United Flight Attendants Blackmail Flight 49 BOM->EWR!
May 18, 2012, 12:38 pm
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
There is a call center in India that originated from PMUA.
Lol, I don't think working CLE/IAH flights is all that bad, but people like this can't be trusted flying to a distant non-hub that has one flight per day.
Dang this would be worse for them than getting fired.
May 18, 2012, 1:06 pm
#48
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MSY
Programs: AA Plat Pro, UA Plat, VS Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,531
But to call out safety as having anything to do with this is a red herring. Although some of the facts are fuzzy, it seems clear enough that the FA's were not saying they refused to fly to EWR under any circumstances, they simply wanted some "goodies" to waive the provisions of their contract. Some may say that's justified ("a contract is a contract"), some may say that's self-centered and lacking in any compassion, given the consequences they were inflicting on so many others, but certainly it has nothing to do with being safety-conscious.
United has not treated its employees (or elites!) with compassion since the merger. If UA expected me to waive contractual benefits I enjoy for no reason other than "compassion", I would have told them to pound sand. I do not fault the FAs in this instance.
(As a counterpoint, if my employer asked me to waive a provision, such as travelling outside business hours, I generally will do so. But my employer treats me well and provides reasonable accommodations and benefits well outside the minimum required by my contract.)
May 18, 2012, 1:13 pm
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
Sorry, but I draw the line when hundreds of passengers (hey FAs---the ones who actually provide the revenue that pays your damn salaries, lest they forget) are so inconvenienced...and quite possibly much more than simply inconvenienced. This crap has gotten way out of hand, and more than a few employees have clearly let their own agendas get in the way of their primary mission...taking care of their clients. They need to take this stuff off line. Yes, I'm mad. Mad as hell that the employees of ANY service-oriented company would pull garbage like this.
Last edited by Bonehead; May 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm
May 18, 2012, 1:20 pm
#50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
Corporations act amorally, evaluate contracts and the law at arm's length, and act accordingly to their benefit. As employees (or consumers) dealing with corporations, I see no reason why anyone should do otherwise.
United has not treated its employees (or elites!) with compassion since the merger. If UA expected me to waive contractual benefits I enjoy for no reason other than "compassion", I would have told them to pound sand. I do not fault the FAs in this instance.
(As a counterpoint, if my employer asked me to waive a provision, such as travelling outside business hours, I generally will do so. But my employer treats me well and provides reasonable accommodations and benefits well outside the minimum required by my contract.)
United has not treated its employees (or elites!) with compassion since the merger. If UA expected me to waive contractual benefits I enjoy for no reason other than "compassion", I would have told them to pound sand. I do not fault the FAs in this instance.
(As a counterpoint, if my employer asked me to waive a provision, such as travelling outside business hours, I generally will do so. But my employer treats me well and provides reasonable accommodations and benefits well outside the minimum required by my contract.)
We already KNOW the OPs story has some pretty big holes in it. I for one don't buy this whole story.
F/a's refusing to work while pilots agreeing???? Right there I know this makes no sense
May 18, 2012, 1:25 pm
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
I'm mad as well. Mad as hell that management of said employees is so arrogant that they could drive employees to this level.
Remember these are presumably legacy CO employees, and CO was supposed to have the better labor relations. It's really telling if they've driven CO employees to this level.
May 18, 2012, 1:30 pm
#52
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,933
I'm glad so many people are able and ready to make armchair decisions about the flight attendants without knowing any of their circumstances leading up to that flight.
It's important to remember that they are on board primarily for your safety. Did it cause an inconvenience for passengers, yeah, but they are just front line employees who have to deal with the consequences of management's decision making.
Try treating them like humans, you'd be surprised at how nice they can be.
It's important to remember that they are on board primarily for your safety. Did it cause an inconvenience for passengers, yeah, but they are just front line employees who have to deal with the consequences of management's decision making.
Try treating them like humans, you'd be surprised at how nice they can be.
May 18, 2012, 1:40 pm
#53
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 540
May 18, 2012, 1:46 pm
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
I'm mad as well. Mad as hell that management of said employees is so arrogant that they could drive employees to this level.
Remember these are presumably legacy CO employees, and CO was supposed to have the better labor relations. It's really telling if they've driven CO employees to this level.
Remember these are presumably legacy CO employees, and CO was supposed to have the better labor relations. It's really telling if they've driven CO employees to this level.
May 18, 2012, 1:50 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
This is indicative of greater labor/management relation problems than a single incident. It is also not a new phenomenon.
I was delayed for a bit last year when a crew refused to take off as their mandated meals were not loaded on the plane. (This was a short flight, no customer meals). At least this is what I was able to figure out while sitting in FC and I don't remember all the details. I do recall the crew being "fed up" as this "constantly happens".
I do not fault the FAs in this case. The "compassionate" thing might have been to overlook whatever contract terms were in question for the sake of the passengers, but each person has their own level of flexibility on these issues. In the end, the contract rules all.
Maybe look at it like a VDB offer. I have the right to take my place on the plane. UA can offer incentives for me to give up that right. If they are not willing to make it worth my time, I will not agree.
FAs had rights to maximum duty day time (assuming that is the issue). UA was not willing to offer enough incentive for FAs to give up that right.
Disclaimer: I agree with some posters above. We do not know the details and probably never will. These comments based on my educated guess as to the underlying issues and such.
Further comment: This is not to say I do not empathize with the passengers. I would not want to have been on this flight either. Just trying to put some perspective.
I was delayed for a bit last year when a crew refused to take off as their mandated meals were not loaded on the plane. (This was a short flight, no customer meals). At least this is what I was able to figure out while sitting in FC and I don't remember all the details. I do recall the crew being "fed up" as this "constantly happens".
I do not fault the FAs in this case. The "compassionate" thing might have been to overlook whatever contract terms were in question for the sake of the passengers, but each person has their own level of flexibility on these issues. In the end, the contract rules all.
Maybe look at it like a VDB offer. I have the right to take my place on the plane. UA can offer incentives for me to give up that right. If they are not willing to make it worth my time, I will not agree.
FAs had rights to maximum duty day time (assuming that is the issue). UA was not willing to offer enough incentive for FAs to give up that right.
Disclaimer: I agree with some posters above. We do not know the details and probably never will. These comments based on my educated guess as to the underlying issues and such.
Further comment: This is not to say I do not empathize with the passengers. I would not want to have been on this flight either. Just trying to put some perspective.
Last edited by goodeats21; May 18, 2012 at 2:07 pm Reason: further comment
May 18, 2012, 1:51 pm
#57
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Some have; it started at the beginning of the month. I had one on PHX-IAH the other day and she was quite excited to be working on the sCO pay scale.
May 18, 2012, 2:08 pm
#58
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chapel Hill, NC - UA Nobody (sigh)/0.925MM, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 3,510
Fault the F/A's what? We don't even know what happened. People are taking sides already without even having one fact. Kinda like always vote Democrat or Republican, regardless of who's running.
We already KNOW the OPs story has some pretty big holes in it. I for one don't buy this whole story.
F/a's refusing to work while pilots agreeing???? Right there I know this makes no sense
We already KNOW the OPs story has some pretty big holes in it. I for one don't buy this whole story.
F/a's refusing to work while pilots agreeing???? Right there I know this makes no sense
OP's story smells fishy in a lot of ways and now we're off on the pro-/anti-union rants. Sadly, this level of discourse has become all too common on the UA forum.
May 18, 2012, 2:10 pm
#59
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
This is indicative of greater labor/management relation problems than a single incident. It is also not a new phenomenon.
I was delayed for a bit last year when a crew refused to take off as their mandated meals were not loaded on the plane. (This was a short flight, no customer meals). At least this is what I was able to figure out while sitting in FC and I don't remember all the details. I do recall the crew being "fed up" as this "constantly happens".
I do not fault the FAs in this case. The "compassionate" thing might have been to overlook whatever contract terms were in question for the sake of the passengers, but each person has their own level of flexibility on these issues. In the end, the contract rules all.
Maybe look at it like a VDB offer. I have the right to take my place on the plane. UA can offer incentives for me to give up that right. If they are not willing to make it worth my time, I will not agree.
FAs had rights to maximum duty day time (assuming that is the issue). UA was not willing to offer enough incentive for FAs to give up that right.
Disclaimer: I agree with some posters above. We do not know the details and probably never will. These comments based on my educated guess as to the underlying issues and such.
I was delayed for a bit last year when a crew refused to take off as their mandated meals were not loaded on the plane. (This was a short flight, no customer meals). At least this is what I was able to figure out while sitting in FC and I don't remember all the details. I do recall the crew being "fed up" as this "constantly happens".
I do not fault the FAs in this case. The "compassionate" thing might have been to overlook whatever contract terms were in question for the sake of the passengers, but each person has their own level of flexibility on these issues. In the end, the contract rules all.
Maybe look at it like a VDB offer. I have the right to take my place on the plane. UA can offer incentives for me to give up that right. If they are not willing to make it worth my time, I will not agree.
FAs had rights to maximum duty day time (assuming that is the issue). UA was not willing to offer enough incentive for FAs to give up that right.
Disclaimer: I agree with some posters above. We do not know the details and probably never will. These comments based on my educated guess as to the underlying issues and such.
If its true that no FAA regs were gonna be broken and it was only a question of the contracts T&Cs then it was a DUMB and Selfish move by those few FAs (and not all of them) forget about what it will cost CO by succeeding in ruining a full plane load of peoples plans, its very possible alot of folks wont book again with CO = layoffs of FAs and other Employees
I just dont get people these days, but I do feel good for those 5 or whatever # of FAs I guess they have no mortgages or kids schooling to pay off and have so much $$ in the bank they simply dont what to do with it all
May 18, 2012, 2:12 pm
#60
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA Plat
Posts: 435
I was referring to "compassion" for the passengers. To cavalierly say that the very concept of "compassion" for another human being would lead you to tell someone to "pound sand" speaks to the loss of civility among all of us -- regardless of how a third party (UA Management) behaved.