500 United attendants won''t need to move

Fly

Veteran
Mar 7, 2003
2,644
2
June 26, 2003

BY FRANCINE KNOWLES Business Reporter

After complaints from its flight attendants union, UAL Corp.''s United Airlines has altered a cost-saving plan to shut management offices in Las Vegas and Philadelphia, which would have forced more than 500 flight attendants to move.

Earlier this month, United said it would close management offices in the cities.

This would have uprooted flight attendants, creating hardships, said Association of Flight Attendants spokeswoman Sara Dela Cruz.

Las Vegas and Philadelphia are two of the cheapest places to live.

She said one flight attendant, who lived in a four-bedroom home with a pool in Las Vegas, searched for comparable housing in Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago and found for what she paid in Las Vegas, she would only have been able to get a 450-square-foot condo in those cities.

Commuting wasn''t an option because of the heavy traffic levels in and out of Las Vegas and Philadelphia, she said. Flight attendants, who fly standby, would have had difficulty finding available seats to make it to work on time, she said.

In the compromise, management operations will be consolidated at sites in Los Angeles and Newark, said United spokesman Jason Schechter, but the flight attendants won''t have to move.

We worked to see if there were some sort of an agreement that would look at these locations in a non-traditional ways that would save costs, Dela Cruz said. We wanted to find a way to be able to leave people where they were. We have given enough concessions.

Flight attendants welcomed the compromise, she said.

Flight attendants agreed in April to $314 million in annual wage concessions over six years to help the company successfully emerge from bankruptcy.

United''s Schechter said the compromise allows the company to achieve its goal of cost containment in a way that also benefits the flight attendants.

He declined to say what the cost
savings will be for United.
 
Just to clarify, "management offices" meant Flight Attendants domiciles (bases).

So PHL and LAS have been spared, at least for now... but they are still going ahead with the surplus in MIA, back to 1992 seniority.

And then this afternoon they just announced the "permanent" (whatever that means in this biz) cancellation of the nonstop TPE-SFO flight, which was cancelled "temporarily" a couple of months ago due to SARS, along with the closing of the TPE F/A domicile effective October 1.

Apparently the daily TPE-NRT flight will remain.
 
----------------
On 6/26/2003 5:15:32 PM Bear96 wrote:

Just to clarify, "management offices" meant Flight Attendants domiciles (bases).

So PHL and LAS have been spared, at least for now... but they are still going ahead with the surplus in MIA, back to 1992 seniority.

----------------​

Is this that they are pulling out the excess number of people in the base? Will these crew members be able to go any base, or only where there might be an opening? Will there be any compensation for forced moves? Just wondering.
 
Hi Mikey,

UA was planning to close PHL and LAS completely as F/A bases (keeping the flight schedule the same) but thanks to AFA they have reached an agreement that will permit them to keep these bases open and still reduce the costs at those locations.

MIA will remain open as a F/A base but is being shrunk by roughly 50%, from about 700 to about 350 (I don't have the exact numbers handy but that should give a rough idea). The surplussed F/As from MIA can only go to other bases where there are vacancies. F/As who are surplussed get compensated for relocation expenses.

Management intends to close TPE completely as a F/A base, as announced today. I am sure AFA will wage a battle similar to that waged in LAS and PHL over the past months. Since the TPE announcement is new, at this point who knows what will utlimately happen to our colleagues based in TPE. One difference is that at LAS and PHL, no reduction in the flight schedule was planned; whereas MIA has lost flying over the past year or so (down to just to int'l flights per day), and TPE is losing flying as well. I would guess it would be more difficult to argue against closing a domicile that only has one daily flight remaining.

Hope that helps...
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
A serious problem for many TPE based flight attendants are that they are NOT allowed to work in the States...should be interesting. No disrespect for our foreign born employees but if UAL is going to downsize bases, the foreign domiciles should be the first to go. I can guarantee you that if a foreign carrier were downsizing, they would NEVER keep us Americans and drop their countries citizens. Maybe getting rid of this base will bring back some of the young flight attendants who just happen to be American born.
 
I thought UAL had already let go all the foreign nationals. Wasn''t that a contractual thing before they could lay off the US crews? So different at AA where they are laying off thousands of US crews and keeping the foreign nationals. There is no out cry, people claim that we would lose the rights to fly to these 4 destinations if we didn''t employ flight attendants from that country. So many others think it has no effect on there flying so there is no movement to force the companies hand on this issue.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
Mikey, they just furloughed straight from seniority....no difference between Americans and non. But with this closing, I think many from TPE will not be ALLOWED to work in the states, therefore ending their careers with UAL. Stay tuned....
 

Latest posts

Back
Top