evanderm

I make that point in my subsequent post!

I was trying to make the point that UDUs IMO don't unduly take away seats from NRSA pax

aluminumdriver

Sorry but you can't demoralize the already demoralized.

Thunderroad

As someone who initially was thinking in terms of the employees' expecting undue entitlements, I really appreciate your weighing in on this issue, AD. You put it in a very reasonable light. Your point that I put in bold makes especially good sense. Thanks.

evanderm

I'm sorry. Yes, front line airline employees have a lot to be demoralized about. There's absolutely no sarcasm in this. Even before the economic downturn times were tough and they just aren't getting any easier now that the economy's gone further down the hole.

I am more concerned about the union adding insult to injury. Do the AFAs posts on their website honestly help anyone? I don't think their complaining is adding anything constructive to the situation of their members or non-members alike.

To me, these stances taken by unions lead me to sympathize less with them and their actions even though they perform a vital role in ensuring fair working conditions and give employees a collective voice.

I sympathize greatly with the situation of all the employees who have had to hand in so much in regards to their pay, pensions, time etc. I just can't understand the notion that UDUs are a bad development for anyone and why the union must get upset about them. Ultimately they should lead to more seats being filled and a stronger airline who will better be able to take care of its employees.

Sometimes the unions, with their power, in their actions hurt a company more than they should, leading to greater detriment in the long-run. e.g. Alitalia.

AAerSTL

Yes, I actually do. Times are rough now and UAL has continued to send capacity and ground handling to UAX which generally does not provide as competitive of a wage to its employees than their UAL counterparts

Point well taken. I knew that before posting on FT.

Well, it clearly is about entitlement. When the AFA calls it a 'Kick in the teeth' it clearly is. UAL employees can travel NRSA (Non revenue space available). No where do these changes directly reduce or dilute any opportunity based on the premise that it is truly SPACE AVAILABLE. Why does management need to do something else to make up for it? Employees do still have the opportunity to non-rev in First and as a published benefit on a space available basis, after all revenue customers have been accommodated. How has the benefit been reduced/eliminated and why is an alternative necessary? Waiving the pet fee seems like a very generous offer on behalf of the company

By posting on their open, public access website, the AFA clearly wants people to read it or they wouldn't make it so easy for the general public to access. If it was not directed at me, why was it posted in clear open view for anyone with internet access?

aluminumdriver

Are you a flight attendant for United and work with the AFA? If not, then what are you doing on the AFA website? Snooping around for something to complain about? What's going on at the ALPA website? I don't go there that often, but if you want to go on there and pretend you're an airline pilot and see what's going on, have at it. Not trying to be a SA, but really, getting worked up over something like this, really folks, go find something to do.

I believe it was on the AFA hotline for the flight attendants, so not sure why someone posted it here. Not your job or mine to decide what is and isn't "correct" language for them to say to their folks. Have a good one.

AD

Travailen

AD, did you actually just suggest that something posted online and available for public viewing was in fact private? Really? C'mon...if you (or the AFA) post something online, you cannot then complain or be surprised if someone sees it, reads it, and/or replies to it. Especially if you write something that is at all controversial or contentious -- which, given the language used (regardless for whose ears it was intended) this definitely was.

Don't believe me? Just paste the title of this thread into google and see how private a public website is. (p.s. You're famous!! ...At least on google )

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

+1

aluminumdriver

Nope, I'm not saying it's private. I'm saying it is intended for their folks, the FA's. What a passengers has to say about it means nothing to the AFA or the FA's, as it was not a message to you.

If ALPA posts something on their website and someone here has an issue with it, I won't care. If ALPA puts out something in the press and someone has an issue with it, then I would listen to their concerns because it was public press release. Don't want to be potentially offended by a union posting...don't go to their web site. Very simple concept. Have a good evening.

AD

Travailen

What these posters have to say (whether they are FAs or not) means something to me.

My original comment was in reply to your notions of privacy online; but I see you mean to take this further.

Are you actually advocating censorship? Because by your own standard, if something offends, rather than expressing our offense, we should either a.) shut up about it or b.) not visit the offending site.

Well, by your own remarks in this thread, you seem to be offended by much of what has been written. And, much to the chagrin of your union (as I gather you haven't asked their permission or checked for a press release as yet) you seem to be doing a fair bit of 'listening' and an awful lot of 'caring'.

If you really believe what you write, why are you still here? This is FlyerTalk, not PilotTalk -- while their are many outliers, certainly the core of our membership are fliers, meaning passengers. This is our website. You have yours. Why, if our website offends you do you still feel entitled to criticize and suggest censorship, but not hold yourself to the same standard?

Wait, I know why. Because it is WRONG.

Because the web is all about freedom of information, freedom of expression, sharing of knowledge, accessibility, differing points of view... It is about being offended and sharing your outrage with others, or being overjoyed and sharing that too. The minute we start telling people that they can't be offended by something and express their offense, that they should avoid websites because they have no business there...well that is censorship.

I don't have to like what the AFA wrote. You don't have to like that I learned of what they wrote, or that I have an opinion. But, do not think that you have the ability to limit my right to express these views or opinions, and don't think you have the authority to limit my ability to 'troll' the web for any and all legally acquired information and media. And, you know what? I won't stop you from disagreeing with me. I'll just tell you that I think you are wrong. That is freedom, baby...Ain't it the greatest?!

And you know what? You may be use to that kind of control and authority in the cockpit, AD -- and there you need it -- but you are not captain on this plane (that's a double entendre...awful, I know. )

You have a good evening too.

iluv2fly

And to all, a good night.

iluv2fly
Moderator, UA