4.23.24 – Update: Reduction in Staffing Grievance Arbitration

Reduction in Staffing Grievance Arbitration

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Last Friday, APFA concluded the Reduction in Staffing Presidential Arbitration in New York.

This staffing grievance, filed in 2020, was in response to American Airlines management’s unilateral decision to use the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent decrease in air travel demand as an excuse to reduce staffing on the A321T, 777-200, 777-300, and 787-9.

Travel demand soon returned to normal and exceeded what we saw pre-pandemic. This has resulted in increased and unreasonable workloads for Flight Attendants.

During last week’s arbitration, APFA presented exhaustive amounts of data, analysis, and testimony. We urged the Arbitration Board to render a decision that will:

• Return pre-COVID staffing formulas due to unreasonable workload.
• Require management and APFA to meet jointly to evaluate and assess the Flight Attendant workload.
• Make whole all Flight Attendants adversely affected by the staffing reduction, along with any other relief the Board deems appropriate.

APFA’s Case

APFA’s in-house attorney, Alyssa Urban, presented an outstanding and thorough case that highlighted and demonstrated that AA management abused their discretion in reducing the staffing on the A321T, 787-9, 777-200, and 777-300 by assigning an unreasonable workload to our Flight Attendants.

APFA compiled an incredible amount of data and did a thorough analysis of Flight Attendant duties and tasks. We focused on the impact of the staffing reductions on these aircraft when flown on International Premium Destination (IPD), American Flagship Service (AFS), and Hawaii Flagship Service (HFS) routes.

APFA presented a compelling case based on the facts and the testimony of many exceptional Flight Attendants. Each Flight Attendant who testified has decades of experience and works exclusively on the aircraft included in this grievance.

These Flight Attendants testified to the complexities of providing superior service to our customers and doing so with fewer Flight Attendants. Hearing directly from our Flight Attendants about their struggles following the staffing reductions profoundly impacted everyone in the room.

APFA also called on our aviation expert to question and provide a rebuttal to the conclusions made by the company’s highly paid consultants. Our expert called into question the scientific preparation, methodologies, and analysis provided in the company’s case.

Management’s Case

The company argued that they may change Flight Attendant staffing based on what they described as a decrease in service since 2002.

Through its arguments, management claims included the following:

• They are within their right to change staffing based on what they claim is a decrease in Flight Attendant tasks.
• Flight Attendants have enough time to complete the prescribed service, with time to take contractual breaks.
• Time not spent setting up the galley or doing the service is considered Flight Attendant “personal” time.
• If an arbitration award reinstated Flight Attendant staffing, we would be allowed more “discretionary” or “personal” time on flights.
• Using industry staffing comparisons with Delta, United, and JetBlue, they argued that the reduced staffing mirrors the industry standard.

Management hired multiple outside consultants, none of whom had a single day of experience working as a Flight Attendant, to make their case. The company paid them well over a million dollars to conduct onboard, covert analyses of our Flight Attendants. These covert analyses amounted to a series of ghost rides that spanned multiple flights and resulted in the surveillance of almost 200 Flight Attendants.

Rather than considering the nuances and complexities of our job duties, these highly paid consultants reduced our Flight Attendants to a series of data points on spreadsheets that filled hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of exhibits.

Additionally, management gave these consultants access to internal company data, including customer service scores, passenger bookings, CERS reports, statistics on IOD and sick calls, and data captured as we scan our IDs to board the aircraft. These consultants used this data to undermine the return of Flight Attendant staffing to the levels present before the 2020 reduction.

From the testimony provided by these consultants, it is clear the analyses performed do not capture the real-life experiences of our Flight Attendants.

As an added surprise, testimony provided by senior Inflight management included statements about required onboard service elements that contradict service details as outlined in the Inflight Service Manual. In their testimony, management claimed Flight Attendants working the main cabin on IPD flights are only required to do a single, combined beverage and meal tray service.

Of course, this was news to every Flight Attendant and APFA representative attending the hearing. As every Flight Attendant working the main cabin on an IPD flight can attest, in most instances per AA’s Inflight Service Manual, we perform a beverage service with a snack accompaniment, followed by a beverage and meal tray service.

What’s next?

• The court reporter usually has thirty (30) days to submit the hearing transcript to all parties.
• Upon receipt of the transcript of the hearing, Union and company attorneys typically provide closing briefs within 30-45 days.
• Once the Arbitrator receives the closing briefs, she will then review the case in its entirety.
• There is no set deadline for the Arbitrator to render an award.

We want to thank the countless APFA Members and Representatives who assisted with the herculean task of compiling a mountain of documents and research preparation. Last week’s hearing demonstrated your commitment, dedication, and hard work.

We look forward to a ruling that reinstates staffing to previous levels on the affected aircraft and provides understaffing backpay to thousands of Flight Attendants forced to work these understaffed flights.

In Solidarity,