Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

United Flight Attendants Blackmail Flight 49 BOM->EWR!

United Flight Attendants Blackmail Flight 49 BOM->EWR!

Old May 18, 12, 5:28 pm
  #76  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
Originally Posted by uastarflyer View Post
sCO paying FA's more means sUA better managed cash.

Maybe COdbaUA should just bring all the sUA up to CO standards

No wonder sCO workers are so happy these days

But this cluster is all sCO
How to you figure??? There is nothing wrong with paying well IF your making a profit. I don't like CO or the way they are running UA but I'll be the first to admit I find there f/a's much better then UA's (in many cases...NOT ALL). (just my opinion - I'm entitled to it)
chinatraderjmr is offline  
Old May 18, 12, 5:28 pm
  #77  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LAX
Programs: UA Gold; AA Platinum Pro; DL Silver
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by oopsz View Post
A corporation is not a someone. Corporations act amorally in their best interest.

Though corporations may be persons under the law, I have absolutely no qualms about dealing with a corporation differently than I would a natural person. I save civility for those who treat me civilly.

Is it unfortunate that the representative of that company who has to implement its policies and will necessarily disagree? Perhaps. But to do otherwise would be to forfeit my rights under law and contract. Those rights have value, and you don't get to take something from me for free.

It's not an absolute. Again, my employer treats me well and I'm happy to make reasonable accommodations for their convenience. But if United asked me for a favor? Not going to happen.
I think you are responding to an argument no one is making. No one is suggesting or asking that you treat the corporation UA with civility. The issue arising here is what happens when enforcing one's contractual rights has very serious effects on innocent bystanders -- that's the "compassion towards passengers" to which I was referring. I think this is a complicated situation, but I was dismayed at the cavalier way in which the idea of having compassion for stranding passengers far away from home in the middle of the night was dismissed. And that holds even if UA management is behaving badly, to put it mildly. There are times when even if you're within you're rights, you can still be wrong. (Not talking about anything safety-related, of course.)

At first I thought the OP's use of the word "hostage" was inflammatory and unncessary, but it seems more apt when I read posts like this which seem to suggest if you're "within your rights", the negative effects on innocent bystanders are not worth considering.

And probably worth mentioning again, I think this is complicated, and we certainly don't have all the facts. But a world in which people don't see any need to consider other human beings who might be hurt by your actions, no matter how "within your rights" you are -- no thanks, doesn't sound like a very decent place to end up.
twoaisleplane is offline  
Old May 18, 12, 6:09 pm
  #78  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by spiceflyer View Post
Tonight on the UA flight 49 from Bombay to EWR a group of 5 flight attendants refused to board after a 3 hour repair delay unless they received guaranteed overtime pay and other benefits including additional days off from UA.

I personally witnessed the entire showdown which lasted an additional 2 hours. The captain, passengers, and even the other flight attendants were in shock at what was happening. These 5 ladies decided they wouldn't board unless they received their list of demands hostage style!

They knew there was a cutoff time afterwards they legally could not fly and so they held out the 2 hours making all kinds of demands to UA head office. When the 2 hours expired the captain was forced to cancel the flight! But even he didn't have the heart to announce it and some poor local Bombay ground crew had to break the news and deal with the aftermath.

I have approx 700,000 lifetime miles and I've NEVER seen anything like this. Is this blackmail? Can they be fired?

Thanks to them I'm missing my surgery tomorrow.

[Moderator edit per FT Rules.]
FWIW, I've stopped flying on any legacy CO metal with legacy CO crew when I'm able to identify it, including all flights to/from EWR. My experience with them has been horrible beyond words. Recently, for example, I could have flown DUB-SFO through EWR on legacy CO but instead I paid a lot more money to fly legacy UA to LHR then create a totally separate PNR with BMI from LHR to DUB. My experience on legacy CO routes has consistently been immeasurably worse than on legacy UA routes. In fact, since the merger, I don't have much to complain about on my old legacy UA routes except for all the crap caused by SHARES and business policies executed through SHARES. The legacy UA staff on all these flights have been calm, collected, and professional and struggle with valor to get their jobs done against the obstacles constantly thrown in their faces by SHARES and CO policies. In some ways, for me, now, it's as though this merger hasn't happened, because I'm just not flying to any of the new destinations opened up by the merger if it requires sitting on legacy CO metal with a legacy CO crew. Rather fly on *A partners.
FlyWorld is offline  
Old May 18, 12, 6:39 pm
  #79  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,591
Originally Posted by uastarflyer View Post
sCO paying FA's more means sUA better managed cash.

Maybe COdbaUA should just bring all the sUA up to CO standards

No wonder sCO workers are so happy these days

But this cluster is all sCO
No, te sUA flightattendants had better work rules. If one wanted to make as much money as possible and work as much as possible, sCO had a better contract. If one wanted to work a reasonable ammount of time and have a life at home as well, than the sUA contractwas btter. They both have their points where one person would like one contract better, and another person would like the other better.

Black/white is not one contract from another, they are both grey. Just as some frequent flyers exploit the holes in 1 carriers rules, saying it is better, other frequent flyers choose another prgram for it's largess. Neither is 100% better or 100% worse, it is just which suits your needs better, the same as the (2) differeing contracts.
fastair is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 8:00 am
  #80  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA, HH, MR elite. Fly mostly AA/WN/B6.
Posts: 18,793
Originally Posted by oopsz View Post
United has not treated its employees (or elites!) with compassion since the merger. If UA expected me to waive contractual benefits I enjoy for no reason other than "compassion", I would have told them to pound sand. I do not fault the FAs in this instance.
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. Wait until rogue clock-watching FAs start pulling this stunt on the ramp at MEL and SYD. One way to shoot the whole airline in the shorts is to have one group of FAs, and the pilots, begging another group of FAs to work with them in front of a planeload of passengers. Confidence in the brand? I think not.

Originally Posted by twoaisleplane View Post
...if I had the chance to irritate Smisek in some way, I probably would, but not at the expense of hundreds of people stuck half way around the world, who are just trying to get home.
Originally Posted by Bonehead View Post
Inflicting that kind of pain on your clients in the name of labor relations is 100% inexcusable, and tends to make me think far less of the FAs as a group.
But very much in line with UA corporate culture. CO never had an SFH of its own. Looks like their people have now been bitten by the bug.
BearX220 is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 8:39 am
  #81  
Ambassador, China
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Beijing
Programs: TG, OZ, UA, AA
Posts: 6,619
Originally Posted by mitchmu View Post
FWIW, I've stopped flying on any legacy CO metal with legacy CO crew when I'm able to identify it, including all flights to/from EWR. My experience with them has been horrible beyond words. Recently, for example, I could have flown DUB-SFO through EWR on legacy CO but instead I paid a lot more money to fly legacy UA to LHR then create a totally separate PNR with BMI from LHR to DUB. My experience on legacy CO routes has consistently been immeasurably worse than on legacy UA routes. In fact, since the merger, I don't have much to complain about on my old legacy UA routes except for all the crap caused by SHARES and business policies executed through SHARES. The legacy UA staff on all these flights have been calm, collected, and professional and struggle with valor to get their jobs done against the obstacles constantly thrown in their faces by SHARES and CO policies. In some ways, for me, now, it's as though this merger hasn't happened, because I'm just not flying to any of the new destinations opened up by the merger if it requires sitting on legacy CO metal with a legacy CO crew. Rather fly on *A partners.
Words to live by. At least for the present.
jiejie is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 8:46 am
  #82  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: UA 1K, Hertz President's Circle, Hilton Platinum,
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by enviroian View Post
All five f/a should be immediately terminated and forced to pay their own way back to the US.
Agreed!!!

OP should visit this site nd complain:

https://secure.unitedmileageplus.com/CPRi.jsp
bsmnsr is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 9:30 am
  #83  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
Programs: UA GS/3MM, DL Gold/Million Miler, AA Exec Plat/Million Miler, Emirates Gold
Posts: 151
I am not sure why the shock and horror.

You will achieve zen-like peace if you accept that COdbaUA is not in the customer service business. (as some of their FA's remind us- they are there for our safety. My inference: anything else is optional).

Last year while flying LH from FRA to India they took a 5 hour delay because of electronic eqpt malfunction. Finally had to change planes etc. This apparently caused the crew to exceed their allowed times, the lead FA went around discreetly asking each FA if they would be willing voluntarily serve the extra time. Everyone did.
Jetlagged is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:02 am
  #84  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,933
There have been several posts where bashing a NEW FTer seems to have been done because he was reporting what happened to him, in his attempt to get out of Bombay, on a flight that he paid to fly (i.e --- shooting the messenger)!

His observations were first hand and although he was upset with the lack of concerns for ALL the passengers by only a few of the FA's it doesn't appear that too many posters are taking that fact into consideration when forming their opinion, thus making this strictly a one sided union issue.

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. This choice to take care of #1 (or only 5) is a clear indication to me that should the passengers unfortunately become subjected to an EMERGENCY, should the S--t hit the fan someday, it's very possibly going to be, everyone for themselves!

Some of these senior FA's have way too much time to sit around and discuss how tough they have it and frankly it's high time to straighten out their heads. Sending any one of these five to a far off place, with a potential for another delayed flight due to a mx, is an opportunity for them to make another statement, which I for one wouldn't care to be a part of!

The way this could of, or should of been handled (assuming the OP is correct in his observations) is for these overworked and under paid FA's to get on the plane and fly back to the States, and refuse to do any long haul flight EVER AGAIN, if they thought that a mx may again inconvenience them in the future. There are certainly many, many other FA's, I'm sure, that are more than willing to do 2 or 3 (4 @ the most) flights to Bombay once a month.
LilAbner is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:08 am
  #85  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Programs: WN A-List due to work travel patterns. Paid F or Biz for pleasure - so no need to chase status
Posts: 9,264
This crew was already looking at an overnight, 17-hour duty day even if the flight had been on time.

Just wondering how long people here think it is for flight crew (including pilots) to be on duty?
Bear96 is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:14 am
  #86  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: DEN
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by Bear96 View Post
This crew was already looking at an overnight, 17-hour duty day even if the flight had been on time.

Just wondering how long people here think it is for flight crew (including pilots) to be on duty?
Flights of that length have two crews aboard
bxwatso is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:17 am
  #87  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Programs: WN A-List due to work travel patterns. Paid F or Biz for pleasure - so no need to chase status
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by bxwatso View Post
Flights of that length have two crews aboard
Not two F/A crews.
Bear96 is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:20 am
  #88  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by Bear96 View Post
This crew was already looking at an overnight, 17-hour duty day even if the flight had been on time.

Just wondering how long people here think it is for flight crew (including pilots) to be on duty?
Exactly my point!

Apparently, the pilots and everyone except 5 FA's thought that it was doable.

I say that if these 5 can't handle this strenuous flight should an fortunate event like perhaps a delay due to a mx, then they should not be permitted to take that risk in the future. Biding something less stressful would certainly make more sense, for these FA's, and their supervisors should probably make it perfectly clear that they are not to attempt to fly to ANYTHING over, say perhaps a transcon in the future!
LilAbner is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:24 am
  #89  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Programs: WN A-List due to work travel patterns. Paid F or Biz for pleasure - so no need to chase status
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by LilAbner View Post
Exactly my point!

Apparently, the pilots and everyone except 5 FA's thought that it was doable.
That did not answer my question.

The pilots and other F/As may have had "get-home-itis," a well recognized term (as silly as it sounds) in aviation which can lead to poor decision making.
Bear96 is offline  
Old May 19, 12, 11:36 am
  #90  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,933
Originally Posted by Bear96 View Post
That did not answer my question.

The pilots and other F/As may have had "get-home-itis," a well recognized term (as silly as it sounds) in aviation which can lead to poor decision making.
I wasn't answering YOUR question. I am only making my own personal assessments.

However, your inference that the pilots and FA's were overriding these conscientious 5 FA's decisions who refused to fly unless they got overtime, does make perfect sense! Overtime would certainly make the passengers flight safer! Thank God we have these angel's looking out for the passengers best interests!
LilAbner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread