Mike Jacoubowsky

My apologies if this is posted in another thread; took a quick look and didn't find it though.

Just saw a news report (Channel 5 KPIX SF) that the flight attendants were voting on whether to implement a disruptive plan named "CHAOS" to draw attention to the airline's request for a further reduction in pay.

According to those interviewed, many FAs are making about 25k/year, with the request by the airline to drop down to 20k. This, of course, isn't sitting well with the FAs, who fear that, even though they are operating currently under a contract, that the bankruptcy court might toss it out.

Planned disruptions would include random work stoppages of from 15 minutes to a full day, bringing CHAOS to UAs attempts to run things smoothly.

I have mixed feelings about this. It seems way-wrong to expect the lowest on the pay ladder to accept a pay cut like that, or even any pay cut at all. FAs aren't cattle; for that matter, no employee in any job should be considered in that way. But it is a job that requires a certain amount of intelligence, skill & training, and there's no question that the difference between good & bad FAs can make all the difference in the world in terms of how enjoyable (or not) a flight might be. Or, to put it another way, $25k just doesn't seem like a whole lot of money for that particular job, and at $20k, what caliber of people are you going to attract?

On the other hand, I don't think a randomly-disruptive plan of attack is a good idea, especially after what went on with USAir last week. It doesn't take all that much for someone to switch allegiances from one carrier to another, and if you have to be concerned about significant inconveniences... it just might be a final nail in the coffin.

Just my two cents-

--Mike--

tom911

You might want to take a look at the flight attendant's web site which has some articles about the voting. From that site:
We must act in solidarity and vote “FOR” on this CHAOS strike ballot. A vote FOR will not result in an immediate strike, but authorizes the AFA leadership to call for CHAOS strikes in the event that management rejects our Contract by order of the Bankruptcy Court.

givemeabreak

If we vote down the proposal United offers us, the judge can throw out our contract completely and impose his own pay and work rules. CHAOS is our only chance after that to renegotiate again. And it's up to management to prevent a strike. Both parties are supposed to be negotiating in good faith and from what I hear, United will not even discuss our answer to their term sheet.

FYI, the pay changes are only one aspect of our contract that is being stripped away. The work rule changes are what make this job not worth keeping. We can now be scheduled up to approximately 12 hours a day. The company wants us to work 16 hour days. And they want to again increase our monthly line hours (ie. increase the amount of trips we must fly).

The quality of life has become unbearable even since the last concessions ad that's why so many fa's have quit. It's one thing to work 16 hours a day and be able to sleep in your own bed, but the time we must spend away from home is ridiculous. Spending time away from home used to be compensated by our good pay and medical and retirement benefits, but not anymore.

And the things I mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg. They have already changed the way vacation is paid, which for me resulted in at least $3000 a year less, and now they are proposing to reduce some fa's vacation almost half of what it was. And this is not even one of the most contested items in the term sheet, although after 30 years of service you should get some kind of perk for being at a company that long, but we're not being unreasonable. The work rule changes are still the big problem. And United admits that our pay is 7.5% below the average.

Mike, thanks for trying to understand. ^

Sneezy

I wanted to stay out of these threads, but I really want to know how FAs think CHAOS will help them. Because I just don't see it.

If the bankruptcy judge imposes pay cuts and work rule changes, imposing CHAOS on UA is going to help your situation how? Because if the judge does impose those things, I'd assume it's because he agrees with UA management that UA can not survive without those changes. And I'm sure the AFA would have representatives at any hearings to dispute UA management's claims. So one would have to give considerable weight to UA management's claims if the judge does side with them - or close to them.

I'm sure hoping the judge doesn't impose such changes - because if he does impose them, that means he thinks UA is in really bad shape, which is something I don't want to find out is true to that degree.

Yes, it sucks to work for an industry that can't figure out how to make money despite the obvious demand for the product. And I've lived on less than $200 a week - it's not fun. But I don't see how blowing up a company in bankruptcy after the AFA doesn't get its way in front of a judge - if the AFA loses - is going to help your situation at all. It's more likely to place you in the unemployment line.

Because from a management point of view, if I were running another airline the last thing I'd ever do, if UA does go under, is hire any FAs from UA at anything other than zero years of seniority. Why? Because the last thing I'd do if I were running a business is reward someone for taking down a similar business by putting them inside my own organization.

I'm sympathetic to your position, but I'd really like to know how imposing CHAOS on UA assuming the bankruptcy judge imposes anything like the contract changes UA is asking for is going to help anyone other than AFA leadership and however many FAs that the AFA can convince other airlines to hire - which, in my opinion, would be darn close to zero. The majority if not all UA FAs will wind up unemployed if CHAOS works.

Oh, if I were running the AFA right now, I'd certainly be making CHAOS noises aimed at UA too, all as part of the bargaining going on.

Bear96

The real point of the CHAOS vote is to put pressure on management during negotiations.

I predict shortly we will see a TA announced by AFA, which will be narrowly ratified by the membership, thus making the potential for actual CHAOS job actions moot.

Of course if we do get to the point of a court-imposed contract, things will get very interesting indeed.

studentff

FAs making passengers the enemy is not the answer.

If the FAs strike against the passengers who would be displaced/stranded by these actions (and that's what this would be), expect the distressed passengers to 1) have no sympathy whatsoever, and 2) "strike" the airline by taking future business away. Such passenger "strikes" do not require federal approval or other such niceness.

Lots of folks are already saying the liquidation chances for USAir have increased as a result of the debacle over Christmas. I have little doubt CHAOS could put UA over the brink. Then it's no job for the FAs instead of a lesser paying job.

I sympathize with the UA employees who are generally very good, but that sympathy goes out the door when you start randomly stranding passengers at random airports. And lets face it, the greed of all of the unions at all of the legacy carriers in demanding fat contracts at the end of the dot-com bubble is a major reason the majors are in such trouble now.

If an FA on one of my flights suddenly walks off the job, expect to get an earful from me and be prepared to call the police.

Bear96

Ha. The travelling public already has very little to no sympathy for airline employees and their current plight, as evidenced by the numerous posts here on FT hostile to airline workers and their unions. So hopefully "passenger sympathy" has not entered into AFA's calculation to any significant degree.

thelostshark

As Bear96 notes, the CHAOS vote is all about leverage. The threat of CHAOS is different from CHAOS itself. tls

Jim Phillips

People, take off your blinders, and THINK.

The only negotiating many of you will be doing after a CHAOS move could very well likely be fending off your rent, mortgage, car payment, credit card, or other creditors because you'll have shut UA down and will be OUT OF A JOB.

So quit thinking that cutting off your nose to spite your face will somehow be fulfilling.

THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

SealBeach

Meanwhile, over at US Airways, hundreds of employees want SO BADLY for their employer to survive and for customer needs to be met that they're coming to work WITHOUT PAY on their days off...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec29.html

Lori_Q

Putting Thinking Cap on: I agree with thelostshark - it's about giving the union leverage in negotiation, which is not the same thing as executing CHAOS itself. Are YOU willing to work a sixteen-hour day, Jim, for so little compensation and support? United isn't in business to give its people jobs -- it's there to stay in business, so I understand their financial realities. But frankly, I think they're asking too much of these hard-working FAs.

If United isn't able to figure out a way to keep itself solvent without abusing its people to the point where they walk off the job, it doesn't deserve to stay in business.

SEA_Tigger

Never forget we at FT are the minority. Just because some of us may tell you to go pound sand, doesn't mean the flying public as a whole does. We all want our low fares, but if all the majors implode, we won't be able to get to grandma's on the holiday unless we live in major population centers that WN can service at a profit.

While I do not believe UA's difficulties last week were the result of any "CHAOS-Like" action (can't speak for US, however), the fact that what happened at US is accelerating public opinion that they will rapidly liquidate, any such organized CHAOS actions by UA's FAs will result in much the same sentiment for UA.

I have believed that if AFA wanted to use any airline as an "example", US would be it. So US might very well have been hit with an orchestrated (at whatever level) job action to send a message to the other majors to not (bleep) with them any more and to sit down and get serious about reasonable negotiations and not use the judge ala CO in the 90's to bludgeon the unions into submission.

I agree 25K is pretty darn cheap for what an FA does (even with the service reductions) and considering how well they do it (least out of SEA), they deserve that wage. UA has cut over half from non-labor sources, and there is still plenty of room for more consolodation of schedules. The end result is less people, but the ones who stay at least make a living wage.

AFA needs to realize that the winter of 2005 is not the summer of 2000. It's one thing to hammer your employer when times are good. It's another to do it when times are poor. UA probably lost hundreds of millions during SFH2K to other airlines. Add to that the billions unions extracted in wage increases, and all the pilots did was set themselves up for the huge crash that happened after the Tech BOOM happened. If UA had those billions, they might have been in a better position to weather the early 2000's and, like AA, avert C11 and wholescale slashing of payrolls and pay scales.

cawhite

Agree with studentff on this (okay, maybe not the part about being prepared to call the police ).

I know that the employees are frustrated beyond the knot at the end of their rope...most of us who fly frequently and certainly those of us who take the time to talk with employees or have friends who are airline employees understand that and sympathize with the emloyees. But in a CHAOS situation while you (front-line employees, in this case FAs) may feel you are targeting your actions toward airline management, but you'll also be affecting your passengers. Unfortunately for both the airline management and the employees, passengers don't tend to forget these things. And unfortunately for the employees, the majority of passengers tend to only remember that it was the front-line employees who went on strike and not any involvement with management that may (or may not) have been involved with it. I still hear pax talking about SFH and using that as their reason for not wanting to fly UA.

cawhite

I hope that you're not taking the posts of some FTers last weekend and earlier this week to reflect the attitudes of the majority of the traveling public, or for the majority of FTers in general. I had actually intended to post something relatively positive on behalf of the employees and a few comments I'd heard from UA employee friends but hadn't gotten my thoughts all together on it before the thread was locked down....just because the post wasn't there doesn't mean the support for FAs and other airline employees wasn't either.

cawhite

To the general flying public who don't fly as frequently as we all do, the THREAT of CHAOS isn't much difference than CHAOS itself. When they start planning trips & buy those tickets, what they're hearing and thinking about based on press reports is that "those (fill in the airline) employees are talking about striking -- I'm not taking a chance that will affect my flight." While it may give the union negotiating leverage, there are pax who are actively choosing not to fly your airline because of this "threat"