flyingmusicianlax

Thanks for the info and welcome to Flyertalk! ^ This, at least, seems like a much more objective account of what occurred.

I would certainly agree that arguing in front of passengers is in very poor taste (nor is there any excuse for F/As to ignore their duties inflight, as you mentioned). But, that doesn't affect the fact that it seems the crew was being pushed beyond the limits of their contract. As far as the mechanical delay, that would be something under UA's control (just like when we pax get a mx delay voucher/protection).

I think another thing that must be remembered in this situation is precedence: if flight crews continually agree to volunteer extra time beyond what the contract specifies, they're setting a precedent that management can use against them in the next round of negotiations. I see this ALL THE TIME in my business. That's why a contract exists and that's why it's important to stay within the limits - for both sides.

tom911

Welcome to FlyerTalk Definitely gives us another perspective to consider. Would those here that have called for the firing of the flight attendants also call for the firing of the pilots if the flight was cancelled because they timed out?

GertBarr

I can shed some light on what has happened to me in similar situations as an sUA flight attendant. (Though I may not be able to address the specifics of the sCO flight attendant contract.)

Our duty time is calculated as follows:
Time already on duty + scheduled block time + scheduled debrief time (usually an hour after landing for an international flight).

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. But (at least at sUA) once you've waived your legalities, they've been waived no matter how much additional delay you've encountered. Its a really tough call to make when you're in hour 4 of a 19 hour+ duty day whether or not you'll be fatigued 15 hours ahead. If the flight is delayed another 12 hours, one could be on duty for 31 hours. We are also held responsible for any mistakes we might make as a result of fatigue. I, for one, never waive my duty day because of this.

Many flight attendants prefer to waive their duty day as they have plans at home, families to care for, another trip to work the next day, etc... The company has operational incentives in place for us to waive or legalities to keep the flight operating. However, the company has to offer it to us. They may decide its not worth it, or, they may decide that there are other factors at play and cancel the flight for other reasons. But, we can't accept the extra pay for legality waivers unless its offered to us.

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.

As for having these discussions in front of customers, its never ideal, but there are few places to go. Conversations can be heard from galleys, across gate rooms, etc... We try to be discreet, but people are always attempting to eavesdrop on our conversations.

ttuna3

My question would be aimed at the local UA station management team on not calling the crew when the mechanical delay was highly likely (based on OP's post) to delay their report time to avoid the issue in the first place. Working in another hours of service limited transportation industry we routinely will have our call outs onboard not happen because of delays, flights changed because the ship can't get into port, and or just staying in the hotel if we're already enroute. Might not have been immediately obvious but IME battery charge issues that can't be diagnosed in about 15 minutes (roughly) tend to turn into several hour (or more) delays. This does not mean I've got much sympathy for the 5 FAs on this one since they did let several hundred people down on this one.

chinatraderjmr

Sure. I agree with everything you said. But the point I was trying to make was if they go over there hours (per the contract) then they should cancel the flight and that's that. End of story. Mechanical happen, what can you do.....but from what I've read they did not cancel the flight (yet) when there hours were up. They tried to bargain w the office to get something extra and that's wrong. Either your legal to fly or your not. That's why they have contracts

skylady

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.

goodeats21

GertBarr. Thank you for your insights into this. This seems very plausible.

I believe this was not a case of 5 rouge FAs refusing to waive duty hours, but more likely the new United not authorizing the "legality waivers".

I will not vilify the FAs for refusing to work when not being "authorized" compensation for it. (if that is what happened...)

Unless one of these 5 FAs happen to post, I don't think we will ever know for sure.

Hachiko

Considering the plane is only on the ground for a total of 2 hours (or less) in Mumbai, that leaves little room for error with a maintenance issue and delaying a crews scheduled in time. I'm unsure of s-COs mandatory show times at an international outstation, but there is very little room for error and 2 hours out from departure, I'm willing to bet the crew was already enroute or leaving shortly after the plane landed. Unfortunately with international flights, it's the risk you take.

As far as the FAs "letting people down", it doesn't seem like the case to me. Waiving your duty day limitations with an international flight is sort of like being reassigned and having a day off taken away from you. Depending how long the delay could have turned into, crewmembers would miss out on half a day or more of time at home. In these situations, we are generally offered an incentive from crew scheduling (ie, an extra day off, extra pay, something) to makeup for what is considered a controllable delay, just as passengers can be given vouchers and even hotel rooms in the event of a mechanical delay. Crew members are well within their rights to speak to scheduling to see what is being offered, because once you waive your contractual rest it's pretty much anything goes. Each person has to look at the situation and see what is best for them. It's unfortunate that an entire flight could be cancelled due to this, but its just the nature of the business.

It's hard, because at the end of the day all any crewmember wants to do is get their passengers to their destinations with as few problems as possible, and go home. And then scheduling, or a maintenance delay comes into play that puts us in the terrible position of either standing up for ourselves and inconveniencing others over a problem that is not our fault to begin with, or sucking it up and going the extra mile for very little reward for doing so.

Just last week I was illegally reassigned. I had the choice between walking away from a turn that would have left 100 passengers total stranded on mothers day, or working the flight against my contract. You don't know what horrible positions crewmembers can be placed in until you've lived it. And what's even worse is that you have zero privacy to work out the decision on your own, invariably something will happen in front of a passenger that makes you look terrible even though you're just trying to take care of yourself (and your family, or whatever else is happening in your life).

drrn

After lurking for some time on this board, this topic is motivation enough for me to start posting

As someone who has made more than 10 EWR - MUM flights over the past 18 months, I can relate to the pains the passengers must have gone through.

Irrespective of whether it is the company (UA) or the FAs who are at fault, the passenger have a right not to give a damn - as long as no safety is fundamentally compromised. 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.

PS - as a frequent traveler in this sector, I certainly do not take the EWR- MUM flight expecting pleasant FAs or superior service! Sleep as much as possible and don't eat the food

LilAbner

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.

Either a FA can or cannot decide to "GO" on a trip or to NOT "GO" on their scheduled flight, as has been reported by the professionals who are posting on here, and if they decide to go it must not be considered illegal but rather an agreeable waiver agreed to by both the employer & the employee. By delaying their departure and apparently haggling for OT, or more benefits, the pilots who ARE limited to how many hours they can be on legally remain on duty, AND FLY AN AIRPLANE, became "TRULY ILLEGAL" in the TRUE sense of the term.

Hell, a flight from LAX to SFO has them so fatigued that they can't even serve PDB's or pass around the snack baskets. If they're to old or out of shape to do their job on long hauls, perhaps they should stay on domestics, where they can rest between one or two hour flights.

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. If in fact, these 5 FA's had the opportunity to get these passengers to their destination and decided that they would instead bargain for better benefits, when their flying partners decided to get on the plane & go, then they have absolutely NO sympathy from me if their employer takes measures to assure that this never happens again. BTW, I never advocated termination, rather I have always maintained and suggested that a less stressful choice of flights, in the coming years, might be more suited to their needs.

EWR756

No, the Captain cannot cancel a flight...it's really simple. The Captain can refuse to operate the flight. Wether or not that flight is dispatched with another Captain is the decision of the operator, in this case UCH. Captains are front line employees, they do not have the authority to remove a flight from the UCH timetable, they can elect not to operate the flight but they can't prevent the company from operating the flight with another more pliable crew member.

Simple.

mreed911

Then in 50+ years of being employed you've never worked under a labor agreement such as the one these flight attendants work under which does, in fact, allow them to decline work segments that would put them outside their contractual obligations. That doesn't mean it's an invalid choice for them to make - their contract provides the language that governs the availability and effects of said choice.

ttuna3

I'll try to put this to both Hachiko and LilAbner's responses to my last. An ILLEGAL assignment is something that as a licensed professional REQUIRES a report to the regulators. I'm aware that in certain occasions the rules get bent but this one doesn't really look like it to me. With the rest of the crew willing to soldier on it doesn't look like a regulatory issue but a contract one. Management shares a fairly substantial part of the blame on this since whoever made the decision to not honor the FAs fairly reasonable request should absolutely be held to account for how much he (she, it...) cost UA in total on this one. I'm also not sure what the rest reset time is for the flying community but in most non emergency situations on ship six hours rest will at least partially reset your rest accounting clock.
Hachiko I completely understand your dilema for Mother's day, I've been called in on short notice to leave for a 4 month hitch leaving tomorrow for every holiday in the year in the last 20 including a couple of very close family funerals and gone seriously over my hours of service limits many times because people critically needed to get their cargo. To a certain point it's part of the job, unfortunately the upper levels just don't seem to get this.

fastair

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.

It requires BOTH paties to agree to waive a contract provision. As such, "sweetheart deals" are also part of the industry, just as plea bargains are part of the criminal justice system. Negotiations to give up something that is either legally yours, or contractualy yours aredone all of the time. VDB's give up something that is contractualy theirs in exchange, they try to negotiate "sweetheart deals" for themselves "I'll take the bump for $400, PLUS meals, and a 1st class upgrade, if not, I will not waive my right to the seat and you will be forced to screw someone over and IDB them..." Sounds very close to what the flight attendants did. They were entitled to NOT work, were in a position to give up something they were entitled to (rest/contract provisions) for the benefit of others, an choose to try to negotiate to enrich themselves, eitr by more time off, or more pay, just asa potential VDB'r does th same thing. If the parties agree, everyone can be happy and richer at the expense of the company (be it VDB'er, or flight attendant) if they don't come to terms, others suffer (be it an entire plane in this example, or the person that the non-vdb'er forces to be stranded becuase the company didn't agree to the extortion terms.)

It is the sae thing. You can allow the company to inconvienence yourself, to a point that is acceptabletoyou, but only for a price, and the leveragecomesfrom the fact that if they do not meet you price, then the company is forced toinconviennce others to a point they are unwilling to accept. In both cases, it is the company that a) has put the person in the situation, and b) that can ultimately give in to the extortionist, or not. Doing so sets a bad precident for other woul be extortionists, not giving in shows that they will not negotate, but hurts more people than are willing to be hurt of their own volition.

If no one here has ever a) negotiated or attempted to) a VDB for more than initial offer, or b) used the inconvienence of others when in a postion of bargaining strength to enrich themselves, then the flight attendants were evil. But seeing many of the posts on FT about VDB negotiations, I can assure you that neitherof those options are true. The company screwed up and was unwilling (or unable) to rectify it in a way that all envolved were satisfied to their deired levels. So UA upheld it's contract with both. Cnling the flight (it's covered in the CoC,) and honoring the contracted rules of employment of it's workers instead of violating them whil maintaining their "rightousness" by not caveing into the excessive demands of it's workers.

skylady

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?