The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), which represents American Airlines’ 28,000 flight attendants, isn’t happy with management right now. Recently, the union issued a vote of no confidence in CEO Robert Isom, which is the first time the union has ever done that.
That’s not the extent of the drama, though. The union is now accusing Isom of trying to close the earnings gap with Delta and United by downgrading layover hotels in order to cut costs. Okay, unless crews are laying over at Amans, I think it’s going to take a little more than that to close the gap, but I digress. 😉
In this post:
American management accused of downgrading crew hotels
The APFA claims that American management is currently reviewing layover hotels used by crews at an increased rate, and that this includes replacing “many long-standing, well-liked, contractually compliant hotels, often against APFA’s recommendations.”
Specifically, management reportedly has the goal of reviewing eight hotels per month, including in markets where APFA did not request review, and where no contractual concerns exist. The union claims it has seen a 109% increase year-over-year in union travel for the purposes of reviewing hotels, in order to ensure management’s choices are okayed by the union.
The APFA states that it has recommended renewal of many incumbent hotels that meet contractual standards, only for management to move forward with hotels not recommended by the union, and doing so without adhering to the mutual agreement process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, which reads as follows:
The Company will consider all recommendations of the APFA and then select the facility to be used from those that are mutually acceptable to the Company and the APFA. It is the intent of the parties that representatives of the Company and the APFA’s National Hotel Department reach agreement on the selection of the hotel accommodations. If, however, there are no mutually acceptable facilities, the Company and the APFA National President, or their designee, will meet to attempt to agree on a facility. If the Company and the APFA National President, or their designee, cannot reach agreement, the Company will make the final determination.
The union tells members that these “changes put management’s priorities ahead of the rest you need to safely perform your duties.”
I suspect there’s some truth to these complaints, but…
As you can tell above, the process of selecting crew hotels is intended to be collaborative, and there’s a pretty clear set of standards that go into picking a hotel.
I have to imagine that it’s probably a bit of a dramatization when the union claims that these “changes put management’s priorities ahead of the rest you need to safely perform your duties.” I don’t think American is trying to accommodate crews in by-the-hour motels, since those kinds of properties wouldn’t otherwise be compliant.
That being said, does someone at American maybe have the mandate to see if there are opportunities to save costs on crew hotels? Absolutely, and I imagine it’s likely. For that matter, it could be that some hotels have contracts that are up for renewal, and the current hotels are requesting more money, so the airline is shopping around. But if the hotels still meet standards then it seems like that shouldn’t be a huge issue.
As I see it, there’s a difference between objecting to a hotel because there’s actually something seriously wrong with it, vs. just objecting to it because you like the current option, and are unwilling to consider any other.
Bottom line
American’s flight attendant union is accusing management of trying to cut costs by unilaterally making changes to layover hotels. The idea is that picking crew hotels is a collaborative process between management and the union, and management has been requesting hotel changes at properties without issues, despite the union objecting.
Based on this narrative, I suspect American is trying to get the best bang for its buck on layover hotels. At the same time, I’m not sure that’s totally unreasonable, as long as hotels are still compliant with the terms of the contract.
What do you make of the union’s complaint?
Wait. The.union has more than doubled the travel they do to review hotels?
How about this: the union doesn't travel at all, it reduces member dues, the flight attendants can take home more pay, so the airline can afford to put them in fancier digs.
Problem solved, and you don't need to pay me a million bucks a year to do it!
I took a voucher and a hotel one time at LAX. I will never do it again. The place had indoor/outdoor carpeting throughout, reeked of industrial cleaners, and was generally shabby. It was also the crew hotel. Never again.
I recall reading something that airlines are having difficulty getting hotels to take this business now. Maybe that has something to do with it—along with looking to cut cost?
Oh heavens no, the AA FAs might get a taste of their own style of customer service at these lesser hotel properties.
When has management ever not tried to chisel employees ?
When was the last layover in "Amans" ? (Second paragraph.)
Well deserved for by the worst group of flight attendants in the world.
"Airlines put their passengers at low tier hotels..."
Not sure where you got that data point, but I've never been put up in a "low tier" hotel when I've had a flight cancelled and was put up overnight by the carrier. Not sure how you define low tier, but my experience has been staying at Westins, Sheratons, and the like. High end? Hardly. Acceptable business-level properties? Yup.
They have never been Super-8s and Days Inns.
Good. I hope these miserable ol' grannies learned something very valuable here - don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Could it be they are just trying to keep hotel expenses at same level or with less increase. Hotel rates (along with Corporate rates) have significantly increased over the past few years. Some hotels has doubled their corporate rates, so I see this as just a containment - and the total is likely still increasing even going to lower tier hotels.
Airlines put their passengers at low tier hotels, if they ever have to accommodate...
Could it be they are just trying to keep hotel expenses at same level or with less increase. Hotel rates (along with Corporate rates) have significantly increased over the past few years. Some hotels has doubled their corporate rates, so I see this as just a containment - and the total is likely still increasing even going to lower tier hotels.
Airlines put their passengers at low tier hotels, if they ever have to accommodate people with mechanical issue/cancellation (if they don't make up some other excuse).
Getting paid for traveling around the world checking out hotels for crew. Where do I sign up?
Another moronic behavior from the union. Hotel agreements as I understand it are for four star and above and have provisions like no rooms near ice machine or elevators. Furthermore, if there are complaints to crew scheduling about a hotel that hotel risks losing the contract. Airport hotels are often dependent upon crew travel.
As I stand outside...
Getting paid for traveling around the world checking out hotels for crew. Where do I sign up?
Another moronic behavior from the union. Hotel agreements as I understand it are for four star and above and have provisions like no rooms near ice machine or elevators. Furthermore, if there are complaints to crew scheduling about a hotel that hotel risks losing the contract. Airport hotels are often dependent upon crew travel.
As I stand outside waiting for a hotel shuttle I've never seen a mainline crew get into a hotel shuttle of a property anything less than four stars. The regional crews are put up in Residence Inn and Holiday Inn Express like properties, which can be just as nice as Hyatt or Marriott-depending upon the quality of the local franchisee.
We are well into the first quarter which was supposed to look good... until a week ago.
Crude oil keeps rising which just by itself is going to take a piece out of every airline's earnings.
Add in the dustup between AA and UA at ORD - which the FAA has stepped into which helps AA - and AA has every reason to look for ways to limit expenses.
I suspect the...
We are well into the first quarter which was supposed to look good... until a week ago.
Crude oil keeps rising which just by itself is going to take a piece out of every airline's earnings.
Add in the dustup between AA and UA at ORD - which the FAA has stepped into which helps AA - and AA has every reason to look for ways to limit expenses.
I suspect the union would get more traction if they made sure that FAs got ANY rooms within a pretty short period of time when IROPS occur since that badly fell apart during the latest winter storm mess - which incidentally was bound to impact AA's earnings.
AA staff are unhappy and complaining? That’s not news…..
Having dealt with unions for years on both sides I look at this as just typical union/management negotiation issues. Its the push and pull of daily life with unions and management. EVERYTHING is a negotiation. Its the nature of the relationship. Not all that newsworthy, and since I am not in AA management or in the union, really none of my business or my concern.
"I got mine." *pulls ladder up behind him*
Oh yes, that 'HS teacher in a southern red state' ladder that I am pulling up. I sure got mine. You got me. LOL
If union leadership cannot find something to complain about, they leave themselves vulnerable to challenges to their position. That's why you get nonsensical complaints about hotels sometimes.
Sean, we get it, you were in management with an airline, so you have your biases... yet, I (and most) can believe the workers when they say they aren't being treated well (because they aren't.)
Then maybe they should quit and go work somewhere else. Let a free market do its job
Nice trope, JustinB. Surprised you didn’t add, ‘LeT tHe FrEe MaRkEt DeCiDe…’
@1990 - my philosophy about hotel complaints that couldn't be reconciled at a lower level was to tag along on a layover with the crew on a random day without warning anyone and see what it was like on the ground myself. In some cases, clear violations of contracted services were occurring (eg. shuttle service to shopping center was not happening as agreed, etc..), in most cases it was a communication issue that needed management...
@1990 - my philosophy about hotel complaints that couldn't be reconciled at a lower level was to tag along on a layover with the crew on a random day without warning anyone and see what it was like on the ground myself. In some cases, clear violations of contracted services were occurring (eg. shuttle service to shopping center was not happening as agreed, etc..), in most cases it was a communication issue that needed management intervention (eg. room aircon + fridge was off in summer when crew arrived so crew were uncomfortable for the first couple of hours, etc..), but in a handful of cases it was simply a situation where the hotel was perfectly compliant but the crew just wanted to stay somewhere else they had been for years and got used to. Those situations needed a bit more tact and nuance to resolve. Sometimes, throwing money at it helped (eg. get the hotel to offer free breakfast), sometimes a switch back to the old hotel was necessary (depending on the pricing difference of course), but in a handful of cases it was just telling the crew that unless they had some tangible complaints to raise, this is not your vacation to Disney and the hotel meets the agreed upon conditions so you're gonna have to lump it.
Unfortunately, more often than not, the most serious greivances turned out to be exaggerated or even totally fabricated. One person claimed to have falled sick from creosote poisoning (there was no creosote on property and they had no medical records to support being sick at all), another claimed to have been "attacked by wildlife" on hotel property (CCTV showed that they were startled by the honking of a swan in the hotel pond as they walked up the driveway), and one said that she was dating a front desk executive but they broke up so it was now a hostile workplace forcing her to stay there. Never a dull moment.
Sean M., I’m all for verifying complaints, but to wholesale suggest that generally all complaints about hotel stays for crews are to be ignored because they ‘just be whinin’ or whatever other cop-out isn’t sufficient. We can and should sort out corruption top, bottom, and in-between.