United Flight Attendants Blackmail Flight 49 BOM->EWR!
May 19, 2012, 11:55 pm
#136
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,657
If UA breaks their CoC with a customer, that customer expects to be compensated. If UA breaks a contract with it's employees, those employees also deserve to be compensated, albeit in very different ways. Such as, extended rest after such vilotions occur. Sounds as if this crew was making sure that the letter of the law in their contract would be honored, upon return to home base, after waiving legalites. It's nothing personal folks, just business.
I agree. The EXCON crew got on but the Tulips were fading?. No comment.
Last edited by iluv2fly; May 20, 2012 at 5:05 am Reason: merge
May 20, 2012, 12:12 am
#137
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,887
May 20, 2012, 1:05 am
#138
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,933
You are clearly not familliar with the term. That IS the term used and accepted for an order/request that violates the contract.
il·le·gal
[ih-lee-guhl]
adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
Use definition #2. It isn't like the police are goin to arrest a quarterback for making a forward pass past the line of scrimage, but the term is "illegal" and it fits the definition, just like the police are not going to arrest the crew scheduler for violating the rules of the contract/regulations.
The poster used the term in a context where it was apropriate. Your lack of situational knowledge of the term, and it's use in the context are just not as complete as the previous poster. Many words have numerous definitions, many people don't know them all, even if they are common use, and fewer if it is in a technical use. The use here was both a common use (def #2) as well as one used in the industry, so technical.
il·le·gal
[ih-lee-guhl]
adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
Use definition #2. It isn't like the police are goin to arrest a quarterback for making a forward pass past the line of scrimage, but the term is "illegal" and it fits the definition, just like the police are not going to arrest the crew scheduler for violating the rules of the contract/regulations.
The poster used the term in a context where it was apropriate. Your lack of situational knowledge of the term, and it's use in the context are just not as complete as the previous poster. Many words have numerous definitions, many people don't know them all, even if they are common use, and fewer if it is in a technical use. The use here was both a common use (def #2) as well as one used in the industry, so technical.
Now I get it!!!@:-)
May 20, 2012, 1:18 am
#139
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,887
O.K., they were all legal to be illegal, if they wanted to, and agreed to be illegal, and/or it would be legally correct if the company agreed to pop for a few more comps, for just 5 FA's, and a waiver was agreed to by both parties. The choice was up to a handful of FA's whether being illegal would possibly make them too tired to board their aircraft as fatigue may set in to where everyone under their watchful eye would be in harms way if going out illegal (without additional pay and/or bennie's) caused them to not be able to perform in tip top shape. Flying illegal and performing FA duties is possible provided the FA makes the decision that even though they are not legal they have the choice to take a chance and try to make it to the destination, provided it is under their terms.
Now I get it!!!@:-)
Now I get it!!!@:-)
Why not get that lazy Dehli crew to fly you to HOU after thier flight, I mean they don;t do much on the flight. Maybe they should turn around and fly right back to Dehli, reading magazines and all
Last edited by iluv2fly; May 20, 2012 at 5:05 am Reason: merge
May 20, 2012, 4:59 am
#140
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,688
Illegally reassigned seems a little over dramatic, as it has the connotation that when discovered by someone of higher authority an employee has violated some sort of law and/or federal regulation. Perhaps this term is used in the flying profession, but if it was truly illegal I'm sure that the employer would have committed some sort of serious violation if discovered or reported. It might be "ILLEGAL" when discussed in the briefing room, but I highly doubt it is a violation of some law, as the employee has the final say as to whether they wish to play hard ball with the employer and therefore screw over the passengers.
I agree it is technically not a correct use of the term, and I had the same reaction you are having when I came from a non-aviation union job to an aviaion / unionized job. But that is the terminology that is used.
In 50+ years of being employed I have never had the opportunity to decide when I will work and for how many hours, if I wanted to keep my job.
May 20, 2012, 5:37 am
#141
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: M&M Senator, United 1k
Posts: 5
You heard "haggling" from one persons side of the conversation. What you didn't hear, was "are we being compensated for our at home rest for violting our contract, or are we going to fly again, with not enough at home base rest"? Seems to me, that no bystanders could actually quote both sides of the conversation, unless it was on a super clear speaker phone. Or were you just surmising that there was even any "haggling" going on?
To assist understanding this event, some additional observations from one who was there:
-Flight crew openly tells customers that they are negotiating with home office over pay to work the flight)
You are highlighting my point. @:-)
I am really not bothered (beyond a point) as to who was negotiating, whether it was the management's faults or the FA's fault - it is all navel gazing. You are missing the customer's perspective here.
As a customer of UNITED, which include both management and employees, I have the right to expect you to deliver me the promised services.
In a competitive world this attitude and approach will not survive, whether it is due to management idiocy or union stubbornness. The customer will vote with her wallet.
I may have personal sympathy with overworked FAs or anger against rapacious management. However there is no denying that you as a company are not doing right by your customer.
And for the record - I am constantly awestruck by the unacceptably brusque service levels and customer unfriendly policies of US carriers compared to global competition. I guess the market will speak soon enough...
May 20, 2012, 6:11 am
#142
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
A corporation is a person my friend. or something like that.
This is indicative of greater labor/management relation problems than a single incident. It is also not a new phenomenon...
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.
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.
You might feel differently if you'd been sitting on that plane with a wedding, funeral, key presentation, etc. ahead in the States. If this attitude spreads it may not be smart to fly UA to any distant outstation. The Australia schedules, for example, are in tatters already owing to rickety airplanes.
Obviously there were other crew members (pilots & FA's) that were willing and legally able to getter-dun (including these - We's Got's Right's), but apparently 5 employees banded together and determined that they weren't going to bend one inch. They probably have that right, but what goes around, comes around, and I for one hope that Karma takes care of this matter some day, very soon.
I gather the Flight Attendants used the ability to go illegal as the basis for their demands. When their demands were rejected, they decided to shaft the passengers and leave a plane inoperable and filled with passengers stranded. This is unacceptable, especially when the pilots and staff pleaded with them to get on the flight
Yes, it's always the employees fault and management is never involved.
The reality is more complex than many would care to admit.The world is ruled by perception, not reality. ...
Do not let United, the company, off the hook for employee issues, or anything else. I don't get to hide behind the problems my employees cause; what is it that happens when you get big enough that that changes?
It's United's responsibility in every way to change negative perceptions about the company... if that's what they choose to do.
Do not let United, the company, off the hook for employee issues, or anything else. I don't get to hide behind the problems my employees cause; what is it that happens when you get big enough that that changes?
It's United's responsibility in every way to change negative perceptions about the company... if that's what they choose to do.
If UA breaks their CoC with a customer, that customer expects to be compensated. If UA breaks a contract with it's employees, those employees also deserve to be compensated, albeit in very different ways. Such as, extended rest after such vilotions occur. Sounds as if this crew was making sure that the letter of the law in their contract would be honored, upon return to home base, after waiving legalites. It's nothing personal folks, just business.
The way I see it, if FAs are haggling for extra pay or a day off, it then really is not a question of safety in anyone's mind - just a pissing match between mgmt and staff. This situation reminds me of Air India, where management and staff are dueling to sink the boat in the shortest time possible.
Hopefully both UA mgmt and staff realize that they are destroying their company and their future by alienating passengers.
Hopefully both UA mgmt and staff realize that they are destroying their company and their future by alienating passengers.
As others have pointed out, 'illegal' is the term used when a contract is violated.
If you 'hidden city ticket', sell miles etc UA would consider that 'illegal' and void their FFP contract with you.
May 20, 2012, 6:24 am
#143
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,688
Let's say UA has a contract with a fuel provider at BOM to buy fuel for $X/gal. On the night in question, UA says, "We will only be paying 80% of X for fuel this evening. Now go fuel the EWR flight." The fuel provider says, "Take a hike." The flight is not fueled and so it cancels.
Would the Greater FT Wisdom here blame UA or the fuel provider for the flight cancellation?
Why, the fuel provider, of course! After all, the fuel provider could have provided the fuel at the discounted price to be nice, despite the contractual agreement. Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone!
But wait! F/As are the same company as UA; the fuel provider is not. So the stubbornness of the F/As to inisist that the CBA be upheld could lead to UA going out of business as customers take their business elsewhere, leading to the F/As being out of a job, right?
But couldn't the failure of the fuel provider to provide fuel lead to angry customers as well, who would take their business elsewhere, which would lead to UA shutting down and the fuel provider being without a contract and receiving no revenue at all from UA?
May 20, 2012, 7:24 am
#144
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: M&M Senator, United 1k
Posts: 5
Interesting point.
But couldn't the failure of the fuel provider to provide fuel lead to angry customers as well, who would take their business elsewhere, which would lead to UA shutting down and the fuel provider being without a contract and receiving no revenue at all from UA?
But couldn't the failure of the fuel provider to provide fuel lead to angry customers as well, who would take their business elsewhere, which would lead to UA shutting down and the fuel provider being without a contract and receiving no revenue at all from UA?
Companies are structured as 'organic entities' that competes with other entities in a marketplace. The hypothetical fuel company, who has a specific airline customer trying to take unfair advantage, can always decide NOT to do business with that airline - as long as there are other viable customers. Hence the likely superiority of free markets over state run ecosystems.
In the hypothetical case above, the fuel company will likely serve the market and the customers by making sure that they remain competitive and generate fair profits in the long run.
However within a specific company, fights between management and F/As pretty much translates to auto-destruction - since they are not adding any 'value' to customers (instead increasing friction) by these actions...
May 20, 2012, 7:41 am
#145
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: GVA, LAX, ICN
Programs: KE MC
Posts: 240
I'm dreaming for the day when the US (and EU) will open up their markets so foreign carriers can serve domestic flights.... Wonder what these FAs would think when their parent company goes belly up and no one decides to save them b/c of their cost structure?
Unfortunately, the domestic "market" is determined solely by (colluding) domestic-opened legacy carriers and LCCs. bleh.
May 20, 2012, 8:20 am
#146
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,887
+1
I'm dreaming for the day when the US (and EU) will open up their markets so foreign carriers can serve domestic flights.... Wonder what these FAs would think when their parent company goes belly up and no one decides to save them b/c of their cost structure?
Unfortunately, the domestic "market" is determined solely by (colluding) domestic-opened legacy carriers and LCCs. bleh.
I'm dreaming for the day when the US (and EU) will open up their markets so foreign carriers can serve domestic flights.... Wonder what these FAs would think when their parent company goes belly up and no one decides to save them b/c of their cost structure?
Unfortunately, the domestic "market" is determined solely by (colluding) domestic-opened legacy carriers and LCCs. bleh.
May 20, 2012, 8:30 am
#147
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denver • DEN-APA
Programs: AF Platinum, EK Gold, AA EXP, UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 21,596
I believe OP was suggesting that foreign carriers and their employees actually understand that they are in the service business, and know how to and consistently deliver on it. It's the reason I have not flown TATL/TPAC on a US carrier in 20 years.
May 20, 2012, 8:54 am
#148
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North Jersey
Programs: UA 1K, AA Plat, SPG Plat/LT Gold, MR Gold, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 910
This is BS. If they don't get a few benefits thrown in, then they seek contract shelter stating that they are fatigued and that safety will be compromised. Throw in a day off and they are now well rested and ready to go.
Seems to me that they were simply stalling for time knowing that either the pilot and/or they would soon be going illegal. The OP got it right...this was nothing more than union backed blackmail.
Seems to me that they were simply stalling for time knowing that either the pilot and/or they would soon be going illegal. The OP got it right...this was nothing more than union backed blackmail.
May 20, 2012, 8:55 am
#149
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,887
So would that mean doing anything it takes, up to and including flying beyond their limitations?
May 20, 2012, 9:07 am
#150
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,933
So once you've approached your duty limits based on the scheduled flight time, you go illegal. Of course, we have the option to waive.
I've seen conversations between crew members get pretty heated because of a lack of agreement on waiving. Ultimately, the decision rests with each crew member, and doesn't require a unanimity. However, if not enough crew members waive to meet the FAA minimum (which increases for longer duty periods), the flight will require a replacement crew or cancel.
These quotes are directly from a FA!
These FA (5 of them) were asked and nearly begged by the rest of the crew, including the captain, to get on the plane, and they refused after they couldn't get a few extra bennies! They had that right, evidently, but they screwed over the rest of their flying partners and oh yea, almost forgot, the passengers.
I'll say it again, if I were doing the scheduling for UA and any of these 5 put in a bid for a international flight in the future, I would see to it that they never needed their passports to work, ever again!
As far as getting rested for the next "Call to Duty" when they return to EWR, I'm sure that there are plenty of other FA's that can be scheduled to do this arduous & stressful union job, serving the folks that pay their salaries!
Occasionally, things beyond anyone's control happen, and if FA's decide to take it upon themselves to hold EVERYONE hostage (which is the title of this thread), for a little more cash, then they have NO sympathy from me!