What Now?

[Skymess]

And, the argument about most of the former TW flight attendants being at the top of the pay scale is REALLYbogus. The majority of active flight attendants are at top of scale right now. So, what's the difference?
As of the June seniority list, of approx. 19,000 active flight attendants, 12,800 are at top of scale. Within 5 years, 15,000 of the 19,000 will be at top of scale. Just this year, they have had 17-year f/as having to serve reserve at DFW.

Even if all 4,000 of the currently furloughed flight attendants lost their recall rights, and the company started hiring again. How many new-hires can they handle a year? 2,000? So, we would have 15,000-17,000 flight attendants at top of scale and 2,000 at new hire pay. I don't see a significant savings, do you?


How do you figure that is a bad argument? New hires will make on average $30,000 to $40,000 less than a senior person for a guarantee year. $40,000 more for 2,000 is a lot of money. If removing an olive off a salad can be considered substantial savings than saving 40,000 dollars per FA can be seen as saving the company a powerball lottery payout.

How do you figure that 15 to 17000 are top of the pay scale? Seniority numbers in the 13's are only 12 years and the late 13's to early 14's are 10 years. Then you start late 14's and they are only 8 years. Hardly top of the pay scale.

I would say that the 12,000 are topped out. The rest have a way to go.

 

[aafsc]

I hear they are trying not to do that. I don't know how they think they can't with so many people bailing out per month. I am not going to fly around understaffed for the next 3 years so they don't have to call them back and so they can get used to having minimum crew working the flights forever after. No thanks.

I can huff and puff all I want though because APFA has probably already signed off on that one too. The sad thing is that they probably don't even know they did.

[post="304315"][/post]​

They probably don't want to bring back the ex-TWA F/As but I think that if they need the people they will have to. In MIA and FLL all of those topped out ex-TWA ramp and agent personnel have been recalled. I'm sure AA wasn't all that wild about bringing them back but they had no choice. Additionally, they brought some TWAers into FLL from other cities. Also, they say about 80 FSCs from MIA just went to DFW along with a few from FLL. So MIA is short people once again. And if the talked about MIA expansion materializes, they will be even short more people.

 

[nbmcg01]

And, the argument about most of the former TW flight attendants being at the top of the pay scale is REALLYbogus. The majority of active flight attendants are at top of scale right now. So, what's the difference?
As of the June seniority list, of approx. 19,000 active flight attendants, 12,800 are at top of scale. Within 5 years, 15,000 of the 19,000 will be at top of scale. Just this year, they have had 17-year f/as having to serve reserve at DFW.

Even if all 4,000 of the currently furloughed flight attendants lost their recall rights, and the company started hiring again. How many new-hires can they handle a year? 2,000? So, we would have 15,000-17,000 flight attendants at top of scale and 2,000 at new hire pay. I don't see a significant savings, do you?
How do you figure that is a bad argument? New hires will make on average $30,000 to $40,000 less than a senior person for a guarantee year. $40,000 more for 2,000 is a lot of money. If removing an olive off a salad can be considered substantial savings than saving 40,000 dollars per FA can be seen as saving the company a powerball lottery payout.

How do you figure that 15 to 17000 are top of the pay scale? Seniority numbers in the 13's are only 12 years and the late 13's to early 14's are 10 years. Then you start late 14's and they are only 8 years. Hardly top of the pay scale.

I would say that the 12,000 are topped out. The rest have a way to go.

[post="304437"][/post]​

So if AA and others have their way, there will only be one pay rate..newhire. (and the APFA led the pack by validating the thought that longevity and experience are not worthy of additional pay) Maybe we should start an industry wide pay scale of 1-5 years and when you max out at 5 years you have to "move on" to another company. Rotating jobs at newhire rates, how convenient.

 

[Bob Owens]

kirkpatrick,Sep 23 2005, 01:54 PM]
You left out one of the most important reasons. We require at least three weeks of training before we can fly AA equipment.


Pilots and mechanics require a lot more than that and the company has taken many of them on.

Most of the other reasons given by you and others are true, but they're true of your own people as well. AA has thousands of senior people who could use up all their sick time and then retire, but in fact most of them don't do that.


From what I've seen most do.Thats why the company gave such short notice on the Stand In Stead.


And max vacation since the concessions is only four weeks.

Six

As far as attitude is concerned, there will be those few who come back with a chip on their shoulder, but I think most of us will try to blend in and make the best of it. I don't want to fight for the rest of my life. Most of us are still here because we love the job and want to come back to it.

It's going to be very difficult for AA to avoid recalling us as there are only 99 natives ahead of us at this point. There hasn't been a recall since just prior to last Thanksgiving, and attrition will total close to a thousand by the time this Thanksgiving rolls around. If it doesn't happen this year then certainly a large number of us will be recalled by next spring.

Perhaps Skymess' statement about the five years for the pension could be a reason to delay call back.

Half the people senior to me (Apr 1972) have quit already and more will quit when they receive their recall letters. It's likely many of the junior people will lose their recall rights when their five years is up. So I predict the number of us who actually return to the line will probably only be about 1500 or so, maybe even less. We won't even make a ripple across the system.

MK

Good luck. Your love of the job is a curse.

 

[kirkpatrick]

And max vacation since the concessions is only four weeks.

Six

Four

Perhaps Skymess' statement about the five years for the pension could be a reason to delay call back.

Pensions, budgets and money have nothing to do with our recall. AA needs x number of FA's to staff their airplanes. When they run out of people, they will recall. They aren't going to cancel hundreds of flights just to spite TWA.

Good luck. Your love of the job is a curse.

Life is a curse, for those who choose to see it that way.

 

[Skymess]

Pensions, budgets and money have nothing to do with our recall. AA needs x number of FA's to staff their airplanes. When they run out of people, they will recall. They aren't going to cancel hundreds of flights just to spite TWA.


If they increase buy on board to the caribbean and finalize their staffing "test" for BOB they would eliminate the need for about 2 FA per flight.

I think they will wind up calling some of the TWA people back. What I fear will happen too is that AA will lower the amounts of FA per aircraft in an attempt to make fewer call backs necessary, and that those staffing levels will remain permanant.

 

[jimntx]

Pensions, budgets and money have nothing to do with our recall. AA needs x number of FA's to staff their airplanes. When they run out of people, they will recall. They aren't going to cancel hundreds of flights just to spite TWA.


If they increase buy on board to the caribbean and finalize their staffing "test" for BOB they would eliminate the need for about 2 FA per flight.

I think they will wind up calling some of the TWA people back. What I fear will happen too is that AA will lower the amounts of FA per aircraft in an attempt to make fewer call backs necessary, and that those staffing levels will remain permanant.

[post="304677"][/post]​

I have to admit that this post makes no sense from a domestic standpoint. There is NO increase in staffing on BOB flights. And, we don't need extra staffing. On domestic the flight has to be over 3 hours (2.5 hours, maybe) to be a BOB flight. On average I sell about 5 BOB boxes on a full S80. Doesn't seem like much to me, but everyone else compliments me on my sales ability.

As domestic staffing is at FAA minimum now, there is no way the company can reduce staffing any further on domestic flights. The only VMs we ever see are on super short flights like STL-ORD, DFW-AUS, and DFW-SAT. And, remember, when the TW flight attendants come back, it will be to domestic. None of them will have the seniority to use their International training/experience.

 

[jimntx]

And, the argument about most of the former TW flight attendants being at the top of the pay scale is REALLYbogus.  The majority of active flight attendants are at top of scale right now.  So, what's the difference?
As of the June seniority list, of approx. 19,000 active flight attendants, 12,800 are at top of scale.  Within 5 years, 15,000 of the 19,000 will be at top of scale.  Just this year, they have had 17-year f/as having to serve reserve at DFW.

Even if all 4,000 of the currently furloughed flight attendants lost their recall rights, and the company started hiring again.  How many new-hires can they handle a year?  2,000?  So, we would have 15,000-17,000 flight attendants at top of scale and 2,000 at new hire pay.  I don't see a significant savings, do you?[/b]
How do you figure that is a bad argument? New hires will make on average $30,000 to $40,000 less than a senior person for a guarantee year. $40,000 more for 2,000 is a lot of money.

I would like to know what kind of math you are using. Current top of scale for domestic is approx. $45/hr. Current "new hire" pay is about $19.50/hr. 70hr (guaranteed/month) x $45/hr x 12 = $37,800/yr base. $19.50/hr x 70hr x 12 months = $16,380/yr base. Difference $21,420. Not $30,000 to $40,000. And, remember every year that the new hires stay, the difference becomes less because they get raises while those at top of scale remain at $45/hr.

How do you figure that 15 to 17000 are top of the pay scale? Seniority numbers in the 13's are only 12 years and the late 13's to early 14's are 10 years. Then you start late 14's and they are only 8 years. Hardly top of the pay scale.

I would say that the 12,000 are topped out. The rest have a way to go.

I took the numbers from the June Seniority list on the APFA website. Did I or did I not say that "12,800 are at top of scale." How different is that from your educated guess of 12,000. The seniority for the most junior person hired in 1991 (if you've completed 14 years of service, you are in the 15 year pay step), is 12, 789.

I also said "Within 5 years, 15,000 of the 19,000 will be at top of scale." And, yeah, yeah ,yeah, there will be retirements and resignations, etc., but proportionally there will still be a great majority of the active flight attendants at top of scale. Right now today, 67% of the active flight attendants are at top of scale 12,800/19,000.

If you wait until all the former TW f/as lose their recall rights, that will be 30June, 2008. The most junior person at top of scale in 2008 has a seniority number of "only" 13,998. So, there will only be 14,000 at top of scale. But "within 5 years" [from today] there will be over 15,000 at top of scale just like I said.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

In the big scheme of things you're right. However the trick will be how AA acquires access to Asia. Over time (read YEARS!) they could gain access to China assumming a fairly even distribution of new route authority. However this will pale in comparison to the access other carriers (UAL/NWA) currently have and will continue to gain.

As I've noted on another board, I believe AA will be patiently waiting to see how NWA does with its restructuring. If/when they lower their cost structure and rid themselves of much debt, I'd expect AA to make some move to acquire them, rid themselves of much domestic overlap, and make full use of their access to Asia. How AA deals with the current NWA hubs at MSP and DTW will be a bit problematic given their #2 position at ORD. While they may cringe at the thought of leaving ORD to their arch-rival, another option would be to further attack UAL by surrounding ORD with other connecting options. But I digress.

Farfetched? Hardly. Certainly not what a lot at NWA would like to hear and probably a lot at AA given the track record with AA's acquisition of TWA. But look at the broader picture. If AA does not gain this access to Asia it'll be a long time before they could ever fill out their route plan, maybe never. In the meantime it's certainly possible that UAL could make a move to merge/acquire with the likes of DAL/CAL with the former option being a serious force to be reckoned with globally.

If you add up the current market share of a combined UAL/DAL it's strikingly similar to what the same combined market share a AA/NWA would be. A bigger threat would be for AA to do nothing and allow DAL/NWA to combine and then see UAL/CAL combine....effectively being left on the sideline without any significant access to Asia while the other two combined carriers leap-frog them in size and route structure. This is serious. You don't want to the one left without a chair when the music stops!!

I also don't think it's any cooincidence that AA is hording cash. Botom line is AA is well positioned to make moves in the industry that will make for far-reaching and long-lasting changes in the global airline industry.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,
Z B)

[post="304145"][/post]​

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ZMAN777,

Because my ABSOLUTE airline fantasy/fantacy(SP?) is for AA to pick up NW, I can't comment without sounding biased .

BUT, the facts do speak for themselves, and EVERY scenario that you laid out makes GREAT sense.( I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, all about the fleet/hub UN-commonality) !!!!

Crandall said over and over and over again, that the biggest mistake he EVER made was NOT grabbing Asia, off of Pan Am, AND if given the chance, "He'd" NOT make that mistake again. WELL, AA's got "little Crandall" in HDQ now.
(I won't BORE everyone with the story of "UNCLE BOBBY" hand selecting Arpey, right out of Business school.)

I think there is a LOT to do with AA "hoarding $$$$ Cash", NW (somewhat surprisingly) going into BK, and consolidation virtually "a done deal" (now) !

No Legacy's got any "scratch", except AA, so in a sense, nobody's buyin' NOBODY !!

Given the fact that there are only 5 true legacies, and we're NOT talking domestic here, in this game of musical chairs, the "numbers" say, 5 divided by 2, does NOT go "evenly", meaning SOMEONE is going to get left OUT.
(I'm certainly NOT talking US/HP here). With the ZILLION's of problems facing what's left of the legacy's today, to get "left out" is a "Death Sentence" !!

FORGET Europe, It's ALL ABOUT ASIA, especially CHINA. I CAN NOT stress that enough !!!!!!!! (Besides, AA's got the ol' friend BA, hangin' around in London.

If it is going to be AA/NW, and NW "respectfully" goes off into the sunset as the great carrier it WAS, then MSP becomes a non issue. The HUGE decision becomes ORD or DTW !! (MEM and IND are HISTORY)
IMHO, the "winner" becomes "ORD". A company HAS TO STICK with It's STRENGHT !!!. ORD is certainly not as attractive as DTW midfield, but ORD could handle the Excess, (minus the OVERLAP), AND if there was "EXcessive overlap, I'd "crank up" ST LOUIS !!!!

A/C

Definitely keep the: 747/400's (I don't think there are a whole lot of them)
: 757/ALL

Initially, you'd have to keep ALL the A-320's(no 319's, dc-9's or dc-10's), mabey boeing would do a swap down the road with the 320's for many more 737/800's.

And finally the A330's. !! Think about how Loooong we've been trying to get rid of the A-300's, YET they "keep on pushin', AND "HAULING.
I'm sure we could find a usefull niche for the A330 !!!( and I don't believe there are a whole lot of that fine airplane) !!

ZMAN700, It could work, AND your right, AA would/could NEVER have a second bite at the "ASIAN APPLE", like this one !!!


???????????????

NH/BB's

 

[Garfield1966]

When do the recall rights end? I thought I was told that it has to happen by the end of Dec '05 or Jan '06. After that, we can hire off the street?

 

[nbmcg01]

When do the recall rights end?  I thought I was told that it has to happen by the end of Dec '05 or Jan '06.  After that, we can hire off the street?

[post="304767"][/post]​

Dream on and on Garfield. Last furlough was July 2, 2003 Five year recall rights, you do the math. There is a small group of former TWA f/as (and nAAtive) furloughed soon after 9-11 that will possibly lose their recall rights. Too bad because they were the "newhires" of both airlines and therefore the most "cost effective". I would question the recall time for the former TWA because they were still under the TWA contract that had a 7 year recall provision. Nothing has been calculated about the customer service skills of an experienced work force that consistantly won the JDPowers Award for excellence EVEN while in BK. Sometimes it isn't all about the longevity cost. TWA was surprised to find that our customer service ratings rose in proportion to the recalls after the 1986 strike. TWA also found by offering long term leaves with benies, that senior people took those leaves and they were able to not only bring back the furloughed but hire again. That equaled a head cost savings. I know, I know, if you don't want to work, quit. Bottom line is that doesn't happen and the senior people will fly as much as they have to and no more. By the way, I don't have any apples in this basket because I knew I didn't want to fly for AA and I retired.

 

[Skymess]

I have to admit that this post makes no sense from a domestic standpoint. There is NO increase in staffing on BOB flights. And, we don't need extra staffing. On domestic the flight has to be over 3 hours (2.5 hours, maybe) to be a BOB flight. On average I sell about 5 BOB boxes on a full S80. Doesn't seem like much to me, but everyone else compliments me on my sales ability.

As domestic staffing is at FAA minimum now, there is no way the company can reduce staffing any further on domestic flights. The only VMs we ever see are on super short flights like STL-ORD, DFW-AUS, and DFW-SAT. And, remember, when the TW flight attendants come back, it will be to domestic. None of them will have the seniority to use their International training/experience.

[post="304693"][/post]​

Jim that's why I mentioned international. I do think they will try to reduce staffing where they can to eliminate the need for call backs. Though we are separated by divisions it is all the same seniority roster.

I don't really get what you mean? If we lose positions international then it would mean less people needed international and more people to spread around to cover the holes left by retirees, be they dom or intl. Do you get me?

I am in favor of a call back. I think it is better for all of us.

 

[Skymess]

I would like to know what kind of math you are using. Current top of scale for domestic is approx. $45/hr. Current "new hire" pay is about $19.50/hr. 70hr (guaranteed/month) x $45/hr x 12 = $37,800/yr base. $19.50/hr x 70hr x 12 months = $16,380/yr base. Difference $21,420. Not $30,000 to $40,000. And, remember every year that the new hires stay, the difference becomes less because they get raises while those at top of scale remain at $45/hr.
I took the numbers from the June Seniority list on the APFA website. Did I or did I not say that "12,800 are at top of scale." How different is that from your educated guess of 12,000. The seniority for the most junior person hired in 1991 (if you've completed 14 years of service, you are in the 15 year pay step), is 12, 789.


The math I was doing was based on paying someone 20 bucks vs. 45 dollars an hour. Any company would rather have 1500 to 2000 people on the payroll making 20 bucks vs. 45 dollars. No?

Even though the TWA people would come back as domestic doesn't preclude them from getting an international proffer after they come back if they can hold it, does it?

I'm not getting your logic. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

The bottom line is that you don't think there is a big difference between paying someone top scale vs. having them do pay steps, right? and I disagree with that.

 

[Skymess]

So if AA and others have their way, there will only be one pay rate..newhire. (and the APFA led the pack by validating the thought that longevity and experience are not worthy of additional pay) Maybe we should start an industry wide pay scale of 1-5 years and when you max out at 5 years you have to "move on" to another company. Rotating jobs at newhire rates, how convenient.

[post="304463"][/post]​

Nancy, isn't that what Jet Blue started?

 

[jimntx]

The math I was doing was based on paying someone 20 bucks vs. 45 dollars an hour. Any company would rather have 1500 to 2000 people on the payroll making 20 bucks vs. 45 dollars. No?

I understand that we were talking the same rates, but I was just showing that there is not a $30k to $40k/yr difference (as stated by you) between TOS and new-hire pay. It's only about $21k, and that's only for the first year. It gets less each year. And, yes the company would prefer new-hires. My point was though, that considering that they can hire/train/handle about 2,000 new-hires per year, it would be quite a few years before the number of new-hires would make an appreciable dent in the total payroll when you have upwards of 15,000 making TOS. And, you still have to wait until 01JUL2008 before you can start hiring again. Do you really believe that the company can go that long without hiring? Especially with us on track to lose 1,000+ f/as this year. In doing the books, not paying $45/hr to a former TW f/a vs. paying $19/hr to a new-hire counts as a cost avoidance, but it does not count as money in the bank.

Even though the TWA people would come back as domestic doesn't preclude them from getting an international proffer after they come back if they can hold it, does it?

Surely, you jest. I am senior to the former TW people, and I can't even hold JFK--not that I would want to. I was 14,000 numbers short of holding the last LAX-I proffer (18,524 vs. the most junior holder of LAX-I proffer who had a seniority number below 4500), and about 12,000 from holding the last IDF proffer. Like me, most of the former TW people won't live long enough to hold International at AA.