AFA Labor Discussion (Work Conditions) 7-7 -

[Travelpro72]

Oh we have our eye on the ball. I believe more now than EVER! ! ! When the majority votes NO the company, union and the JNC will understand just where we are coming from. God knows they aren't listening now so they'll listen when we use our finger to press #2 for NO. All in due time.

 

[Zarah]

Zarah, I don't know the current verbiage, but I believe that a jumpseater must be signed up and present at the gate 10-15 minutes before departure or they don't get to go. If the FA isn't there in time they aren't there in time and the seat is empty and why not fill it with a pilot. A FA cannot run to the door as it is being closed and get the jumpseat.

They can now..why take something away from an East FA for the pilots.....ooops argument going both ways now. /smile.

My point is she was let on the flight. I have been let on the flight. I am just saying she would not have been let on if a pilot was already on it. Planes run late. FAs run late. A dive and dash for a commuter flight is common. Very Common.

I haven't seen nor heard anything from the AFA on this and until I see the details, I can have no opinion due to not knowing how it would work.

 

[ebwgs]

Who cares if you have access to the flight deck jumpseat if you don't take care of reserve issues, pay issues, scheduling issues, sick time issues, vacation issues and so on and so forth. Everyone seems to focus on only one issue at a time. If that is what you really want to do focus on the one issue that will count. That is start by putting your negotiating team on notice that it is time for them to step aside. Until you do that nothing else should be distracting you!

I don't know if you read any of my posts on this issue--non-issue relative to the bigger picture--but I have stated repeatedly that I am only interested in the JNC negotiating a contract that enhances the life of flight attendants. That would include ALL of the issues that you stated above and more. None of those issues is related to negotiating any contractual upgrades for any other workgroup than flight attendants, so there certainly is no lack of focus on what I've posted on this particular subject.

 

[Onestep2flt]

I don't know if you read any of my posts on this issue--non-issue relative to the bigger picture--but I have stated repeatedly that I am only interested in the JNC negotiating a contract that enhances the life of flight attendants. That would include ALL of the issues that you stated above and more. None of those issues is related to negotiating any contractual upgrades for any other workgroup than flight attendants, so there certainly is no lack of focus on what I've posted on this particular subject.

I was just pointing out that the conversation in general had run amok. I know that many of you are focused on the big picture. I know that many of you agree to disagree with what certain sections of your contract should look like. With little exception at least here on this board there appears to be no disagreement to the fact that you have the wrong people negotiating your contract. As you have said so well, you need a contract that enhances the life of flight attendants. The only thing I would add to what you said is that includes ALL flight attendants. Improvements to one person should not be at the expense of another. It appears that the current negotiating team is not following that same sentiment. There is a large disconnect between union leaders and the people they are representing. I think the Only way you will fix this is to rid yourselves of the disease! Get rid of them. After you get a tentative agreement is too late. There are some that say they will be surprised (union and company) at the no votes. According to my sources the voting history does not support you. It has been told to me that you guys are lucky to even get anybody to cast a vote let alone vote no. Hope I am wrong, but history is usually a strong indicator.

 

[ebwgs]

I was just pointing out that the conversation in general had run amok. I know that many of you are focused on the big picture. I know that many of you agree to disagree with what certain sections of your contract should look like. With little exception at least here on this board there appears to be no disagreement to the fact that you have the wrong people negotiating your contract. As you have said so well, you need a contract that enhances the life of flight attendants. The only thing I would add to what you said is that includes ALL flight attendants. Improvements to one person should not be at the expense of another. It appears that the current negotiating team is not following that same sentiment. There is a large disconnect between union leaders and the people they are representing. I think the Only way you will fix this is to rid yourselves of the disease! Get rid of them. After you get a tentative agreement is too late. There are some that say they will be surprised (union and company) at the no votes. According to my sources the voting history does not support you. It has been told to me that you guys are lucky to even get anybody to cast a vote let alone vote no. Hope I am wrong, but history is usually a strong indicator.

I can't disagree with your last two sentences Onestep. I can only hope that our brethren out west and back here in the east have had enough of working under an ancient contract (the west) and a bankruptcy contract (the east), and demonstrates the intestinal fortitude necessary to negotiate a working agreement that is reflective of the hardworking professionals that we are, that punctuates the respect and esteem that we are due, and that corrects many of the sacrifices and hardships that we all have faced as we have fought to maintain our livelihoods and our company's existence as a going concern. Apathy is not an option!

 

[nic4us]

the exclusivity of the flight attendant Jumpseat has been longstanding.

This jumpseat is the flight attendant jumpseat and we will NEVER give that up.

Thanks all for answering my question. It appears it brought up more than I originally intended and I do have some thoughts to offer.

First, the cabin jumpseat has not been an exclusive domain on the West. I do not know how or why it became that way on the east, but would like to point out a few fundementals that may change your perspective on this issue.

On the West we do not call the cabin jumpseat the "flight attendant jumpseat", nor do we call the flightdeck jumpseat the "pilot jumpseat". These are both misnomers. Without going into too much security related material on a public forum, I can think of 7 groups of non-pilots authorized to ride on the flightdeck jumpseat. It is hardly exclusive to pilots, and many/most of those authorized have priority over a commuting pilot. Authorizing a pilot to occupy a cabin jumpseat with less priority than a flight attendant in no way detracts from the current east policy, enhances safety and promotes support between the work groups.

I absolutely agree with the sentiment of many posts that the AFA should be concerned only about contractual issues that enhance the FAs quality of life and work experience. To me, on this topic, that would mean ensuring that you keep the cabin jumpseat open for your use, and retain your priority. Just because something has been a certain way in the past on the east does not guarantee its survival in a joint effort moving forward. As has been pointed out, if you start monkeying around with this too much, we may lose the ZFW inclusion or worse. Also, (and I am not trying to make a threat here but the topic of the pilots supporting the FAs has been brought up) when the time comes that you are actually trying to ride on the cabin jumpseat, who is the final authority that grants or denies the request? Would you not want that person wholeheartedly supporting your access to use those seats?

To conclude, and get your thread back on topic, this is the most trivial of issues the FAs should be concerned about. Get yourselves a respectable contract, better work rules, better schedules, better pay. You will have this West captains support no matter what becomes of the cabin jump.

PS. I really do love PBS.

 

[john john]

Also, (and I am not trying to make a threat here but the topic of the pilots supporting the FAs has been brought up) when the time comes that you are actually trying to ride on the cabin jumpseat, who is the final authority that grants or denies the request? Would you not want that person wholeheartedly supporting your access to use those seats?

Now, this is one reason why the east contract language on ACM/cabin jumpseat should not be change.
Tin god syndrome.

The flight attendants have fought for the benefit and procedures. DOH reverses order, weight and balance , dress code and interline. Pilots should be lump in with the rest of the employee groups the customer contact employee groups could benefit form understanding of the job.

 

[ebwgs]

Thanks all for answering my question. It appears it brought up more than I originally intended and I do have some thoughts to offer.

First, the cabin jumpseat has not been an exclusive domain on the West. I do not know how or why it became that way on the east, but would like to point out a few fundementals that may change your perspective on this issue.

On the West we do not call the cabin jumpseat the "flight attendant jumpseat", nor do we call the flightdeck jumpseat the "pilot jumpseat". These are both misnomers. Without going into too much security related material on a public forum, I can think of 7 groups of non-pilots authorized to ride on the flightdeck jumpseat. It is hardly exclusive to pilots, and many/most of those authorized have priority over a commuting pilot. Authorizing a pilot to occupy a cabin jumpseat with less priority than a flight attendant in no way detracts from the current east policy, enhances safety and promotes support between the work groups.


I absolutely agree with the sentiment of many posts that the AFA should be concerned only about contractual issues that enhance the FAs quality of life and work experience. To me, on this topic, that would mean ensuring that you keep the cabin jumpseat open for your use, and retain your priority. Authorizing a pilot to occupy a cabin jumpseat with less priority than a flight attendant in no way detracts from the current east policy, enhances safety and promotes support between the work groups.
As has been pointed out, if you start monkeying around with this too much, we may lose the ZFW inclusion or worse. Also, (and I am not trying to make a threat here but the topic of the pilots supporting the FAs has been brought up) when the time comes that you are actually trying to ride on the cabin jumpseat, who is the final authority that grants or denies the request? Would you not want that person wholeheartedly supporting your access to use those seats?

To conclude, and get your thread back on topic, this is the most trivial of issues the FAs should be concerned about. Get yourselves a respectable contract, better work rules, better schedules, better pay. You will have this West captains support no matter what becomes of the cabin jump.

PS. I really do love PBS.

Ok Nic4 thanks for recognizing how relatively trivial this issue as far as the big picture of flight attendants enhancing our quality of life with an improved CBA. I even give you credit for your veiled attempt at reasonableness in your post, however insincere it was.

"On the West we do not call the cabin jumpseat the "flight attendant jumpseat", nor do we call the flightdeck jumpseat the "pilot jumpseat"

That's in the west. There is now an "east" that does things differently. Keep that in mind.

"Authorizing a pilot to occupy a cabin jumpseat with less priority than a flight attendant in no way detracts from the current east policy, enhances safety and promotes support between the work groups."

As far as self-serving arguments go you can't beat this one, especially the "enhancing support between work groups" part. I'd almost believe you if I didn't know that you're part of one of our workgroups that has it's own issues about working together. I know that there have been east pilots who've been denied the flight deck j/s and east f/as who have incurred the wrath of pilots, all a result of the unfortunate internecine battle between OUR pilots. And I don't doubt that there have been similar transgressions on the east side. I wish both sides the best in working it out.

"Just because something has been a certain way in the past on the east does not guarantee its survival in a joint effort moving forward."

I could be wrong, but the same can be said of how things have been done in the west can't it? To call that statement presumptuous is giving it way too much credit.

But here is the kicker: "Also, (and I am not trying to make a threat here but the topic of the pilots supporting the FAs has been brought up) when the time comes that you are actually trying to ride on the cabin jumpseat, who is the final authority that grants or denies the request? Would you not want that person wholeheartedly supporting your access to use those seats?"

Are you kidding me? Now you wouldn't be threatening to deny our access to the f/a jumpseat that is contractually ours because we don't decide to negotiate a perk in OUR contract for the pilots would you?

Please understand this, and I speak only for myself only. When I request and receive j/s authorization, unless I have in some way mishandled myself for some unknown reason which would justify me being denied the j/s--which I don't expect to happen--I expect to ride regardless of whether or not we negotiate in our new contract an enhancement for pilots.

NIC I know you go back and forth with the east pilots over your issues, and understandably so. I get both sides of your dispute. I also stay out of it. Please understand that our JNC should be wholly devoted to enhancing only the F/A standard of living in our next CBA. I request that you respect that, and in doing so not chime in with veiled threats about denying f/as our contractual right to our j/s. Thank you.

 

[Coach Cabin]

Also, (and I am not trying to make a threat here but the topic of the pilots supporting the FAs has been brought up) when the time comes that you are actually trying to ride on the cabin jumpseat, who is the final authority that grants or denies the request? Would you not want that person wholeheartedly supporting your access to use those seats?

The GATE AGENT authorizes and signs the flight attendant jump seat, then includes it in the total count to the flight deck. The pilots are out of the loop with F/A jump seat approvals. The very few times I have had any of our pilots on a cabin jump seat it was because our guy volunteered to give up his seat so a non-rev could get on, or another airline pilot could take the flight deck jump seat. Helping out your fellow employees for no reason other than just because you can. What a concept.

 

[Al Legheny]

You guys are loosing focus! I don't read the board for a few days as it was a holiday and now I find almost three pages on your jumpseat. I know that your jumpseat is a very important priveledge. As pointed out it is currently spelled out in your contracts differently. However, don't loose sight of the contract as a WHOLE. Who cares if you have access to the flight deck jumpseat if you don't take care of reserve issues, pay issues, scheduling issues, sick time issues, vacation issues and so on and so forth. Everyone seems to focus on only one issue at a time. If that is what you really want to do focus on the one issue that will count. That is start by putting your negotiating team on notice that it is time for them to step aside. Until you do that nothing else should be distracting you!

You are exactly right. We should be paying attention to the big picture. The big picture of the Me-Too clause may become much clearer shortly.


PROMISES, PROMISES: FAA fatigue rules finally near

By JOAN LOWY (AP) – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON — After a regional airliner crashed in western New York a year and a half ago, killing 50 people, the Obama administration promised swift action to prevent similar tragedies. High on the list: new rules governing the number of hours pilots may work, to prevent tired flight crews from making fatal errors.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote in June 2009 that the Federal Aviation Administration was in a hurry and wouldn't wait for Congress "to add mandatory layers to airline safety," nor even for crash investigators to complete their work, "because air passengers deserve action. And, they deserve it now."

It's taken 15 months and a half-dozen missed deadlines, but the FAA is finally about to propose new regulations on how many hours airlines can schedule pilots to be on duty or in the cockpit. A draft was submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review last week, and a proposed rule is likely to be published within days, industry officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to address the issue publicly. A House hearing on the proposal is scheduled for next week.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — An occasional look at government promises and how well they are kept.

___

Even when the new rules are proposed, it will likely be months — possibly even a year or longer — before they take effect. Pilot unions and relatives of crash victims who have been campaigning for the new rules said they're troubled by the lengthy process when safety is at stake.

"You can't be anything but concerned about the delays. This is supposedly (Federal Aviation Administration chief) Randy Babbitt's No. 1 priority and something there has been a crying need for decades now," said Kevin Kuwik, a spokesman for relatives of the victims of Continental Connection Flight 3407, which crashed near Buffalo in February 2009. An NTSB investigation found that both pilots on the flight were probably suffering from fatigue, although fatigue wasn't a direct cause of the accident.

At a private meeting with White House officials in June, relatives were assured the issue is a priority, he said.

Transportation and FAA officials declined to discuss the reason for the delays. Transportation Department spokeswoman Olivia Alair said only, "We are working as quickly as possible to get the proposal out for comment."

Lawmakers, industry officials and union leaders familiar with the process say the difficulty is in demonstrating that the safety benefits of stricter rules on flight hours — lives saved and injuries avoided — would outweigh the cost of the rules to the struggling airline industry. Depending upon how they are written, new regulations could cost industry billions of dollars over the next decade.

The result, these insiders say, has been a monthslong back-and-forth between the government and industry.

Officials at airline trade associations say they haven't been lobbying to block or delay new regulations. But the cost estimates the airline industry has supplied the government amount to a kind of lobbying, said Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"I know for sure they are using the rulemaking process to make their case," said Oberstar, who has talked privately with Babbitt about the situation. He said one reason for the delay is that the FAA has been trying to "bulletproof" the proposal against possible challenges.

"The companies don't want any change that will cost them 10 cents," Oberstar said. "That's what it all comes down to."

Tom Hendricks, vice president for the Air Transport Association, an organization of major air carriers, said he hasn't seen either a draft proposal or cost estimates from the FAA. But he said, "We're always very concerned about added costs without a demonstrable safety benefit."

Current rules say pilots can be scheduled for up to 16 hours on duty — which means being at work, ready to fly — and up to eight hours of actual flight time in a 24-hour period, with a minimum of eight hours for rest in between. The rules don't take into account that it can be more tiring for regional airline pilots to fly five or six short legs in six hours than it is for a pilot with a major airline to fly eight hours across the Atlantic to Europe, say, with only one takeoff and landing. Takeoffs and landings are usually the most strenuous part of flying.

The rules also don't take into account pilots whose schedules put them in the cockpit during the period, typically 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., when people are more likely to become fatigued than if they were awake the same number of hours during the daytime. Cargo airlines — especially overnight package services — do much of their flying during those hours.

Major airlines have urged the FAA to balance a reduction in hours for pilots who fly more fatiguing schedules with an increase in hours for pilots who fly less taxing routes, which could offset much of the cost of new rules. Pilot unions oppose that approach.

Babbitt formed a committee of airline and labor officials last summer to make recommendations on new regulations. Instead of one set of recommendations, the committee produced separate proposals from cargo and charter airlines, commercial airlines and pilot unions.

Charter airlines — which fly 95 percent of U.S. troops and 40 percent of military cargo around the world — want to continue exceptions in current regulations that allow longer flight and duty hours for their pilots.

The military "is watching very closely what is going on with the flight and duty-time rulemaking because how that comes out that will affect their ability to move troops and their ability to move cargo," said Oakley Brooks, president of the National Air Carrier Association. "We're working closely with them."

Pilot unions oppose the exceptions, arguing that all airlines should be held to the same safety standards.

"Do we want pilots flying our troops around the world to be more tired than other pilots?" asked Lee Collins, secretary of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations.

The effort to overhaul the rules is also a victim of the aviation industry's safety success over the past decade, thanks primarily to better warning systems that help prevent planes from flying into the ground or colliding in midair. In some years, there have been no fatal airline crashes in the U.S.

Finding ways to prevent pilot fatigue has stymied federal regulators and the airline industry for decades. The National Transportation Safety Board has been urging since 1990 that rules be updated to reflect fatigue research.

The FAA proposed new rules in the late 1990s. The proposal lingered for more than a decade without further action, and agency officials cited an impasse between pilots and industry. The proposal was withdrawn last year when the agency began working on the issue again.

"I don't think there's anything hard about looking at what the science tells us and coming up with common-sense rules," said Russ Leighton, head of the Teamsters aviation division. "Getting people to wrap their minds around that change or to stop acting like that change is going to put every airline in the country out of business — that's the hard part."


P.S. - USAPA is reporting via a Government Affairs email that the NPRM may come out tomorrow, Sept. 10.

 

[nic4us]

Are you kidding me? Now you wouldn't be threatening to deny our access to the f/a jumpseat that is contractually ours because we don't decide to negotiate a perk in OUR contract for the pilots would you?

Please understand this, and I speak only for myself. When I request and receive j/s authorization, unless I have in some way mishandled myself for some unknown reason which would justify me being denied the j/s--which I don't expect to happen--I expect to ride regardless of whether or not we negotiate in our new contract an enhancement for pilots.

NIC I know you go back and forth with the east pilots over your issues, and understandably so. I get both sides of your dispute. I also stay out of it. Please understand that our JNC should be wholly devoted to enhancing only the F/A standard of living in our next CBA. I request that you respect that, and in doing so not chime in with veiled threats about denying f/as our contractual right to our j/s. Thank you.

Nobody is going to deny any cabin jumpseats, regardless of the outcome on this issue. However, I would haved thought the AFA would have wanted pilot support in their efforts. This issue runs a little deeper than a benefit the West pilots have being taken away from them. We are used to that, and frankly I expect cabin jumpseat to go the way of free parent travel.

As trivial as this issue is, it ties too closely to operational control of the airplane for the West pilots to simply let it go. This does not even belong in your contract. This is a company policy issue, a Flight ops manual issue, a regulatory issue, not a flight attendant collective bargaining issue.

But what do I know, being a "tin God" I just sort through all the issues to make the plane go from A to B. If I have somebody on the cabin jumpseat while doing so, all the better.

 

[john john]

This is a company policy issue, a Flight ops manual issue, a regulatory issue,

So therefore it is a collective bargaining issue

This does not even belong in your contract.

guess we see the WEST pilot’s position

 

[PEST-STRIP]

"I do not know how or why it became that way on the east, but would like to point out a few fundementals that may change your perspective on this issue."


Also, (and I am not trying to make a threat here but the topic of the pilots supporting the FAs has been brought up) when the time comes that you are actually trying to ride on the cabin jumpseat, who is the final authority that grants or denies the request? Would you not want that person wholeheartedly supporting your access to use those seats?

Nic4us, Thus far I do not believe you have fundamentally changed my perspective on this issue or for that matter most of the posters' perspectives here on this topic. The fact is you you qualify your statement by saying " I am not making a threat here" . I am very curious then, what your motivation was behind your commentary of "FINAL AUTHORITY" that grants or denies the request. If that doesn't reek of threat I must certainly be missing something here. This is primarily why you will run into resistance here. This is hardly the approach most would take when trying to persuade the Flight attendants to give up their exclusivity. In addition, I do not believe the represented gate agents will want to be placed in the position to decide when and how they fill the jumpseat and we all know what happens at the gates when all the commuters are trying to get to and from work. I do agree that it is a shame that this topic has consumed some 5-6 pages and the real issues of obtaining a merged agreement seem to be going on the back burner. Thanks for the debate!!!!

 

[hp_fa]

The facts is that pilots occupying the jumpseat isn't the big bad boogie man that many East FA's make it out to be. The reality of it is that they stay out of the way, make for a change in conversation companions when engaged and are more likely to buy a round of drinks next time you have a "legal" overnight with them. This appears to be an issue in which the West folks have more experience with an issue and yet you East folks seemingly won't listen.

I'm still wondering why you seemingly hate you pilots so much to deny a potentially simple kindness to them?

 

[PEST-STRIP]

Nobody is going to deny any cabin jumpseats, regardless of the outcome on this issue. However, I would haved thought the AFA would have wanted pilot support in their efforts. This issue runs a little deeper than a benefit the West pilots have being taken away from them. We are used to that, and frankly I expect cabin jumpseat to go the way of free parent travel.

As trivial as this issue is, it ties too closely to operational control of the airplane for the West pilots to simply let it go. This does not even belong in your contract. This is a company policy issue, a Flight ops manual issue, a regulatory issue, not a flight attendant collective bargaining issue.

But what do I know, being a "tin God" I just sort through all the issues to make the plane go from A to B. If I have somebody on the cabin jumpseat while doing so, all the better.

With all due respect Nic, I would stick to making planes go from A to B as you state and leave the negotiations up to negotiators. Let's give the company a little more control and put everything in their policy and procedures. What next? Compensation, work rules governed by company policy? Sure let's just hand them MORE control so that there is less to negotiate. Please!!!!!