EWR764

There are more deliveries coming to the sCO side in the next year or two, so UA needs to staff those aircraft, and at the moment, the only flight attendants that can work those planes must be under the old Continental contract. The fact that sUA flight attendants cannot work sCO flights/equipment has nothing to do with what the company 'allows', it is a contractual term bargained for by the parties.

Within a week we will likely hear that a pilot TA has passed, which will lead to a final agreement and SLI. The pilot deal is the big roadblock to integrating the rest of the workforce, so once the pilots have a JCBA, I don't think the flight attendants will be far behind. After the joint deals are reached, both sides can work each others' metal, and new flight attendants hired under the new contract can be trained to work the entire fleet, regardless of UA/CO origin.

With respect to cutting flying on the sUA side, there have been some reductions in total block-hours as a result of the retirement of some 757s and 747s, but my understanding is that the company will be looking to increase utilization again (after the first unsuccessful attempt) now that many initiatives to improve reliability have been carried out. An order of 737-900ERs is tentatively earmarked for the sUA side to replace 752s on a one-for-one basis, but hopefully JCBAs and SLI will be achieved by the time they are on property and the distinction becomes meaningless.

As far as flight attendants being pushed out, well, yes, there have been rounds of COLAs and early-out packages, but flight attendants are under no obligation to accept them and there is nothing novel about offering incentives to well-paid employees in return for their retirement or withdrawal. DL did it last year and UA/AA/CO have all done it in multiple times in the past, to good effect (avoiding furlough and reducing overall payroll).

If you look at it objectively, there's really nothing sinister going on here specifically regarding flight attendants. Galley gossip can be toxic...

cblaisd

Disagree

That just hasn't been my experience at all.

We have a winner.

sbm12

The hourly pay rates on sCO are higher than on sUA. More FAs are being hired on the sCO side because CO had more scheduled deliveries of aircraft in the short-term and the current union rules do not allow the crews to work on the "other" metal.

The sUA FAs have had the opportunity to switch to the sCO side and work those flights instead of new hires. The sUA union initially balked and said that would essentially mean losing all seniority. Eventually they came around and now I believe the cross-hires come in on the sCO side with no seniority but following the integration they'll go back to their old seniority rank rather than remaining at the bottom.

And, FWIW, I've actually spoken with one of the "crossover" FAs so this comes from the sUA side of the house.

It is not at all about pushing out the old FAs. It is about the union not letting those FAs work or getting the furloughed ones back into the workforce.

EWR764

^. A similar program is in place for pilots, whereby UA pilots on furlough have the opportunity to come back to work as (mostly) sCO 737 FOs, then return to higher seniority after SLI. This is a bit of a contentious topic and getting into the finer details of it is really outside the scope of our discussion here, but it is true that the current iteration of the crossover program is essentially a no-lose proposition.

FlyWorld

This is a bit of a tangent, but there was a nuance in the conversation where the FA explained that there are certain circumstances under which sUA FAs do get paid more than sCO FAs because when certain scenarios happen or on certain types of flights, the sUA contract has more generous compensation than the sCO contract. So, it's not black and white either way.

Also, are hourly pay rates based in part on seniority? I see a lot of older FAs on sUA than on sCO and wonder what role that plays in this conversation.

ibuyyoufly

I might agree and it's still going on. For instance, look who has responsibility for IT. An sUA guy. Responsible for the very system that sUA personnel didn't want and sCO Mngmnt said they wanted to keep and did.

So either Smi/J thinks Foland is good/smart enough to dig them out of the mess of that decision, which I am hoping is the case, or is setting him up to fail over what I believe is a system that must be trashed only to start over again.

The silver lining in all of this though is, we should see some fairly quick shuffling of the deck chairs on this ship in positions below Foland and Compton. In my feeble mind, that's where many of the nuanced issues/problems exist. Mid-Upper level Management who have responsibility for aspects of the business, who either don't know the big picture, can't execute against the plan, are over-employed, don't have the skillset for what is being asked of them or don't know the requirements of the business as it relates to the size of the new company.

If we see changes starting to occur at the Management level below Compton and Foland, then we have a reason to be happy because improvement should be just around the corner. If we don't see changes, I think it will be more of the same.

milepig

Let me get this straight - they fired the guys responsible for Marketing and Distributing the STUPID decisions made my management, rather than those who made the studid decisions. Classic.

xzh445

Officers are not top to bottom, from side to side at all levels and silos within the organization as described above. There are loads of pmUA Supervisors, Managers, Directors, Managing Directors and VP's. I realize that the thrust of the point being made was in regards to executive level management, and is true, but the added hyperbole does not match fact.

channa

Thank you. I fit your profile of valid judgers.

aacharya

Wasn't aware you had insight into how Fortune 100 companies run businesses - by awaiting top-down decisions only and doing nothing, not even leading your own initiatives. Oh wait..

EWR764

See trip rigs.

The article is about pilot rigs, but they work essentially the same for flight attendants. CO flight attendants generally get better hourly pay, but UA has a better trip rig. So, for trips of longer duration out of base, the sUA flight attendant would receive higher pay provided the rig pay exceeds that of the actual hours flown.

It's a nuance of the contract, definitely a tangent, and something I'm not totally competent to discuss, but the short answer is that the contracts are rather different and you can't make the blanket statement of "one is paid better than the other."

JetAway

I view this as positive news (except for the dismissed individuals) and now think 2013 will be a very good year for 1Ks.

escapefromphl

IMO way to early to start thinking that.

FlyWorld

When I said Officers, what I meant was, Officers.

I recently posted a link to a page on UA's investor relations site where it listed the Officers and it explicitly described every single one of them as currently working at Continental.

Oddly, that post was deleted, and now I'm unable to find that page on the UA site.

xzh445

When you wrote "top to bottom....within the organization", one can only presume that is what you meant. It is the comtimued subtle inuendo put out there to give the false imperssion that it is "all CO" and thus support the call for heads to roll. While it makes great hyperbole and works to support one's worldview, it is just not factual.

So when one reads.. we can only assume that means ANYONE fitting those criteria, regardless of whether their underwear has a globe or tulip insignia? Or is it code speak for "get rid of all those "Houston" guys"? Guess what. there are a LOT more "Chicago" guys in those positions than one might be led to believe on these hallowed pages. Be careful what you wish for.
I think shaking things up at this point is good. What is in place isn't working.