever imagined. Every department is going to be affected. It will not only be aircraft maintenance losing thousands of jobs after AA starts contracting out more and more work and close at least one overhaul facility. It will mean the contracting out of cabin service, maximum part time numbers for line cargo, more hours flown by pilots and f/a's, contracting out of automotive and plant maintenance. Basically much more work done by less people.
So, don't be fooled into a false sense of security by saying "Geez, all they want is 3%"
Do you really believe it's only about the 3% Carty wants us to forego? Wake up! It is going to go far deeper than anyone here has ever imagined. Every department is going to be affected. It will not only be aircraft maintenance losing thousands of jobs after AA starts contracting out more and more work and close at least one overhaul facility. It will mean the contracting out of cabin service, maximum part time numbers for line cargo, more hours flown by pilots and f/a's, contracting out of automotive and plant maintenance. Basically much more work done by less people.
So, don't be fooled into a false sense of security by saying "Geez, all they want is 3%"
- Thread Starter
- #19
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 6
32 AM KCFlyer wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/14/2003 9:54:09 PM FA Mikey wrote:
AA loves laying people over in crew base cities. They have been doing it for years in Miami. LIM, EZE, BOG all spend days laying over in Miami and doing turns here. If it was such a great expense, you wouldn't see Miami crews staffing JFK and BOS trips DFW staffing JFK or others. It is something AA loves to do Waste money.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I guess a difference between AA and Southwest is that a Southwest employee would point this out to their managment and be proactive in cost savings. If AA's been doing it for "years", why didn't someone in the gravy years tell them "we could save a heckuva lot of money if we stopped doing this".
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yea well thanks for pointing that out. The employees here at AA are trying to keep this a secret. Please dont let it get out. OF course Management knows, of course they have been advised.
----------------
On 1/15/2003 6
32 AM KCFlyer wrote: [blockquote]
----------------
On 1/14/2003 9:54:09 PM FA Mikey wrote:
AA loves laying people over in crew base cities. They have been doing it for years in Miami. LIM, EZE, BOG all spend days laying over in Miami and doing turns here. If it was such a great expense, you wouldn't see Miami crews staffing JFK and BOS trips DFW staffing JFK or others. It is something AA loves to do Waste money.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I guess a difference between AA and Southwest is that a Southwest employee would point this out to their managment and be proactive in cost savings. If AA's been doing it for "years", why didn't someone in the gravy years tell them "we could save a heckuva lot of money if we stopped doing this".
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yea well thanks for pointing that out. The employees here at AA are trying to keep this a secret. Please dont let it get out. OF course Management knows, of course they have been advised.
Instead of contracting OUT maintenance work, AA should be looking at the cash potential of contracting IN maintenance work from other carriers. It would it make it possible to keep it's own people steadily employed and extremely busy among other things. It would also enable them to eventually build world-class maintenance facilities at the expense of their contractees.[BR][BR]When you contract OUT, you get what you pay for. Fort Lauderdale airport is a prime example. There is a HUGE improvement in the level of service and professionalism since AA took the airport back from the absolutely lousy outsource contractors they used for so long. When you outsource, you are contracting away your business to people who don't give a rat's ass about your customers, because they don't work for you directly. I hate that I have to use MIA so much, but not necessarily because of the carriers, I know that Dade County is like having to deal with the cuban mafia to get anything done, but the carriers, namely AA since they are the largest, are just as guilty for continually taking it up the backside from Dade and not doing anything about it.[BR][BR]Outsourcing is, and always has been, a huge mistake.
Too Late Mikey you did. Nice post some of us DID get your well taken point.I believe that you all are making a huge mistake to ponder the %3 not that it will stop there mind you but in your great tradition of standing up and saying no, the money you spend thinking aabout it is just thrown away. You're going to give them much more than %3 so get on with it before you lose more than you have too. As for Cost/ waste? the OGG,LGW,HNL, flts from STL if just those three crews (10 each) lay over just ten hours each time they transit stl that hotel IF only $25 a room =$547,875 per year per diem for just those extra layover hours = $405,372. the furlough pay to twa people layed off because of that$1,320,000.00 not including vacation payoff. Of course this also does not include court costs due to the debate. As one who is furloughed I find it outragious to watch the company and union do NOTHING to seriously cure the situation. Welcome to OUR past, your doomed to repeat it. So when you and AA get serious about cutting and saving let me know. i'll be doing the same but with grocery coupons to make my food stamps go farther
It is a no win situation. The trips were built before the riots took place therfore AA had no idea it was going to happen. They are damned if they do damned if they dont. You and the APFA woiuld be crying if AA stripped the second day from your sequence. and made you lose the second day of pay. You are such a trouble maker FA MIKEY
ultimatley it is not even up to you Mikey or any of your fellow flight attendants. It is upo to JOHN WARD. he will make the decision wether you like it or not. I think he still wants a job so say goodbye to your 3% raise.
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/15/2003 11
41 AM KCFlyer wrote:[BR][BR]Which is a better judge to be in front of - an EEOC judge or a bankruptcy judge? [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]There's no such thing as an "EEOC Judge" and a bankruptcy judge isn't going to see AA's smiling face just because they met a 3% pay raise contractual obligation. When AA ends up in the bankruptcy court, a myriad of financial factors will have to take place to make it happen.[BR][BR]To bring it into focus, some of the executive corporates take home more annually in the form of bonuses and stock options, than the amount of the 3% raise we're talking about for the entire group that gets it. In example, if the entire F/A group cost the company 100 Million a year in salaries and other compensation, then we're talking 3 Million as the 3% raise figure. Three million....for thousands of flight attendants....about one fourth of what the CEO....[EM]one person[/EM].....took home in a year in salary, bonuses, benefits, and stock incentives.[BR][BR][EM]Fathom That![/EM]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/15/2003 11
41 AM KCFlyer wrote:[BR][BR]Which is a better judge to be in front of - an EEOC judge or a bankruptcy judge? [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]There's no such thing as an "EEOC Judge" and a bankruptcy judge isn't going to see AA's smiling face just because they met a 3% pay raise contractual obligation. When AA ends up in the bankruptcy court, a myriad of financial factors will have to take place to make it happen.[BR][BR]To bring it into focus, some of the executive corporates take home more annually in the form of bonuses and stock options, than the amount of the 3% raise we're talking about for the entire group that gets it. In example, if the entire F/A group cost the company 100 Million a year in salaries and other compensation, then we're talking 3 Million as the 3% raise figure. Three million....for thousands of flight attendants....about one fourth of what the CEO....[EM]one person[/EM].....took home in a year in salary, bonuses, benefits, and stock incentives.[BR][BR][EM]Fathom That![/EM]- Thread Starter
- #26
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 10:07:55 AM A77IGW wrote:
ultimatley it is not even up to you Mikey or any of your fellow flight attendants. It is upo to JOHN WARD. he will make the decision wether you like it or not. I think he still wants a job so say goodbye to your 3% raise.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sorry, No its not up to John Ward. Its up to the BOD to decide wether or not to have a membership vote. Sometimes its a good idea to know before you post.
----------------
On 1/15/2003 10:07:55 AM A77IGW wrote:
ultimatley it is not even up to you Mikey or any of your fellow flight attendants. It is upo to JOHN WARD. he will make the decision wether you like it or not. I think he still wants a job so say goodbye to your 3% raise.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sorry, No its not up to John Ward. Its up to the BOD to decide wether or not to have a membership vote. Sometimes its a good idea to know before you post.
- Thread Starter
- #27
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 9:30:27 AM Sgt. Friday wrote:
As for Cost/ waste? the OGG,LGW,HNL, flts from STL if just those three crews (10 each) lay over just ten hours each time they transit stl that hotel IF only $25 a room =$547,875 per year per diem for just those extra layover hours = $405,372. the furlough pay to twa people layed off because of that$1,320,000.00 not including vacation payoff. Of course this also does not include court costs due to the debate. As one who is furloughed I find it outragious to watch the company and union do NOTHING to seriously cure the situation. Welcome to OUR past, your doomed to repeat it. So when you and AA get serious about cutting and saving let me know. i'll be doing the same but with grocery coupons to make my food stamps go farther
----------------
[/blockquote]
There is no sane reason for ISL being what it is right now. It goes along the line of places like NYs huge amount of laying over crews. Why? Could we not staff LGA and JFK bases with more flight attendants and pilots?
----------------
On 1/15/2003 9:30:27 AM Sgt. Friday wrote:
As for Cost/ waste? the OGG,LGW,HNL, flts from STL if just those three crews (10 each) lay over just ten hours each time they transit stl that hotel IF only $25 a room =$547,875 per year per diem for just those extra layover hours = $405,372. the furlough pay to twa people layed off because of that$1,320,000.00 not including vacation payoff. Of course this also does not include court costs due to the debate. As one who is furloughed I find it outragious to watch the company and union do NOTHING to seriously cure the situation. Welcome to OUR past, your doomed to repeat it. So when you and AA get serious about cutting and saving let me know. i'll be doing the same but with grocery coupons to make my food stamps go farther
----------------
[/blockquote]
There is no sane reason for ISL being what it is right now. It goes along the line of places like NYs huge amount of laying over crews. Why? Could we not staff LGA and JFK bases with more flight attendants and pilots?
They already have their raise and the only way to get it back is by a majority vote of the union members - which isn't going to happen. They may very well stage a vote, but I highly doubt that a vote would be in favor of giving back the 3%, which wouldn't make a bit of difference in the financial mess AA claims to be in. AA is powerless to arbitrarily take back the 3% because if they do, the union will have their collective asses in front of a judge so fast it will make their jets fly [EM]backwards[/EM]!
KCFlyer
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 11:05:42 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:
They already have their raise and the only way to get it back is by a majority vote of the union members - which isn't going to happen. They may very well stage a vote, but I highly doubt that a vote would be in favor of giving back the 3%, which wouldn't make a bit of difference in the financial mess AA claims to be in. AA is powerless to arbitrarily take back the 3% because if they do, the union will have their collective asses in front of a judge so fast it will make their jets fly [EM]backwards[/EM]!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Which is a better judge to be in front of - an EEOC judge or a bankruptcy judge?
----------------
On 1/15/2003 11:05:42 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:
They already have their raise and the only way to get it back is by a majority vote of the union members - which isn't going to happen. They may very well stage a vote, but I highly doubt that a vote would be in favor of giving back the 3%, which wouldn't make a bit of difference in the financial mess AA claims to be in. AA is powerless to arbitrarily take back the 3% because if they do, the union will have their collective asses in front of a judge so fast it will make their jets fly [EM]backwards[/EM]!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Which is a better judge to be in front of - an EEOC judge or a bankruptcy judge?
- Thread Starter
- #30
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 1044 AM A77IGW wrote:
It is a no win situation. The trips were built before the riots took place therfore AA had no idea it was going to happen. They are damned if they do damned if they dont. You and the APFA woiuld be crying if AA stripped the second day from your sequence. and made you lose the second day of pay. You are such a trouble maker FA MIKEY
----------------
[/blockquote]
Wrong, AA has the ability to change schedules for this very reason. If fall low on time I would have to go on the makeup list to protect my monthly guarantee. If you could understand, AA simply could have changed the sequence from a 2 day in to 2 different turns. No loss of time, no added expense to the company. They decided to leave the sequence in tact and offer hotels to crews laying over at home and expense money to crews at home. How many flight attendants need a hotel room in Miami? How many crew members need expense money while at home? Answer, None.
----------------
On 1/15/2003 10
44 AM A77IGW wrote: It is a no win situation. The trips were built before the riots took place therfore AA had no idea it was going to happen. They are damned if they do damned if they dont. You and the APFA woiuld be crying if AA stripped the second day from your sequence. and made you lose the second day of pay. You are such a trouble maker FA MIKEY
----------------
[/blockquote]
Wrong, AA has the ability to change schedules for this very reason. If fall low on time I would have to go on the makeup list to protect my monthly guarantee. If you could understand, AA simply could have changed the sequence from a 2 day in to 2 different turns. No loss of time, no added expense to the company. They decided to leave the sequence in tact and offer hotels to crews laying over at home and expense money to crews at home. How many flight attendants need a hotel room in Miami? How many crew members need expense money while at home? Answer, None.
Similar threads
