5 More Hours For November!

[SKY HIGH]

Subject: November Flying Obligation

Flight attendant staffing projections for November 2004 indicate that staffing levels will be at a deficit in some domiciles.
As a result, obligations for November will be increased by 5 hours (domestic) or 1 trip
(ITD) in the following bases: CLT, CLW, DCA, LGA and PHL. The option obligation increase is your option plus 5:00. The non-option obligation increase is your line value plus 5:00. The ITD obligation is your trip option plus 1 trip.
Please note that the obligations for those flight attendants based in BOS, PIT and PHW have not been increased due to adequate staffing levels. Additional information may be found on theHub.


Sky High states: is this MONTH "optional" too? ANYONE? =)

 

[BostonTerrier]

Subject: November Flying Obligation


Sky High states: is this MONTH "optional" too? ANYONE? =)

[post="196678"][/post]​

It's my understanding that it is not optional. It is now an "obligation" and required of all flight attendants in the listed bases.

 

[Whatnow?]

Honestly, it will help recoup a little of this ridiculous paycut! :angry:

 

[Light Years]

No one ever complained when they were overflying thier option while F/As were being furloughed monthly. Maybe more than the 5000 out of the 11000 would still be working if people hadn't been greedy before.

Cry me a river.

 

[Whatnow?]

No tears here, I think its great! And I'm sure that wasn't the reason for all those furloughs. Bigger problems that that going on. What amazes me still, is that they claim they are still short staffed but yet there's talk of more furloughs. Hmmm? :huh:

 

[BostonTerrier]

Honestly, it will help recoup a little of this ridiculous paycut! :angry:

[post="196680"][/post]​

For whom? Lineholders mostly.

Who will it benefit the least? Reserves, who will have even more difficulty juggling a part-time job and even less ability to secure trips.

JMHO.

And LightYears, I agree.

 

[Light Years]

Overflying certainly caused more furloughs than needed. It's stealing hours from junior F/As. Overflying makes it appear to the company that there is a need for less F/As, and therefore they furlough as many as they can. It's stealing from another co-worker, putting someone out of thier job, and people should be terminated for it. The attitude towards junior people and furloughees from some people is disgusting.

And then they complain about the juniors coming back and undercutting them at MDA, getting blocks and more flying. What goes around comes around.

 

[PITbull]

Flight attendants have difficulty flying the trips just trying to get in their regular option.

The f/as are still primarily female in this company...82%. Many in this group are married with children. Many of them can't afford to increase daycare cost just to fly extra on a grossly reduced wage, even if it were 15% wage cut, coupled now with reinstituting sick pay penalties.

This doesn't effect bases in PIT, or BOS or PHW, but it DOES effect the other bases and the potential to increase the disciplines unjustly on those bases creating disparity of treatment specifically on the holiday months when folks want to get out of time to be with family.

Many f/as are on second level dependability or final warning...this will put them over.

With regard to discipline, this puts these bases in an unfair advantage. The MEC should challenge this.

 

[Heinrich]

With regard to discipline, this puts these bases in an unfair advantage. The MEC should challenge this.

[post="196701"][/post]​

Do you ever think that anyone should ever do ANYTHING to help this company AT ALL without a fight?

It appears to me that you greatly prefer to lay blame, point fingers, and tell everyone how ridiculous everyone ELSE is.

 

[USAirBoyA330]

Lightyears:

Your 100% correct and it's just another slap in the face for RSV's. Last week the bidsheet in CLT and PHL was flooded and the reserves could not get a trip if they wanted too becuase of the extra 5 hours. Well, for the 1st time in months I just broke 71 hours while blockholers I know got 100 or 105 or even 110 hours! And don't even bother with VOL QCK call....I called in and was number 16.
What a load of crap. :down:

 

[Peeky]

Agreed, Pitbull. It is discriminatory to hold only certain bases accountable and not others. It should be all or none. MEC should address this ASAP



This doesn't effect bases in PIT, or BOS or PHW, but it DOES effect the other bases and the potential to increase the disciplines unjustly on those bases creating disparity of treatment specifically on the holiday months when folks want to get out of time to be with family.

Many f/as are on second level dependability or final warning...this will put them over.

With regard to discipline, this puts these bases in an unfair advantage. The MEC should challenge this.

 

[PHLfa88]

What about this company going back to the SLV BullS@@t!! :down:

 

[PITbull]

What about this company going back to the SLV BullS@@t!! :down:

[post="196786"][/post]​

PHLfa,

That is because the sick calls did not decrease. Removing the pay penalties was experimental. PIT pres wrote out to the f/as and basically conveyed that if the sick calls remain high the company will reinstitute the sLV.

And they did 90 days later.

Basically, there is a reasonable amount of "underfly your option" (Low hour infractions) as there is "overfly".

We have many f/as who are on dependability who just can't get their time in as linholders.

I attribute this to a major "burn out" going on among many of the linedholders. And it will only get worse if and when the company removes the "option obligations", and forces f/as to fly more hours on a regular bases then many are acustomed to or want to.

This will also create a furlough and holes in the bases.

Hopefully, many folks will be incentivized to "bridge" to another job by taking the furlough package that will be open to all f/as if a T/A ratifies.


Just so there is no misunderstanding...I am not challenging the 5-10 hour imposed court ruling...I am disturbed with the discipline associated with not getting the time in and having it be under the scrutiny of the supervisors on whether a f/a made every effort or not.

 

[Whatnow?]

PHLfa,

That is because the sick calls did not decrease. Removing the pay penalties was experimental. PIT pres wrote out to the f/as and basically conveyed that if the sick calls remain high the company will reinstitute the sLV.

And they did 90 days later.

Basically, there is a reasonable amount of "underfly your option" (Low hour infractions) as there is "overfly".

We have many f/as who are on dependability who just can't get their time in as linholders.

I attribute this to a major "burn out" going on among many of the linedholders. And it will only get worse if and when the company removes the "option obligations", and forces f/as to fly more hours on a regular bases then many are acustomed to or want to.

PB, I agree that the company was trying to prove a point with the SLV experiment. The sick calls definitely got worse once the old sick policy was put back into place! As far as the underfly and overfly issue goes, it sounds like with the latest company proposal to AFA that that would be balanced out, meaning if you got rid of your trips you are not held to a flying obligation? Is that correct? Is there still a minimum/maximum number of hours?

 

[PITbull]

What now?

So far, the company has not proposed a minimum flying responsibility in 90 days, like they had in previous proposals. That seems to have gone.

So, it will balance out.

Trust me on this, this new type of no option flying will burn out many of the f/as. It sounds acceptable to some now because everyone is on a reduced wage but it will make many f/as sick and burn them right out.