as far as FAs with 14+ years not seeing a raise go, we are talking about someone averaging 100k in pay, plus medical, 401k and travel benefits. not really a very sympathetic segment of the FA population.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but if you can direct me where to make an average of $100k, please do!

 

No. it means that words have actual meanings that are fixed, they cant be simply changed to suit your convenient needs. someone working as a flight attendant is making enough to LIVE in the US, even if their life isnt the sort of *lifestyle* they want, or most would find appropriate.

The average FA pay, with a dual income household would be EXACTLY the median household income for NYC, the single most expensive market in the USA.

once again words have meanings. equality and cost of living are two separate issues. In the context of this conversation 'look the ceo makes 20 mil!' has nothing to do with equality. and it is an argument for those without a point who want to misdirect public opinion by highlighting a figure out of context as though it proves their point. If the executives of american all decided to work for free and give their compensation to the FAs the union would get only an insignificant fraction of the raise they already turned down from american.

talking about ceo pay is misdirection. there will never be equality, and if there was the freed up money would not pay for the raises demanded. and there is no need for equality. it doesnt not matter how much money the ceo takes home. that will not make an employees wage any more or less 'livable'.


when just the backpay being demanded here will put the company more than a billion $ further in debt, even before you consider the prospect of raises - i think the comparison isnt too far off. in both cases the unions are pushing for immediate short term wins, without so much as considering the long term consequences...

 

I see the problem as twofold. One, there are always more applicants than there are jobs. People want to be an FA for the flight benefits, and one of the drawbacks is the pay and work location. AA themselves have little to no incentive to raise pay while people are still climbing the gates to get in (yes, training new FAs takes time and money, but FA training is unpaid IIRC). Two, the Union always advocates better for the more senior (and therefore higher paid, higher priority (eg can commute if they wish), long haul (base pay benefit + less unpaid airport/boarding time)) flight attendants, as that's who is running the union. Until they stop wanting more for themselves vs the juniors, the problem will still persist, as in AA's eyes, they are paying much more for roughly the same job. (Yes, the senior FAs will likely have a more polished and faster service, and can defuse situations permanently, but to the eyes of AA leadership all they see is the # of FAs required by the FAA per flight, and the cost of said FAs).

 

Pretty good summary of the sentiment and economics of FA raises here:

https://liveandletsfly.com/i-spoke-t...ser-than-ever/

 

The impasse between management and labor almost makes some kind of “labor action” (which could fall short of a strike) inevitable over the next few months. Even if mediators release the FAs and then the Biden administration prevents a strike from happening, do we not believe that FAs would somehow withhold service like the mechanics did back in summer of 2019?

Might be time to start rethinking the airline I use for my weekly commutes …

 

A couple of points to consider. At the end of World War II the average CEO made 10 times what his average worker made. Today it’s 200 times the average worker.
Airline contracts rarely end up in an impasse over wages. It’s work rules and retirement that hang things up. With pilot contracts Scope is the single biggest issue in many contracts. Flight attendants tend to neglect scope preferring to let the pilot contract handle it but without proper scope protections a contract can be worthless.

 

How would this affect Eagle flights? I have a CR7 flight out of DFW in August. I can't remember which airline(s) operates Eagle flights at DFW. Would their flight attendants strike too? Or no, since it's a different company? And even if Eagle FAs don't strike, would Eagle still cancel flights due to lack of feed from mainline (with so many mainline flights canceled?)

 

Apparently some progress this past week. The mediator didn't release them into the cooling off period, but will return next week and continue to work towards a deal.

https://viewfromthewing.com/no-strik...-negotiations/

The NMB will continue mediation next week. We will either reach a tentative agreement, or the NMB will consider issuing a proffer of arbitration and a release into a thirty-day cooling-off period

 

Eagle FAs are on separate contracts (except for SkyWest, which I don’t think has unionized FAs) and Eagle flights should be fine

 

It means you're arbitrarily deciding what is or is not the appropriate "lifestyle" for people who serve you. Where LIVING means, for example,


Just sneak in that "with a dual income household" qualifier! Very clever!



Once again, you're arbitrarily deciding what and "cost of living" are. Given that corporate compensation has grown dramatically -- in an era where the company was run poorly enough to require handouts during COVID *and* produce vastly inferior results to its direct competitors during the subsequent post-COVID travel boom -- the idea that other CEOs make similar amounts of money doesn't prove your point. It proves that there's no actual evidence that AA's top executives are actually worth the massive amounts of money they're making. Is this a Vasu sock puppet account?

If the executives of American all decided to work for free, they would have options, performance-based bonuses, etc. Being deliberately obtuse about corporate compensation is ignoring context to try and prove a flawed point.

Again, it's not difficult. Look at how elite corporate compensation, minimum wage (for those "burger flippers" you keep seeming to forget in your replies), cost of living, and housing costs have grown. Sticking your head in the sand and reiterating your argument doesn't make you correct.

 

Credit card travel insurance does not cover strikes. Should I consider an annual travel insurance that covers strikes? What are your general thoughts on annual travel insurance?

 

Language evolves. If I can master new-to-me pronouns at age 73, you can too.

100k after 14 years of that live listening to the likes of me whine about our meal choice - Im surprised there are any senior FAs left at all.

The usual bad con math about CEO pay not being important - the problem is the next four tiers of managment pay get inflated by the C suite , and that is important math to the labor costs of any organisation. I dont have a problem with a CEO making bank, based on results, with as much negative equity and risk as postive.

Sorry we didnt make target under your helm, your bonus is reduced from 20M to only 5M

 

Your credit card insurance may not cover strikes - that doesn't mean that none does. My travel insurance is explicit in that it does cover strikes

Whether you should take out a policy that covers strikes is down to your own risk level. You could minimise the risk by not booking on AA when there is a strike planned - or if booking for a journey well in advance, to book on another carrier

 

If mainline stops flying due to a strike, the Eagle carriers will see a huge drop in passengers since they primary connect passengers. Not sure if that translates to temporary schedule changes to adjust for the reduced demand or not though.

 

NO. it doesnt. READ what i wrote, dont just make up things and put words into my mouth. My argument there was the distinction between the idea of a living wage and a lifestyle wage. i left open the possibility that I wouldnt find that pay leading to certain lifestyles appropriate.
i didnt *sneak* it in there, it is appropriate. the MAJORITY of households in the united states are dual income these days. So if we are talking about the economic realities of a job that only pays the local median income after many years of service because it is located in THE most expensive market in the usa, it's appropriate to suggest that a dual income household should be realistic option and or necessity. heck a new doctor fresh out of medical school would have the same issue in the most expensive market in the us.

again, read what i wrote. is english a second language for you? i never once said that the ceo was managing the company correctly. i never said that the ceo earned their wages. and i never compared the ceo of american to other ceos. i simply said that talking about ceo wages are nothing but misdirection. the pay to the CEO is a trivial amount of money in this discussion. is isom gave up 100% of his pay AA could give the FAs a 2% raise. they already turned down a 17% raise and thats before you even consider the question of why should the CEO's former compensation go 100% to the FAs and no other labor group at the airline.

no. Im talking about taking 100% of the ceo compensation, meaning cash, bonuses, stock options, etc - and treating that as cash for the purposes of giving the FAs raises. the only one being obtuse here is you. if i was only talking about cash compensation that 2% turns into 0.08%

you are right, being correct makes me correct. the issues you bring up are unrelated. ive never once claimed that the cost of housing isnt an issue. but that question has nothing to do with the idea that ceo compensation is too high.