Yes, Boomer, you're right about how FAs' time is computed, but that's irrelevant when comparing the FAs of AA to other airlines. AA's schedule maximum is substantially less than other airlines. I'm not saying AA's FAs should permit themselves to be scheduled for 100 hours or 120 hours a month, but the reality is that FAs at other airlines allow themselves to be scheduled for more hours than at AA, making those other airline FAs more productive.
Who's really on top?
- Thread starter Birdman
- Start date
Yes, Boomer, you're right about how FAs' time is computed, but that's irrelevant when comparing the FAs of AA to other airlines. AA's schedule maximum is substantially less than other airlines. I'm not saying AA's FAs should permit themselves to be scheduled for 100 hours or 120 hours a month, but the reality is that FAs at other airlines allow themselves to be scheduled for more hours than at AA, making those other airline FAs more productive.
jimntx
Veteran
Boomer,
Your understanding of f/a pay comp is not quite accurate. We are paid from the time the door closes and the brake is released until the brake is set and the door opens at the destination. That is at full hourly rate. We are paid nothing at any other time. There is no "reduced" rate activity. We are paid expense money from the time we sign-in until end of trip plus 15 minutes, but that is $1.25/hr (I think. It's such an insignificant amount, I can never remember the rate) for all flight attendants.
FWAAA,
The productivity is hurt less by the fact that our schedules have a lower monthly maximum than other airlines than it is by the large number of flight attendants who drop all but 35 hours of their schedules. If a f/a keeps at least 35 hours of flying on their schedule, he/she gets fully paid company benefits--insurance, pension, etc.
Also, I'm sure that the company is dissembling to the extent possible. There is a known overage of flight attendants right now. I think it is actually worse than the company or the union is admitting. The situation is not limited to STL, my base. In every base there are flight attendants on Availability (glorified Reserve) that haven't held AVBL in 10 or more years. This is because there is not enough flying for the people who should be regular lineholders. In St. Louis this month, 1/3 of the active base is either on availability or reserve. What's worse is we ain't flying, but we are still getting paid guarantee.
I'm on reserve this month. Now, I am on vacation for the rest of the month as of yesterday, but during the 1st half of the month I flew less than 30 hours. I am getting "paid" for my vacation hours. That brings it up to 63. I am guaranteed being paid 75 hours for my reserve months. There are people who are not on vacation this month who have flown even less than I. So, this is the perfect time for the company to be complaining about f/a productivity--in a bad situation that they helped to create.
Your idea to raise monthly maximums is a double-edged sword. If the monthly maximum line goes up, the monthly minimum on reserve lines goes up. You have to look at monthly minimums also. Monthly minimum regular line/availability is 70 hours right now. Monthly minimum reserve line is 75 hours.
If they raise the monthly maximum on lines, it will mean more furloughs because the "numbers" will call for fewer active flight attendants. But, then we get back into the problem of the high numbers of "active" flight attendants who don't fly at all (drop all their trips every month and get no benefits other than travel benefits) or who fly only 35 hours to get company paid benefits. Someone has to work the trip or the flight cancels. Other airlines that have raised monthly maximums and cut pilot and f/a corps to the bone are having some cancellations based on lack of legal crews right now. AFAIK, AA has not had a significant problem so far.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Jimntx,
A question - is there anything in your contract about paying a FA a lump sum when furloughed?
I ask because at US, the East pilot contract calls for a lump sum payment of one month's pay for every year of service when a pilot is furloughed. With the most junior working pilot nearing 20 years service, that's almost 20 months pay they'd get as a lump sum if furloughed. So it's less expensive to keep the extra pilots on the payroll than it is to furlough them for a year or so.
Jim
A question - is there anything in your contract about paying a FA a lump sum when furloughed?
I ask because at US, the East pilot contract calls for a lump sum payment of one month's pay for every year of service when a pilot is furloughed. With the most junior working pilot nearing 20 years service, that's almost 20 months pay they'd get as a lump sum if furloughed. So it's less expensive to keep the extra pilots on the payroll than it is to furlough them for a year or so.
Jim
Royal Ambassador
Advanced
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 20
John Ward magnanimously gave up furlough pay as a gift to the company in 2003 just as the last of the former TWA flight attendants were about to be furloughed. It was not even on the list of the airline's demands during negotiations over the concessionary contract. Might as well kick them while they were down. :down:
Jimntx,
AA F/As have no trip or duty rigs? I thought you did, but your post implies otherwise, if I understand it correctly. Just curious.
Thanks
..."Boomer,
Your understanding of f/a pay comp is not quite accurate. We are paid from the time the door closes and the brake is released until the brake is set and the door opens at the destination. That is at full hourly rate. We are paid nothing at any other time. There is no "reduced" rate activity. We are paid expense money from the time we sign-in until end of trip plus 15 minutes, but that is $1.25/hr (I think. It's such an insignificant amount, I can never remember the rate) for all flight attendants...."
Jimntx,
My conversations with AA flight crews were based on recollections from some years ago and I apologize for mischaracterizing your pay regs.
In fact, what you recited is worse than "less-than-full pay." The fact is that you and your Union Workers are subject to Company and Regulatory scrutiny while performing essential safety-related job functions while not being paid at all.
Basically, a F/A is responsibled for arriving well before flight time, conducting safety and security checks, enduring compliance checks by both the company and the FAA, conducting catering checks, conducting boarding checks, managing the on-board people process, negotiating with the cockpit, holding hands with the newbie and the nervous customer: while smiling and being curteous as the most conspicuous point of contact between the company and the customer, before the door is closed, during the intial period when customer satisfaction is formed, when the probability of mishap is greatest; and, without being on payroll.
In language a wrench would understand, and the moderator wouldn't put you on the beach: explain to me again why anyone would do this?
Your understanding of f/a pay comp is not quite accurate. We are paid from the time the door closes and the brake is released until the brake is set and the door opens at the destination. That is at full hourly rate. We are paid nothing at any other time. There is no "reduced" rate activity. We are paid expense money from the time we sign-in until end of trip plus 15 minutes, but that is $1.25/hr (I think. It's such an insignificant amount, I can never remember the rate) for all flight attendants...."
Jimntx,
My conversations with AA flight crews were based on recollections from some years ago and I apologize for mischaracterizing your pay regs.
In fact, what you recited is worse than "less-than-full pay." The fact is that you and your Union Workers are subject to Company and Regulatory scrutiny while performing essential safety-related job functions while not being paid at all.
Basically, a F/A is responsibled for arriving well before flight time, conducting safety and security checks, enduring compliance checks by both the company and the FAA, conducting catering checks, conducting boarding checks, managing the on-board people process, negotiating with the cockpit, holding hands with the newbie and the nervous customer: while smiling and being curteous as the most conspicuous point of contact between the company and the customer, before the door is closed, during the intial period when customer satisfaction is formed, when the probability of mishap is greatest; and, without being on payroll.
In language a wrench would understand, and the moderator wouldn't put you on the beach: explain to me again why anyone would do this?
jimntx
Veteran
Boomer, I hope you realize I wasn't trying to say that you had misstated the facts. What you wrote is a common misconception among most people not doing this job. They don't believe that any company could ge away with making people work for no pay. But, that is because most people assume that the Taft-Hartley Wage and Hour Act that goes back to the 1950's (I think) applies to all workers in the U.S. They don't know that represented airline employees are covered under the RLA and that Taft-Hartley does not apply at all.
What is even more shameful is the origin of this practice. When the RLA was first passed in the 1920's, the railroads got the courts to agree that Pullman porters (who were all African-Americans) did no real work while the train was in the station; so, there was no need to pay them. (They were only helping Pullman passengers on and off the train, and lifting heavy passenger luggage, etc., but they got tipped for that by the passengers. Or, so the argument went.) This same precedent is applied to pilots and flight attendants; so, we don't get paid "while the train is in the station."
Why do others do it? Beats me. I am fortunate enough to have a good income from other sources (investments, rental property, etc.). I do not know how anyone at my seniority lives on what we make--particularly, in the high rent bases like LGA, BOS, LAX, SFO--even if they fly "high time" which I do not.
I'll tell you why I do it. I enjoy it, and I'm good at it. I've collected over 300 of those Applause certificates since that program started. I had many SOS certificates that went unused because I didn't "get around to" cashing them in. I have at least 2 or 3 letters of commendation from passengers every year.
But, I have the luxury of doing only what I want to do (see, other income, above). Not having constant money worries makes any job easier to do. One of my newhire classmates is just hanging on by the skin of her teeth financially. Her deadbeat ex-husband will not pay the child support for their 3 little ones, and she can't afford a lawyer to go after him. In our esteemed Governor Perry's goal to "get government out of everyone's business", extraneous things like sufficient staff in Child Support Enforcement just had to go. And, because she has to fly high time, she never gets to see her children much. Then, there is the issue that there are more of us than needed right now; so, no one is covering their guarantees; so, there is no point in picking up extra flying because it will be counted toward your guarantee, not paid extra.
And then, those situations change, and it can be a dream job, particularly for mothers with young children. The flexibility of choosing to work weekends so you can be off during the week to attend school functions, and make Dr's appts, etc. The ability to drop and trade trips almost on a moment's notice if necessary. There is a LOT of upside to this job.
When I have those 4am pickups at a layover hotel at which I arrived the night before at 7pm following a 12:30 duty day, and preceding an 11 hour day, I make a joke with the rest of the crew, "Well, are we all still blinded by the glamor of the job?" And, everyone laughs. Even we, somewhere in the hidden regions of our sleep-deprived brains, have that Hollywood-induced mental image of the flight attendant job of traveling the world, 48-hour layovers in Rome or Hawaii, etc. (Despite the reality of the glamor of a 9 hour ICT layover, followed by a 12 hour DAY layover. Trust me, it's not quite the same as a Rome layover.)
Oh Jim, you missed the true "glamor" days. The Top Hat in ICT. Lose you key, not to worry, all keys fit each room. Donuts and juice in the a..yum, red/black flocked wall paper. And then there was Dessie's in DAY. Now that I won't even talk about..lol
I agree - if the contract provides full benefits in exchange for 35 hours of flying, that reduces efficiency.
I'm not advocating that AA and APFA agree to increase the monthly schedule maximum. Earlier, Bob Owens asked if there was anything in the AA contract that leads to FA inefficiency compared to other airlines, and this was the easy answer. It could very well be that the current schedule maximum is the optimal result.
I assume that AA would like fewer active FAs or it wouldn't harp on FA productivity in its propaganda website. But you may be right - raising the schedule maximum might cause unintended consequences that ultimately decrease efficiency. As to the other issue, the senior mamas won't want to hear any heresy about eliminating their "flexibility" to drop trips and fly as little as they want. The current system allows them to bid on the choice trips and fly them if they want or sell them or trade them if they wish. Doubt you'll ever see FAs give that up.
Speaking of senior mamas - I was in NRT, HKG and SIN over the past few days, and the difference in cabin crew age and physical fitness was staggering. JAL and CX FAs were uniformly young to middle aged and none of them brushed or bumped me as they stealthly walked down the aisle. On the AA flights, however, the FAs were uniformly aged and tended to bump my arms or shoulder each and every time they waddled/stomped down the aisles. Some of them might be able to step quietly in the aisles but they may not care anymore. I noticed older passengers who were adept at quietly cat-walking in the aisles but were followed by FAs who just seemed to like to stomp their feet.
jimntx
Veteran
And, that's an improvement. Prior to the 2003 RPA, contractually f/as got fully paid benefits even if they didn't fly at all...for years on end.
At times it is difficult to determine who is spinning the news from the negotiation front the most--the company or the union. But, IIRC, at one point the company was proposing that lines be built "up to 85 (or 90, I don't remember) hours" per month. Now, I think lines can be built up to 80 hours/month, but they are rarely more than 75 hours, and usually 70-72. So, the company could increase the lines somewhat without having to negotiate it. Bear in mind that each 5 hour increase means an extra day of flying each month for each f/a holding that line.
Speaking of senior mamas (REST OF POST DELETED IN THE INTEREST OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS).
No comment.
This document is dated April 1st and it is now the 10th.
http://www.aanegotiations.com/documents/NMBTWU040110.pdf
It is specific to the TWU as "having better compensation and benefits than exist at any other carrier" and "labor costs (which are) the highest in the industry". Perhaps Bob, being a local president, could explain why there has been no rebutal from the TWU?
http://www.aanegotiations.com/documents/NMBTWU040110.pdf
It is specific to the TWU as "having better compensation and benefits than exist at any other carrier" and "labor costs (which are) the highest in the industry". Perhaps Bob, being a local president, could explain why there has been no rebutal from the TWU?
Well I cant speak for the International, I recieved a copy of it on the 7th, and sent out a reply on Friday, the 9th. Its out there on the www.
