Originally Posted by
garykung
There are several parties that can be blamed for this mess.
1. CI - the strike of CI FAs years ago was a success. So it showed how BR FAs need to do.
2. UA - UA canceled HKG-SGN. So it forced the previous SFO-HKG-SGN pax to switch to NH (SFO-NRT-SGN) or BR (SFO-TPE-SGN).
Also, SFO is an elite heavy hub (to UA as well as other airlines). So I am not surprised the claim by the FAU.
However - despite those, BR FAs lack excuses. Specifically, I believe the BR FAs ultimate goal is to force BR to match UA FA compensation, which is significantly higher.
I don't see why BR will compromise, especially given the new conservative management that know nothing about the industry.
1. It's the same union. Whatever actually got done was due to politics, I hardly see it can be replicated to EVA when it's not owned by the government plus what happened 1.5 years ago.
2. I am unsure how many pax actually went to EVA. UA will definitely send all their pax to ANA if possible with their joint venture (plus they got a pacific share).
Apparently the FAs don't like elite heavy. They think the VIPs are too demanding.
Match UA compensation? I highly doubt that's possible when one is based in US and the other is in Taiwan with different price index. They are probably trying to match that $5 per diem off of EVA that CAL gave. The new management may be conservative, but they are definitely far from
knowing nothing about the industry (that's CAL when Ho came up, which he gave in 1.5 years ago and gave the union the thought of they can demand anything anytime, though he cut back later after the strike is over).
Originally Posted by
hayzel7773
This is in comparison to previous statements(around 15) that they have released responding to the unions.
I am still unsure about what's nasty? More like extremely disappointed?