Amen Chris...
(although I am such a control freak, I always wanted to know when there was a problem. We had pursers on the 757s too and for a little while even had them on narrow body flights)
What would you do?
- Thread starter jersey777
- Start date
Amen Chris...
(although I am such a control freak, I always wanted to know when there was a problem. We had pursers on the 757s too and for a little while even had them on narrow body flights)
I like to know when there are problems too. I just think that many of the problems can be addressed and defused without purser input and before they escalate. I also understand that many people don't want to involve themselves in a sticky situation if there is a purser onboard. I just think letting a passenger stew with bad feelings and no resolution is not the way to go.
We have pursers on all airplanes internationally. The union chair in MIA INTL was trying to do away with the narrowbody pursers 2 years ago and met with a lot of opposition so the idea was dropped. I have been bid denied many times to fly narrowbody purser and I am still opposed to giving up narrowbody purser because I feel it is a concession. The company would be paying a lot less purser pay, training a lot less pursers, and gaining the ability to reassign more flight attendants if the purser position was done away with on narrowbody.
I don't have to worry about purser bid denials anymore because, as of the 14th, I have once again resigned the purser position.
Chris, this is a classic example of the f/a "do me" syndrome....Someone (else) do it for me... Contract, carry it, know it, why? My union reps will "do it" for me. Vote, learn the issues confronting todays f/as, heck no. Someone else will vote and I'll do the complaining when it doesn't get "done" for me. It is all about personal responsibility. I'm sorry I won't have the opportunity to fly with you. I have a feeling we would have a good time or at teh very least get in some "good" trouble.
Not an F/A: a Wrench:
The Union answer is for the poster to go to the affected employee and tell them to fix the problem they created through a lack of awareness, or, a lack of assertiveness. If you start something; finish it. Do not leave a ticking pax for the next employee to trigger.
If the affected employee refuses; politely tell them that you will forward the concern through appropriate channels and ask for a contact with the pax so that they can be kept abreast of the situation and the result.
The passenger is not always right. Often times a pax does things that cannot be overlooked but do not rise to the level of removal. In my mind, the job of the FA is stopping the behavior first and explaining the rational later.
Everyone is not a master of all phases of their job. Teamwork, coaching and counseling should be an integral part of the conduct of all airline operations; however, given the conditions within the Industry- I am amazed at the level of performance not just at AA but throughout the Industry.
We need to give our people room to be human, we need to understand that those working around us may be suffering more than they show: we need to cover each other.
IMHO, the first step is to simply ask one another to deal with the passengers like we would deal with each other.
God Knows That AA Will Not.
The Union answer is for the poster to go to the affected employee and tell them to fix the problem they created through a lack of awareness, or, a lack of assertiveness. If you start something; finish it. Do not leave a ticking pax for the next employee to trigger.
If the affected employee refuses; politely tell them that you will forward the concern through appropriate channels and ask for a contact with the pax so that they can be kept abreast of the situation and the result.
The passenger is not always right. Often times a pax does things that cannot be overlooked but do not rise to the level of removal. In my mind, the job of the FA is stopping the behavior first and explaining the rational later.
Everyone is not a master of all phases of their job. Teamwork, coaching and counseling should be an integral part of the conduct of all airline operations; however, given the conditions within the Industry- I am amazed at the level of performance not just at AA but throughout the Industry.
We need to give our people room to be human, we need to understand that those working around us may be suffering more than they show: we need to cover each other.
IMHO, the first step is to simply ask one another to deal with the passengers like we would deal with each other.
God Knows That AA Will Not.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mikey,
I'm with you on wearing "first name" name tags.
Having said that, I could NOT(in good concience) reveal another F/A's "FULL Name", with regard to a situation I was NOT involved in, had'nt witnessed, and in fact, did'nt know if what the Pax was telling me was Gospel !!!
I would never have put just my first name on a name tag. Mine said , "Mrs. McGuire" If I "chose" to have someone call me by my first name, then I extend the offer. I didn't presume to use F/C passengers first names, and as a professional I did not expect them to use mine. Familiarity breeds contempt...lol How many airlines have had a f/a that has "Oh Miss" on the tag? I know we did.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jimntx,
Maybe the "approach" of revealing another F/A's "FULL NAME" to a passenger, works in bases like STL or DFW, however I would have some doubt, if that approach would be received favorably in JFK/LGA/EWR(NYC base), or BOS.
Its the same at every base, the only ones who don't like there name being out there, are the ones who make the problems and are to chicken crap, to clean up after themselves. They stir the pot and leave a bad situation for another FA to resolve. There is absolutely no reason that a name tag is not worn, and if one is not then no reason a name cannot be provided if the situation warrants
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mikey,
For someone who I agree with 98% of the time, I'm a bit perplexed that you've taken "this" stance, knowing full well that you guys work for(and I used to work for), a company that views it's employees GUILTY, until proven Innocent, coupled with a "union" firmly in AA's back pocket ???
I wasn't there to see how it really went down. I posed my response based on what I inferred from your story. The way I read it was that she was stirred up and you felt bad that she was but you didn't think the crewmember did anything wrong because the lady WAS a slob and her stuff was all over the area.
If you thought you had appeased her and she still wanted to write I would have suggested that you tell her you weren't at liberty to tell other people's names and crewmember position numbers. Then you could have told her if she wanted to write a letter she should describe the FA and what cabin they worked in because they have our pictures on file. (Which is true because there was a team hunting me down for reassignment one day in MIA customs with 5X7 color photocopies of my ID picture!)
I think that if people want crewmember names they need to get that clearance from the crewmember themselves. I have no problem telling people MY name but I don't think it is up to us to make that decision for someone else. Everyone has their own opinion on that, though. I'm just not big on giving out other people's info or actually apologizing for someone elses bad behavior, especially if I didn't witness their behavior to be able to make a call on whether it was bad or not. Even if I know someone I work with is a perpetual trouble maker I still don't apologize for them. I just tell the customer I am sorry their perception of '---- ' was bad and ask what I could do to make their experience more pleasant from that moment on.
I have to say that I know what you are saying and I know what NHBB is saying too. The problem is that not everyone without a name tag is a trouble maker. This is especially true when the name tags are always broken and AA doesn't provide new ones without a song and dance.
For the record, if we are talking those who usually wear a name tag vs. those who never wear a name tag being cruddy with the people it is 99% of the time the name tagless people who are. They think no name tag means no accountability. Maybe that's just mikey's and my experience.
In all seriousness, so you think they will never find out, or figure it out, who it was? Doesn't not providing a name just further fan the flames? I don't think APFA is in AA's back pocket, and that out Chair and Vice chair have done well representing the base, and keeping files clean of letters, and other things some supervisors like to drop in.
jimntx
Veteran
Give me a friggin break. I want you to point out to me where I ever said anything about giving another f/a's full name. You were simply looking for an excuse to pull that old union loyalty argument, and decided to read into my statements something that wasn't there. As has been pointed out, the name tag is part of the uniform. It is a requirement to wear it. If I say someone's name is Jim, I fail to see where anyone can object. It's not like someone by the name of Jim could be tracked down is a great big ole important city like BOS or NYC--now maybe a little village like St. Louis or Dallas, but not in the BIG city.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,944
- 9,372
Sorry Bears, but you have a classic view of unionism that never fades, and I congratulate you on keeping the fire alive.
But unionism as you knew it has been dead for about 20 years, perhaps with the exception of the Longshoremen. Even in Europe, it's a dying cause. Only 1 out of every 7 Frenchmen are union members at this point, and even that's going to fade out now that the Socialists are out of power...
But unionism as you knew it has been dead for about 20 years, perhaps with the exception of the Longshoremen. Even in Europe, it's a dying cause. Only 1 out of every 7 Frenchmen are union members at this point, and even that's going to fade out now that the Socialists are out of power...
