Envoy training mysteries

[AstroLounge]

Outside of the FACT that Seniority was a primary DRIVER of who was on the Division due to avail slots, that is the ONLY bearing when Seniority should have surfaced. There are MANY qualified, capable and service minded Junior people that were in the Int'l Division when it existed and don't read any SENIORITY Bias into my suggestion of re-establishing it. Having a "Qualified" Lead F/A program resolves a lot of the issues that develop on a trip........just because you have the seniority and can hold the trip doesn't mean that You are "QUALIFIED" to fill the position. Coming from another airline that had a very scrutinized LEAD Program, I am amazed with the crap I see on a fairly regular basis. People DO what they want, When they want, if at all and rarely answer for their actions. There are many people that would never want a Qualified Lead Program (where your work record is reviewed intensely and several interviews are required to make the cut) because they would cry FOUL to the Union for being passed over. Until The Company addresses these issues seriously- changes will not occur, the service remain inconsistent and the overall performance of the airline mediocre.

 

[EMBFA]

The idea of a "division" is so cheesy, and a major waste of resources.

If you are a flight attendant for a major airline and based in their international gateway, you're going to be doing international flights. If you are senior enough to have a choice and choose not to, or are based somewhere else, you should still be knowlegable of your entire product. Especially at an airline as small as US Airways.

People act like it was a huge deal to be qualified for the service. I did the division. As someone who worked for another carrier previously, I found the whole thing to be bizarre and kind of childish... it's not that big of a deal. I guess if you spent your career shuffling around PA or NC on a BAC111 or DC9 widebodies and different cabins might seem like the big time. Service procedures may vary but the same level of professionalism should carry through regardless of aircraft or length of flight. I don't act or dress any differently on an MDT flight than I do on a MXP flight. I was also in another "division", MDA, where one month our crews recieved more compliment letters on our fleet of 28 70 seaters than all of the rest of mainline. We had no extra training, just pride.

Seniority has nothing to do with ability or competence. I mastered Coke pouring and trash collection on day one at my first airline. I am very junior and could run circles around some of these folks who hold an international block. I don't blink an eye at being CSD or Purser, and actually do a better job than many who take it for the extra cash. I think I have good judgement and leadership skills. Not everyone does. That doesn't make them a poor flight attendant, just a poor lead flight attendant.

A Qualified Purser program is cheaper and easier to implement than a division, and is a much better use of staffing resources. It's similar to a Lodo program staffing wise. It's also a program that benefits the entire airline rather than one small part, and it rolls all of the duties of the specialists, coaches, riders and such into a working flight attendant. Now, much like rotating reserve your useless union will tell you "it would never pass". BS. As a dues paying member I want to see both presented in the next contract and let the members decide, rather than appease Sally and company.

 

[AstroLounge]

EMBFA, you and I agree on this ISSUE more than you can imagine. A qualified LEAD PROGRAM is the answer, no doubt about it. Wheras a Division did instill a more consistent product, it did create an air of "superiority" by some folks who would always make the innuendos of "I don't fly domestic" or "On Int'l we...." In the grand scheme of things it DOES come down to being educated on your product and taking PRIDE in doing a good job. On a sidenote, when US operated the Wetlease flights to London on behalf of British Airways you saw a whole different performance of the airline. Standards were set extremely high and the employees delivered. People looked good, snobbery was envogue for some folks but Customer Service Ratings for these flights far exceeded the flights staffed by native Brits. (Employees that worked for another carrier grasp the "differences" a little easier because no two airlines are alike. People that fly on other airlines be it as a customer or a nonrev can detect these "differences" as well.) Not everything around HERE is bad by any means, but if You AIM Low, You ACHIEVE LITTLE.

 

[galley princess]

Phlus2,

I'll try to do this slowly so you can grasp it.

Each international trip is about 50hrs.

50 X 6 trips = 300hours.

When you work 300 hours a month, we'll chat, until then spare me.

Oh, and before you start, ask a flight attendant for her manual and check how the company views layover time. It's company time, you do anything such as ski or rollerblade and it's grounds for termination. You're in a hotel without your dog, without your kids, without anything but what's in your suitcase, and that classifies being at work.

Again, spare me your uninformed opinions.