Transpacificflyer

I wish to emphasize that I have no grudge against EVA, nor am I pro union or anti union. EVA is probably one of the few airlines I can say that I actually have a fondness for, even when things go wrong. No matter how bad the screw up is, the gate agents , baggage agents, or transfer desk people have demonstrated the highest quality of service and politeness, and a willingness to help, even when it is not their fault. There is none of the unpleasantness one sees at many other airlines, even those that are supposedly the world's best airlines. Because of this, I hold a high measure of respect and appreciation for the employees and believe that they should be treated better than what EVA is offering.

The throwing of cold water on employees on a legal picket line is a vulgar assault. Whether or not one wishes to accept that the strike is legal, throwing water on people is not right. It is easy to blame the workers (or management), but it takes two parties to have a labour dispute. High quality workers don't go looking for confrontations.
I note the similarities between the smear strategies used by supporters of the airline's position and those that were used during labour disputes at Lufthansa, Air France, Air Canada, United etc. The difference here is that (IMO), the union position is neither onerous, nor unreasonable, and that unlike the western disputes, the EVA cabin crews have a tremendous amount of goodwill with the customer base. Their inherent attitudes and emotional state are an asset to the company. This is quite a contrast to the nasty morose mentalities of striking employees at AC or AF during the worst of their respective labour disputes in the 1990's/2000's. No FA has taken out his/her displeasure on the customers as has occurred at the aforementioned airlines. Part of the EVA brand value, is its employee base, yet management is not acting as if the employees are a valued asset.

One is in denial to not believe that draconian workplace practices are in effect at many Taiwan companies, with EVA being one of them. Whether it is the stifling dress and grooming code, or what I perceive as the latent gender and age discrimination, cabin crew work at EVA is a stressful job. Yes, Taiwan is one of the region's leaders in having laws to address workplace discrimination, but laws and application of the spirit of the law are two different things. What does this have to do with an online petition? Well, it is part and parcel of the management mentality. My impression is that the strategy and position is routed in a bygone era. EVA management's labour negotiators are 20+ years out of date. Society has changed and the younger workers want to be treated differently than indentured servants. EVA's management is stuffy and to a certain degree, inbred and subject to "group think". What is needed is fresh blood, new ideas, younger people and a divergence from the older male dominated negotiating team. It took AF/KLM multiple meltdowns before it embraced a fresh team and leader from outside the incestuous management pool. Since the arrival of outsider Ben Smith at AF, labour peace has been evident. The successful Gulf carriers embraced different strategies and have profited from a willingness to adapt to a changing environment. My support for the petition is intended to push the airline to recognize that in an economy where there are chronic skilled labour shortages, it is in everyone's best interest to accord employees better treatment. The workers should not have had to fight for the previous changes that management only grudgingly (and delayed) providing. It is telling that some people would offer that those changes are evidence of the airline's good faith, when the reality is that the airline had to be dragged kicking and whinging to provide the changes. The airline outside of labour negotiations has yet to to go to its employees and say, here is how we can make things better, let's talk about it. This is how the airlines with labour peace have done it. The prime example is Air Canada. United embraced this strategy and turned a confrontational environment into one of co-operation and positive outcomes. It is time for EVA management to evolve and to consider new approaches to labour talks. Show some leadership and innovation.

username

I think this whole old vs. young generational change is a big part of the struggle - not just with this strike but with the general political landscape in many places.

I posted this guy's analysis on the other thread: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00002304327218 . As I said earlier, this is a rebellion and it has to be put down in the eyes of Management.

The only thing I hope is, however they resolve this, it does not ruin a great airline. I just don't know how all the damaged relationship will be fixed and not affect service quality.

hardworking21

I'm sorry, but I don't find this generational at all - unless you are arguing that the younger generation (who are predominantly working as EVA FAs) are entitled, then yes, I would agree. Based on my basic research of the context / background as it relates to the strike, further augmented by hayzel7773's earlier post, it's quite clear that management has behaved in a reasonable manner, giving a handful of concessions to the FAs (e.g., the various changes that hayzel7773 listed in his / her earlier post).

I find the FAs still going on strike to be the entitlement of the "younger generation", if this is indeed a generational issue (which it may be, I'm not necessarily going down the path of generational). And if it helps, I'm 25 years old, and I'd side with EVA management every day of the week here.

hayzel7773

You said it yourself, it's easy to blame both sides. Are you blaming management for the water incident even though it wasn't even "management" that threw it? Are you lumping all the office workers, ground staff, hotline workers etc. together as "management", simply because they don't agree with or join the FAs? Who gave them the right to block the only exit of vehicles? Who gave them the right to push up against the security guards and employees that formed a chain? Who gave them those rights? Both sides were at fault there, but let's just blame management because it's easy.

If you just watch the FA's on the talkshows they are participating in, they are in a "all or nothing" mentality right now. They often state that concessions come in "packages" (per diem increase must come with no-free ride etc.). What kind of negotiation is this? That isn't even a negotiation. That's more hostage taking. In the US, France etc., negotiations often end up with the company relenting on one point but the union dropping another point (Frontier Airlines example in hand, the company gave in to preferential bidding in exchange for the union not discussing retirement contributions). Instead, TFAU demands that they want concessions on all 8 points. That's not negotiation.

Secondly, it's not like BR hasn't provided solutions. The day of negotiations, BR had given their solutions to all 8 points. Point 1 with per-diem, they were offering an extra stipend of NT150/trip but with no free ride proposal, the union could not accept it because of the no-free ride. To compensate for the no-free ride, the company had previously offered the union NT1 million a year in cash for them to use it on union activities for BR employees. They refused. Then the union just announced a strike and a willingness to negotiate right after the strike. Management might as well slice their throat right their and then since the union is basically holding a knife to their throat and saying, let's negotiate. Good thing the company walked out. When the labor minister arbitrating the meeting suggested they move to a less contentious point, the union just kept speaking about how they are on strike because the proposal has not changed. It took 70 minutes for the union to stop and give up. CI pilot's union negotiated in the middle of the night for almost 9 hours before continuing the next day.

How in the world is proactively giving raises, without the union or anyone saying anything, an example of the airline being "dragged, kicked, and whinged"? The union continues to claim the airline should raise it to NT150 so the FA's have better compensation, should the company take back the raises then since that wasn't a union demand? Should the company walk back on giving annual bonuses, even in times of loss, since that isn't a union demand? Should the company walk back on the electronic leave and application portal since that wasn't a union demand? Should the company walk back on the per diem, which they proactively raised to NT90 in 2016, since that wasn't a union demand? Everything is "CI has it"; compensation is not a race, it isn't a competition. If "CI has it", go to them.

And goodwill with the customer base only goes so far...I saw that petition and the majority of numbers were GC (GREEN CARD) posting. I could become a green card today by just applying online. It means absolutely nothing. I'm sure the company is a little more focused on the input of long-standing, loyal Diamond and Gold card holders and their corporate clients, not some lowly GC who brings absolutely nothing to the table. What a joke the petition is.

Transpacificflyer

"not some lowly GC who brings absolutely nothing to the table"

Perhaps the selection of the phrase was not thought out, but if it was intentional, it demonstrates an obnoxious arrogance and paucity of business acumen. I am a "lowly GC", Previously, I was Gold status, but in consideration of the poor quality of the Infinity Miles program, I chose to credit my EVA miles to a program where they do not expire, and where my perks are superior. In my "lowly" GC status, I flew 2 TPACs in premium laurel. I believe I bring something to the table and the profit the airline gained certainly beat the upgraders on the $1500 Y class fares. I don't churn and burn, nor do I use upgrades. Just remember that if the "lowly GC" customers were not around, the Gold and Diamond customers would find themselves in a very different position.

In your eyes, the management can do no wrong and the FAs and their labour reps are wrong. Ok. It is unfortunate that you do not comprehend the fact that the current labour management practices are out of date, and that the long running acrimony is a direct product of labour management practices at the airline. Change is coming because the labour market isn't what it was 20 years ago. EVA cannot afford to continue with multiple flight cancellations.

The only good thing that will happen is that EVA is going to quickly lose market share in the lucrative North American and EU markets, and it will be forced to offer a "sale" once the FA issues are resolved. I am fine with that since I will benefit. In the meantime, the shortsighted management strategy will cost the airline.

coolfish1103

Your strategy of trying to put words into other people's mouth does not work.

First, he never said Green Card is LOWLY. He simply said anyone can create an account and be Green Card member.
Second, you really fly EVA? EVA currently serves zero routes transpacific with Premium Laurel. How long ago did you fly EVA?
Third, even if you flown EVA, the 2 tickets hardly subsidize the amount of $ that they would need to shell out if they take all the demands from union. Your opinion likely won't matter much to EVA in comparison to Gold or Diamond, who are dedicated EVA flyers and actually bank their balance with EVA.

That's not what he said. For the past two years, EVA management has countered with improvements and changes to accommodate the union's demands. He has listed all the changes EVA has proposed and completed. However, you chose to ignore them. You only believe what you want to believe, which is the union.

EVA can afford multiple flight cancellations. EVA can take 6 months worth of losses if you use the losses they had in 2009 with the fuel hikes.

Sure EVA will lose market share, that's a no brainier. The question is whether it's worth it or not.

Not resolving the FAs now will be a shortsighted strategy as EVA not only has the ground staff, mechanics and captains they have to deal with inside EVA Air, they have to resolve the entire Evergreen Group if they let these FAs get want they want. At worst they can shut this airline down, I don't think the Changs need us to worry about what to do here.

tai4de2

Transpacificflyer

I did not put words in anyone's mouth, but quoted what was written. EXACTLY word for word as it was written. The arrogant intent of the original phrase was obvious. In respect to my use of the term premium laurel, yes, it is also referred to as Royal Laurel. Refer to EVA website, and you will see three interchangeable designations: Business Class/Royal Laurel/Premium Laurel Class. If there was an actual differentiation, then only one of the terms would be used at EVA. Having flown on EVA for many years, I have the term premium laurel ingrained. Hardly, a critical error, when the airline is still using the term. My most recent flight was a few months ago on an AB330 which was in the Premium Laurel config, and it is not unusual for me to connect from Royal to Premium laurel configs. Big deal. If you want to play gotchya, do try and have a better knowledge of the airline's own references and equipment. Apparently, your understanding of how gold status is earned and what was given to me is different, as I was gold after 3 Tpacs. Some Diamond card holders have an inflated self importance, and it is no different than one sees with super designated FFs on other airlines. The reality is that the generic business class customer like me is more profitable than a large number of more frequent flyers, for the simple reason that the generic J class pax is less demanding in terms of benefits demanded or use; and there are no upgrades used or even miles redeemed.

I get it; Some people are anti union. Ok. Nothing anyone can say will change that. What I do know is that the FA union is hardly militant, nor hardline. I have not ignored any of the positive changes management has offered. Some of the "improvements are indeed nice. However, I do note that they were not usually voluntary and most were already practices in effect at other large international airlines. What is missing is initiative and innovation. It is always the same routine, dispute after dispute after dispute. Nothing changes. How about some positive leadership?

You believe that " EVA can afford multiple flight cancellations. EVA can take 6 months worth of losses if you use the losses they had in 2009 with the fuel hikes."
A suspension of services is very, very different than an increase in operating costs. The difference is the fact that a suspension means that the revenue is reduced and/or stopped. Without the revenue, debt service is impeded, and fixed cost obligations are impacted. IMO EVA Group doesn't have the financial strength to keep a financially impaired airline going for more than a few months, if at all. An increase in operational costs can be addressed by incrementally increasing airfares, or eliminating the most expensive routes. It is easier to do when competitor airlines face the same fuel related operating cost increases. With a suspension of service, the competitors are still flying and devouring the suspended airlines customer base. EVA is not in a position to withstand a large loss of market share. In 2009, there was little competition from mainland China. Today, the mainland airlines have been slowly eating away at EVA's market. Even *A carriers are competing with EVA now. Look at the joint United/Air Canada Asia Pacific expansion; It has come at EVA's own expansion into the North American market.

The positions espoused by some who are "pro management" emphasize teaching the FAs a lesson, of crushing them so that other employee groups do not act up. Again, this is a philosophy that is out dated and just does not work. It is the same strategy that drove other airlines over the abyss into decades of labour strife and financial loss. What is needed is a new approach; one that is not rooted in a bygone era when political lap dogs would force workers back to the job, when union leaders were easily bought off and when workers were intimidated. If two dysfunctional airlines like Air Canada and United were able to change their labour relations around and bring the workers into the company as a team, then EVA can do it too. Relying on the labour management philosophy of a dead man isn't going to do it. It's 2019, not 1999.

hayzel7773

Perhaps lowly was a poor choice of words. My apologies. The meaning was low on the totem pole. The airline could care less about what a GC has to say since the card is given out like candy (just apply online and you'll get it in the mail).

The terms are not used interchangeably. The only place it is listed as those three are in the Inflight Entertainment magazine and the initial booking selection (when you select which cabin class you want to view). However, the website link descriptions do differentiate which cabin is which, as does the issued ticket.
Royal Laurel - 777/787
Premium Laurel - A332/A333
Business Class - A321

Inflated sense of self importance is what you are giving off with your "generic business class customer like me is more profitable". Really? Your 3 TPACs are more profitable then BR's Diamonds? Did you know that ~60% of Diamond Card Holders don't use their miles at all? Did you know that ~50% of Diamonds book C-class tickets on a weekly basis? Are your TPACs C class? Did you know that ~20% of the remaining Diamonds also book business class tickets on a regular basis?

Compensation has been a big issue with the FAs this time around, yet all their raises and compensation packages were voluntarily given by the company. At no point did the union ask for a raise, at no point did the union ask for 4-months, at no point did the union ask for a per-diem increase to the current NT90. Is it really practice at a large international airline to just bump pay? Most only do so because a CBA says so. You think UA and AC would go out and start bumping pay up if AFA or the union didn't say anything? They would be slaughtered by their shareholders.

The Evergreen Group can hold the airline without bankruptcy for 6-months, and the airline's cash reserves can hold the line for 3 of those 6 months.

In 2016, just raising the per-diem for CI made them take a NT55 million dollar hit. Can you imagine BR, who already pays for breakfast and pays from reporting time to clock out instead of door opening to door closing, taking the hit? It's been estimated to be NT100-120 million a year. That's not even including the other things such as 2x pay on all national holidays. Even airlines like UA only double pay on New Years, Labor Day, and the FA's birthday. It is the nature of the job that you work weekends, holidays, and overnights. That is clearly stated when you apply. Now you want more pay because you are "away from home"? Why aren't the ground staff and pilots asking for the same thing then?

coolfish1103

Please quote the original post rather than re-typing it. It creates confusions especially reading on a mobile phone.

I will apologize for not reading closely and thought you put words in his mouth.

To be honest I have no idea how you obtained your gold in the past or do I care how you got your gold in the past. I don't even have membership with EVA cause I think IML is trash in terms of FFP, but I do understand how it works.

Royal Laurel and Premium Laurel are definitely not the same products. I am unsure why you are trying to mix them together. They are not interchangeable as you won't see any given flight have both products offered (as in on certain days you see PL in LAX, then RL on other days). It's either Business, Premium Laurel or Royal Laurel. On the selection menu it's just easier for passengers to classify but by no means they are the same products.

Suspension of flights will also lead to less costs used, not to say it's not even 100% cancellation. The major costs that cannot be reduced will be depreciation on the planes and increase of ground staff handling, but everything else will reduce. The company didn't make much or even had losses from 2006 to 2014, to me they will be fine even after months of not operating normally. To me, whether the company can afford and will survive or not is base on cash flow and I believe EVA has those cash flow to stay afloat, not to say it has the entire Evergreen Group behind it.

Yes, competitors are still flying and I did agree with you that the market share will be lost. I never went against that. However, in order for the competitions to correctly adjust to the absence of EVA in the market, it will take more than just a few months. At this moment, I don't even see ACA, CAL or UAL increasing frequencies or enlarge planes at these key North American routes (CAL's return to 006/5 at LAX was done prior to the strike and that's for winter schedule).

In any case, you can have your opinion and I can have my opinion. It won't get anywhere.

jmw

Do you guys who are pro-management really believe it's in the best interest of the FA union to not strike and inconvenience you? Try asking the AA or WN mechanics if they can get a good contract without work slowdowns that are highly disruptive to passengers.

The union's only effective bargaining chip is to withhold labor via work slowdowns, sickouts, and strikes. If the union gave management advance notice, EVA would try to use the extra time to do convince potential scabs and hire/train replacement workers. Do you guys who are pro-management really expect the FA union to bend over and take the punishment in the rear with honor? Of course not. Workers in Taiwan don't really benefit much from the low cost of living due to crappy wages and work conditions. US wages are higher, but cost of living is ridiculously high so we are doing no better than the "lowly" Taiwan workers even though we Americans or EU make a lot more money than they do.

If you look at other labor union disputes through the years, you will see that concessionary contracts lead to more concessionary contracts. When management smells the dead carcasses of union members who signed a concessionary contract, they look for more even when times are good. Always expect management to hire scabs and find ways to legally fire union members. A prime example is the 1980s Blue Skies contract at United Airlines. Once the pilot union signed this hugely concessionary contract with United instead of fighting, the pilots found it impossible to get back what they lost even with a bitter month-long strike a few years later during the summer of 1985 even though the economy improved substantially to the point where United could buy a rental car company and a hotel chain.

I fully expect both sides to play hardball. I expect neither side to give a crap about its customers including EVA Diamonds. If the management concedes to 85% of FA demands, others workers in the Evergreen group will follow. If the FA union concedes, management will steamroll the union with concessionary contracts because the union is shown they're too worried about getting canned if they engage in union activities.

krispykrme

krispykrme

username

I think there is also a cultural aspect to this. The Chinese/Taiwanese are more communitarian than many western cultures. Especially the older generation, the upbringing is about sacrificing what you want for the well being of the group.

EVA/Evergreen also has deep Japanese influence from its founder - the top-down management style, discipline, teamwork, etc. It also treats employees better than many Taiwanese businesses.

On top of that, the FAs make more than most people already in the same age group and with the same educational background.

So, it is hard for people to agree with what they want to start with (which they got some from the company). Then they chose to strike with only 2 hours notice? They really failed on the PR front.

The Union leadership does not know what they are up against and the outside "consultant" probably has his own motivation. Can't just copy what happened in the western world and think it will work in TW.

I really hope this is not a start of EVA's decline.

krispykrme