Oh my... gd.... we are headed for BK..????It wouldn't be a problem. Tempe said so.It would be nothing shy of a disaster.
PHX Crew News Session
- Thread starter FlightChic
- Start date
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Well it works for a one base operation so it MUST, MUST, MUST work for a SIX (combined) operation. ugggggh. I don't see us splitting to be quite honest. There are pros and cons but I just don't see it happening.
It was a nightmare when we had separate crews.
Plane 1- Front crew stays on Cabin crew heads to plane 2
Plane 2- Front crew goes to hotel Cabin crew heads to plane 3
Plane 3- Front end crew goes to plane 2 Cabin crew heads to plane 1 Front end crew is deadheading in on this plane and its late. So, we now have Plane 1 waiting for cabin crew, plane 2 waiting for front end crew, and plane 3 waiting for the plane.
It is a pain in the &$$ to do that. We have a hard enough time getting 1 entire crew swapped out to not cause a delay I can only imagine having to deal with 2 separate crews for each flight.
Plane 1- Front crew stays on Cabin crew heads to plane 2
Plane 2- Front crew goes to hotel Cabin crew heads to plane 3
Plane 3- Front end crew goes to plane 2 Cabin crew heads to plane 1 Front end crew is deadheading in on this plane and its late. So, we now have Plane 1 waiting for cabin crew, plane 2 waiting for front end crew, and plane 3 waiting for the plane.
It is a pain in the &$$ to do that. We have a hard enough time getting 1 entire crew swapped out to not cause a delay I can only imagine having to deal with 2 separate crews for each flight.
YVINTERN
Veteran
As a former crew screwer...too much headaches there...
to the last three posts after mine...
here here...
remember how had it was everyone...???
if you are not former Piedmont.... then you won't...
so just talk to us....
the me-2 clause was a God send....
IMHO
This is not Rocket Science people. Spliting up flight crews is not just an HP thing. All the majors do this, and very effeciently. You Easties are use to this type of flying, and change is hard. I agree the weather is way worse, and delays in the East Coast. How is it that United, Co, AA and others have no problem with crew changes?? Give it a chance. Things haven't been negotiated anyway for us fa's. The big plus for fa's is to work a lot more block hours, sometimes longer duty days, but less legs, and less time away from base. I however do not like our mixed 737 and Airbus pairings in PHX, because they aren't really very much more effecient then pilot trips on just one a/c type, and the credit for a typical 4 day trip is 19 credits.
Most of our 3 day pairings, and some 2 day's are very high credit, and worth working. I think there can be compromise, with better schedules for all. galley princess
Senior
- Nov 4, 2007
- 384
- 263
I would agree with you WCT, however consider this company's track record.
With the East coast weather and US' inability to manage crews right now, it is just too great of a risk for East to split.
The other thing is the nature of East flying. Imagine being on the Tuna can from 0530 to 2100 but it's worth 8 hours, and oh by the way, nary a morsel of food to be had because it was all quick turn. This is not fiction and it's not farfetched. If they could be trusted to formulate pairings humanely it would be one thing, but that was never a priority either in the past and certainly not in the present.
Risk-Benefit analysis: too risky.
I agree however, that it presents a loss to AWA f/as, because apparently it did work for you guys.
With the East coast weather and US' inability to manage crews right now, it is just too great of a risk for East to split.
The other thing is the nature of East flying. Imagine being on the Tuna can from 0530 to 2100 but it's worth 8 hours, and oh by the way, nary a morsel of food to be had because it was all quick turn. This is not fiction and it's not farfetched. If they could be trusted to formulate pairings humanely it would be one thing, but that was never a priority either in the past and certainly not in the present.
Risk-Benefit analysis: too risky.
I agree however, that it presents a loss to AWA f/as, because apparently it did work for you guys.
Has the union indicated what way they are leaning?
galley princess
Senior
- Nov 4, 2007
- 384
- 263
Actually, I don't think that they've given a position one way or another, because East doesn't do it, but West does.
My guess? If US wants it, it's a negotiating tool. From the East perspective it's a big concession, so I want mucho dinero for it.
And, I would want parameters on it that would prevent the company from killing the f/a via exhaustion. Remember, for every commuter that would fly those things will be a reserve who wants no part of them, but gets to go anyway.
And again, they'll be on the tuna can all over God's green Eastern Seaboard.
Hence: doubt it will happen.
My guess? If US wants it, it's a negotiating tool. From the East perspective it's a big concession, so I want mucho dinero for it.
And, I would want parameters on it that would prevent the company from killing the f/a via exhaustion. Remember, for every commuter that would fly those things will be a reserve who wants no part of them, but gets to go anyway.
And again, they'll be on the tuna can all over God's green Eastern Seaboard.
Hence: doubt it will happen.
As much as I enjoyed the old days on the West side, when FAs stayed with the pilots for the whole trip, I wouldn't want to go back to it.
The benefits of the pairing system we use now outweigh the 'fun' of staying with the same pilots.
We were a bit freaked out initially at the change, but you'd be hard-pressed now to find anyone who thinks the old way is better.
The benefits of the pairing system we use now outweigh the 'fun' of staying with the same pilots.
We were a bit freaked out initially at the change, but you'd be hard-pressed now to find anyone who thinks the old way is better.
Wanted to add that West FAs have provisions in the contract protecting us from extensive duty days.
We can not be forced to work past 14.5hrs unless we volunteer to do so.
If we become 'projected' (expected length of delay added to expected flight time) to 'go over 14.5' then we have the option to volunteer, or be removed (with original guarunteed pay) from the trip and replaced by a reserve.
YES, even if no replacement is available, you can refuse to go over, and the flight would have to cancel. (not that its ever come to that)
The incentive to protect the flight and remain on the trip is the extra $$ for Volunteer.
Whatever the duty day ends up being, the FA will get half of that in pay.
Ie: You finish with 16hrs on duty, you get an extra 8credits of pay on top of whatever the day ends up generating in regular pay.
For scheduled regular pairings, they can not build them over 13hrs, 12hrs, 11hrs, and 9.5hrs. Those numbers are dependent on time of day the trip reports. (0500-1600, 1601-1900, 1901-2200, and 2201-0459 respectively)
They can build them over those numbers only if the last leg is a deadhead.
In addition, if an irregular trip/operation causes you to return to base late and be released leaving you with less than 12hrs before your report the next day, the credit for the subsequent trip you would be unable to fly is guaranteed.
SO, even if a scheduled long-az day turns into an even longer one, there are benefits that may be reaped.
cactusflyer
Senior
desertgal is right. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone out here that would want to go back to pilot pairings. Mike Finn and Tom Chiodo (they run crew scheduling) are HUGE fans of separate pairings because it gives them better crew utilization. I venture to say that it will probably go that way in the future, but with oil hitting $139 a barrel which pairings we fly should be the least of our worries. The company wasn't chomping at the bit to give us a decent contract before this run on oil prices, think we're going to get them to give us anything now? Not likely. I'm betting I go yet a few more years without a payraise. It has only been 7 since my last one, what's a few more years? :blink: But hey, at least I still have a job.
America West has always payed poverty wages, and US fa's on the West are still on an outdated contract with horrid pay scales. IF the company starts concessions, you better not think about touching our contract!!! We have nothing more to lose, but our dignity! :angry: Furloughs on the West hopefully will be small for fa's. Our future schedules don't see that much decreased PHX flying for the next few months, but things could change. :down:desertgal is right. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone out here that would want to go back to pilot pairings. Mike Finn and Tom Chiodo (they run crew scheduling) are HUGE fans of separate pairings because it gives them better crew utilization. I venture to say that it will probably go that way in the future, but with oil hitting $139 a barrel which pairings we fly should be the least of our worries. The company wasn't chomping at the bit to give us a decent contract before this run on oil prices, think we're going to get them to give us anything now? Not likely. I'm betting I go yet a few more years without a payraise. It has only been 7 since my last one, what's a few more years? :blink: But hey, at least I still have a job.
galley princess
Senior
- Nov 4, 2007
- 384
- 263
Well, now educated by DesertGal, I withdraw my objections. As I said, as long as there are parameters to prevent F/A premature death, it's fine with me. However, it remains a negotiating tool.
I realize that you all are being fed a daily "the sky is falling" but keep in mind that there are machinations behind it. Frankly, anything beneath our contracts is OFF THE TABLE. If management cannot be profitable despite having the lowest paid employees in the industry what makes you think that they'll manage it if we work for free?
Despite current management's obliviousness to the benefits of a unified company, it remains a fact that there IS money to be saved once synergies kick in. That they are holding up just speaks to their limited capabilities and obsession with pennies not dimes.
The separate crew thing is just one of the many gains that the company can acquire if they begin a willingness to negotiate in good faith. Do not let them psych you into less than you are due. They've had an extra three years out of your backside by manipulating the bankruptcy system.
Yes, oil is an issue. But do you see them talking to the pilots about fuel burn or eliminating the plane cap?
SOLVE the problems. Until they do, no coming after us.
I realize that you all are being fed a daily "the sky is falling" but keep in mind that there are machinations behind it. Frankly, anything beneath our contracts is OFF THE TABLE. If management cannot be profitable despite having the lowest paid employees in the industry what makes you think that they'll manage it if we work for free?
Despite current management's obliviousness to the benefits of a unified company, it remains a fact that there IS money to be saved once synergies kick in. That they are holding up just speaks to their limited capabilities and obsession with pennies not dimes.
The separate crew thing is just one of the many gains that the company can acquire if they begin a willingness to negotiate in good faith. Do not let them psych you into less than you are due. They've had an extra three years out of your backside by manipulating the bankruptcy system.
Yes, oil is an issue. But do you see them talking to the pilots about fuel burn or eliminating the plane cap?
SOLVE the problems. Until they do, no coming after us.
Similar threads
