Why would an airline want to develop an environment where its employees are so unhappy?

When an employee is not at work, they are free to say WHATEVER they want as long as they are not disclosing any confidential trade secrets (like flight attendants are privy to any in any event).

So employee attitude didn't matter anyway. The airline itself gave you enough other reasons to leave . . .

Would you be okay with one of your employees badmouthing your company in front of customers/clients, even if he had a legitimate gripe about his situation?

While one may be free to say (or post to social media) whatever they like, the company is also well within its right to take action against said employee based on those off-the-clock comments. It has happened many times in the past, and will continue to happen. If this particular FA wants to keep her job as it is today, it would be prudent of her to show more discretion in front of her customers.

The AFA has been "trying" for the last three years and your comment that the FA work group hasn't sent a proposal to UA is disingenuous at best. The reality is, UA management has been more than happy to drive a wedge between the suCO and suUA FA groups because a divided workforce is better than a united one (excuse the pun) and because UA management frankly wanted the suCO contract (it's cheaper for them) and weren't happy at the results of the FA vote.

Relations between FA's and management are at an all time low and the AFA / United MEC has become more and more vocal on how they're trying to negotiate in good faith, but how management is dragging their heels. Just today in fact, the MEC announced a planned "day of action" on 16th July to voice their frustration against management with regard to their reluctance to negotiate in good faith on a merged joint contract.

The recent announcement of the closure of the JFK base (without the required notice or consultation with the union as required contractually, much less a cohesive plan in place to roll out to both the FAs and CS staff at JFK on displacement and layoffs) is but one recent example of the disregard current UA management has for frontline employees and their contracts.

There's plenty of reading available in the public domain here: http://unitedafa.org/

IT happens in ALL work forces, you would be surprised what is said at the nursing station, healthcare is changing and the new term for what RN stands for is Refreshments and Narcotics. Healthcare reimbursement is what is driving healthcare today, so nurses have to do what is possible to make the patients happy and if the patients are not happy then hospitals HCAPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) scores are down which means low reimbursement (read $$) to the hospital. I have seen nurses fired because of patients complaints...

Aviation industry doesn't learn from it's past, how many airlines went BK because of the workforce not looking past their own noses? Each department depends on their employer staying in business, but over and over you will have a group of departments thinking they are more important then others and will fight to the end and the company files BK..

In the US, just Eastern really. The others went out owing to bad management and chaotic market forces.

I would also add that DL went BK despite being lightly unionized, and WN never went BK despite being totally union.

Even the Eastern case can be debated. Yes, the labour issue was the proximate cause of BK, but Frank had been stripping the airline of assets since he bought it. There was a reason employees were unhappy and unwilling to accept further cuts.

While these comments should not be made in front of passengers, I agree with the FA (although if she hates it so much she is free to go apply with B6 or DL).

That being said, I was on a US Airways flight a few months ago where me, another passenger, and the flight attendant were chatting on how terrible the whole UA/CO merger was for passengers and workers alike.

I find that highly unlikely to occur. My employees are very happy in their jobs and we go above and beyond to keep them that way.

United is unable to say the same.

But if it did occur, the first thing I would want to find out is why the employee is unhappy and deal with the underlying problem.

That's where the advantage of being unionized comes in. United is not going to be able to fire someone for mouthing off while off duty.

Well clearly the contract with only 24 hour layovers for international service is the primary reason we have the delayed/cancelled international thread.

Those work rules need to go to something more realistic like at least 36 hours layover so the crews are getting some R&R time in a nice foreign city and the operation can resume something that will actually allow it to function as a global flag carrier (as opposed to the unreliable hot mess the airline has become).

Bottom line if you arrive in NRT or BOM on 7-1 you shouldn't be going back stateside until 7-3

That would probably cut the international delay/cancel nightmare substantially.

Plus isn't the point of being an international FA to see the world? How is that possible on 24 hour turns and The current UACOs unreliability?

Given what I've heard from various co-workers and acquaintances married to int'l UA FAs, most FA spouses just roll their eyes as in ya s/he used to be a few hour late sometimes, but now it's not uncommon for them to be 2-3 days late...so we can't plan anything anymore.

Probably better to get something reliable than fanciful there in that new contract...or at least hazard pay for the spouses that now have to deal with this nonsense too. ;)

Sorry, but most flight attendants do not share your view. Most want a productive trip. After many years of flying, they are not looking for an unpaid day off in a foreign city. They want to fly, rest and come home.

There are of course some that want easier work rules, but it is far from a majority.

Take a vote and figure it out. That is what the Union is for. If not, what does the FA's pay dues for? Work as a team! :)

I have never heard aloud any pmUA rant from their jumpseat in my time flying on UAL. I know times have been tough for pmUA employees for the past 15+ years but they always maintained professionalism. That includes the summer of 2000 and all the years of Chapter 11. I cannot say this for a few pmCO crews. There have been many flights where these FAs complained about something company related. I've also heard too many accounts of their personal life crisis as well. I've seen many of them on their smartphones during taxi and takeoff. Are they in airplane mode? I highly doubt it. I've even heard of one pmCO FA crew falling asleep on a red eye where the First Officer came out as they were descending to find them asleep in the back of the plane. They were fired as a result.

I am sure FAs with bad attitudes can be found regardless of where the FAs originally started with. To single out pmUA or pmCO is not really fair as there are very professional and courteous FAs across the board. Unfortunately there are many who are unprofessional and those FAs should be terminated.

There are no mergers. There are acquisition and there are collisions. If everyone is not clear that it is an acquisition, then the acquisition is a collision. True for airlines, tech, banks, everything (including countries).

the only exception I've seen is where the independent operating company is permitted to run independently ... but that is a boon granted by the acquirer.

on my last UA flight, the ex-CO crew explained a few differences: UA with 48 hour int'l layover, CO with 24 hour int'l. She opted for domestic runs since she get more cycles in a shorter amount of time.

You have just described the primary difference between the UA and CO flight attendant groups.

If a significant number of flight attendants did not exist on both sides of this equation, the current impasse over a new contract would not exist.

It's one of the differences, but it's not a big part of the differences. The right to choose how you work is one of the significant ones. Some people want to work more, some people want to work less. If someone wants to work the maximum amount that they are legally allowed they should be allowed to. This allows them to earn extra money. If someone wants to work less and only work their basic schedule that should be allowed too. People that have been flying extra trips every month for years to earn extra money should not be forced to work an unproductive schedule with days off on the road unpaid and away from their families. Likewise people who want to have an easier schedule should not be forced to fly with having very short layovers etc. The issue is that people get to bid for the types of trips that they have. That system has worked across the airlines for a long time. For one side or the other to start dictating how the other side works is just not cool. It is definitely more efficient for the company if the flight attendants work more trips than just a basic schedule as obviously it takes less flight attendants to complete the schedule. This is the same across any business, nobody wants to pay more employees than they have to. Likewise the company is NOT trying or forcing anyone to work more than their basic schedule. There are plenty of people that want to work more and plenty of people that don't. The work rules issue is just one part of a very complicated process. Seniority integration is huge, Pay increases are huge. Poor morale is huge. It will eventually get worked out, no one should lose any sleep over it