Minimum Threshold Flying

[jersey777]

With employment contracts, you typically start out with a clean sheet of paper and add only the items which matter to the two parties negotiating.

With union contracts, you typically start out with 30 or 40 years of past practice, and try to add items if you're the union, and take away items if you're the company.

What was originally intended to provide flexibility got exploited and even abused to the extent that it is now nothing more than featherbedding. And now the union wants to be rewarded before they curtail it back to what was originally intended?...

Like I said...in business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.

 

[getreal]

The company WANTS it...enough said. That's cause enough for anyone to not even consider it.

btw, can't anyone here tell the difference between "effect" and "affect" and the proper way to use these words in a sentence...open up a dictionary, the results will surprise you!

As though we don't have enough problems, we now have a grammar monitor among us! :unsure:

 

[jimntx]

Well, there must be some cost to the company which they want to eliminate. A little birdie in management told me that flight attendants having to fly is a dealbreaker as far as the company is concerned, and that there will be no new contract unless minimum threshold flying is included. All depends on how long we want to work under the current contract. The company has all the time in the world. No raises, no work rule changes/improvements, no nothing we are hoping to get out of the next contract. How long are you willing to wait in return for 200 out of 18,000 f/as to get their way?

The argument that we have always done it this way is the weakest possible argument for keeping the current arrangement.

One cost to the company (and to the f/as in the particular base affected)...if a f/a does not fly, the company can not add f/as to that base to cover that person's trips because that person might decide all of a sudden to fly. That would leave the base in an overage situation. So, the company must put more people on reserve in that base and f/as in that base continue to get reassigned when they run short of f/as willing to fly.

 

[jersey777]

"A little birdie in management told me that flight attendants having to fly is a dealbreaker as far as the company is concerned, and that there will be no new contract unless minimum threshold flying is included. All depends on how long we want to work under the current contract. The company has all the time in the world. No raises, no work rule changes/improvements, no nothing we are hoping to get out of the next contract. How long are you willing to wait in return for 200 out of 18,000 f/as to get their way?"







This statement is way too simplistic. There are so many items being discussed ...work rules, pay and credit, vacation, sick time, pay scale, insurance, pensions, reserve..and so on and so on. And your source says that threshold flying is a deal breaker? I believe that the company may want it...and I agree a few flight attendants want it (with the unrealistic expectation that they are going to hold a better line or get a transfer)...but this issue is one of several that will change with each new proposal. When it comes time that the negotiating team feels they have a contract to send to the membership there will be several reincarnations of the same items. Threshold flying may or may not be there. In 1993, the company tried to send preferrential bidding down our throat yet it wasn't imposed on us before we went on strike..and was not in the arbitration award. I am not even sure it was an item that went to arbitration.

 

[Bob Owens]

The way I see it is the FAs probably gave up something in order to get the ability to stay on payroll without flying. I doubt the company simply agreed to this without getting something in return. Now they are trying to take it back without giving anything in return.

FAs only get paid for flight hours, to me thats unreasonable. The company takes them away from home and doesnt pay them for that time. FAs are also required to report to work way before they are getting paid and to prepare the cabin, pull tickets and help passengers get seated. Maybe if they had FAs punch in as soon as they report to ops and remain on payroll until they punch out and go home then the company could squawk about having to abide by rules that on its face seem unreasonable because from what I see many of the company's rules concerning FAs are unreasonable.

 

[FA Mikey]

This statement is way too simplistic. There are so many items being discussed ...work rules, pay and credit, vacation, sick time, pay scale, insurance, pensions, reserve..and so on and so on. And your source says that threshold flying is a deal breaker? I believe that the company may want it...and I agree a few flight attendants want it (with the unrealistic expectation that they are going to hold a better line or get a transfer)...but this issue is one of several that will change with each new proposal.

Very true, but to spend time and energy on people who are employed yet dont work here is a waste of the dues money of all the others who do put in their time and work their flights.

In 1993, the company tried to send preferrential bidding down our throat yet it wasn't imposed on us before we went on strike..and was not in the arbitration award. I am not even sure it was an item that went to arbitration.

We came very close to getting. AA had argued before the board that at the very least a test of the system should be ordered. APFA argued it had been pulled off the table prior to 11/18/93. The board found for APFA due to the fact the award would need to change to a fixed value per day vacation computation, along with other changes which would have to be made to the 87-92 agreement in order to put the system in place.

The board found no evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of any group of airline employees who have opted for a preferential bidding system. The also board directed us and the company to establish a joint committee to study preferential bidding.

 

[Skymess]

Well, there must be some cost to the company which they want to eliminate.

One cost to the company (and to the f/as in the particular base affected)...if a f/a does not fly, the company can not add f/as to that base to cover that person's trips because that person might decide all of a sudden to fly. That would leave the base in an overage situation. So, the company must put more people on reserve in that base and f/as in that base continue to get reassigned when they run short of f/as willing to fly.

The way I see it, the key is PRODUCTIVITY NUMBERS.

The reserve list isn't the problem in itself.

The problem the company has is that FA's are the only work group who monitor their own overtime. The company cannot force us to take a makeup trip. When there are a wealth of trips available in HIBOARD than the company's open time garbage is undesirable. If there are a dearth of trips, the open time sequences become highly desirable. If every FA needs to work something, there will be less trips available in HIBOARD. If everyone on makeup took every trip out of open time, the reserve list.....and FA headcount....would dramatically decline.

The carrot that many of you are falling for is the magic "200 FAs" number. 200 people can't change everything, but all of the other people who do not fly a lot IN ADDITION TO the 200, can and will.

I don't know where all of you are based but I can tell you that HIBOARD and OT are DRY for September in JFK. Everyone who usually drops is on an overage leave or a bid leave. It's dog eat dog trying to find something to pick up. Most of the trips are locked down by the owners looking to trade instead of drop because they are afraid of not getting a trip to replace what they have.

I see the writing on the wall. I want more flexibility not less.

It may be frustrating to know you are going to be a bottom feeder for quite awhile (I am one of them) but I would rather be a bottom feeder with options than a bottom feeder who is forced to fly the garbage my seniority holds.

As someone else said, if the company wants it so bad do you really think it's something good for you? I don't.

 

[Skymess]

Very true, but to spend time and energy on people who are employed yet dont work here is a waste of the dues money of all the others who do put in their time and work their flights.

I don't feel it is a waste of my dues money to have more trips available to fly.

How is dues money wasted when they don't come to work and never have a problem that they need union representation for? Just curious.

We came very close to getting[preferential bidding]. AA had argued before the board that at the very least a test of the system should be ordered. APFA argued it had been pulled off the table prior to 11/18/93. The board found for APFA due to the fact the award would need to change to a fixed value per day vacation computation, along with other changes which would have to be made to the 87-92 agreement in order to put the system in place.

The board found no evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of any group of airline employees who have opted for a preferential bidding system. The also board directed us and the company to establish a joint committee to study preferential bidding.

Were you one of the ones who wanted it?

 

[Skymess]

The company WANTS it...enough said. That's cause enough for anyone to not even consider it.

btw, can't anyone here tell the difference between "effect" and "affect" and the proper way to use these words in a sentence...open up a dictionary, the results will surprise you!

You're going to have to consult the APFA on that. My comments are in blue and my usage is correct.

 

[FA Mikey]

I don't feel it is a waste of my dues money to have more trips available to fly.

How is dues money wasted when they don't come to work and never have a problem that they need union representation for? Just curious.

You dont fight for rights and benefits of those who dont work or who are getting ready to leave. Dues money is better spent on the working condition of those who work the trips and who are in it for the long haul.

Were you one of the ones who wanted it?

No I am just one of the people who was at the arbitration and have the information to share.

 

[coldplay]

As though we don't have enough problems, we now have a grammar monitor among us! :unsure:

uh-huh, try writing a business report or even a simple letter without monitoring your grammar. Let's see how many people would take you seriously and how many people would take you for an idiot.

Wonder why so many American kids today have the intelligence level of a flea? It's because the people who are suppose to lead by example let them get away with it and would criticize others who correct them as being "monitors" and a problem.

 

[Skymess]

You dont fight for rights and benefits of those who dont work or who are getting ready to leave. Dues money is better spent on the working condition of those who work the trips and who are in it for the long haul.

How is union money being spent on people who don't work?

 

[getreal]

uh-huh, try writing a business report or even a simple letter without monitoring your grammar. Let's see how many people would take you seriously and how many people would take you for an idiot.

Wonder why so many American kids today have the intelligence level of a flea? It's because the people who are suppose to lead by example let them get away with it and would criticize others who correct them as being "monitors" and a problem.

It's a message board, a blog, a forum. It's not an essay, the SAT, ACT or job application. No one is going to get fired or hired for poor grammar here. It's just folks venting and expressing their thoughts. But if you feel it's your moral duty to correct the writing and grammar in this forum, more power to you!

Before the "Off Topic" police arrive, I will say sorry Ralph, I'm done.

 

[coldplay]

It's a message board, a blog, a forum. It's not an essay, the SAT, ACT or job application. No one is going to get fired or hired for poor grammar here. It's just folks venting and expressing their thoughts. But if you feel it's your moral duty to correct the writing and grammar in this forum, more power to you!

Before the "Off Topic" police arrive, I will say sorry Ralph, I'm done.

likewise if you want to continue being a not knowing the difference between "effect" and "affect" and use poor grammar in your post just because it's a messageboard/forum, fire away. Maybe that's the way you do things in life, Most people don't because they take pride in even the simple tasks like proper use of words and spelling, after all it is OUR language, what we speak and write to let people know our thoughts.
All I did was let you know there is a difference and if that disturbs you so much, I apologize if it brought back bad memories about your inability to distinguish the two words. Who knows that inability may have been the EFFECT of a poor education system and has AFFECTED your grammar skills.

Edited by moderator languague.

 

[jersey777]

My bet is that there will be a compromise on this issue of threshold flying. It seems reasonable that the parties will come to a low number of hours a flight attendant has to maintain per year or quarter to maintain employment. It will be a number where it will eliminate those that badly abuse the system but yet still allow people to drop a majority of their trips to maintain fluidity in trip trading. My guess would be 100-200 hours per year. Anyone else agree?