AFAs view of unlimited upgrades
Nov 18, 2009, 7:04 pm
#31
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: United GS/MM, Marriott LT Titanium Elite
Posts: 242
Oh no, the first class will be full of pax, run for cover!
Nov 18, 2009, 7:16 pm
#32
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: SQ, QF, UA, CO, DL
Posts: 2,986
A friend of mine who retired from UA says that he never counts on flying anything other than Y domestically. He said that despite the current uproar the actual impact on most employees from UDU is not significant and the major difference will be short haul flights where previously customers would not want to use upgrade instruments. I guess in the end for an employee it depends on where they and when they typically fly.
I really am not in favor of the change because in my experience it is hard to purchase a last minute seat on CO in FC. Once IM figures out that the FC seats will be filled at Y prices they will act just like CO and "sell" the seats for virtually any increment they can get to improve yield. I hope it works out for United, I know what it will mean for customers trying to upgrade.
Last edited by uanj; Nov 18, 2009 at 7:18 pm Reason: sp
Nov 18, 2009, 7:26 pm
#33
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Denver CO
Posts: 3,682
I'm a strong union supporter, so that's not the issue.
Skipping the details, I was once a UA big mileage guy. Now I am TATL on other carriers. Why:
1. Paris was effectively eliminated as a hub.
2. Indifferent FA service and conduct. By that I mean chatting with friends when I'm seeking a wine refill in C during the whole dinner service. And not responding to the call button in C for 90 minutes. And rudely hogging space near the door on the Dulles shuttle so that a family with kids has to climb over them.
3. Weak ground service at airports like Dulles, where I waited 30 minutes to check-in for C TATL travel and over an hour for luggage to hit the carousel one Sunday night because the crew's shift was over at 10 pm.
One of UA's biggest mistakes during bankruptcy was not demanding a way to weed out the employees with an outsized sense of entitlement so that the other, very dedicated employees and customers (like me) who appreciate them could together make UA the good, profitable airline it could be.
I'm not kicking anyone in the teeth. I'm in the next terminal waiting for a flight on one of your competitors.
Skipping the details, I was once a UA big mileage guy. Now I am TATL on other carriers. Why:
1. Paris was effectively eliminated as a hub.
2. Indifferent FA service and conduct. By that I mean chatting with friends when I'm seeking a wine refill in C during the whole dinner service. And not responding to the call button in C for 90 minutes. And rudely hogging space near the door on the Dulles shuttle so that a family with kids has to climb over them.
3. Weak ground service at airports like Dulles, where I waited 30 minutes to check-in for C TATL travel and over an hour for luggage to hit the carousel one Sunday night because the crew's shift was over at 10 pm.
One of UA's biggest mistakes during bankruptcy was not demanding a way to weed out the employees with an outsized sense of entitlement so that the other, very dedicated employees and customers (like me) who appreciate them could together make UA the good, profitable airline it could be.
I'm not kicking anyone in the teeth. I'm in the next terminal waiting for a flight on one of your competitors.
Last edited by Mountain Trader; Nov 18, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Nov 18, 2009, 7:54 pm
#34
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indiana
Programs: United GS 1.5MM, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Gold
Posts: 533
Too many employees have the idea that they have a right to first class. These bad apples are the ones that upset customers and when a customer is upset, like in any business, the business suffers. And the only way is for the airline to have proper regulation to irradicate that.
"Ask not what your company can do for you, but what you can do for your company"
"Ask not what your company can do for you, but what you can do for your company"
Nov 18, 2009, 8:15 pm
#35
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,687
Actually, as a former AFA member the DearAFA e-mails are sent directly to me...so your assumption is incorrect. I simply posted the public link since it is accesible to everyone. If it had truly been an "eyes only" e-mail then I wouldn't have posted it here. If the AFA didn't want/think/assume that the general public was reviewing the DearAFA hotline then they would password protect it just like they password protect the vast majority of the other content on their website.
And now I will editorialize...my qualm is not that there is grumbling over the fact that FC upgrades are going to be hard for employees to get. Afterall, it became incredibly rare for an NRSA to ride in domestic FC years ago (despite what many FT'ers thing, LOL) What irked me was the incendiary use of the term "kick in the teeth" as though this policy had been put in place solely and distinctly to prevent FAs from ever flying in FC.
And now I will editorialize...my qualm is not that there is grumbling over the fact that FC upgrades are going to be hard for employees to get. Afterall, it became incredibly rare for an NRSA to ride in domestic FC years ago (despite what many FT'ers thing, LOL) What irked me was the incendiary use of the term "kick in the teeth" as though this policy had been put in place solely and distinctly to prevent FAs from ever flying in FC.
My assumption is incorrect? Sir, you received the email as you state based on your membership (past or present) in the AFA. The intended audience of the AFA website is AFA members. I never stated it was an "eyes only" type of thing with a password or a NDA attached, rather that the place it was published to, by the author was for information for AFA (or in your case, a former AFA) member(s).
So are you insinuating that a link to the United Airlines SW union, and an email sent to a (former) member of said union based on his/her membership in said organization was not written/distributed with the PRIMARY audience intention of UA AFA members? Had the author of the statement posted a new thread here with that statement, then I would agree that his audience was for the FT community, but as it was posted on the AFA site, I think any reasonable person could guess the intended audience.
I believe a "kick in the teeth" is used as saying "beating a dead horse" or kicking a man when they are down. Most people don't have the ability to jump kick others in the teeth, but rather, once you have beaten someone down to the ground and had your way with them, a kick in the teeth is excessive, punitive, or overkill, something down beyond what was necessary to achieve victory This, I believe is the intent of the phrase, not as purely incendiary, but rather to show that it is just another thing done when one has already taken away plenty.
Last edited by fastair; Nov 18, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Nov 18, 2009, 8:15 pm
#36
Join Date: Mar 2006
Programs: *Gold / HHonors Gold
Posts: 395
I was the customer service desk at IAD to get my upgraded BP (Chicken said to see CS agent) and the agent very openly said how unhappy she was that they were implementing UDU system as it eliminates staff ever getting an F seat. This was after I made the comment to use as much of my e500s since they're going extinct soon.
Nov 18, 2009, 8:50 pm
#37
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
Here's what I don't get. Why do UA's unions when they have a dispute with their contract, always use the customers as a wedge against the company? The pilots did this in spectacular style during the summer from H*** and we know how well that turned out. It just makes no sense from this fare paying elite and probably never will.
Nov 18, 2009, 8:58 pm
#38
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: My posts represent my personal opinions based on public information and not the official views of UA
Posts: 344
I was the customer service desk at IAD to get my upgraded BP (Chicken said to see CS agent) and the agent very openly said how unhappy she was that they were implementing UDU system as it eliminates staff ever getting an F seat. This was after I made the comment to use as much of my e500s since they're going extinct soon.
Here are my two cents (as a NRSA traveler who likes an F seat just as much as any of you):
Given the logic that UDUs are good for building and maintaining customer loyalty, UDUs will make UA a stronger competitor, which in turn ends up being good for employees.
NRSA travel has *always* been about employees behind paying customers. We don't get upgrades ahead of customers who qualify for them (the exception being employees on company travel who are confirmed in premium cabins). While the qualifying criteria fo customers to get domestic F upgrades has changed, the "pecking order" of putting the paying customer first hasn't.
FWIW, the AFA's comment seems to be more a reflection of the union trying to create a stir than a reflection of the majority of United employees (including flight attendants themselves) who remain focused on providing a quality travel experience that our customers value.
Nov 18, 2009, 9:13 pm
#39
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Count Your Blessings
Posts: 1,548
(A) Get a new job
(B) Start your own gig
Americans need to be reminded that no one owes them anything.
Nov 18, 2009, 9:27 pm
#41
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: UA Plat, 2MM
Posts: 1,861
What !!!! F not full of UA employees but people who pay for tickets? Surely non rev can still board first and fill the bins with their luggage??? Of COURSE the Unions would be upset. The are "Unions". What is WRONG with the world when non rev does not get precedent over paying customers. In my business I would certainly put my employees comfort over that of the mere customers who keep us in business.
FA's and Unions - I am sick of you crying. Get a job!
PS I do think that the FA's working (??)) in F should be allowed to go back to coach and talk for the entire trip to their co workers who are now not in F.
FA's and Unions - I am sick of you crying. Get a job!
PS I do think that the FA's working (??)) in F should be allowed to go back to coach and talk for the entire trip to their co workers who are now not in F.
Nov 18, 2009, 9:46 pm
#42
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ORD, LHR, GLA
Programs: AA CK/EXP/1MM, UA Conscientious Objector, Hyatt CC, SPG Plat, HH Diamond VIP
Posts: 244
As I step into my flame retardant (but carcinogenic) asbestos suit, I think , let's put it into perspective.
1) The FA (as well as most UA labor groups) system is based on seniority. As one's career progresses, they move up relative to others and get better work assignments, potentially better pay, better vacation times... With the reduction in staffing at well over 50% this decade, and the virtual freeze on hiring any labor (mgmt continues to hire) these benefits have been reduced resulting in a) job insecurity, and b) the traditional fruits of seniority not being achieved as their is no upward movement, only stagnation and downward movement based on chopping off the jr people to furlough.
2) Work rule changes have made employees of most groups work more per week/month/year.
3) Pay has been slashed, not even through negotiations, but thru a judges order.
4) Retirement benefits have been defaulted on, sold off to the Fed, and capped.
5) As with many companies, insurance benefits have been reduced/individual payments increased.
6) Vacation time was slashed.
7) Capacity has been reduced, creating fuller planes. One of the few untouched benefits is NRSA travel. By filling planes more, it benefits the company, but makes space available travel in ANY class more difficult. Now, F in the domestic world (which is the vast majority of UA's system) will be most of the time filled on an unlimited basis, by not only those who are loyal (the definition of loyalty can be debated...how is a 3P loyal?) to UA, but now, to those that are loyal to a competitor. (That's right, CO is a domestic competitor. Anti-trust waivers for domestic routes have not been lifted...there is no coordinated pricing or inventory.) A UA employee who buys a ticket on UA is not entitled to F, nor even economy plus, unless they are a "elite" on either CO or UA. Our ID does not (per the rules) allow us free bags, E+, or space available upgrades, and with fuller planes and reduced schedules, many employees buy their ticket. I am willing to bet that most employees that have stuck with UA for the past decade are at least (I would argue more so) as "loyal" as any one of the gen pop.
So to be offended at UA for another reduction in perks, in an industry that has had far more cutbacks and reductions than most, (not many industries have had near the job loss that the airlines have, not to mention the other benefit reductions) is not surprising. To belittle their union for addressing this shows a lack of empathy, compassion, or even common sense.
I am one who posts often here,but rarely complains about my lot in life at UA, but when a group gets upset over another reduction, wouldn't a normal person also get upset if the same things happened to them? I mean come on, just look at how many FT's complained where the unlimited upgrades were announced. And this, is something that will give out MORE upgrades on average to the FT community (at the expense of the employees) yet some (many) still cried.
I don't want your pity, but I do expect a little understanding from those who complain when ancillary benefits to them are increased, when primary benefits to a group are reduced. The primary purpose of UA to it's customers (and what your contract gives you) is air travel between a and B in the cabin of service paid for. Anything beyond that is gravy. When your gravy is reduced, you cry, so to should an employee be upset in much the same way when their gravy is taken away, and our gravy has been an industry standard for many more years than frequent flier benefits have been. It has been a cornerstone to our benefit packages for over 50 years. Deregulation and loyalty programs are less than 1/2 that age, so the fact that it IS, and traditionally has been for as long as any UA employees have been working, a fundamental part of the benefit package is a reality and a unilateral significant change does represent a material change to our relationship with our employer. Posting that on an internal website is to be expected, and to ridicule that shows a lack of any intelligence on the ridiculer's part.
1) The FA (as well as most UA labor groups) system is based on seniority. As one's career progresses, they move up relative to others and get better work assignments, potentially better pay, better vacation times... With the reduction in staffing at well over 50% this decade, and the virtual freeze on hiring any labor (mgmt continues to hire) these benefits have been reduced resulting in a) job insecurity, and b) the traditional fruits of seniority not being achieved as their is no upward movement, only stagnation and downward movement based on chopping off the jr people to furlough.
2) Work rule changes have made employees of most groups work more per week/month/year.
3) Pay has been slashed, not even through negotiations, but thru a judges order.
4) Retirement benefits have been defaulted on, sold off to the Fed, and capped.
5) As with many companies, insurance benefits have been reduced/individual payments increased.
6) Vacation time was slashed.
7) Capacity has been reduced, creating fuller planes. One of the few untouched benefits is NRSA travel. By filling planes more, it benefits the company, but makes space available travel in ANY class more difficult. Now, F in the domestic world (which is the vast majority of UA's system) will be most of the time filled on an unlimited basis, by not only those who are loyal (the definition of loyalty can be debated...how is a 3P loyal?) to UA, but now, to those that are loyal to a competitor. (That's right, CO is a domestic competitor. Anti-trust waivers for domestic routes have not been lifted...there is no coordinated pricing or inventory.) A UA employee who buys a ticket on UA is not entitled to F, nor even economy plus, unless they are a "elite" on either CO or UA. Our ID does not (per the rules) allow us free bags, E+, or space available upgrades, and with fuller planes and reduced schedules, many employees buy their ticket. I am willing to bet that most employees that have stuck with UA for the past decade are at least (I would argue more so) as "loyal" as any one of the gen pop.
So to be offended at UA for another reduction in perks, in an industry that has had far more cutbacks and reductions than most, (not many industries have had near the job loss that the airlines have, not to mention the other benefit reductions) is not surprising. To belittle their union for addressing this shows a lack of empathy, compassion, or even common sense.
I am one who posts often here,but rarely complains about my lot in life at UA, but when a group gets upset over another reduction, wouldn't a normal person also get upset if the same things happened to them? I mean come on, just look at how many FT's complained where the unlimited upgrades were announced. And this, is something that will give out MORE upgrades on average to the FT community (at the expense of the employees) yet some (many) still cried.
I don't want your pity, but I do expect a little understanding from those who complain when ancillary benefits to them are increased, when primary benefits to a group are reduced. The primary purpose of UA to it's customers (and what your contract gives you) is air travel between a and B in the cabin of service paid for. Anything beyond that is gravy. When your gravy is reduced, you cry, so to should an employee be upset in much the same way when their gravy is taken away, and our gravy has been an industry standard for many more years than frequent flier benefits have been. It has been a cornerstone to our benefit packages for over 50 years. Deregulation and loyalty programs are less than 1/2 that age, so the fact that it IS, and traditionally has been for as long as any UA employees have been working, a fundamental part of the benefit package is a reality and a unilateral significant change does represent a material change to our relationship with our employer. Posting that on an internal website is to be expected, and to ridicule that shows a lack of any intelligence on the ridiculer's part.
I left for a number of reasons, but chief among these was the pervasive attitude at UA regarding loyalty. There is no loyalty at UA. I don't just mean towards its pax (and there isn't) but towards its personnel as well.
There is a undercurrent of frustration in your post -- a warranted frustration -- and regrettably the loyalty vacuum at UA continues to takes its toll on passenger and personnel alike. You guys have been 'kicked in the teeth' more times than can be counted, and all too often that translates into ill-will towards each other and your passengers (you know --- the people who pay the company that says they'll pay you before changing their mind and instead declare bankruptcy and leave you holding the bag...)
Invariably, you get your teeth kicked in, and because it smarts so, take it out on everyone and anyone. This is not universally true -- their are some exceptions, but most of the FAs I know who are genuinely decent, nice people are just fed up and don't want to pretend that they are happy or plaster a smile on their face anymore. So do not get me wrong...these are not bad people at UA... these are people who have been pushed to the edge -- and right or wrong -- have lost whatever passion or joy they might have ever had for the job (though few I have talked to would characterize their reasons for pursuing the job for these reasons.)
All that being said, and as much as I do empathize with the plight of the UA employees -- you can't take it out on the passengers. And you do. You may not mean to or want to, but you do. Of course, I don't necessarily mean you personally, or every UA employee -- but the sentiment expressed by the union -- while directed at the company -- offends the passengers. Again, your anger at the company is like buckshot, and we are often in the line of fire.
Until you guys figure out that whatever your beef with mgmt (and vice versa), the last group you want to alienate is the passenger -- you will continue to engender resentment and lose business.
And, btw, AA has its own difficulties with mgmt and labor -- the big difference is, they don't take it out on me as a passenger...they don't make it our problem. They recognize that whatever their problems, our continued loyalty, and their loyalty to us, is probably gonna be a net benefit for all involved.
And don't worry, even though I am a mere Premier on United these days, when I do travel, I travel paid First -- so while I will be taking a precious F seat out of inventory -- I'll be paying revenue for it. Hopefully, some day you'll see some of that revenue.
I hope UA treats you better, I really do. And, I hope UA treats its passengers better too.
Last edited by Travailen; Nov 18, 2009 at 9:49 pm Reason: Forgot to add my second to last comment...
Nov 18, 2009, 9:58 pm
#43
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ORD, LHR, GLA
Programs: AA CK/EXP/1MM, UA Conscientious Objector, Hyatt CC, SPG Plat, HH Diamond VIP
Posts: 244
I'm a strong union supporter, so that's not the issue.
Skipping the details, I was once a UA big mileage guy. Now I am TATL on other carriers. Why:
1. Paris was effectively eliminated as a hub.
2. Indifferent FA service and conduct. By that I mean chatting with friends when I'm seeking a wine refill in C during the whole dinner service. And not responding to the call button in C for 90 minutes. And rudely hogging space near the door on the Dulles shuttle so that a family with kids has to climb over them.
3. Weak ground service at airports like Dulles, where I waited 30 minutes to check-in for C TATL travel and over an hour for luggage to hit the carousel one Sunday night because the crew's shift was over at 10 pm.
One of UA's biggest mistakes during bankruptcy was not demanding a way to weed out the employees with an outsized sense of entitlement so that the other, very dedicated employees and customers (like me) who appreciate them could together make UA the good, profitable airline it could be.
I'm not kicking anyone in the teeth. I'm in the next terminal waiting for a flight on one of your competitors.
Skipping the details, I was once a UA big mileage guy. Now I am TATL on other carriers. Why:
1. Paris was effectively eliminated as a hub.
2. Indifferent FA service and conduct. By that I mean chatting with friends when I'm seeking a wine refill in C during the whole dinner service. And not responding to the call button in C for 90 minutes. And rudely hogging space near the door on the Dulles shuttle so that a family with kids has to climb over them.
3. Weak ground service at airports like Dulles, where I waited 30 minutes to check-in for C TATL travel and over an hour for luggage to hit the carousel one Sunday night because the crew's shift was over at 10 pm.
One of UA's biggest mistakes during bankruptcy was not demanding a way to weed out the employees with an outsized sense of entitlement so that the other, very dedicated employees and customers (like me) who appreciate them could together make UA the good, profitable airline it could be.
I'm not kicking anyone in the teeth. I'm in the next terminal waiting for a flight on one of your competitors.
Nov 18, 2009, 10:52 pm
#44
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Programs: RVT 1K
Posts: 884
I've had it with the FA's union....just quit, please! I flew Air Asia a few weeks ago....why can't we have FA's like that? Happy, smiling, helpful, and it is an LCC!!
I was at ORD earlier this year trying to standby for an earlier flight to SFO, and I wanted to see about an upgrade, but I knew it would be tuff, no problem I was confirmed on a later flight.
I was sitting next to two FA's who were deadheading, or transiting to SFO to go somewhere else I think. I sat there and watched as they mocked one lady who approached two or three times to see if she cleared...and she did, and then F was full, and both the FA's said something to the effect of " whatever, I am so over it, she got her upgrade, great, screw this"
I think this FA job was never meant to be a career thing, maybe a purser, but these entitled lifers gotta go....guess it does not matter, I do not expect UA or it's union to be around after 2012 anyways.
EDIT: I am actually not a fan of UDU.
EDIT 2:
Last year I flew trans Tasman on NZ and they let two FA's into C. They were not allowed to recline their seats and I think were told to be discreet....no kidding!!
I was at ORD earlier this year trying to standby for an earlier flight to SFO, and I wanted to see about an upgrade, but I knew it would be tuff, no problem I was confirmed on a later flight.
I was sitting next to two FA's who were deadheading, or transiting to SFO to go somewhere else I think. I sat there and watched as they mocked one lady who approached two or three times to see if she cleared...and she did, and then F was full, and both the FA's said something to the effect of " whatever, I am so over it, she got her upgrade, great, screw this"
I think this FA job was never meant to be a career thing, maybe a purser, but these entitled lifers gotta go....guess it does not matter, I do not expect UA or it's union to be around after 2012 anyways.
EDIT: I am actually not a fan of UDU.
EDIT 2:
Last year I flew trans Tasman on NZ and they let two FA's into C. They were not allowed to recline their seats and I think were told to be discreet....no kidding!!
Nov 18, 2009, 11:55 pm
#45
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,687
As for 2012, you feel the AFA will be gone? The IAM, and ALPA all to be gone? Maybe you didn't look at the white house, and the congressional makeup lately. As for anything being around after 2012...well, there are predictions much older than you or me, that say no one will be around after that. I believe they are as accurate as any of the other predictions we have. UA wasn't going to be around after 20002, 2006, 2008, and now you say 2012. UA was going to merge with US for 2 years, then merge with CO "any day now" for the past 3 years. I like to deal with realities. Predictions....well, for every correct one, there are 10 incorrect ones.
Call it evolution, call it de-evolution, call it whatever, but it is the current reality. People in jobs for 20-30 years don't just up and quit.
And PrestonH as far as "Here's what I don't get. Why do UA's unions when they have a dispute with their contract, always use the customers as a wedge against the company? The pilots did this in spectacular style during the summer from H*** and we know how well that turned out. It just makes no sense from this fare paying elite and probably never will." goes, I don't see this as a contractual dispute. I don't see any language to state that the AFA was even hinting at taking frustrations out on the customers. But to answer your question, please research the RLA (railway labor act,) how old it is and ineffective it is, what rights a union has, and what the actions they can take. Also research all the hurdles in the way of a union to take any legal action, from mgmt dragging negotiations on expired (they never "expire", but merely become "amenable") contracts, for years at a time, to cooling federally mandated cooling off periods, to congressional actions, to even presidential actions. Once you understand the law behind it, you will understand the tactics used by both sides. I mean, if you have a contract good thru XXX date, and prior to that, the other party breaks rules in it, you have recourse and can walk away. Not quite the sawe with the RLA. After XXX date, you can walk away. Not the same with the RLA. This law was written in 1926, and amended in 1936 to include airlines. SInce then it hasn't changed much. That was written back in the day where if a major railroad went on strike, the countries' economy could shut down. It was designed to provide the country and it's business with a reliable transportation infrastructure. The alternative? Go to Europe. Strikes happen all the time. Labor actions disrupt just many things, and far more often. And WalMart employees get paid more, get more vacation, and better benefits, than they do in the US. We are using old laws to regulate stuations that have changed so much since the law was written that it no longer serves it's original purpose, but causes mgmt/labor to stay at each other's throats for extended periods of time without any resolution other than "labor, until you have jumped thru all of the regulatory hoops, for a long period of time, you can do nothing to help your situation." And yes, collective bargaining is legal in the US, and may very much get easier to implement in the near future.
Last edited by fastair; Nov 19, 2009 at 12:11 am