What's new

New 767 Staffing?

jersey777

Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
73
Today on my flight we had a check rider on our transcon reviewing the service. He was seated in first classl and wrote everything down about how long it took to do all the service. This is not the first time they have done this. There have been several other crews reporting the same thing in different cabins. One check rider was on the JFK-MIA turn. There is much speculation that the company is looking at reducing staffing by getting rid of the number 9. Time will tell but this would reduce 27 positions on the LGA bid sheet alone. I hope this doesn't happen. Anyone have any insider information? The check rider today acted ignorant of what is going on....typical.
 
Today on my flight we had a check rider on our transcon reviewing the service. He was seated in first classl and wrote everything down about how long it took to do all the service. This is not the first time they have done this. There have been several other crews reporting the same thing in different cabins. One check rider was on the JFK-MIA turn. There is much speculation that the company is looking at reducing staffing by getting rid of the number 9. Time will tell but this would reduce 27 positions on the LGA bid sheet alone. I hope this doesn't happen. Anyone have any insider information? The check rider today acted ignorant of what is going on....typical.

No real info but everytime they do their "timed" rides we get hosed. Tell everyone to go as sloooooooooow as sloooooooooooooow can go.
I wouldn't even be finishing the service if someone were on board checking it out. Can't get fired for Phase 3'ing. :up: :up:
 
No real info but everytime they do their "timed" rides we get hosed. Tell everyone to go as sloooooooooow as sloooooooooooooow can go.
I wouldn't even be finishing the service if someone were on board checking it out. Can't get fired for Phase 3'ing. :up: :up:



We tried our best but the load in coach was only 66! Not representative of the vast majority of transcons..almost always full.
 
I know everyone would like to see those who were furloughed hired back on but I have a few questions.

First. If it only takes x number of people to do a job, ten why not just have that many people doing it? Who here has not gone by a road construction site or TSA check point and not wondered why it is that they have 15 idiots on duty and only 3 are working?

Which leads me to question two.

Those 15 people all have to be paid a salary. I know I want a raise or at the very least not to loose any more money. If my department can do it's job with a few less people and I have to work a bit harder then so be it. I know, I know. Management will just hoard the money for them selves. Thing is, obviously more employees cost more money. If something can be done more efficiently why not do it? Throwing the baby out with the bath water does not make any sense to me. People have a tendency to waste when times are good and be very frugal when times are hard. Are companies that different? The fewer there are of us just standing around doing nothing means one less excuse they have of screwing us over.

OH yea and then there is the issue of the passengers who expect to have service on their flight. I know, screw the passengers right?
 
We tried our best but the load in coach was only 66! Not representative of the vast majority of transcons..almost always full.

uh huh. As if they didn't know.

Transcon, hmm? 66 people? So how long to do the service, 2...3 hours? :lol:
 
I know everyone would like to see those who were furloughed hired back on but I have a few questions.

First. If it only takes x number of people to do a job, ten why not just have that many people doing it? Who here has not gone by a road construction site or TSA check point and not wondered why it is that they have 15 idiots on duty and only 3 are working?

It all depends on different circumstances. Some people work quickly, efficiently, and with good humor. Some people are slow, sloppy, and snatchy. Some people are smart and some are not too bright. Some people are in good shape and some people are in poor shape.

Each flight's service depends on the weather we are traveling through, if there's no drama in the cabin or between the FAs, the neediness of the passengers or their passivity.

It's pretty much a golden rule that a full cabin is many times easier than working an empty one because when you are empty you never have a free moment. It seems as though passengers feel the need to run you to death because they see the cabin is relatively empty and feel almost entitled to ask for more things more times.

If they did time studies on a speedy crew that had no needy people and nothing going on in the cabin, it wouldn't be really accurate. It especially wouldn't be accurate because each person you take off the plane adds that much more of a work load for the others to divide and would add more time to the service as well as, most likely, taking away from the passengers perceptions of the flight and/or the airline.

from Garfield....Which leads me to question two.

Those 15 people all have to be paid a salary. I know I want a raise or at the very least not to loose any more money. If my department can do it's job with a few less people and I have to work a bit harder then so be it. I know, I know. Management will just hoard the money for them selves. Thing is, obviously more employees cost more money. If something can be done more efficiently why not do it? Throwing the baby out with the bath water does not make any sense to me. People have a tendency to waste when times are good and be very frugal when times are hard. Are companies that different? The fewer there are of us just standing around doing nothing means one less excuse they have of screwing us over.

This is a quote from the company about how much the FA work group costs according to Greg Bertolini when he was trying to negotiate with the company to get some of the furloughs back:
"recalling a former TWA F/A at top pay the average cost per head is $52,000.00 each. Hiring a new F/A on July 3rd 2008 would cost about (currently) $23,000.00 per head a saving of $29,000.00 on each head."

One of the reasons we fight to not lose positions on the airplane is because we want to have something to use as a bargaining tool during negotiations. The company is looking to do away with a lot of things in order to allegedly save the company money. We've already given the company billions in cost savings with our concessions and uncredited ideas in action the company cut out on the aircraft, as well as the furloughs. There are many service items we helped them eliminate that we actually used to use and have had to learn how to do without and not been given any credit for any of our loss on the plane. Half the time we are McGyvering stuff because we did away with things.

Past history has taught us that the company thinks in terms of a big pie with each work group making up a section of that pie. We aren't willing to give up any percentage of our pie to go in either managements or other work groups pockets. We're into trading pie these days. We give them a piece from here and they give us a piece back there.

OH yea and then there is the issue of the passengers who expect to have service on their flight. I know, screw the passengers right?

No. Not screw the passengers. If it's up to us we don't do it. If it was up to AA they would but we're always saving their bacon by covering for the things they take off the plane or conveniently forget to give us, as well as making things look nicer than they really are. FA's are the kings and queens of improvisation and it's a good thing because without the passengers AA mgmt is always trying to short change, we wouldn't have a job to come to.
 
How exactly did AA force the FA on my last trip to spend more time reading People or Cosmo as they did actually doing drink refills?...

When I hear some of my employees telling me how overworked they are, they never seem to have a good excuse for when I pull out the report showing how much time they spent watching YouTube or browsing Fark.Com...
 
How exactly did AA force the FA on my last trip to spend more time reading People or Cosmo as they did actually doing drink refills?...

When I hear some of my employees telling me how overworked they are, they never seem to have a good excuse for when I pull out the report showing how much time they spent watching YouTube or browsing Fark.Com...

Has your employees ever busted your chops on how much time you spend on usaviation?
 
Nope. But, I'm also not complaining about being overworked and underpaid.
 
Nope. But, I'm also not complaining about being overworked and underpaid.

you have the wrong thread. That's NOT what we're talking about here. We're talking about how many people are needed on the airplane. If they take anymore off of the airplane, this thread will revert to an overworked/underpaid theme.

Pay attention and keep up! :eye:
 
If it was up to AA they would but we're always saving their bacon by covering for the things they take off the plane or conveniently forget to give us, as well as making things look nicer than they really are. FA's are the kings and queens of improvisation and it's a good thing because without the passengers AA mgmt is always trying to short change, we wouldn't have a job to come to.

Doesn't this improvisation violate one of the basic union tenets? You're covering for others' mistakes yet getting no credit for it.

As a passenger, I benefit from the inventiveness shown by the FAs in hiding the cutbacks as best they can. I appreciate that.

But by covering for management's mistakes, fewer passengers complain and management never gets the word from those spending the money. Wouldn't it be better if the FAs stopped covering for management's failures, forcing the issue?
 
Nope. But, I'm also not complaining about being overworked and underpaid.


Quit complaining about flight attendants not "working" every minute they are on board an airplane with passengers when you spend way too much of your employer's time "loafing" on here yourself.

Hypocrite.

Just what I would expect from some cubicle dweller from AMR HDQ.
 
How exactly did AA force the FA on my last trip to spend more time reading People or Cosmo as they did actually doing drink refills?...

When I hear some of my employees telling me how overworked they are, they never seem to have a good excuse for when I pull out the report showing how much time they spent watching YouTube or browsing Fark.Com...

...or USAviation.com. Obviously, somebody needs to be looking over YOUR shoulder, monitoring YOUR usage of compensated time.
 
Doesn't this improvisation violate one of the basic union tenets? You're covering for others' mistakes yet getting no credit for it.

As a passenger, I benefit from the inventiveness shown by the FAs in hiding the cutbacks as best they can. I appreciate that.

But by covering for management's mistakes, fewer passengers complain and management never gets the word from those spending the money. Wouldn't it be better if the FAs stopped covering for management's failures, forcing the issue?



That's always the question we ask ourselves. It's easier to not improvise when you don't deal with the passengers directly. When you are a front line employee, not improvising brings heat from the passengers and doesn't always come to management's attention immediately. It's easier to improvise than deal with a plane load of pissed off passengers for hours at a time because we're only aggravating ourselves. Of course, all the improvising I'm talking about is dealing mainly with service issues.

Work to rule works better for us when we are all on the same page and act together on every flight. If (most likely when with AA) negotiations are not going so well, and we start working to rule, it will make more of a statement. If it comes to work to rule the shortages I was referring to will be childs play compared to the FAA rules, and AA contract rules, followed to a T.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top