Hey. That sounds like a plan.
Who's really on top?
- Thread starter Birdman
- Start date
Hey. That sounds like a plan.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
I totally agree -- no sacred cows, other than what legally needs to stay at the airline, e.g. QA & maybe engineering.
When AA was facing losing the USPS contract a few years back, there was a full cost-out done to see just how many heads were associated with the work. Don't recall the exact number anymore, but by no means was it just focused on cutting only the TWU jobs. It included incremental CSM's, shift managers, clerical/support staff heads, plus the people on the HDQ side required to do the performance measurement & reporting.
Southwest FAs, for example, make more than AA ones do on average. But they also work almost twice as many hours on average! It is all about productivity, and I am sad to say it but some of our work groups lack that in spades. That is the hidden cost that puts us at or near the top of the chart and makes our costs so high.
I'm not certain you're correct.
In-house overhaul may cost the same or may actually be more expensive than sending it overseas, but AA has saved hundreds of millions of dollars by paying the line mechanics so much less than WN or FedEx or UPS rates. That's where the real savings probably are. Paying big-city/high-cost-of-living mechanics the same low wages that are high wages when paid in Tulsa or Fort Worth or Kansas City has saved AA loads of money.
Anybody seriously believe that AA would be willing to pay $80k or $90k to everyone in TUL or AFW just so the line mechanics can make a living wage?
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
So you are telling me that AA does heavy overhaul in house so that they can pay their line mechanics a substandard wage.
Now that is some pretty thin logic.
Now that is some pretty thin logic.
Well is the productivity difference a result of the contract or how the company operates? SWA has no first class, no meals and very quick turnarounds. They only operate 737s and they dont go International. What changes to the APFA contract would be needed to make AA as efficient as SWA? My guess is there arent any. Its not the workers fault, its managements decision to offer a different product.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just not certain that AA's in-house overhaul is cheap compared to having it done in HKG or SAL or some other overseas chop shop. AA may have continued in-house overhaul because outsourcing it would require some kind of payoff to the overhaul base staff, right? The status quo (cheap line maintenance and unknown-to-us-cost overhaul maintenance) may be cheaper than the alternatives. Nobody here knows whether AA's in-house overhaul is cheaper or more expensive than outsourcing it - and I'm disagreeing that keeping it in-house PROVES that it's cheaper.
AA has said that one change that would make its use of FAs more efficient would be an increase to the contractual schedule maximum, as discussed here:
http://www.aanegotiations.com/apfaProductivity.asp
Of course, that would mean shifting the job more to a full-time job from its current status as a nearly part-time position (where the avg FA flies but 59 hours each month). They would make more per hour and, of course, would fly more hours, equaling lots more money. Same with the AA pilots.
There's one change the company wants from the FAs, and I'm certain there are others. No doubt AA would like to modify the trip and duty rigs as well to minimize paid time not spent flying.
Maybe I wasnt clear, is there anything in the SWA contract that isnt in the APFA contract that would make the APFA as productive as SWA? Just stating that the company wants to make them work more hours with shorter breaks between duty times doesnt tell me what SWA has that makes them more efficient.
Statements like this are very misleading, because it focuses on flight hours. I think that if you compare the amount of hours "worked" vs hours paid the company is getting a very good deal. As a pasenger surely you realize that flight attendants start working way before the plane starts flying. I would never take that job because as far as I'm concerned as long as my time is not my own I expect to be paid for it. The airlines only pay a fraction of the time they take from flight crews so while the rates may look high they dont tell the whole story.
Bob, you asked what was in the WN contract, and I posted it: WN FAs can be scheduled for 114 hrs/mo and DL/NW for 100 hrs/mo. AA is limited to 77/82 hrs/mo.
I don't disagree with your views on the FA job, but DL/NW FAs face the same challenges yet can be scheduled to fly about 25% more than AA FAs. At WN, about 40% more hours than AA.
I don't disagree with your views on the FA job, but DL/NW FAs face the same challenges yet can be scheduled to fly about 25% more than AA FAs. At WN, about 40% more hours than AA.
If AA wants a "full-time" position for each FA, why do they not want a "full-time" position for all other work groups?
Health care coverage, death and disability coverage, workmans comp: all of these do not decrease in cost despite the fact that they become more costly when spread over fewer than full time hours.
In fact, a certain percentage of overtime is actually beneficial to the company when spread over a workforce of "full-time" employees because there is no increase in benefit levels versus the equivalent costs of an additional employee.
If the company wishes to gaurantee a minimum pay for being available; they built the costs into the equation.
The Flight Attendants I know all wish they could hold full bid lines and pick up hours additional hours on their terms versus waiting for phone calls that frequentl do not arrive: but, they are stuck with the system AA and the Union created.
The ramp and customer service managers I know say that if they told the part-timers they were being forced full-time, they would quit because the job at AA is only for the benefits.
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
I'm just not certain that AA's in-house overhaul is cheap compared to having it done in HKG or SAL or some other overseas chop shop.
With all the cost cutting and talk of being at a cost competitive disadvantage maybe the powers to be should investigate the great secret of "how much are we saving, making, or loosing by doing OH in house" it seems they have money to piss away on a lot of other things.
AA may have continued in-house overhaul because outsourcing it would require some kind of payoff to the overhaul base staff, right?
Well does the payoff justify the means to an end ? or maybe its just cheaper and more cost effective to do overhaul in house
The status quo (cheap line maintenance and unknown-to-us-cost overhaul maintenance) may be cheaper than the alternatives.
Well with all the BS about being cost effective and how we must stay competitive in order to survive my guess is that overhaul done in house by AA is cheaper or the powers to be would have shut it down long ago. Maybe AA should just hire another consulting firm to figure it out. Or maybe they just like to use the fear tactic of base closure to get a contract passed. I think even the people in Tulsa have had enough and the threat of a base closure will fall on deaf ears.
Excellent points, Boomer, and I agree with you completely.
Part-time employees make sense to me when you aren't providing the per-capita benefits like health insurance and paid vacation. Like restaurant or retail employees who are intentionally scheduled below the benefit threshholds.
And overtime is often better for the company than hiring new employees, so long as the employees still get enough time off to enjoy life. I was involved in a labor dispute in a UAW-represented assembly plant where the employees staged a wildcat strike because they'd worked over a year of mandatory six-day weeks and were sick of having no Saturdays to spend with their kids or to enjoy all the toys they could afford with the overtime. I didn't blame them. Occasional overtime is great. Long-term mandatory overtime is bad (unless you have no life - no spouse, no kids and no hobbies).
I don't doubt there are FAs who want more flying - jimntx and others have posted about FAs on reserve who are only flying a fraction of their monthly guarantee and are frustrated. I don't blame them either - most people have an ingrained desire to work and don't find it easy to get a small-to-medium sized paycheck for not working much each month.
The ability to schedule FAs for 100-120 hours max each month wouldn't solve AA's problems, but it would certainly reduce the FA headcount and save millions.
FWAA,
The question then becomes not the hours, but how you count them. Could it possibly be that the numbers cited by AA, for the FAs', are what is contractually measured versus what is actually performed?
From what I know from conversations with the Flight Attendants:
Time spent at an airport, checking in through security and performing safety and security checks, preflight brief, crew brief, boarding, taxi-out, delay and atc hold, etc... All of these time periods are not paid at full rates thus the figures given by AA for FA flight time are just that: the time when the gear is in the wheel wells.
During all of the other non-full rates, the same FAs' are governed by the same FARs' and held to the same performance standards by the company and regulatory agencies during taxi-out, holdover, and, ramp holds by ATC.
As far as contractual minimums for FA's held in reserve, those numbers are driven by: the historical rate of absenteeism as a percentage of the required staffing for the flight operations frequency and capacity. The operations tempo and capacity are not subject to Union Bargaining. The Company Owns It.
