US Airways Dividend Miles (Pre-FlightFund Merger) - Bad news for UsAirways Employees

:mad: Not good news.

The judge has just ruled to allow the company to impose 21% wage
reductions to IAM, CWA, AFA. Will go into effect for 4 months
starting October 15, and ending February 15, 2005. The company
was granted "outsourcing" for the next 4 months, he approved 279
a/c min language gone into this period, and increase in f/a
hours to 5-10 hours per month depending on c/s needs.

One thing for sure, many of us will file personal bankruptcy,
have to sell our homes, and if displacements commence, we will
surely not survive this job.

What we are seeing here is a company who has used the bankruptcy
system to dismantle the U workforce. The seniority is a big
issue with management and they are hoping we either resign, or
get terminated. Many f/as will have a difficult time making ends
meet and not be able to take on a second job as our flying will
now be increased on this reduced wage.

The new hourly rate for the next 6 months will be $32.42, much
lower than America West and puts us 22% below the average low
cost carriers as our analyst presented to the courts. This is
almost a $10 hit in wages per hour. America West is currently
in negotiations for raises which will place them close to where
we are today at $41.05 top-out. The more junior workforce will
suffer mostly, and the emotional upset will be devastating to
them. They just will not be able to maintain. Hard to work or
look for additional work with this type of LTO system.

I am of the hope that ALPA T/A fails, so that the pilots will
only have to endure an extra 2.5% more wage reduction, and the
rest of their T/A crap goes away. They can then have another
opportunity to renegotiate a better deal, just like the rest of
us...OR, if the company goes for a 1113 abrogation, we can then
be released to "self help", which we will exercise.

If the employee morale was not shattered, it is surely shattered
now. We will have a very difficult time negotiating a long-term
proposal, as the company has increased the cost target to $145
million.

undefinedJust to give you folks an idea of what 21% means: for me it means a MONTHLY paycut of $435. Keep in mind this is the third cut since 2001. Guess I better get rid of my car, electric and insurance!

:mad: Not good news.

The judge has just ruled to allow the company to impose 21% wage
reductions to IAM, CWA, AFA. Will go into effect for 4 months
starting October 15, and ending February 15, 2005. The company
was granted "outsourcing" for the next 4 months, he approved 279
a/c min language gone into this period, and increase in f/a
hours to 5-10 hours per month depending on c/s needs.

One thing for sure, many of us will file personal bankruptcy,
have to sell our homes, and if displacements commence, we will
surely not survive this job.

What we are seeing here is a company who has used the bankruptcy
system to dismantle the U workforce. The seniority is a big
issue with management and they are hoping we either resign, or
get terminated. Many f/as will have a difficult time making ends
meet and not be able to take on a second job as our flying will
now be increased on this reduced wage.

The new hourly rate for the next 6 months will be $32.42, much
lower than America West and puts us 22% below the average low
cost carriers as our analyst presented to the courts. This is
almost a $10 hit in wages per hour. America West is currently
in negotiations for raises which will place them close to where
we are today at $41.05 top-out. The more junior workforce will
suffer mostly, and the emotional upset will be devastating to
them. They just will not be able to maintain. Hard to work or
look for additional work with this type of LTO system.

I am of the hope that ALPA T/A fails, so that the pilots will
only have to endure an extra 2.5% more wage reduction, and the
rest of their T/A crap goes away. They can then have another
opportunity to renegotiate a better deal, just like the rest of
us...OR, if the company goes for a 1113 abrogation, we can then
be released to "self help", which we will exercise.

If the employee morale was not shattered, it is surely shattered
now. We will have a very difficult time negotiating a long-term
proposal, as the company has increased the cost target to $145
million.

undefinedJust to give you folks an idea of what 21% means: for me it means a MONTHLY paycut of $435. Keep in mind this is the third cut since 2001. Guess I better get rid of my car, electric and insurance!

Like most everyone else on this forum, I feel badly for you and for your F/A colleagues. I certainly would be real unhappy if my pay was suddenly cut 21% and was told that on top of it, I need to work more hours.

That said, one thing that I just don't understand is why you don't just... leave? I for one have done just that in my career - I realized that I was on a track where I'd never be compensated in a way that was commensurate with my own value for my services, so I changed careers.

The years put in to build up seniority is a sunk cost. If you look forward and say this deal isn't what I thought it was, this job isn't worth what they're paying me, why don't you find something else? I, for one, wouldn't blame you. As a U customer I'd miss you - I'd be bummed out about the decline in service as the good long term F/As leave the service, but I'd understand why. And as for those pax who wouldn't understand why... you wouldn't be around to hear their moaning about it anyway, be it about that or the lack of glasses or magazines in F.

From an economic perspective, if there aren't mass resignations subsequent to this pay cut, doesn't that essentially prove that prevailing wages in this industry are in fact too high?

I for one hope that you and your colleagues do pick up and move on to other opportunities where your work will be more highly valued. This neverneverland middle ground with people embittered to work for less than they feel they're worth is good for nobody.

One thing for sure, many of us will file personal bankruptcy,
have to sell our homes, and if displacements commence, we will
surely not survive this job.


Uh, not to seem like a wise *ss but what would you have done if they filed Chapter 7? Right now you have some breathing space to apply at another carrier. I know this stinks but it could be worse a la Eastern, Pan Am etc.

I've always wondered how many hours can you work as a F/A in a given month? While the pay cut stinks for anyone & certainly impacts your monthly expense management, an hourly rate of $32/hr is more than most people in the US make...but, I don't know how many hours you can work. At 40/week x 4 weeks/month that's a decent salary, but I am guessing you don't work that many hours?

Anyone enlighten me?
Thanks!

I've always wondered how many hours can you work as a F/A in a given month? While the pay cut stinks for anyone & certainly impacts your monthly expense management, an hourly rate of $32/hr is more than most people in the US make...but, I don't know how many hours you can work. At 40/week x 4 weeks/month that's a decent salary, but I am guessing you don't work that many hours?

I too, have been curious about this question. If you review the OP's comments, you'd have an answer. They say that a 21% cut will result in an income lose of $435/mo. 435 is 21% of $2,072, which breaks down to $24,864 a year before the cut. Unclear is whether this is take-home or gross. $45 an hour, if it was a 40 hour pay basis would equate to $93,000 a year gross. If in fact the FAs made 25K/year before the cut and they are now getting cut 21%, they are really losing the PR battle here. As you note, when the average guy reads that they are being cut from $45 an hour, they probably don't feel too bad for them.

I suspect that the figures posted by the OP reflect take-home pay, which implies that their gross was probably somewhere around 38K before the cut.

Make no mistake, a 21% pay cut is a serious blow to the employees. I wouldn't be very happy in their shoes. I'd probably have already found alternate employment. I am sympathetic to their plight, but I do honestly believe that the alternative is unemployment. I don't think U survives without these cuts.

Wow, good posts all around folks. I too wonder: why stick around?

I have endured one pay cut and a substantial one at that when we were trying to get our company righted. I took it because I believed in where we were going and what we were doing. Had I not, I would have had the confidence and moxy (sp) to go find something else. I guess it seems like some of the employees feel they have no choice but to take what is dealt them and I don't understand that at all. Why the belief in the union shop that has proven several times to not be viable long term?

First, I do feel for US employees. There is nothing crappier than working for a long time with your future in question, as well as having your standard of living lowered through wage cuts. I have been there and do understand this.

However, this is a changing industry. Countless other industries have gone through this change at one time or another . . steel, automotive, textile, etc. They all face challenges to their business that make them less competitive and profitable (foreign imports, outsourcing, etc.) Companies have to respond to these challenges.

Millions of people have lost their jobs and seen a loss of wages and benefits. This has been an issue for decades now.

The age of employment being an entitlement is over. The age of expecting to work for the same company for 40 years then retire with a pension is over, and has been for some time. The age of working 80 hours per month and earning 60,000+ per year is over.

US and other airlines can't survive with their current cost structure. Period. They either restructure and cut costs (labor being their greatest cost) or they disappear.

This leaves US and other airline employees with a choice. Stay and hang in there and see what happens, or leave for other pursuits. Its a difficult choice. Its understood that employees feel squeezed, and losing the comfort of secure employment is very stressful. No one denies that this totally sucks.

But to echo earlier comments, maybe this is the time to pursue a different career. There is a possibility that they may need to do this anyway, and if there can be a bright side to this (I know . . . not all that bright) at least employees have a bit of time to plan their future.

I know I will get blasted for some of these comments. But business environments change . . companies and employment options necessarily change as well.

I've always wondered how many hours can you work as a F/A in a given month? While the pay cut stinks for anyone & certainly impacts your monthly expense management, an hourly rate of $32/hr is more than most people in the US make...but, I don't know how many hours you can work. At 40/week x 4 weeks/month that's a decent salary, but I am guessing you don't work that many hours?

Anyone enlighten me?
Thanks!

Sure can! In a recent thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360546) , GalleyWench (starting with post #4 of this referenced thread) gave us all an idea of the time crews put in. Read through this thread carefully, as some of us (I was a contributor to this thread) can see their situation very well in relation to our own jobs. They may only get paid for the hours the engines are on, but they put a lot more "time" in by the time you figure in time between flights and layovers. Asking them to work more time will translate into them putting into much more "time" away from home (and family for those who have one).

They put in more time primarily because of union-mandated "rest periods of up to three hours.

I was once talking to a crew member on a transcon from SFO-PIT who had to have a mandatory three hour rest before they continued on to MCO. The FA thought it was a big waste (which it is of time and money) and just wanted to get her day over with.

Sure can! In a recent thread here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360546) , GalleyWench (starting with post #4 of this referenced thread) gave us all an idea of the time crews put in. Read through this thread carefully, as some of us (I was a contributor to this thread) can see their situation very well in relation to our own jobs. They may only get paid for the hours the engines are on, but they put a lot more "time" in by the time you figure in time between flights and layovers. Asking them to work more time will translate into them putting into much more "time" away from home (and family for those who have one).

If enough people decide to throw in the towel, US airways will not have enough people to fly their planes. How many US airways people will now qualify for food stamps? This does not look good.

i don't know anybody who makes $32+/hr and qualifies for food stamps.

-- he who slacks

i don't know anybody who makes $32+/hr and qualifies for food stamps.

-- he who slacks

Tell ya what - I'll hire you for $100/hour. Deal?

btw, I only pay you 1 hour a day, and you have to sit in the office unpaid for 8 additional hours a day. And spend that time "prepping for" and "wrapping up" your 1 hour of "work". Deal?

Hourly rates are meaningless for pilots, FA, and others on these types oif bizare time/pay schemes.

Take an FA at "$32/hr" under existing work rules, and that equates to about $15.70/hr in a traditional job. We need to talk about total annual wages to be meaningful.

Hourly rates are meaningless for pilots, FA, and others on these types of bizarre time/pay schemes.

Well, then let me suggest that the bankruptcy will allow both sides to rationalize the work rules. US needs to utilize its employees, its greatest asset, in a more rational fashion. The unions must recognize that the “old ways of doing things” no longer apply. There is an opportunity here to re-invent the airline if, I repeat IF, management has the vision to do so and the unions realize that efficiency is now the key to survival not petty union turf wars and other such nonsense.

First let me say how sorry I am that this whole thing has gotten this far. To my good friends who man the front lines at US, you definitely deserve better than this.

That said, I have to wonder out loud why the work rule changes were not instituted first--before resorting to a huge wage cut. The employees have already given twice voluntarily, and the company had an opportunity to make changes then and did not. They squandered those givebacks and wound up back in bankruptcy court--in worse condition than before. They had the chance to rationalize the fare structure (NOT dump it to unrealistically low levels) and let it go by. They had the ability to de peak PHL a year ago and did not. They needed to define the company at that time and did not.

Now management is not the only party at fault here. The unions have blame as well--lack of flexibility on work rule changes, the old entitlement mentality-as mentioned in another forum, the old steelworker union mentality has no place in today's world. You either adapt or you don't survive. There has been little adaptation on BOTH sides, which is most likely the main reason we are in this situation today.

So where do we go from here? Who knows? This company has by far the most loyal bunch of frequent fliers of any airline in this country, and perhaps the world..and why? THE EMPLOYEES ARE THE BEST THERE IS. We value the experience of the folks who have been around long enough to know how to fix problems before they get out of control. We remain fiercely loyal because we are treated better by US employees than by any other airline. So I beseech management to realize that if their goal is to have a workforce more similar than what they have in Terminal F in PHL today throughout the system, they stand to lose most of their best customers.

The unions also need to realize that there need to be some work rule changes--when I am on a flight which arrives at C24 and there's no one to park the plane, and there are a bunch of rampers at C22 who sit and read their papers instead of getting up to help because C24 is not their zone, I get infuriated...just get up and do the job...

At FFOCUS, we have agreed that we should not get involved in the dispute between management and labor. HOWEVER that does not stop us from constantly reminding management what the reasons we stay loyal are---YOU THE FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES.

To each and every one of my friends at US, I wish you nothing but the best for the future--be it here or elsewhere...I just hope somehow it all works out...

My best to you all.......

If enough people decide to throw in the towel, US airways will not have enough people to fly their planes. How many US airways people will now qualify for food stamps? This does not look good.

Good point on the actual 'flying' of the planes. I doubt there will be any problem filling the spots for the other positions though.

Well, then let me suggest that the bankruptcy will allow both sides to rationalize the work rules. US needs to utilize its employees, its greatest asset, in a more rational fashion. The unions must recognize that the “old ways of doing things” no longer apply. There is an opportunity here to re-invent the airline if, I repeat IF, management has the vision to do so and the unions realize that efficiency is now the key to survival not petty union turf wars and other such nonsense.

That would be nice, but each side is entrenched in decades of adversarial realationships. And the local unions are part of national unions who don't want to "look weak" by dealing with US in a different way due to their unique position. They fear that if they give in the US, all the other airlines would see it and immediaitely pursue the same type of deals.

I hope everyone wakes up and realizes times have changed, but I think it will required the rank and file kicking the entrenched leadership out on their keisters before it can happen.

And no, management isn't blameless in this either, but I think theirs is a question of competence and capabilitiy rather than entrenched attitude.

They put in more time primarily because of union-mandated "rest periods of up to three hours.

I was once talking to a crew member on a transcon from SFO-PIT who had to have a mandatory three hour rest before they continued on to MCO. The FA thought it was a big waste (which it is of time and money) and just wanted to get her day over with.

Either that f/a was being sarcastic or she is from a different planet, but there is nothing in our contract stating that we need a 3 hour break between flights. These breaks are in just about every trip pairing we have, and we would love nothing more than to get rid of them. We call them "productivity breaks", and feel they are a huge waste of time. With any luck the company will eliminate them and start utilizing the crews better.
:)

I just hope most employees come to the same conclusion as her husband. Hang in there US employees!

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/9937327.htm?1c

So what if you have to buy store-brand coffee and skip the Starbucks.

It's still coffee.

So what if you can't exchange Christmas presents with your husband.

The kids are still getting gifts.

And so what if you can't replace the nice car that got totaled and you used the insurance money to buy something smaller, older, cheaper.

It runs. That's what counts.

It's all good enough, but good enough isn't what Carol Smith, 46, signed up for when she joined US Airways as a ticket agent, gate agent and customer-service representative - a kid from a small town outside Lancaster.

In those days, it was plain old good. Good pay. Good benefits. A good time on the job.

Now US Airways is in bankruptcy proceedings, and on Friday a judge approved the airline's request to impose deep cuts in pay - 21 percent, nearly all of the 23 percent the airline had requested. That is on top of 10 percent cuts in 2002, when the company first went into bankruptcy. For Smith, that means a cut from $22.05 an hour in 2001 to $16.04 an hour, or from $882 a week to $641.

The airline has said it ultimately wants to pay Smith $13.10 an hour, or $524 a week, a wage comparable to that offered by low-cost airlines such as America West Airlines Inc.

Good enough? Forget about good. Now enough is in doubt.

"For the first time, I'm actually scared," said Smith, a union leader and mother of two, one a college freshman.

Smith, who lives in Prospect Park, Delaware County, just 15 minutes from the airport, has multiple sclerosis, and her husband, Bob, a former US Airways worker, is disabled. Sometimes, he said, she calls him from work, crying.

Those on the bottom of the economic ladder won't have much sympathy for someone who is Starbucks-deprived or who has to drive an old car.

But when sociologists talk about the erosion of the middle class, the Smith family's experience is what they mean.

"The American dream, it's not going to happen for us," said Smith's husband. "We were there, and it got chipped away."

A middle-class family can afford a house like Smith's three-bedroom suburban Colonial, nice cars, a vacation, and reasonable amenities. At the peak of their joint earning power, the Smiths pulled in about $80,000 a year.

If the cuts go through, the family's income will drop to $64,000, with Bob Smith's monthly disability check and part-time work helping them hang on.

On her $33,357 salary alone, the family would move to the bottom of the middle class - just above the lowest fifth in family income, according to U.S. Census data. That will have implications beyond Smith's next paycheck and beyond her generation.

Her pension, if she gets one, will be less. So will her Social Security benefits.

"It means upward mobility is very difficult," said Eileen Appelbaum, a labor economist at Rutgers University.

It will be harder, Appelbaum said, for Carol Smith to send her children to college. If they don't go, it will also be harder for them to follow their mother's career path. Smith was able, with only a high school diploma, to achieve a middle-class lifestyle.

"The kind of jobs that might have allowed her children to come in at entry levels and work their way up are gone," Appelbaum said. "They are being replaced by jobs at companies that pride themselves on being able to cut labor costs."

The cuts granted Friday affect most of the airline's 25,000 unionized employees, who already accepted cuts in pay and benefits during US Airways Group Inc.'s first bankruptcy, in 2002.

One union, the Air Line Pilots Association, had agreed, reluctantly, to the airline's latest pay-cut demands.

Others, such as Smith's Communications Workers of America, which represents US Airways customer-service workers, gate agents and ticket agents, were still negotiating.

Smith is secretary-treasurer of CWA Local 13301, which has 575 US Airways members in eastern Pennsylvania. The airline employs 5,700 here.

As a union officer, she hears similar concerns from other members.

Some are leaving and some are stuck, because, like Smith, their jobs provide family health benefits.

Like her fellow union members, Smith wonders whether $16.04 an hour will be enough. Enough to keep her house? Enough to keep her daughter, Amanda, in college? Enough to save the company? Her own spirit of optimism?

Smith already knows it won't be enough for her to have a second chance at a career as fulfilling as her work with US Airways. College costs too much for two to go - especially when the mortgage is in doubt.

"You, as a person, don't matter anymore," she said. "Survival is what matters. What's best for the family is what matters. What has to happen for this family to stay in this home, that's what matters."

Twenty-six years ago, when Smith started at US Airways, the future seemed brighter.

US Airways hired Smith, a 20-year-old with travel-agency experience, to work in reservations in Pittsburgh. To be closer to her family in Lancaster, she quickly transferred to a job in Philadelphia.

Just six months after joining the airline, her income and credit were so good and her prospects so promising that she landed a mortgage on a house in the Philadelphia suburbs.

She tooled around in her sports car, a sky-blue Mazda RX7. Using the free flights that are a prized perk in the airline industry, she and her airline friends jetted to Boston to shop at Filene's Basement and grab a seafood lunch. "We'd fly up for a party," she said.

She got married, had a daughter, got divorced, and traded up to a better house, a three-bedroom Colonial with a backyard and wall-to-wall carpeting.

It was a fine life. In the cozy world of the Philadelphia International Airport - a mishmash of strangers to travelers, but a close-knit community to its workers - she met her second husband, Bob, who worked in US Airways' parts warehouse.

He moved in, and they had a son, Adam, now 11, who performs death-defying flips on the trampoline in the backyard, to an audience of five cats and a dog.

Like many other US Airways couples, they laughed about the time a pig, purportedly a "guide pig," flew first class. "I think he stayed on the floor," she said. "I don't think they are that good at jumping up on seats."

The airport crew remembered one another's birthdays, and admired wedding pictures and new babies. They traded shifts, sharing the closeness that develops when people work weird hours in all weather, never able to count on holidays or weekends off.

"It's one big family down there," said Bob Smith, as his wife folded laundry on the sofa and Adam sat nearby, engrossed in a video game.

Then, in the mid-1990s, things began to fall apart. Bob Smith became disabled from arthritis in his hips. He was out for five years on Social Security disability.

US Airways began to seek cuts. Some were small - a $15 monthly dry-cleaning allowance for uniforms was reduced. In 1996, wages of gate agents and others were cut by 8 percent to 10 percent. The company froze pensions.

Even so, Carol Smith's financial situation improved in the late 1990s. Her husband went back to work full-time after a hip replacement. As she rose in seniority, her salary outgrew the pay cuts and she gained vacation time and better shifts.

Then, in 2000, she learned she had multiple sclerosis - a devastating diagnosis. The symptoms are in check, but the disease can cause a loss of motor control, leaving patients unable to walk or attend to their daily lives.

In 2001, Bob Smith suffered a heart attack and wound up on a pacemaker, unable to work at the airport because radar transmissions would interfere with its functioning. He went back on disability and works part-time for $7.50 an hour as an auto-parts courier. It's the monthly disability check that keeps the family in the middle of the middle class.

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks pushed airlines into financial peril. In August 2002, US Airways filed for bankruptcy and won a laundry list of labor cuts.

The out-of-pocket deductible for health insurance rose to $500 a person, or $2,000 for Smith's family. Her pay was reduced from $22.05 an hour to $20.30 an hour. Instead of full pay for vacations, she earned 75 percent. Shift differentials - extra pay for odd hours - were trimmed.

"It just started getting tighter and tighter," Smith said. As people started to leave, the camaraderie that eased the pain of the cuts also started to erode.

Now Smith is thinking about finding other work. She wonders how she'll make her house payment of $1,250 a month. She has looked into low-cost health insurance and has researched whether she could tap into any funds for retraining.

Smith isn't sure what the union's response to the cuts should be, but her husband said workers should probably just accept them. "It's hard to get a job paying $15 an hour," he said. When he looked for part-time work, he couldn't find anything that paid more than $7.50 an hour, and even those jobs were hard to land.

That is an excellent, if sobering article. Thanks for posting it.

Uh, not to seem like a wise *ss but what would you have done if they filed Chapter 7? Right now you have some breathing space to apply at another carrier. I know this stinks but it could be worse a la Eastern, Pan Am etc.
I have a training date with another carrier. It's set for next year. I'm looking at a $6000/yr paycut at the new carrier (with the 21% less). I'll be naking $17000/yr. Oh and, why don't I change careers? Why would I if I like the one I presently have? It's the management we all have a hard time with!

I've always wondered how many hours can you work as a F/A in a given month? While the pay cut stinks for anyone & certainly impacts your monthly expense management, an hourly rate of $32/hr is more than most people in the US make...but, I don't know how many hours you can work. At 40/week x 4 weeks/month that's a decent salary, but I am guessing you don't work that many hours?

Anyone enlighten me?
Thanks!
We don't work a 40 hour work week. We work (depending on your flying option--50/55,70/75,80/85,100/105). I am on the 80/85 hour option. This means that I work no more than 85 flight hours a month and no less than 80 provided I can work that many due to no fault of my own, or based on need. So my pay consists of my hourly FLIGHT pay X #hours flown in a month. We also receive a per diem on top of that for every hour away from base. That is meal money.
I know that we make good money. The point is at what point do you keep giving. My lifestyle is not based on a job that pays $20000/yr. I don't go overboard with debt, but we live according to our means. Don't most people live within or over? So is that realistic to live within your means? I think so. I was living well within my means till the paycuts started 3 times ago. The pay got less but the bills are still there in the same capacity. Does that make sense? And, by the way, we WERE NOT the highest paid in the industry EVER!

I too, have been curious about this question. If you review the OP's comments, you'd have an answer. They say that a 21% cut will result in an income lose of $435/mo. 435 is 21% of $2,072, which breaks down to $24,864 a year before the cut. Unclear is whether this is take-home or gross. $45 an hour, if it was a 40 hour pay basis would equate to $93,000 a year gross. If in fact the FAs made 25K/year before the cut and they are now getting cut 21%, they are really losing the PR battle here. As you note, when the average guy reads that they are being cut from $45 an hour, they probably don't feel too bad for them.

I suspect that the figures posted by the OP reflect take-home pay, which implies that their gross was probably somewhere around 38K before the cut.

Make no mistake, a 21% pay cut is a serious blow to the employees. I wouldn't be very happy in their shoes. I'd probably have already found alternate employment. I am sympathetic to their plight, but I do honestly believe that the alternative is unemployment. I don't think U survives without these cuts.

Just talked to unemployment as I may be furloughed, I'm just about better off collecting unemployment before the new pay rates go into affect. I won't be bringing in that much less on unemployment. I have a back up. I have 3 of them including a training date for another airline. I enjoy my job and what I do. Why would I switch? I'm unhappy with only management, as all of you are too. I made $33000 last year total. That is 9 years seniority. It's not that we don't make decent money, it's the point of, up untill the paycut, I was living within my means, now I'm not. My lifestyle is not lived on a $24000/yr income. I have not had to live off a salary this low in 13 years. I'm single and fortunate, but it's the employees with families I feel bad for. The customer service agents are literally making peanuts now as they are right above the poverty line. Paying for managements incompetence and paying the big wigs for failured bonuses is old.

Uh, not to seem like a wise *ss but what would you have done if they filed Chapter 7? Right now you have some breathing space to apply at another carrier. I know this stinks but it could be worse a la Eastern, Pan Am etc.
If we filed, I'd be making almost the same collecting unemployment since that is based on my old pay. Then in January I'd go to training with my new airline where I'll be making $17000/yr. I'd then get a second job to make up the loss.
It's nearly impossible to get a second job with US since we are at their every beck and call.

They put in more time primarily because of union-mandated "rest periods of up to three hours.

I was once talking to a crew member on a transcon from SFO-PIT who had to have a mandatory three hour rest before they continued on to MCO. The FA thought it was a big waste (which it is of time and money) and just wanted to get her day over with.
Sorry but those 3 hour sits are NOT UNION MANDADTED. Don't know where you got your info. The trips are designed every month by the the company. We work the trips we choose (provided there are choices). We then work the trip as it is on paper. It is not UNION or FAA mandated when we sit 3 hours in between flights. We and the union has repeatedly complained about this. There is a 3 day trip in PHL that has a total of 10.5 hours of in between sit time. This is dreaded. The union has nothing to do with this! Nor does the FAA. That is all the company and their idea of "productivity".

If enough people decide to throw in the towel, US airways will not have enough people to fly their planes. How many US airways people will now qualify for food stamps? This does not look good.
Customer service agents and others do not make $32/hr. They make barely above minumum wage. Pilots, F/A, and mechanics make the most.

First let me say how sorry I am that this whole thing has gotten this far. To my good friends who man the front lines at US, you definitely deserve better than this.

That said, I have to wonder out loud why the work rule changes were not instituted first--before resorting to a huge wage cut. The employees have already given twice voluntarily, and the company had an opportunity to make changes then and did not. They squandered those givebacks and wound up back in bankruptcy court--in worse condition than before. They had the chance to rationalize the fare structure (NOT dump it to unrealistically low levels) and let it go by. They had the ability to de peak PHL a year ago and did not. They needed to define the company at that time and did not.

Now management is not the only party at fault here. The unions have blame as well--lack of flexibility on work rule changes, the old entitlement mentality-as mentioned in another forum, the old steelworker union mentality has no place in today's world. You either adapt or you don't survive. There has been little adaptation on BOTH sides, which is most likely the main reason we are in this situation today.

So where do we go from here? Who knows? This company has by far the most loyal bunch of frequent fliers of any airline in this country, and perhaps the world..and why? THE EMPLOYEES ARE THE BEST THERE IS. We value the experience of the folks who have been around long enough to know how to fix problems before they get out of control. We remain fiercely loyal because we are treated better by US employees than by any other airline. So I beseech management to realize that if their goal is to have a workforce more similar than what they have in Terminal F in PHL today throughout the system, they stand to lose most of their best customers.

The unions also need to realize that there need to be some work rule changes--when I am on a flight which arrives at C24 and there's no one to park the plane, and there are a bunch of rampers at C22 who sit and read their papers instead of getting up to help because C24 is not their zone, I get infuriated...just get up and do the job...

At FFOCUS, we have agreed that we should not get involved in the dispute between management and labor. HOWEVER that does not stop us from constantly reminding management what the reasons we stay loyal are---YOU THE FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES.

To each and every one of my friends at US, I wish you nothing but the best for the future--be it here or elsewhere...I just hope somehow it all works out...

My best to you all.......

THANKS SO MUCH! IT means alot to know that there is someone who feels the way you do. And, you are right! Get up and do the job. I've said for years, if we all helped each other out, we would have happier passengers and a more efficient system. I've been reprimanded by several customer service employees for helping out a wheelchair passenger. I'm a f/a. If we arrive and all passengers have deplaned and the chair has not arrived, I'll go look for one myself and push the passenger up myself. I'm only helping out, but it's technically not my job. I do it cause I want to. A passenger should not have to wait or such service when there is someone willing to expedite their deplaining.
For years management has put employee groups against one another. What is the point? We all work for the same company and should have the same goals, to work and make paeesngers happy. Who cares who does what. I'm even willing to clean the aircraft as there is talk of getting rid of the cleaners. I know i do a better job than them do anyway, but if you attempt to help them, they will "file a grievance"--WHATEVER! So folks, the dirty cabins are a result of people who do not take pride in their work and could care less (it's not all the cleaners, there are a handfull that do a great job). Anyway, Thanks for the praise. It means alot

I've always wondered how many hours can you work as a F/A in a given month? While the pay cut stinks for anyone & certainly impacts your monthly expense management, an hourly rate of $32/hr is more than most people in the US make...but, I don't know how many hours you can work. At 40/week x 4 weeks/month that's a decent salary, but I am guessing you don't work that many hours?

Anyone enlighten me?
Thanks!



I can answer this one for you. The FAA mandates that no FA can work over 100 hours per month. They also have mandates on how many hours they can work at a time before imposed rest. The average FA works 80 hours per month. Junior fa's are guaranteed 70 hours.

I am not quite sure why people are mad about 5 hours more per month. That's only one or two more work days each month. And those extra hours will help make up for the pay cut.

Still, I empathize with what the employees are going through. I also realize that it's not that easy to get on with another carrier. Most are not hiring in any capacity except for regional carriers. Doing corporate FA work requires certification that the FA must pay for (about $1500 is the cheapest course). And with corporate, there is no guarantee of getting any work unless you hussle for it.

I think the reality of the situation for the US FA's is either deal with the cuts and be grateful you still have a job OR find a job in another sector. The hospitality industry took a major hit after 9/11. With the only hiring being done by Regionals (ask Comair flight attendants how many in their workforce used to be mainline Delta but got laid off), there will be a huge pay cut there plus a loss of seniority. Regional FA's start out under $20 per hour.

I feel badly for the plight of the US employees, and I see why they're bitter. But at least they still have a job. They won't if the airline files Chapter 7, and without these cuts, that moment may be closer than any of us would like.

Sorry but those 3 hour sits are NOT UNION MANDADTED. Don't know where you got your info. The trips are designed every month by the the company. We work the trips we choose (provided there are choices). We then work the trip as it is on paper. It is not UNION or FAA mandated when we sit 3 hours in between flights. We and the union has repeatedly complained about this. There is a 3 day trip in PHL that has a total of 10.5 hours of in between sit time. This is dreaded. The union has nothing to do with this! Nor does the FAA. That is all the company and their idea of "productivity".



I don't mean to be rude, but having known several FA's who complain that because of mis-ops they have no time to eat in between flights. Maybe the company is trying to see to it that you have time to eat and rest a bit in between your flights. I would think you'd appreciate that rest time. It is a great way to find a restaurant and enjoy a meal, not grab a sandwich while doing a safety check for your next flight.

I realize things at US are bad compared to the way they used to be, but there are plenty of FA's who have it a lot worse.

I can answer this one for you. The FAA mandates that no FA can work over 100 hours per month.

This is not true. I think you may be confusing the pilot regs. The only thing the FAA mandates for F/As is that we have at least 24-hours off in any seven-day period. Many airlines routinely fly their F/As over 100 hours per month.


Maybe the company is trying to see to it that you have time to eat and rest a bit in between your flights. I would think you'd appreciate that rest time. It is a great way to find a restaurant and enjoy a meal, not grab a sandwich while doing a safety check for your next flight.

This is not true either. Airline management does not care if we have enough time to eat. And probably without exception, pilots and F/As would VERY STRONGLY prefer to not have long sits in between flights because all those do are stretch out your total duty day without increasing your pay-- so you have more time on duty but less pay. Long sits are completely a function of hub-and-spoke scheduling.


I am not quite sure why people are mad about 5 hours more per month. That's only one or two more work days each month. And those extra hours will help make up for the pay cut.

Viewed in a vaccuum that sounds logical. But I think the "mad" part comes in because this is the third time in two years they have heard the same thing-- "What's the big deal? So you just work a more hours to make up for the paycut." Then a few months later, another CEO leaves with a multi-million dollar golden parachute, and here comes another pay cut and another proposal to work more hours "to make up for it." Then a few months later, another CEO leaves with a multi-million dollar golden parachute and the new senior management team has the bright idea of ANOTHER pay cut and another propsal to work even MORE hours. And they'll keep coming back for more.

If we filed, I'd be making almost the same collecting unemployment since that is based on my old pay. Then in January I'd go to training with my new airline where I'll be making $17000/yr. I'd then get a second job to make up the loss.
It's nearly impossible to get a second job with US since we are at their every beck and call.

I work outside the industry but we're dealing with this first-hand in my household. After being laid-off from a Big 6, he saw unemployment for a while, which covered some expenses, but nothing like the income we had before. Just recently he started with another carrier that's not a Big 6, and it's about a 40% cut. Dealing with commuting to the airport for work and the extra costs involved there, it's almost not worth it for the reduced pay rate. Fortunately I work complete outside the airline industry, so we've been able to make adjustments and keep up a lifestyle that we like.

It's not been easy to deal with, but that's just how it works. We're considering having him drop out of the airline industry and going into something else, but for now we're happy to have found another job in the field even with all of the problems and layoffs going around now.

I'm sorry to hear about the situation for US employees. Is anyone surprised the judge just granted the request exactly as the company asked? I have heard that federal judges tend to be more "conservative," (aka favoring corporations over individuals) than state or local judges? How much does this 21% pay cut even solitify US's survival? I mean are they significantly more likely to survive with the cut as opposed to a ch7? And as pointed out, if they ch7 next year, then the employees are going to get a lousier unemployment check than they would have without these cutbacks since their wage is lower.

Also I have not heard anything about what the company is doing overall to help out employees. Unless there is some kind of miracle, about 0.01% odds, then I would imagine internally at the company people are devostated by this cut (especially if not earning a lot of money to begin with), and that this low morall could impact customer service and productivity.

US stated in the filing that pax were starting to book away from US as a result of the BK filing. I don't know that them cutting employee pay by 21% is going to make more pax want to book on US. If anything, pax might feel that employees would be unhappier and maybe provide less high quality service. After all wouldn't you be pist or hurt if you lost 21% of your pay? We can stand on a high horse and say how none of this will impact any customer program, but is that really true? I have had t/as tell me that they fear being reprimanded or worse by providing good customer service outside the scope of what management wants.

I don't know if there is even any documented research or case study to suggest that with such a drastic pay cut employees are still going to be happy, and provide as good a service?

Finally I think the rest of the industry is looking at US. You can for example listen to the CO q3 investor conference call by dialing 800-231-6723 (it is a recording you get) and towards the end in the q&A they are talking about watching US and DL, and how these two carriers may set the industry standards.

Gordon makes a comment that you don't want to come over and over again to employees to ask for cuts, because the second time "they bite you." So he says he just wants to go to his employees once rather than over and over like US. They also discuss the possibility of pensions going away in favor or 401K plans. They also allude (but don't get very specific on) possible shut downs of US, ATA, Independence, etc. in the coming 6-12 months.

This is not true. I think you may be confusing the pilot regs. The only thing the FAA mandates for F/As is that we have at least 24-hours off in any seven-day period. Many airlines routinely fly their F/As over 100 hours per month.




This is not true either. Airline management does not care if we have enough time to eat. And probably without exception, pilots and F/As would VERY STRONGLY prefer to not have long sits in between flights because all those do are stretch out your total duty day without increasing your pay-- so you have more time on duty but less pay. Long sits are completely a function of hub-and-spoke scheduling.




Viewed in a vaccuum that sounds logical. But I think the "mad" part comes in because this is the third time in two years they have heard the same thing-- "What's the big deal? So you just work a more hours to make up for the paycut." Then a few months later, another CEO leaves with a multi-million dollar golden parachute, and here comes another pay cut and another proposal to work more hours "to make up for it." Then a few months later, another CEO leaves with a multi-million dollar golden parachute and the new senior management team has the bright idea of ANOTHER pay cut and another propsal to work even MORE hours. And they'll keep coming back for more.



Okay, to answer the first thing, maybe a particular airline has restrictions on the number of hours FA's can work per month, but I have heard FA's from different airlines say they are not allowed to work more than 100 hours per month. This information came straight from several FA's mouths. I don't know who doesn't allow it (union, airline, etc.), but I have specifically heard that rule cited to me on more than one occasion.

Now secondly, I realize having 3 hours to just sit around can be boring and aggrivating. However, I still see the logic in it. Flight delays can create a domino effect. If a crew is late getting in from point A and still has to travel on to point C and then on to point D and if that crew is late getting in from point A to B, that delays flights on to point C and if delayed enough, point D. So there is that domino thing. Having time in between flights decreases the likelihood of the 2nd and 3rd leg of a crew's day getting behind schedule because of fog or thunderstorms at Point A. In that instance, I believe the rest breaks make good sense for the overall productivity of the airline.

I also believe that having a bit of time (maybe 3 hours is too extreme) gives the employee a chance to clear his head and feed his body. It also allows for time to make personal calls, get on the internet, and do tasks others do during business hours. Not having those tasks lingering and having employees who are fed and not rushed creates a more pleasant customer service experience. Who wants to deal with a FA who has a laundry list of to-do things running in her head and who is operating on an empty stomach because her connections were so tight that she didn't have the time to eat?

Scheduling is a very delicate task. What I would imagine happened is that too many FA's came to the bosses complaining about a lack of time for food. The company tried to address that. The concern for on-time performance also probably drove that. What are the chances of your being on time if you're leaving Detroit in a January snow storm with only one runway open? SLIM! So they tried to figure that stuff in as well.

As I said before, I do believe that 3 hours is too long of a rest period. I'd be ready for a nap after sitting for that long. At the same time, 30 minutes or even an hour isn't really enough time if you're running behind schedule because of weather or mechanical. There needs to be a fine line, and it sounds like US needs to find it.

Finally, regarding the "longer days with less pay" comment, I don't think we see that the same way. You do get a perdiem for sitting at the airport, right? And if you have 3 hours at the airport instead of 1, isn't your per diem 3 times as much for that break? I realize the per diem isn't a lot of cash, but it is tax free. That couple of dollars can add up quickly with enough breaks. Now, if the per diem is for some reason not being paid, then you are correct, and I will stand corrected.

Being a flight attendant has its good points and bad. One good thing is that your salary involves more days off than the average worker enjoys. You also have flight priviliges, although I'm sure aren't nearly as lucrative with fewer flights and less seats on routes.

I watched a 10 minute documentary about the history of the flight attendant. It was at the end of a movie called "view from the top" with Gwynneth Paltrow. The 10 minute short was better than the movie. There were women talking about how FA's used to have 48 hours in a city instead of 12. It really used to be a job where you can see the world on the company dime. Times have changed. Now, the choice has to be whether to change with them or find a desk job. I'm sure it's not an easy choice, and I don't envy those of you who have to make it.

I do wish you the best and hope your situation improves quickly and drastically.

What I would imagine happened is that too many FA's came to the bosses complaining about a lack of time for food. The company tried to address that.

I'm just guessing here, but you don't have any experience in the airline industry, do you?

The schedules are built to maximize efficiency and productivity within the applicable rules. The airlines don't intentionally schedule crews for three hour layovers unless there are no more efficient options. Unions don't negotiate for rules which tend to decrease a crewmember's pay while increasing the time he spends on duty. Their goal is just the opposite, more pay for fewer hours on-duty and away from home.

The problem comes from the inherent inefficiencies of the hub-and-spoke system. If the airplanes are sitting at the gates then the crews can't fly them.

I'm just guessing here, but you don't have any experience in the airline industry, do you?

The schedules are built to maximize efficiency and productivity within the applicable rules. The airlines don't intentionally schedule crews for three hour layovers unless there are no more efficient options. Unions don't negotiate for rules which tend to decrease a crewmember's pay while increasing the time he spends on duty. Their goal is just the opposite, more pay for fewer hours on-duty and away from home.

The problem comes from the inherent inefficiencies of the hub-and-spoke system. If the airplanes are sitting at the gates then the crews can't fly them.



That goes back to the point about the domino effect on late flights. The airline probably sees it more effecient to have the group laid over to avoid potential delays with that crew all day. If a crew has a break after a flight that is consistently late due to weather problems (say from Buffalo in the winter for an example), planning a break to accommodate for the POTENTIAL for a delay makes good business sense. It is good for the company in that instance. And yes, the bosses at US Airways or any other country is supposed to operate in a matter that is good for the company and makes good business sense.

I realize the union is not going to negotiate for this. No union would. And that is by no means what I said here. I also said that 3 hours is far too long for a "break." But the breaks do open up a window for eating, making calls, etc., that perhaps the company feels like will benefit the employee as well. It sounds to me like the union needs to work in a negotiation that stipulates no more than 2 hours for said productive breaks.

The bottom line is that the company is going to operate with the underlying intention of benefitting the company. And if the current employees don't like it, then I'm sure there are a hundred people waiting to fill that one job. With so many FA's furloughed after 9/11, I'm sure there are plenty of people waiting to fill a job if one walks off. Also, regional carriers used to be a stepping stone for a mainline carrier. Now, there are a lot of veteran regional FA's who want more than anything to step up to mainline but can't because there are no opportunities with them. Some of these FA's would jump at the chance to get off the RJ from Podunk to Timbucktoo. There are more people wanting to do the job than there are jobs for the people.

This whole thread makes me think about the try out camp scene in "A League of Their Own." When the women who made the team are showed the short skirt uniform, many complain. The general manager says, "If you can't play ball in this, you can't play ball for me. There are plenty of women buying train tickets home who'd play in a bathing suit if I asked them." The airline business isn't much different today. There are many many qualified applicants but no jobs to offer them.

And maybe part of the goal in a 3 hour break is to let employees know that they are in charge and either deal with it or go home. After all, they can hire someone new in a heartbeat and pay them a lot less money. Rookie FA's make so much less that it would benefit the company to hire more of them and get rid of some veteran FA's at the top of the pay scale. And if the working conditions are that bad, maybe some will leave missing the good old days.

I'm in no way condoning miserable work conditions as a means to cut payroll. But making things unpleasant may be a tactic being used here. Of course, having 3 hours down time on duty day is not considered unpleasant to me. And the unions won't let things get to the point of true unpleasantness. So I guess the FA's are lucky in that respect.

Okay, to answer the first thing, maybe a particular airline has restrictions on the number of hours FA's can work per month, but I have heard FA's from different airlines say they are not allowed to work more than 100 hours per month. This information came straight from several FA's mouths. I don't know who doesn't allow it (union, airline, etc.), but I have specifically heard that rule cited to me on more than one occasion.
Yes, some union contracts don't let F/As fly over 100 hours per month. However you said the "FAA mandated" it; I was just correcting that.


Now secondly, I realize having 3 hours to just sit around can be boring and aggrivating. However, I still see the logic in it.
I never said there wasn't "logic" in it. However you said flight crews should enjoy / appreciate such breaks. As a flight crew member, I am telling you from first-hand experience that we don't, and I would wager some good money that no other flight crew that posts here would say they like such "breaks."


What I would imagine happened is that too many FA's came to the bosses complaining about a lack of time for food. The company tried to address that.
Something like that is actually no factor in airline crew scheduling. I am not being cynical; it is the simple truth.


As I said before, I do believe that 3 hours is too long of a rest period. I'd be ready for a nap after sitting for that long. At the same time, 30 minutes or even an hour isn't really enough time if you're running behind schedule because of weather or mechanical.
No one is complaining about :30 or 1:00 sits. It is the 3:00-4:00 ones that we hate.


Finally, regarding the "longer days with less pay" comment, I don't think we see that the same way. You do get a perdiem for sitting at the airport, right? And if you have 3 hours at the airport instead of 1, isn't your per diem 3 times as much for that break? I realize the per diem isn't a lot of cash, but it is tax free. That couple of dollars can add up quickly with enough breaks. Now, if the per diem is for some reason not being paid, then you are correct, and I will stand corrected.
Yes we still get our $1.50-$2.00/hr per diem. But, as I explained above, $6 for sitting around for three hours IS NOT WORTH IT TO US. We would much rather be making flight pay, or getting to the hotel or to our homes three hours earlier or checking in three hours later the next morning. It turns a decent nine-hour duty day into an exhausting twelve-hour one for the same flight pay, but granted with an extra $6 per diem. IT'S A BAD DEAL. You can choose to believe that, or not.

Of course, having 3 hours down time on duty day is not considered unpleasant to me.
Really? You would like a forced, UNPAID, three-hour break once or twice a day? So instead of working 9AM-5PM, you would have to work 9AM-8PM, or 6AM-5PM, or even 6AM-8PM if there are two such breaks (which isn't uncommon for us) just to earn the SAME PAY? (OK, plus $6, as discussed above.)

I understand the "like it or leave it" logic, which I am sure you are going to bring up. That is not my point-- my point is that no matter how much you try to say we should "like" such a system, we simply do not, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

The airline probably sees it more effecient to have the group laid over to avoid potential delays with that crew all day.

No, they see it as they can't schedule another flight for the crew until the next scheduled flight for the airplane. This is the economic down-side to hub-and-spoke schedules which prevent any network carrier from reaching the productivity levels of airlines such as SWA.

Even if every USAir employee worked for free, USA's cost per ASM would still be more than SWA's current cost per ASM.

The only way a hub-and-spoke system can work is if the availablility of the comprehensive route structure brings in a revenue premium and, for the past several years, it has not.

I just hope most employees come to the same conclusion as her husband. Hang in there US employees!

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/9937327.htm?1c






This article is one with which I can identify. (Some of those who me know me might understand why). :(

The entire situation s****. It is my hope that somehow the company and the unions can work it out. (Although the prosposal from the company to the CWA, as it stands now, is very scary.)

For now, I am glad to still have a job that I love. And glad the we have customers who care about what happens to the compnay and the people who make it what it is.

Okay, to answer the first thing, maybe a particular airline has restrictions on the number of hours FA's can work per month, but I have heard FA's from different airlines say they are not allowed to work more than 100 hours per month. This information came straight from several FA's mouths. I don't know who doesn't allow it (union, airline, etc.), but I have specifically heard that rule cited to me on more than one occasion.

Now secondly, I realize having 3 hours to just sit around can be boring and aggrivating. However, I still see the logic in it. Flight delays can create a domino effect. If a crew is late getting in from point A and still has to travel on to point C and then on to point D and if that crew is late getting in from point A to B, that delays flights on to point C and if delayed enough, point D. So there is that domino thing. Having time in between flights decreases the likelihood of the 2nd and 3rd leg of a crew's day getting behind schedule because of fog or thunderstorms at Point A. In that instance, I believe the rest breaks make good sense for the overall productivity of the airline.

I also believe that having a bit of time (maybe 3 hours is too extreme) gives the employee a chance to clear his head and feed his body. It also allows for time to make personal calls, get on the internet, and do tasks others do during business hours. Not having those tasks lingering and having employees who are fed and not rushed creates a more pleasant customer service experience. Who wants to deal with a FA who has a laundry list of to-do things running in her head and who is operating on an empty stomach because her connections were so tight that she didn't have the time to eat?

Scheduling is a very delicate task. What I would imagine happened is that too many FA's came to the bosses complaining about a lack of time for food. The company tried to address that. The concern for on-time performance also probably drove that. What are the chances of your being on time if you're leaving Detroit in a January snow storm with only one runway open? SLIM! So they tried to figure that stuff in as well.

As I said before, I do believe that 3 hours is too long of a rest period. I'd be ready for a nap after sitting for that long. At the same time, 30 minutes or even an hour isn't really enough time if you're running behind schedule because of weather or mechanical. There needs to be a fine line, and it sounds like US needs to find it.

Finally, regarding the "longer days with less pay" comment, I don't think we see that the same way. You do get a perdiem for sitting at the airport, right? And if you have 3 hours at the airport instead of 1, isn't your per diem 3 times as much for that break? I realize the per diem isn't a lot of cash, but it is tax free. That couple of dollars can add up quickly with enough breaks. Now, if the per diem is for some reason not being paid, then you are correct, and I will stand corrected.

Being a flight attendant has its good points and bad. One good thing is that your salary involves more days off than the average worker enjoys. You also have flight priviliges, although I'm sure aren't nearly as lucrative with fewer flights and less seats on routes.

I watched a 10 minute documentary about the history of the flight attendant. It was at the end of a movie called "view from the top" with Gwynneth Paltrow. The 10 minute short was better than the movie. There were women talking about how FA's used to have 48 hours in a city instead of 12. It really used to be a job where you can see the world on the company dime. Times have changed. Now, the choice has to be whether to change with them or find a desk job. I'm sure it's not an easy choice, and I don't envy those of you who have to make it.

I do wish you the best and hope your situation improves quickly and drastically.
Please find me the productivity value of this one: there is a 3 day trip and the total inbetween sit time consists of 15.5 hours in 3 days.(this is time inbetween flights, not including the layovers. It's time spent sitting in the airport) Oh and by the way, it has only happened twice in 10 years where the company utilized a crew on a "productivity break" to cover for another crew. So, please tell what the benefits are are of 15.5 hours of idol time. If we spent all those hours eating we really would not fit down the aisles, not to mention how much happier we'd be if we could go hone 15.5 hours earlier!

Please find me the productivity value of this one: there is a 3 day trip and the total inbetween sit time consists of 15.5 hours in 3 days.(this is time inbetween flights, not including the layovers. It's time spent sitting in the airport) Oh and by the way, it has only happened twice in 10 years where the company utilized a crew on a "productivity break" to cover for another crew. So, please tell what the benefits are are of 15.5 hours of idol time. If we spent all those hours eating we really would not fit down the aisles, not to mention how much happier we'd be if we could go hone 15.5 hours earlier!
Maybe this a crappy attitude to have but $5.70 in per diem is not worth sitting for 3 hours! Till you work in the industry, it will be difficult for you to understand our positions anyway!

Gordon makes a comment that you don't want to come over and over again to employees to ask for cuts, because the second time "they bite you." So he says he just wants to go to his employees once rather than over and over like US. They also discuss the possibility of pensions going away in favor or 401K plans. They also allude (but don't get very specific on) possible shut downs of US, ATA, Independence, etc. in the coming 6-12 months.



Thanks for your comments, Jetsetter.

And how different things might be if Gordon had stayed!

Please find me the productivity value of this one: there is a 3 day trip and the total inbetween sit time consists of 15.5 hours in 3 days.(this is time inbetween flights, not including the layovers. It's time spent sitting in the airport) Oh and by the way, it has only happened twice in 10 years where the company utilized a crew on a "productivity break" to cover for another crew. So, please tell what the benefits are are of 15.5 hours of idol time. If we spent all those hours eating we really would not fit down the aisles, not to mention how much happier we'd be if we could go hone 15.5 hours earlier!



This is really something for your union to deal with. They should be the ones saying that 3 hours at one time is too much. At the same time, 15 minutes is too little, especially at meal times. Most of us working do get a 1 hour unpaid lunch break. Having 1 hour during your day as a break (or even 1.5 hours to make time for misops) seems reasonable enough.

There is a fine line between overusing and underusing an employee. 15 minutes in between flights at 12:30 in the afternoon is overusing, especially if that crew has been on the job since 8 or 9 in the morning. However, 3 hours is underusing them.

With all the complaints here, I have to wonder if the union has ever even addressed this with the company.

And my whole point about appreciating the down time makes sense if you compare it to the other extreme. A lot of FA's out there are having to cram a sandwich in their mouths during the safety check because the airline schedules their flights so tightly. And I'm guessing you'd also complain about that because it is impossible to properly digest food eaten in 3 minutes!

Basically put, it could be worse. You could be the one so overworked that you get no time to rest and rejuvinate yourself. And that is no better than having too much time on your hands. In fact, I'd take the 3 hour "lunch" break over the 5 minute variety anyday. At least I'd have time to taste my food instead of swallowing it whole!

Have your union try and work with the company to find a happy medium. And in the mean time, be glad your airline is still liquid and you don't have every hour of the day to sit around and do nothing.

Everyone has a gripe about their work. No job is perfect. But as long as you have one (and one you enjoy is a plus), you're better off than some people.

And alwys remember this: You're way better off than the guy who has to empty the lav at the end of the flight! I'll bet he'd love to have 3 hours of not doing his job!

With all the complaints here, I have to wonder if the union has ever even addressed this with the company.

You don't understand. This is driven by AIRCRAFT scheduling. A crewmember can not be scheduled for an earlier flight if there are no aircraft leaving earlier. This is just one of the inefficiencies associated with a hub-and-spoke system.

The company already is scheduling the crews as efficiencently as they can given the current flight schedules.

This is really something for your union to deal with. They should be the ones saying that 3 hours at one time is too much. At the same time, 15 minutes is too little, especially at meal times. Most of us working do get a 1 hour unpaid lunch break. Having 1 hour during your day as a break (or even 1.5 hours to make time for misops) seems reasonable enough.

There is a fine line between overusing and underusing an employee. 15 minutes in between flights at 12:30 in the afternoon is overusing, especially if that crew has been on the job since 8 or 9 in the morning. However, 3 hours is underusing them.

With all the complaints here, I have to wonder if the union has ever even addressed this with the company.

And my whole point about appreciating the down time makes sense if you compare it to the other extreme. A lot of FA's out there are having to cram a sandwich in their mouths during the safety check because the airline schedules their flights so tightly. And I'm guessing you'd also complain about that because it is impossible to properly digest food eaten in 3 minutes!

Basically put, it could be worse. You could be the one so overworked that you get no time to rest and rejuvinate yourself. And that is no better than having too much time on your hands. In fact, I'd take the 3 hour "lunch" break over the 5 minute variety anyday. At least I'd have time to taste my food instead of swallowing it whole!

Have your union try and work with the company to find a happy medium. And in the mean time, be glad your airline is still liquid and you don't have every hour of the day to sit around and do nothing.

Everyone has a gripe about their work. No job is perfect. But as long as you have one (and one you enjoy is a plus), you're better off than some people.

And alwys remember this: You're way better off than the guy who has to empty the lav at the end of the flight! I'll bet he'd love to have 3 hours of not doing his job!


chica, I don't think that you understand that these 3 hour sits happen EVERY TRIP. Now, I'm talking domestic trips here. When we have a 3 hour sit, it might be the SECOND one of the day. We might have a 13:59 hour scheduled day but only 6:49 hours of actual flying time. In a 4 day trip it usually has the first three days that are long days and lots of "sitting" and the last day is easy.....one leg back to base. I'm all for having some downtime to make my phone calls and eat, but if I have to sit for three hours then make a 40 minute flight to my minimum rest overnight, I'd rather trade those 3 hours sitting in the airport for 3 hours asleep in a bed!! At the end of a 13 hour day, I can barely remember your drink order...how must the pilot driving the plane feel???
As for saying that the airline schedules these "airport appeciation times/productivity breaks" in bad weather to make sure crews are available for the next flight, that is not true either. They are built into our trip pairings, year round. In the winter I will look at my trip sheet and see a 50 minute turn "scheduled" and just laugh...one would think weather would be considered but it is not always the case.