AFA Labor Thread Aug 27- Union Issues Here

[700UW]

JetBlue is non-union and their FAs fly transcon turns.

 

[ebwgs]

JetBlue is non-union and their FAs fly transcon turns.

No disrespect, but we're not JetBlue and we are unionized. And we're not aspiring to adopt the work rules of non-union carriers.

 

[Itestwell]

JetBlue is non-union and their FAs fly transcon turns.

No disrespect, but we're not JetBlue and we are unionized. And we're not aspiring to adopt the work rules of non-union carriers.

No disrespect, but MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns. Actually, I would kill to be able to be as productive as Jetblue FA's. They actually get paid to work, not sit around in dump hotels for 27 hours after flying one leg... UAL does LAXHNLLAX turns, etc.... They're unionized, and the trips are quite senior, and enjoyed by many. Wouldn't you like to work less days and have more personal time?? These trips are not a "fatigue" issue. Airlines have been doing turns for years, and no one has dropped off the face of the earth...

Like I said, ebwgs, those turns would go so senior, you would still be able to hold your long layovers that you seem to enjoy. MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots. Remember those high paying 4 days trips, before the pilots decided to "protect" us and negotiate the rigs away?

You still haven't clearly answered my question: What abuses do the pilots protect you from more so than any strong contractual language could?

 

[ebwgs]

No disrespect, but MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns. Actually, I would kill to be able to be as productive as Jetblue FA's. They actually get paid to work, not sit around in dump hotels for 27 hours after flying one leg... UAL does LAXHNLLAX turns, etc.... They're unionized, and the trips are quite senior, and enjoyed by many. Wouldn't you like to work less days and have more personal time?? These trips are not a "fatigue" issue. Airlines have been doing turns for years, and no one has dropped off the face of the earth...

Like I said, ebwgs, those turns would go so senior, you would still be able to hold your long layovers that you seem to enjoy. MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots. Remember those high paying 4 days trips, before the pilots decided to "protect" us and negotiate the rigs away?

You still haven't clearly answered my question: What abuses do the pilots protect you from more so than any strong contractual language could?


No disrespect taken. The above reply was in response to the post that addressed a non-legacy carrier that was non-unionized with no contracted work rules or legal protections, and as a consequence I felt was irrelevant to this post.

You say "MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots." So, correct me if I'm wrong: You want our next contract and our way of life to hinge on a "maybe?" I thought the whole point of having a CBA is to have some definitive idea as to what our working conditions, work rules and protections are. To hinge all of that on a maybe doesn't inspire a lot of confidence and security to me.

I agree that airlines have been doing turns for years. That's been part of their culture. The "Me Too" has been a unique aspect of our culture which I happen to treasure. One aspect of our culture, domestic flying specifically, is that the men, whether they be flight attendants or pilots, check with the women on our crews to make sure they're safe in their hotel rooms before we retire to ours. I have friends at other airlines that don't practice this. The "Me Too" clause, while a cultural icon at US Airways, has protected flight attendants from being unsafely overworked, and has also provided our work group with duty rigs. If not for the clause our work group would have no rigs. Should we negotiate away the "MTC" we will have, in effect, negotiated away the rigs we do have in place.

I'm not sure how you define "strong contractual language", but it has been my experience that strong contractual language can be fleeting when the company sees fit. Strong FAA language has seemed to be all for naught, as, for example, crew rest accomodations on long flights. The company has unilaterally deemed that they are not obligated to install crew bunks although the FAA says flights blocked in excess of 12 hours should have bunks for flight attendants. And as you duly noted about other unionized legacy carriers regarding the MTC "MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns." If the precedent at unionized carriers in your mind justify our separation from the pilots then why do they not justify parity as far as crew rest? If the company chooses to thumb their nose at the FAA, what makes you think they won't do the same to "strong contractual language?"

You steadily maintain that west coast turns would go senior because they do at other carriers. Maybe, maybe not. I do know this: Although it's still a brand new route everyone assumed that Tel Aviv would go junior too because it has at other carriers. Perhaps the jury is still out on that. But I know in the nearly two months that we've been flying it it has been a very senior trip. We can't always assume that what goes on at other carriers will play out at ours. Keep the MTC. No separation!

 

[Itestwell]

You say "MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots." So, correct me if I'm wrong: You want our next contract and our way of life to hinge on a "maybe?"

It won't be a "maybe" once we see what rigs/ min days the JNC comes up with. Then, if ratified, it will be written language. You seem to forget that we have the final say, and that if the contract is negotiated clearly and concisely, there will be no "maybe's".

I thought the whole point of having a CBA is to have some definitive idea as to what our working conditions, work rules and protections are. To hinge all of that on a maybe doesn't inspire a lot of confidence and security to me.

That is the point of a CBA. But you are shooting down any new ideas before you even look at what is negotiated, and instead are comfortable with the "status quo" here for years to come. I am not.

I agree that airlines have been doing turns for years. That's been part of their culture. The "Me Too" has been a unique aspect of our culture which I happen to treasure. One aspect of our culture, domestic flying specifically, is that the men, whether they be flight attendants or pilots, check with the women on our crews to make sure they're safe in their hotel rooms before we retire to ours. I have friends at other airlines that don't practice this. The "Me Too" clause, while a cultural icon at US Airways, has protected flight attendants from being unsafely overworked, and has also provided our work group with duty rigs. If not for the clause our work group would have no rigs. Should we negotiate away the "MTC" we will have, in effect, negotiated away the rigs we do have in place.

While that is nice and comforting, it restricts us from being productive as compared to other major airlines. I do like the idea of checking female's hotel rooms, but am willing to trade that for productivity enhancements in a new contract. If these women feel they are in danger, a member of hotel staff will always escort them to their rooms. Extra FA's at USAir have been signing themselves into rooms for years, as have other major airlines, and hotel security for them is not an overwhelmingly stressful issue. Everyone needs to be smart and aware.

How does the "me too" clause protect FA's from being "safely overworked?" As of now, pilots can be forced to work longer duty days. And, remember, in irregular ops, FA's can be assigned new pilots, and worked to death. They've tried to do it to me before, and it ain't pretty. The times when the pilots may "help" us are few and far between, but the 19 hour 4 days and 15 hour 3 days are routine. Seperate operations will allow us higher time trips, and to be more productive, which I view as a good thing. Language protecting us from abuses will be an absolute must, and again, MF has stated he will not present to us a contract that does not contain this language/ limitations. If he does, vote no.

You say if it weren't for the pilot group, we would have no rigs. Why is that? We simply negotiate the rigs. And FWIW, MF has already stated that if our rigs are not as good or better than the pilots, we won't separate.

I'm not sure how you define "strong contractual language", but it has been my experience that strong contractual language can be fleeting when the company sees fit. Strong FAA language has seemed to be all for naught, as, for example, crew rest accomodations on long flights. The company has unilaterally deemed that they are not obligated to install crew bunks although the FAA says flights blocked in excess of 12 hours should have bunks for flight attendants. And as you duly noted about other unionized legacy carriers regarding the MTC "MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns." If the precedent at unionized carriers in your mind justify our separation from the pilots then why do they not justify parity as far as crew rest? If the company chooses to thumb their nose at the FAA, what makes you think they won't do the same to "strong contractual language?"

Whether we are separate or paired together, crew rest should be on parity, period. Other major airlines have similar crew rest areas for pilots as well as FA's, and they are not paired together. This is a bit off topic: It speaks to the value the company puts on its employees, and well, we know how very much they value us. There is legislation in the works to formulate crew rest requirements for FA's similar to the pilots. Until then, we file a grievance.

It seems odd that you would argue about crew rest: other airlines that keep FA/ Pilots separate have better crew rest facilities for their FA's than USAir, which keeps its crews paired together. Another way the pilots do not protect us. Why wasn't adequate/ similar crew rest negotiated in the me too clause?

You steadily maintain that west coast turns would go senior because they do at other carriers. Maybe, maybe not. I do know this: Although it's still a brand new route everyone assumed that Tel Aviv would go junior too because it has at other carriers. Perhaps the jury is still out on that. But I know in the nearly two months that we've been flying it it has been a very senior trip. We can't always assume that what goes on at other carriers will play out at ours. Keep the MTC. No separation!

Trust me, the transcon turns would go senior. Think of them as enhanced island turns. How senior do those go at USAir?

And Tel Aviv: Even with the paltry crew rest situation, the crews are more senior than ever. These people want the time. Period. They don't care how they get it. Transcon turns will go senior.

I hope you will at least see what the company and the AFA come up with.

 

[hp_fa]

One aspect of our culture, domestic flying specifically, is that the men, whether they be flight attendants or pilots, check with the women on our crews to make sure they're safe in their hotel rooms before we retire to ours. I have friends at other airlines that don't practice this. The "Me Too" clause, while a cultural icon at US Airways, has protected flight attendants from being unsafely overworked, and has also provided our work group with duty rigs. If not for the clause our work group would have no rigs. Should we negotiate away the "MTC" we will have, in effect, negotiated away the rigs we do have in place.

I am going to jump in here and say that at the former AWA we generally made sure that all the women, pilots and FA's, were safely in their rooms before the men entered theirs. We simply thought of it as good manners. If other airlines do differently it isn't a function of their contracts per se, but other issues.

Duty rigs can, and are, worked into contracts. Take a look at the West contract and you will see that they have duty rigs, despite not usually being paired with the pilots for the whole trip.

 

[Itestwell]

I am going to jump in here and say that at the former AWA we generally made sure that all the women, pilots and FA's, were safely in their rooms before the men entered theirs. We simply thought of it as good manners. If other airlines do differently it isn't a function of their contracts per se, but other issues.

Ahh. Chivalry is not dead at every airline but USAir. I knew it!

Duty rigs can, and are, worked into contracts. Take a look at the West contract and you will see that they have duty rigs, despite not usually being paired with the pilots for the whole trip.

Exactly. And again, if our rigs are not the same or better than the pilots, we won't separate. Period.

 

[galley princess]

I think part of the problem with agreeing to consider the separation is that it becomes a beast in itself.

There is a need here to consider to consider, if you will. If our negotiators explore the separation with the company and it goes even a mile, the company will probably refuse to backpedal.

So we're presented with a mediocre agreement, a few improvements but nothing great, and it includes separation. We vote it down. You think that they're going to go back to square one? Uh uh. Once they embrace a separation, that's all they'll want. I honestly believe that if Old US tried this it might have been something to look at, but as bad as they were, they were closer to honest than AWA will ever be on its best day.

It DOESN'T MATTER WHAT A CONTRACT SAYS, THEY WILL VIOLATE AND SAY "SO GRIEVE IT". So any false assurances that "we'll negotiate good rigs, we'll negotiate equal hotels, we'll negotiate decent trip pairings" mean nothing.

You can tell me all that until you're blue in the face, but actions speak louder than words and they're not trustworthy, so yes, I'll sit on this contract until CHAOS is in play. With each day that goes by we get closer to our amendable date and more leverage.

Finally, we all want to see what kind of rest requirements the FAA is going to require before we do anything.

 

[beachboy]

I agree. Any movement or action until the FAA issues the new pilot rest rules this fall is fool hardy. We fly pilot lines at usairways. There are no F/A lines so to speak (save the 321 or extra pairings) Has anyone thought the company is moving at a brisk pace all of a sudden because they want to do this on their terms?
When NOT if the new rest ruling comes down the POO POO is going to hit the fan. The company has even admitted it's not IF but how deep will it cut. Some projections take up to 15-20% more pilots needed. Since we the F/As fly those pilot lines what do you think that translates to on the East? More F/As needed and lower block values. I understand some pilot blocks may be built to only 60 hours!
Of course the company has a bee up their buns to get this hashed out quick so we are not pulled in on the "restrictive pilot terms." This is long over due and I say time out at this point. This will come out in early fall with guidelines and the implementation period. Stay tuned becuase if we play the cards right we can say wow, sorry Doug but we got pulled in with the pilots. You want us to be more productive is going to cost my dear....so pony up or no dice.

 

[Zarah]

I agree. Any movement or action until the FAA issuse the new pilot rest rules this fall is fool hardy. We fly pilot lines at usairways. There are no F/A lines so to speak (save the 321 or extra pairings) Has anyone thought the company is moving at a brisk pace all of a sudden because they want to do this on their terms?
When NOT if the new rest ruling comes down the POO POO is going to hit the fan. The company has even admitted it's not IF but how deep will it cut. Some projections take up to 15-20% more pilots needed. Since we the F/As fly those pilot lines what do you think that translates to on the East? More F/As needed and lower block values. I understand some pilot blocks may be built to only 60 hours!
Of course the company has a bee up their buns to get this hashed out quick so we are not pulled in on the "restrictive pilot terms." This is long over due and I say time out at this point. This will come out in early fall with guidelines and the implementation period. Stay tuned becuase if we play the cards right we can say wow, sorry Doug but we got pulled in with the pilots. You want us to be more productive is going to cost my dear....so pony up or no dice.

Agreed. No need to to a mad rush into this. Waiting until the FAA issues their new pilot rest rules gives us valuable information to make informed decisions.

 

[Itestwell]

Can anyone give any details on these new rules? When will they be released? Is there a link to what they are thinking of implementing? I'm assuming we will no longer see any 9+15 overnights anymore?

EDIT: Googled it more extensively now..... Seems to me the FAA is looking to change rules more for the commuter pilot that has multiple takeoffs/ landings per day, as opposed to the pilot that has one takeoff/ landing on a long haul flight.

Interesting article, FWIW...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124950069377208687.html

 

[beachboy]

Goes further than that I assure you. No more On Duty All Nighters....no less than 12 hour overnights. If that's block to block or "duty" periods; the words will be the proof in the pudding. Our head of scheduling sits on the panel as a rep for all airlines. This is not just a US Airways issue or a commuter issue. It's all pilots period.

 

[Itestwell]

Goes further than that I assure you. No more On Duty All Nighters....no less than 12 hour overnights. If that's block to block or "duty" periods; the words will be the proof in the pudding. Our head of scheduling sits on the panel as a rep for all airlines. This is not just a US Airways issue or a commuter issue. It's all pilots period.

wow thanks. what do you mean by "If that's block to block or duty periods"? 12 hour layover should be a no brainer...

 

[beachboy]

What I meant to say was the wording will be critical. Is this 12 hours from block to block or check in to check out? Or from the time you get to your hotel on an overnight? I mean the term duty vs block is huge. That's what I meant about "how deep" it will go...no one knows.

 

[cactusflyer]

The "Devil" is always in the details. Do you have a competent negotiating committee?

Not on the west. Before I was furloughed the west fa's were working on a recall. Not sure where that is at right now.