More Voluntary Furloughs For F/a In July

[Light Years]

I'm not sure if you can, but I'd assume so.

I do know that your retirement depends on your last few years income, hence the Golden Girls on higher paying transatlantic and such in the twilight of thier flying career.

Not that you wont catch Bea Arthur and Betty White slinging pretzels on a 737 though.

 

[ktflyhome]

They should offer an unlimited amount of voluntary furloughs. There are hundreds whod happily leave for three years and all the company has to worry about is that they fly for free. Costs nothing.

Bob, most of the F/As are topped out already.

3 years is a nice long stretch and worth recalling people as they wont be in a revolving door. Costs would go down immensly if one or two thousand took a furlough like theyd like to and all the $20 F/As would jump at the chance to return- its still ALOT better than MAA. There are so many people who'd like to, in fact NEED a break from the madness and uncertainty, and have other income to fall back on... commuters, folks who are just mentally burned out, folks waiting for retirement, and the inevitable downsizing of the PIT base. There's absolutely no reason why they cant or should be doing this, particularly if they are serious about cutting costs.

The seniority situation at US is terrible. The system was not designed for people who've poured thier blood sweat and tears into an airline for 10 or 15 years to be considered "junior" and have a junior, reserve lifestyle. Some F/As are back to the income and lifestyle they started with decades ago.

The junior folks would love to be back, and it would not only save the company tons of money but also re-energize the company a little bit, which it sorely needs.

LT" You are Absolutely right on what you said. I am in that Junior majority/minority and IF the company really wanted to save the bucks.....OPEN it up for everyone.

 

[openview]

The company did not have to offer vol furloughs; it did so out of responsible efforts on its part. It cost money to offer vol fur.(as opposed to outright eliminations or furlughs) in healthbenefits, travel benefits, administrative cost, insurance goes up for companies according to the increase in unemployment claims administered. etc.

 

[ACrazy8]

I thought we won this argument already in court...? The company MUST offer a VF program before it can furlough flight attendants. Didn't ya get the memo???

 

[700UW]

The company did not have to offer vol furloughs; it did so out of responsible efforts on its part. It cost money to offer vol fur.(as opposed to outright eliminations or furlughs) in healthbenefits, travel benefits, administrative cost, insurance goes up for companies according to the increase in unemployment claims administered. etc.

Wrong the AFA won an arbitration, then sued when the company failed to adhere to it then, both parties agreed to rehear it in arbitration and the arbitor issued a bench decision in favor of the AFA and the company had to recall everyone and pay them for their time furloughed, then they had to offer a voluntary before involuntary as it is part of the AFA agreement.

 

[openview]

Wrong the AFA won an arbitration, then sued when the company failed to adhere to it then, both parties agreed to rehear it in arbitration and the arbitor issued a bench decision in favor of the AFA and the company had to recall everyone and pay them for their time furloughed, then they had to offer a voluntary before involuntary as it is part of the AFA agreement.

I think its the arbitrations, hearings, suings, rehearings, appeals, repayments, re-appeals that are many of the reasons the company in the shape its in.

 

[700UW]

I think its the arbitrations, hearings, suings, rehearings, appeals, repayments, re-appeals that are many of the reasons the company in the shape its in.

Well then maybe you need to tell that to Glass since the company is the one who violates the contracts, not labor.

 

[openview]

Well then maybe you need to tell that to Glass since the company is the one who violates the contracts, not labor.

Well that may be true. I've also seen employees optimize & utilize the most obsurd interpretations of contract language rather than work.

 

[700UW]

You will find lazy people everywhere and anywhere, and the employees get paid to work, the contract sets the work rules and pay rates, if someone does not work and management fails to correct the situation they are just as much to blame as the employee.

 

[openview]

...if someone does not work and management fails to correct the situation they are just as much to blame as the employee.

Not true. Its just not that cut & dry. Too easy to sue or win bogus awards these days, drag out claims, file grievances, etc. Companies walk on thin ice in that respect. And just saying its completely mgmt's fault for letting the lazy or fraudulent remain is invalid. Contract language or unions that enable or permit this drag down the pay and strengh of the company for all.

 

[700UW]

I don't know where you work, but there is not such clause in my contract and has not been since two rounds of concessions.

You have the bs version of what you think about labor, guess you don't have an "open view".

 

[openview]

You have the bs version of what you think about labor, guess you don't have an "open view".

yeah.. okay. No, my view is open. I use my education and in particular the logic class I took to learn, interpret and process information in an unbiased way. I can recognize inefficient or poor management the same as I can in unions and contract. Unlike yourself and many on this board whose sole view and rhetoric is that its managements fault and always will be.

I was in mgmt until my position was eliminated. I was also a f/a at one time. I have been on and seen both sides at US. I occasionally post to try and pass along information I know to be true and for the interest in the aviation field. But some folks just will never get it. Thats managements fault too of coarse.

 

[PITbull]

The company did not have to offer vol furloughs; it did so out of responsible efforts on its part. It cost money to offer vol fur.(as opposed to outright eliminations or furlughs) in healthbenefits, travel benefits, administrative cost, insurance goes up for companies according to the increase in unemployment claims administered. etc.

How did you deduce this logic?

Management will have to pay higher unemployment insurance whether they furlough senior or junior folks. Whether employees volunteer or are forced.

THE NUMBERS ARE THE SAME!

What management saved is $6 million dollars in severance because of the VF program...... DON'T YOU READ THE 10K FILING??????????????? Geezus! :angry:

 

[openview]

What managemetn saved is $6 million dollars in severance because of the VF program

Maybe so, can't say I know that. I do know some of the mgmt behind and decisions made regarding the vf program and some decisions were made purely because it was the right thing to do for employees considering the situation and not just "let's screw them" or solely made for saving money.

And here's that other side of things ... Had to to active status to get in the VF program, and suddenly hundreds of employees that were on off for months even on claims, grievances, OIJ, medical, personal, emotional, sick, whatever, were suddenly, miraculously all cured and applying for re-active status to apply and practicly stepping on each other to get out the door.

 

[ktflyhome]

Heard today, that PIT is going downto 500 f/a total, anyone have any further info on this. That means 700 or so are history. Just what I was told. Things are gonna get ugly.