United Flight Attendants Blackmail Flight 49 BOM->EWR!
May 20, 2012, 3:10 pm
#166
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
I have experienced a similar incident a few years ago in TLV where the flight crew rest became unusable. The pilots asked for two BF seats to be cleared, the station manager insisted they accept Y seats for crew rests and before you knew it the crew timed out and the flight was delayed until the next morning.
Many of the passengers blamed the pilots; IMHO it is all about management and the corporate culture they create. Executives get paid a lot more since they have to deal with such problems.
Assuming the OP understood the situation I am willing to bet my two cents that nobody in UA management had the balls to suggest terminating FAs that tried to blackmail the company. It is either unsafe or unsafe to fly when you are so tired. A few dollars in the FAs pocket will not rectify an unsafe position and asking for those dollars is blackmail. And the problem is not with the unions, it is with management that will not do their job within a given constraint.
DLP
Many of the passengers blamed the pilots; IMHO it is all about management and the corporate culture they create. Executives get paid a lot more since they have to deal with such problems.
Assuming the OP understood the situation I am willing to bet my two cents that nobody in UA management had the balls to suggest terminating FAs that tried to blackmail the company. It is either unsafe or unsafe to fly when you are so tired. A few dollars in the FAs pocket will not rectify an unsafe position and asking for those dollars is blackmail. And the problem is not with the unions, it is with management that will not do their job within a given constraint.
DLP
I agree the problem is with management but only because I hold mgmnt responsible for allowing this kind of behavior, just like I blame management for the increase of incidents of employees being openly rude to passengers. Management needs to grow some and start getting rid of people and if they have to fight the unions, so what. They fight them anyway
May 20, 2012, 3:36 pm
#167
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
I agree the problem is with management but only because I hold mgmnt responsible for allowing this kind of behavior, just like I blame management for the increase of incidents of employees being openly rude to passengers. Management needs to grow some and start getting rid of people and if they have to fight the unions, so what. They fight them anyway
And yes I believe had mgmt given in then the Employees would use that as a sign of weakness and expect to get theirw ay each and every time no matter what.
And is why I thought let them duel it out and knock off each other was the best answer
??? mine was they should have worked the flight and not inconvinced apx 1000 passengers (3 flights) and find a way to get mgmt with prior warning to the flying public
Last edited by iluv2fly; May 20, 2012 at 3:40 pm Reason: merge
May 20, 2012, 3:48 pm
#168
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
Unfortunately with this Mgmt team, if they win 1 time, they will expect to each time and never look at each situation to determine if they should stand firm or not. This why why I dont care for either side they both Stink.
And yes I believe had mgmt given in then the Employees would use that as a sign of weakness and expect to get theirw ay each and every time no matter what.
And is why I thought let them duel it out and knock off each other was the best answer
??? mine was they should have worked the flight and not inconvinced apx 1000 passengers (3 flights) and find a way to get mgmt with prior warning to the flying public
And yes I believe had mgmt given in then the Employees would use that as a sign of weakness and expect to get theirw ay each and every time no matter what.
And is why I thought let them duel it out and knock off each other was the best answer
??? mine was they should have worked the flight and not inconvinced apx 1000 passengers (3 flights) and find a way to get mgmt with prior warning to the flying public
May 20, 2012, 3:52 pm
#169
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 are cabin crew rest areas. I see FA using the two seats behind the 767 J cabin all the time. And when the two J seats on the other side are vacant, the FAs sleep their too.
And yet the other FAs did not.
They held out to ensure that their contracted benefits would be delivered. They could have asserted their benefits when they got to EWR like the rest of the crew.
These FAs should never crew a flight longer than two hours again.
And yet the other FAs did not.
They held out to ensure that their contracted benefits would be delivered. They could have asserted their benefits when they got to EWR like the rest of the crew.
These FAs should never crew a flight longer than two hours again.
May 20, 2012, 3:58 pm
#170
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,925
Unfortunately with this Mgmt team, if they win 1 time, they will expect to each time and never look at each situation to determine if they should stand firm or not. This why why I dont care for either side they both Stink.
And yes I believe had mgmt given in then the Employees would use that as a sign of weakness and expect to get theirw ay each and every time no matter what.
And is why I thought let them duel it out and knock off each other was the best answer
??? mine was they should have worked the flight and not inconvinced apx 1000 passengers (3 flights) and find a way to get mgmt with prior warning to the flying public
And yes I believe had mgmt given in then the Employees would use that as a sign of weakness and expect to get theirw ay each and every time no matter what.
And is why I thought let them duel it out and knock off each other was the best answer
??? mine was they should have worked the flight and not inconvinced apx 1000 passengers (3 flights) and find a way to get mgmt with prior warning to the flying public
May 20, 2012, 4:02 pm
#171
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 124
I like the solution that I was told Emirates would have done in a case like this (see my post above). Just as the EK Purser told me today after I showed her this thread: if it was them security would be waiting for the crew when they finally got back to there base with there bags packed for them and a one way ticket back to Europe, the U.S., Asia or wherever the flight attendants are from. (in UA's case whatever state they come from is fine)
You can always dream...
May 20, 2012, 4:13 pm
#172
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
Your scenario in post #161 was: if the "Gang of 5" had explained to the other crew members that this group had gotten screwed previously, then ALL of the other crew members would have said that they weren't going to work the flight either. With that many people involved, consensus probably still would not have been reached. Human nature!
I still feel that since the gang of 5 would have been able to say we did exactly what you suggest we do and it got us Zilch. Unless all the others had set plans . I feel they might have backed them since they did the Right thing the other week and it would prove mgmt is looking to take advantage of them
I dont know yet who those 5 were PMCO or PMUA or a combo
May 20, 2012, 4:23 pm
#173
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 55
I'm rather astounded that, after 12 pages in this thread, the understanding that this was a PMCO crew is still not clear.
Flight # ranges - 1-199 and 1000 up to the the UAX number ranges are PMCO. 200-999 are PMUA.
This was solely a PMCO crew.
And no, the 119 PMUA Flight Attendants who are crossing-over from UA to the CO side (to be clear there was the misguided hope that 500-600 would do so) aren't even out of the necessary training yet to complete their transfer.
Flight # ranges - 1-199 and 1000 up to the the UAX number ranges are PMCO. 200-999 are PMUA.
This was solely a PMCO crew.
And no, the 119 PMUA Flight Attendants who are crossing-over from UA to the CO side (to be clear there was the misguided hope that 500-600 would do so) aren't even out of the necessary training yet to complete their transfer.
May 20, 2012, 4:23 pm
#174
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
I still feel that since the gang of 5 would have been able to say we did exactly what you suggest we do and it got us Zilch. Unless all the others had set plans . I feel they might have backed them since they did the Right thing the other week and it would prove mgmt is looking to take advantage of them
I dont know yet who those 5 were PMCO or PMUA or a combo
I dont know yet who those 5 were PMCO or PMUA or a combo
I'm rather astounded that, after 12 pages in this thread, the understanding that this was a PMCO crew is still not clear.
Flight # ranges - 1-199 and 1000 up to the the UAX number ranges are PMCO. 200-999 are PMUA.
This was solely a PMCO crew.
And no, the 119 PMUA Flight Attendants who are crossing-over from UA to the CO side (to be clear there was the misguided hope that 500-600 would do so) aren't even out of the necessary training yet to complete their transfer.
Flight # ranges - 1-199 and 1000 up to the the UAX number ranges are PMCO. 200-999 are PMUA.
This was solely a PMCO crew.
And no, the 119 PMUA Flight Attendants who are crossing-over from UA to the CO side (to be clear there was the misguided hope that 500-600 would do so) aren't even out of the necessary training yet to complete their transfer.
Not clear what you are saying by "the cross over PMUA F/As are not out of training yet? What kind of training do they need? Do CO F/As have a different way of ignoring passengers that they need to learn
Last edited by iluv2fly; May 20, 2012 at 4:39 pm Reason: merge
May 20, 2012, 4:37 pm
#175
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
I'm rather astounded that, after 12 pages in this thread, the understanding that this was a PMCO crew is still not clear.
Flight # ranges - 1-199 and 1000 up to the the UAX number ranges are PMCO. 200-999 are PMUA.
This was solely a PMCO crew.
And no, the 119 PMUA Flight Attendants who are crossing-over from UA to the CO side (to be clear there was the misguided hope that 500-600 would do so) aren't even out of the necessary training yet to complete their transfer.
Flight # ranges - 1-199 and 1000 up to the the UAX number ranges are PMCO. 200-999 are PMUA.
This was solely a PMCO crew.
And no, the 119 PMUA Flight Attendants who are crossing-over from UA to the CO side (to be clear there was the misguided hope that 500-600 would do so) aren't even out of the necessary training yet to complete their transfer.
I wonder if the 5 are fearful of lossing their place on the ladder as more Senior PMUA FAs come on board. Result would be not being able to get the flights they have been able to bid and win till now.
But either way once they saw the majority was for operating the flight they should have gone along with it
May 20, 2012, 4:44 pm
#176
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 55
Bear96's posts reflect what most certainly happened in this instance.
As someone who is involved with labor relations/arbitration/mediation it is important to note that these situations where airline crews time out of duty due to delays/mechanicals/volcanic eruptions/earthquakes/tsunamis etc etc etc is across the board in the airline industry.
Certainly in the past 15 years or so I've been personally affected by crew timing out on AC, AA, AS, BA, DL and LH resulting in delay and/or reroute - usually except in the case of DL coming from outstations where there are no reserve staff domiciled.
At some point, humans cannot be expect simply remain 'alert and on duty' for hours and hours on end. This has nothing to do with the rights of the customer, which are many and primary. Rather, labor in these instances is a finite resource, with limitations, and any expectation that someone should be awake and alert for 20,24,28 hours or more sole on the basis of customer service is absurd. Management usually understands this, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements which they agree and profess to adhere to. And yet, it is management that decides how much risk to take, whether or not to have reserve crew ready and available.
CO, now dba as UA has decided to crew these very long-haul routes to India with pretty much the minimum layover and staffing - in other words - Co, now dba as UA has accepted the risk that on certain occasions when these operations go tech or have other issues, there is little instance of recovery unless the working crew accepts to waive their contractual rights.
In this instance, some of the crew would only waive their contractual rights if they were granted 'something' extra. The 'something' extra was denied, and therefore, CO, now dba as UA management scrubbed the flight.
The 119 have to go through a short period of training - not sure if it is 3,5,7 or 8 days or so but somewhere in this range, where they are indoctrinated on the PMCO ways as well as training on the 737 fleet, 757-300 doors 3 which as I recall are unique to the aircraft, as well as perhaps additional training on the PMCO 767-400 which may have an exit unique from the PMUA fleet.
As someone who is involved with labor relations/arbitration/mediation it is important to note that these situations where airline crews time out of duty due to delays/mechanicals/volcanic eruptions/earthquakes/tsunamis etc etc etc is across the board in the airline industry.
Certainly in the past 15 years or so I've been personally affected by crew timing out on AC, AA, AS, BA, DL and LH resulting in delay and/or reroute - usually except in the case of DL coming from outstations where there are no reserve staff domiciled.
At some point, humans cannot be expect simply remain 'alert and on duty' for hours and hours on end. This has nothing to do with the rights of the customer, which are many and primary. Rather, labor in these instances is a finite resource, with limitations, and any expectation that someone should be awake and alert for 20,24,28 hours or more sole on the basis of customer service is absurd. Management usually understands this, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements which they agree and profess to adhere to. And yet, it is management that decides how much risk to take, whether or not to have reserve crew ready and available.
CO, now dba as UA has decided to crew these very long-haul routes to India with pretty much the minimum layover and staffing - in other words - Co, now dba as UA has accepted the risk that on certain occasions when these operations go tech or have other issues, there is little instance of recovery unless the working crew accepts to waive their contractual rights.
In this instance, some of the crew would only waive their contractual rights if they were granted 'something' extra. The 'something' extra was denied, and therefore, CO, now dba as UA management scrubbed the flight.
The 119 have to go through a short period of training - not sure if it is 3,5,7 or 8 days or so but somewhere in this range, where they are indoctrinated on the PMCO ways as well as training on the 737 fleet, 757-300 doors 3 which as I recall are unique to the aircraft, as well as perhaps additional training on the PMCO 767-400 which may have an exit unique from the PMUA fleet.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; May 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm Reason: multi-quote
May 20, 2012, 4:56 pm
#177
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR, BDL
Posts: 4,471
The 119 have to go through a short period of training - not sure if it is 3,5,7 or 8 days or so but somewhere in this range, where they are indoctrinated on the PMCO ways as well as training on the 737 fleet, 757-300 doors 3 which as I recall are unique to the aircraft, as well as perhaps additional training on the PMCO 767-400 which may have an exit unique from the PMUA fleet.
May 20, 2012, 5:32 pm
#178
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 504
Your scenario in post #161 was: if the "Gang of 5" had explained to the other crew members that this group had gotten screwed previously, then ALL of the other crew members would have said that they weren't going to work the flight either. With that many people involved, consensus probably still would not have been reached. Human nature!
May 20, 2012, 5:41 pm
#179
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
Bear96's posts reflect what most certainly happened in this instance.
As someone who is involved with labor relations/arbitration/mediation it is important to note that these situations where airline crews time out of duty due to delays/mechanicals/volcanic eruptions/earthquakes/tsunamis etc etc etc is across the board in the airline industry.
Certainly in the past 15 years or so I've been personally affected by crew timing out on AC, AA, AS, BA, DL and LH resulting in delay and/or reroute - usually except in the case of DL coming from outstations where there are no reserve staff domiciled.
At some point, humans cannot be expect simply remain 'alert and on duty' for hours and hours on end. This has nothing to do with the rights of the customer, which are many and primary. Rather, labor in these instances is a finite resource, with limitations, and any expectation that someone should be awake and alert for 20,24,28 hours or more sole on the basis of customer service is absurd. Management usually understands this, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements which they agree and profess to adhere to. And yet, it is management that decides how much risk to take, whether or not to have reserve crew ready and available.
CO, now dba as UA has decided to crew these very long-haul routes to India with pretty much the minimum layover and staffing - in other words - Co, now dba as UA has accepted the risk that on certain occasions when these operations go tech or have other issues, there is little instance of recovery unless the working crew accepts to waive their contractual rights.
In this instance, some of the crew would only waive their contractual rights if they were granted 'something' extra. The 'something' extra was denied, and therefore, CO, now dba as UA management scrubbed the flight.
As someone who is involved with labor relations/arbitration/mediation it is important to note that these situations where airline crews time out of duty due to delays/mechanicals/volcanic eruptions/earthquakes/tsunamis etc etc etc is across the board in the airline industry.
Certainly in the past 15 years or so I've been personally affected by crew timing out on AC, AA, AS, BA, DL and LH resulting in delay and/or reroute - usually except in the case of DL coming from outstations where there are no reserve staff domiciled.
At some point, humans cannot be expect simply remain 'alert and on duty' for hours and hours on end. This has nothing to do with the rights of the customer, which are many and primary. Rather, labor in these instances is a finite resource, with limitations, and any expectation that someone should be awake and alert for 20,24,28 hours or more sole on the basis of customer service is absurd. Management usually understands this, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements which they agree and profess to adhere to. And yet, it is management that decides how much risk to take, whether or not to have reserve crew ready and available.
CO, now dba as UA has decided to crew these very long-haul routes to India with pretty much the minimum layover and staffing - in other words - Co, now dba as UA has accepted the risk that on certain occasions when these operations go tech or have other issues, there is little instance of recovery unless the working crew accepts to waive their contractual rights.
In this instance, some of the crew would only waive their contractual rights if they were granted 'something' extra. The 'something' extra was denied, and therefore, CO, now dba as UA management scrubbed the flight.
As for "ek wouldn't do that!", well, we don't know. A 2nd hand opinion from a friend of a poster who is speaking hypothetical vs actual leaves a lot to be desired. Did the UAE ratify the US's RLA? I'm betting not, as a country the size of that emirate most likely does not rely on domestically flagged carriers on internal routes as a basis for their economy. Without an equivalent law, we are talking apples and oranges, as the variables are not comparable. I've seen documentaries on some of the labor practices in the UAE, and they don't come near to what most western countries, including the US does, so to compare a mostly foreign work group working for a UAE flagged carrier to the laws that impact the work rules of a US flagged carrier, I could guess that the UAE carriers workers have little guaranteed rights.
May 20, 2012, 6:21 pm
#180
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 124
Bear96's posts reflect what most certainly happened in this instance.
As someone who is involved with labor relations/arbitration/mediation it is important to note that these situations where airline crews time out of duty due to delays/mechanicals/volcanic eruptions/earthquakes/tsunamis etc etc etc is across the board in the airline industry.
Certainly in the past 15 years or so I've been personally affected by crew timing out on AC, AA, AS, BA, DL and LH resulting in delay and/or reroute - usually except in the case of DL coming from outstations where there are no reserve staff domiciled.
At some point, humans cannot be expect simply remain 'alert and on duty' for hours and hours on end. This has nothing to do with the rights of the customer, which are many and primary. Rather, labor in these instances is a finite resource, with limitations, and any expectation that someone should be awake and alert for 20,24,28 hours or more sole on the basis of customer service is absurd. Management usually understands this, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements which they agree and profess to adhere to. And yet, it is management that decides how much risk to take, whether or not to have reserve crew ready and available.
CO, now dba as UA has decided to crew these very long-haul routes to India with pretty much the minimum layover and staffing - in other words - Co, now dba as UA has accepted the risk that on certain occasions when these operations go tech or have other issues, there is little instance of recovery unless the working crew accepts to waive their contractual rights.
In this instance, some of the crew would only waive their contractual rights if they were granted 'something' extra. The 'something' extra was denied, and therefore, CO, now dba as UA management scrubbed the flight.
As someone who is involved with labor relations/arbitration/mediation it is important to note that these situations where airline crews time out of duty due to delays/mechanicals/volcanic eruptions/earthquakes/tsunamis etc etc etc is across the board in the airline industry.
Certainly in the past 15 years or so I've been personally affected by crew timing out on AC, AA, AS, BA, DL and LH resulting in delay and/or reroute - usually except in the case of DL coming from outstations where there are no reserve staff domiciled.
At some point, humans cannot be expect simply remain 'alert and on duty' for hours and hours on end. This has nothing to do with the rights of the customer, which are many and primary. Rather, labor in these instances is a finite resource, with limitations, and any expectation that someone should be awake and alert for 20,24,28 hours or more sole on the basis of customer service is absurd. Management usually understands this, based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements which they agree and profess to adhere to. And yet, it is management that decides how much risk to take, whether or not to have reserve crew ready and available.
CO, now dba as UA has decided to crew these very long-haul routes to India with pretty much the minimum layover and staffing - in other words - Co, now dba as UA has accepted the risk that on certain occasions when these operations go tech or have other issues, there is little instance of recovery unless the working crew accepts to waive their contractual rights.
In this instance, some of the crew would only waive their contractual rights if they were granted 'something' extra. The 'something' extra was denied, and therefore, CO, now dba as UA management scrubbed the flight.
The amount of misinformation and poor understanding spewed routinely on this forum is not particularly abnormal or out of proportion to what's said by the media or posters on other forums.
What is abnormal is the number of posters on this forum who firmly believe that riding in the back of airplanes often has gifted them with specific operational knowledge that far exceeds their true understanding.
If I spent weeks in an emergency room lobby, a Doctor I would not be...