What Airlines Were Trying For The China Flights?

[jimntx]

I'm driving myself nuts right now with the CBA. Once before in answer to a pm from another furloughee, I found something in the contract that seemed to indicate that the company could call furloughees out of order under special circumstances--the need for particular language skills being one. But, now I can't find it. I do know that it was not in the language or furlough sections of the contract. I found it by accident.

Now, I can't recreate the accident. 🙁

 

[jsn25911]

Before I was furloughed - I meet an AA "japanese" speaker. He was very junior (2001). He told me that they were sending a lot of international people back to domestic, however, because he spoke japanese he was not forced back. He stated that even though he spoke japanese he was able to fly other foreign destinations, while those senior to him were back flying domestic.

 

[eolesen]

At one point, I remember we had management Flight Service Directors (this dates back to the 747 transcon days...), and up until 1992, we still had them on the Haiti flights out of JFK. Their main purpose was to do Creole announcements and translate. Back in the transcon days, the FSD's actually took reservations and sold tickets on the aircraft...

Is there anything in the current contract which would preclude the company from using FSD's as speakers?

Another thought -- some airlines supplement the working crew with non FA's (including Hooters girls on Hooters Air, but that's another story....).

Is there anything in the current contract which would prevent supplementation for translation only using someone from a partner carriers, i.e. a Cathay Pacific or China Eastern bi-lingual provided that they were seated in a cabin seat and not involved with the service and/or safety functions? I know a few US carriers did this as well, i.e. either DL or CO would have a Virgin Atlantic crew member onboard flights that they codeshared with VS and vice versa.

 

[IORFA]

We still have FSD's on the PAP flights, they are staffed above and beyond the normal compliment of F/A's. They speak and pass out forms. Then try to stay out of the way. I am sure if AA had to, they could do the same thing with the Chinese speakers as well. They would just have to be over and above the regular compliment of F/A's. They are also qualified to ride in the Jump Seats. Which means that on flights to China, they wouldn't need to block seats for them. I would assume they would have no more than 3 of them. One could sit in the #12 J/S since 11 is the most we get anymore on the 777. Then the other 2 could sit in the Pilots rest seats for T/O and Landing. They would have 2 rest seats for them as well. Just a thought.

 

[FWAAA]

Before pining for any Chinese nationals onboard, read this article describing, in part, the typical Chinese airline pax:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/internat...ia/11china.html

Flights to China would probably be much more calm if AA required the pax to be US residents. B)

Fortunately, AA isn't looking to add these flights so it can fly Chinese here - it is looking to add these flights primarily to transport Americans and freight there and back.

 

[jsn25911]

Does anyone know the date that the decision will be reached? I thought someone stated that the decision would come in January with startup in April. I also thought someone posted that if AA got the China flights that they would need 1,000 f/a's for the startup.

There was a gentleman at AA that was encouraging emails from employees - however, I don't remember his name. If we had his name then maybe we could contact him and ask about the status of this.

 

[eolesen]

The decision is expected to be released on January 21.

 

[s80dude]

Does anyone know the date that the decision will be reached? I thought someone stated that the decision would come in January with startup in April. I also thought someone posted that if AA got the China flights that they would need 1,000 f/a's for the startup.

[post="238133"][/post]​

1,000 flight attendants seems a bit high for one route.

 

[jsn25911]

1,000 flight attendants seems a bit high for one route.

[post="238599"][/post]​

You may be correct. I just remember someone posting that. Just curious how many f/a's would be needed for a daily wide-body RT flight?

 

[FA Mikey]

I think the number is more like 250 for a WB long haul flt

 

[okoge1027]

They can't recall from furlough out of seniority order. They can, however, fill vacancies in a base based on language if deemed necessary, but only from active FA's.

MK

[post="235661"][/post]​

Is that for a fact? Where does it say that? I couldn't find it anywhere. Though I've been told that AA can do whatever the **** they want to for operational needs. We'll see what happens.

 

[AirDude]

Will AA need more FAs for the upcoming NGO and KIX flight ?
If AA really gets the PVG flight,plus the other two new destinations,I think they
need some more FAs.Dont u think so ?

 

[jimntx]

Will AA need more FAs for the upcoming NGO and KIX flight ?
If AA really gets the PVG flight,plus the other two new destinations,I think they
need some more FAs.Dont u think so ?

[post="239285"][/post]​

Depends. Remember MIA is still "technically" overstaffed because they have so many "active" f/as who are on the perpetual sick list. It's also possible that they may cut back service somewhere else to provide the crews for the new routes.

 

[Oneflyer]

I was told today that an announcement will be made sometime next week.

 

[jsn25911]

An earlier post stated the announcement would come on the 21st.

I also was told by Continental reservation that it would be made the week of the 17th.

So, all the information is the same - we are all getting the same information from different sources.

I will be excited if AA should receive the approval, however, with the announcement that CO is hiring in EWR and the new planes leads me to question if it is them. An earlier post stated that CO was asking for the approval to China from EWR. However, I will still hold out hope for AA. It ain't over till it is over.