The time has been way overdue for this to change. It troubles me tremendously that nothing has been done to eleviate this problem. This system went into effect in Oct/Nov 2003 and in that time I have never broken Min. Guarantee. EVER. Now I am only talking about company time, days I am on duty for the company, not ETB. The most I have come up with was 64 hours. Felt like i really busted my ass that month. Agaain, I feel that a RSV f/s should not have to give up their precious days off (you know the ones where we would go visit family or friends, maybe take a much needed 3/4 day vacation) in order to make a paycheck. I am really looking forward to the roadshows when they come around. Might want to have some law enforcement there or maybe a plexiglass wall as a barrier.
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Scheduling and the FAA
- Thread starter SKY HIGH
- Start date
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
EXACTLY! ! ! !
Fu-ManchuStew
Member
- Sep 19, 2006
- 33
- 0
Hey - I just spoke with someone that just flew a trip with a F/A that called the local Un. with the actual 121.467 letter in hand trying to argue days on call from one month to the next and being on duty/on call as being defined as the same thing and her response was to leave it alone because it will interrupt the ETB. The LEC Rep was very unsympathetic( I bet they have not been on call for 13 days in a row!) and would not even consider looking into it. (Wonder what she is thinking now?) The F/A then went in the Sup. office with the letter in hand and they told the F/A it did not apply. Do you think they actually READ IT??? I know this is third hand info, but I cannot believe that if there is some truth to this the Un. is more concerned with protecting the ETB than following FAR's and making sure that we are not in violation of them. It almost looks to me as if the UN. and Co. are in bed together on this one. Talk about ILG!! :down:
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
It almost looks to me as if the UN. and Co. are in bed together on this one. Talk about ILG!! :down:
[/quote]
Probably not far from the truth. MUCH to be screwed up by this change. Try and sweep it under the carpet shall they? Hmmmm I think not. Of course they don't want the ETB messed with. Of cours the company would LOOOOOVE to not have to make changes. Why?......M - O - N- E - Y ! ! !
[/quote]
Probably not far from the truth. MUCH to be screwed up by this change. Try and sweep it under the carpet shall they? Hmmmm I think not. Of course they don't want the ETB messed with. Of cours the company would LOOOOOVE to not have to make changes. Why?......M - O - N- E - Y ! ! !
Fu-ManchuStew
Member
- Sep 19, 2006
- 33
- 0
How do we survive in this corrupt company/union?? Who do we trust? Who is on our side? I feel like we are in a water-cooler game of Survivor. Do you think it is time for Tribal Council????
h34r:If they change to this FAR, RSV's will have a tougher time picking up trips off of the ETB, but the more important issue our union is probably concerned with, is that BH won't be able to drop trips as easy, to get to the 50 hour option. Priorities. Your just a RSV, our union won't ever let you forget it.
Fu-ManchuStew
Member
- Sep 19, 2006
- 33
- 0
We are the red-headed step children of the airline/union. (No offense to any red-heads)
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #128
First, some assumptions about the West side:
- Since the BK back in the early 90's, there has been at least somewhat steady growth.
- just like the East, roughly 2/3 of the F/A are lineholders.
Given that, it's somewhat natural that the union traditionally considered lineholder issues as "more important" than reserve issues - most of the membership are lineholders and all members spent most of their career as a lineholder.
Unfortunately, the folks in the West are going to be experiencing what we in the East have experienced for over a decade - stagnation. That changes the whole picture, and should modify the way the union looks at reserve issues. Reserve isn't the relatively short experience that it used to be. On the East side, it's become almost a career position and the union needs to change accordingly.
Jim
- Since the BK back in the early 90's, there has been at least somewhat steady growth.
- just like the East, roughly 2/3 of the F/A are lineholders.
Given that, it's somewhat natural that the union traditionally considered lineholder issues as "more important" than reserve issues - most of the membership are lineholders and all members spent most of their career as a lineholder.
Unfortunately, the folks in the West are going to be experiencing what we in the East have experienced for over a decade - stagnation. That changes the whole picture, and should modify the way the union looks at reserve issues. Reserve isn't the relatively short experience that it used to be. On the East side, it's become almost a career position and the union needs to change accordingly.
Jim
Fu-ManchuStew
Member
- Sep 19, 2006
- 33
- 0
I agree. However, how do we now change the practicing standards of the elected officals that are now in office? I also believe as with the pilots those that are "elected" or "chosen" by other Un. officers are ones that they can control or manipulate. They do not want a rebel that will disrupt or fight for a just cause. Prime example FAR 121.467!!!!!!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #130
I'll admit that it's an uphill battle, since lineholders will always outnumber reserves (barring some sort of rotating reserve system where everyone gets a taste).
All you can do is continually plead your case - the squeaky wheel often does get the grease. Argue the fairness angle - even as a long-time lineholder I can see the unfairness of using AUTOs for my convenience when it screws up a reserve's day.
As for the FAR's and the FAA's intrepretation of them, that should be open and shut - no discussion needed. I still have difficulty understanding what the union could be "negotiating" other than what the campany is going to give to get the union's help.
Jim
Snickerdoodles
Member
- Aug 14, 2006
- 21
- 0
Was just wondering if you knew where the flight attendant was based. I really think it is a shame that the flight attendants union representative would not take the letter and fight for the reserve. Man it really does stink when you are on call for 13 days in a row. But the sad part is this is has been going on for years and no one has stood up to fight for us. Well, guess everyone that told the flight attendant that is now feeling like they are in quicksand.
Lovethesun
Advanced
- Jul 12, 2006
- 148
- 0
Pitbull was wondering if you would clear this up. It was my understanding that when you were in office that the union knew about this letter. I was told by a flight attendant that was based in PIT that you had told them about this letter when it first came out. So my question to you is did TG know about this letter or was it a well kept secret and she was not have knowledge that this letter existed. The way that she seems to come back at us when we would call the office and tell us that she knows the contract because she wrote it makes it very hard to believe that she did not know that this letter existed. I know that you know the truth on this matter.
Fu-ManchuStew
Member
- Sep 19, 2006
- 33
- 0
N965VJ
Veteran
hula-flyguy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2005
- 910
- 47
It's not an option of changing to this FAR...FAR's are a mandate, not an option. If the FAR's are not being enforced and the company and union are aware of it, then you have no choice but to go to the FAA. You are just as responsible for your own violation as the company is. However, in this circumstance, I would suggest contacting the MEC to see where the FAA, Company and Union stand as far as implamentation of the FAR. We dont know how much time the FAA has given the company to comply.
