United Flight Attendants Blackmail Flight 49 BOM->EWR!
May 18, 2012, 1:00 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SFO and OAK
Programs: FAF, Hyatt <>, SPG PLT
Posts: 2,240
That's listed as a 15 hr 40 min flight. Add on 3 hours and it becomes 18 hrs 40 min. There has to be a cap somewhere as to how long a flight attendant duty day can last and where they waive applicable sections of the contract or additional benefits come into play for a longer duty day.
The OP said there was a 3 hour repair (18 hr 40 min duty day) followed by 2 hours negotiation (20 hr 40 min duty day). There has to be a cap somewhere where the flight attendants say "enough".
The OP said there was a 3 hour repair (18 hr 40 min duty day) followed by 2 hours negotiation (20 hr 40 min duty day). There has to be a cap somewhere where the flight attendants say "enough".
May 18, 2012, 1:38 am
#17
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Platinum
Posts: 1,536
(clipped)
Airline staff get paid far too little in most countries. It's good to travel the world, have a nice lifestyle, and that's why it attracts good people and you have so many good people in the airline business. But the salary is not enough... So I don't blame them for striking especially if they do it according to the rules (which may or may not have been the case), although it's extremely annoying for passengers -- just like volcanic ash or terrorism threats are also annoying.
Airline staff get paid far too little in most countries. It's good to travel the world, have a nice lifestyle, and that's why it attracts good people and you have so many good people in the airline business. But the salary is not enough... So I don't blame them for striking especially if they do it according to the rules (which may or may not have been the case), although it's extremely annoying for passengers -- just like volcanic ash or terrorism threats are also annoying.
May 18, 2012, 2:12 am
#18
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: US
Programs: AA/UA/DL
Posts: 2,773
Those crews should be Continental's, right?
May 18, 2012, 2:26 am
#19
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: YUL
Programs: UA 1K, MR Bonvoy Bonzaiiiii, National EE
Posts: 622
May 18, 2012, 2:35 am
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Paris, France
Programs: Over-entitled UA 1PMM; JetSmarter; HHonors Gold
Posts: 9,723
crew did great job to fix plane... the 5 holdout flight attendants were UA people. the continental crew and pilots boarded and pleaded with them to get on the plane.
they should be terminated in my opinion.
...
again the ground crew, pilots, and staff all did an incredible job to get the plane operational after a long delay due to battery failure. finally at about 1am the plane was fixed the crew and pilots and marshals boarded to prep the aircraft but these 5 UA flight attendants held out in the gate hallway calling the home office demanding pay raise, extra days off, and other stuff.
they should be terminated in my opinion.
...
again the ground crew, pilots, and staff all did an incredible job to get the plane operational after a long delay due to battery failure. finally at about 1am the plane was fixed the crew and pilots and marshals boarded to prep the aircraft but these 5 UA flight attendants held out in the gate hallway calling the home office demanding pay raise, extra days off, and other stuff.
I understand your frustration, however there has to be much much more revealed about the circumstances to the story before a) blaming this entirely on PMUA FA's and b) calling for the termination of employees.
May 18, 2012, 3:26 am
#21
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,334
Gee.. imagine expecting to be paid overtime for working.... overtime. 
Of course the OP's story IS a bit confusing anyway.. the initial post talked about a demand for guaranteed overtime pay.... that has apparently morphed into a demand for "a pay rise"...
If the OP hasn't got it straight how can anyone else?
Of course the OP's story IS a bit confusing anyway.. the initial post talked about a demand for guaranteed overtime pay.... that has apparently morphed into a demand for "a pay rise"...
If the OP hasn't got it straight how can anyone else?
May 18, 2012, 4:05 am
#22
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,541
United has not mixed flight crews yet so the Newark/Mumbai route is still served by Continental subsidiary crews in other words at no time was any subsidiary United folks involved.
As everyone knows the India flights (DEL/BOM) are considered ultra long-haul flights (15-16 hours) which puts a thin margin of error for flight delays as the average duty day allowed by the FAA is a complicated formula. Either the following happened...
A) Crew timed out regardless
B) The 5 FAs figured they were close to timing out and did what we call "Stalling for time" and timed out anyways so they got to enjoy another day in Mumbai.
May 18, 2012, 4:17 am
#23
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
- suspend their airport credentials world wide until the arrived at EWR
- force them to get back to EWR on their own dime
- deny them access to UA provided hotels and airport transfers until their creds were reinstated. They will find that without a credit card with a big limit, life in India is hard for foreign female tourist
- deny them access to a UA plane until they got to EWR
- confine them to flights between CLE and IAH for the rest of their tenure at UA.
- whenever they are paying pax, ban them from the airline for life
Pulling this stunt on a domestic flight is one thing. Pulling it at one of the most distant out stations is another.
May 18, 2012, 4:30 am
#24
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,541
However it would be an appropriate disciplinary level but the Union will file a grievance anyways. (Have to board PPT-AKL so I'll comment more later).
May 18, 2012, 4:44 am
#25
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
I'm sure the OP was frustrated like the other pax. BOM is NOT an airport that is at all pleasant (unless your in Jet Air F 
). However, could this just be PMUA bashing here. The whole story is to confusing. If it happened like that even the unions could not save there jobs. UA crews do not fly BOM-EWR on the PMCO 777. To much does not make sense. Let's send a trusty reporter to get the "scoop".
I bet we read in tomorrows USA today "UA F/A's FORCE CANCELLATION OF FULL FLIGHT IN BOM OVER NEGOTIATIONS. F/A's CLAIM THEY DID NOT BOARD POP CHIPS FOR CREW MEALS AS PER CONTRACT"
One of the best "tools" mgmnt has when it comes to f/a's that "should" be dismissed (but are not due to the hassle involved) is the ability to suspend there flying privileges (passes). NO FREE FLIGHTS, IF THEY COMMUTE THEY ARE SOL
I'm sorry you have to leave PPT. keep your spirits up
). However, could this just be PMUA bashing here. The whole story is to confusing. If it happened like that even the unions could not save there jobs. UA crews do not fly BOM-EWR on the PMCO 777. To much does not make sense. Let's send a trusty reporter to get the "scoop". I bet we read in tomorrows USA today "UA F/A's FORCE CANCELLATION OF FULL FLIGHT IN BOM OVER NEGOTIATIONS. F/A's CLAIM THEY DID NOT BOARD POP CHIPS FOR CREW MEALS AS PER CONTRACT"
I wouldn't fire them due to the hassle but I would:
- suspend their airport credentials world wide until the arrived at EWR
- force them to get back to EWR on their own dime
- deny them access to UA provided hotels and airport transfers until their creds were reinstated. They will find that without a credit card with a big limit, life in India is hard for foreign female tourist
- deny them access to a UA plane until they got to EWR
- confine them to flights between CLE and IAH for the rest of their tenure at UA.
- whenever they are paying pax, ban them from the airline for life
Pulling this stunt on a domestic flight is one thing. Pulling it at one of the most distant out stations is another.
- suspend their airport credentials world wide until the arrived at EWR
- force them to get back to EWR on their own dime
- deny them access to UA provided hotels and airport transfers until their creds were reinstated. They will find that without a credit card with a big limit, life in India is hard for foreign female tourist
- deny them access to a UA plane until they got to EWR
- confine them to flights between CLE and IAH for the rest of their tenure at UA.
- whenever they are paying pax, ban them from the airline for life
Pulling this stunt on a domestic flight is one thing. Pulling it at one of the most distant out stations is another.
Again, someone posted something that they do not know fully about. I personally know people who have had their flight benefits temporarily or permanently revoked however they are still allowed to commute through different programs provided to commuters or signing a pinkie and sitting on the jumpseat.
However it would be an appropriate disciplinary level but the Union will file a grievance anyways. (Have to board PPT-AKL so I'll comment more later).
However it would be an appropriate disciplinary level but the Union will file a grievance anyways. (Have to board PPT-AKL so I'll comment more later).
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; May 18, 2012 at 4:49 am Reason: multi-quote
May 18, 2012, 5:31 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,682
With due respect to the OP, he apparently does not know the whole picture here when it comes to crew scheduling.
United has not mixed flight crews yet so the Newark/Mumbai route is still served by Continental subsidiary crews in other words at no time was any subsidiary United folks involved.
As everyone knows the India flights (DEL/BOM) are considered ultra long-haul flights (15-16 hours) which puts a thin margin of error for flight delays as the average duty day allowed by the FAA is a complicated formula. Either the following happened...
A) Crew timed out regardless
B) The 5 FAs figured they were close to timing out and did what we call "Stalling for time" and timed out anyways so they got to enjoy another day in Mumbai.
United has not mixed flight crews yet so the Newark/Mumbai route is still served by Continental subsidiary crews in other words at no time was any subsidiary United folks involved.
As everyone knows the India flights (DEL/BOM) are considered ultra long-haul flights (15-16 hours) which puts a thin margin of error for flight delays as the average duty day allowed by the FAA is a complicated formula. Either the following happened...
A) Crew timed out regardless
B) The 5 FAs figured they were close to timing out and did what we call "Stalling for time" and timed out anyways so they got to enjoy another day in Mumbai.
C) The delay would have pushed their duty time over the contractual maximum. The F/As said they would waive that contractual limitation only in exchange for something (i.e., an extra day off later in the month). Otherwise they would follow the contract, choose not to work the flight which would force a cancellation, go back to the hotel, and go home the next day (maybe as deadheaders), which would be their right under the contract. UA's choice.
The other F/As could have chosen to do this too but probably just wanted to get home the day they were supposed to, and so did not push the issue.
May 18, 2012, 5:46 am
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,157
I will add what I think is most likely here:
C) The delay would have pushed their duty time over the contractual maximum. The F/As said they would waive that contractual limitation only in exchange for something (i.e., an extra day off later in the month). Otherwise they would follow the contract, choose not to work the flight which would force a cancellation, go back to the hotel, and go home the next day (maybe as deadheaders), which would be their right under the contract. UA's choice.
The other F/As could have chosen to do this too but probably just wanted to get home the day they were supposed to, and so did not push the issue.
C) The delay would have pushed their duty time over the contractual maximum. The F/As said they would waive that contractual limitation only in exchange for something (i.e., an extra day off later in the month). Otherwise they would follow the contract, choose not to work the flight which would force a cancellation, go back to the hotel, and go home the next day (maybe as deadheaders), which would be their right under the contract. UA's choice.
The other F/As could have chosen to do this too but probably just wanted to get home the day they were supposed to, and so did not push the issue.
May 18, 2012, 5:52 am
#29
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NCL
Programs: UA 1MM/*G. DL Gold for one more year.
Posts: 5,305
May 18, 2012, 6:08 am
#30
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
Respectfully. the OP's claims are borderline delusional. The FAs were simply breaking through time provision set in their contract. If the flight was cancelled and they were truly on the phone with Chicago bartering, that would mean the company played hardball and didn't balk. In that case, the FAs had every right to refuse the flight and no blame should be waged on them. This isn't a charity, and with the toxic mess of a culture based on double speak and repetitive sloganeering the company has been pushing on both subsidiaries, who could blame them?