UNITED959

I'm sure some attorney somewhere could twist this to make UA at fault for handing out the cert.

honmani2

I've worked in union and non-union settings. IMHO, employees are not lousy simply because they are in a union. They are lousy for a number of reasons that have been cited here: bad day, personal problems, poor training, incompent supervision, etc. Yes, some employees are simply not suited for their job but having worked with unions over the years, their main job is to protect their members (who pay their paychecks through dues).

If a company follows the contract with the necessary due rights, paper trail, etc., employees do get fired. But in many states, if an employee believes the union did not represent them adequately, he or she can bring up the union on charges to the labor relations board.

I know it's fashionable to bash unions but I'm not so sure in this instance it's a case of the union deliberately protecting an RCC "dragon" no matter how terrible she is.

gj83

It seems to be to the point where the IAD RCC matrons must be specifically told to NOT issue drink chits. I wonder what they think they are for.

I'm tempted to book an international ITIN through IAD just to test this out. I think really though, we need to continue with the top down approach instead of the bottom up. Training needs to come from United, not from us showing up with rules. I don't like it when others tell me how to do my job.

UNITED959

Please put your time to better use, like volunteering at shelters for those who are less fortunate. C'mon, it's two drink certs worth $14 max!

vla

I have been reading consistently similar versions of this story on these pages for the year I've been here. What a miserable lot they must be at IAD. United is but a tiny fraction of its former self.

mikew99

As others have mentioned, it's a matter of (1) principle; the RCC agents aren't following UA's documented policies, to the detriment of paying passengers; and (2) service attitude; the RCC agents are calling security when people are requesting something that UA entitles them. I think that's worth way more than $14!

It's not a $100 fight for me, but ^ for those fighting the battle!

mlcrx2b

Ok, if you were flying NH to NRT, why didn't you go to the NH lounge? Were you looking for a confrontation? We all know the IAD RCC's are the place to find them. But seriously, if the RCC's at IAD are as bad as everyone seems to think, I would have rather checked out the NH lounge instead.

gj83

After saying that I did say that this needs to come from the top down, not from the bottom up. If I go and tell 1 matron that i'm entitled to drink chits, what progress have i really made? If 1 supervisor or service director or whomever really has jurisdiction in this matter informs the RCC staff of the rules hopefully more progress will be made.

I feel that I have no ground to file a complaint to higherups since I have not been entitled to drink chits at an IAD RCC. If I try to obtain some and got denied I would have a reason to join the bandwagon. My experience at the IAD RCCs has been limited to giving my card, going in, and hunting to find a spot. minimal interaction and no reason to complain to United (except about the not finding a seat part, but i think that's b/c 1 of the clubs was being renovated)

babyjesus

in my mind, it's conflict theory. we struggle to maximize our benefits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory

grayland

It has nothing to do with the two drink chits.
It is about the continued abuse by the IAD RCC matrons.
Actually, in my opinion, it is symptomatic of the attitude of far to many front line employees at UA.

This must be the umpteenth time the very same thing has happened. There is even a thread with an email from the IAD manager stating that the policy is to give the two chits....and that it will never happen again.

How can it just continue? Management allows this to happen by not disciplining the offensive employees. I disagree with Goalie in that it really does not matter what is going on in someone's life....you cannot take it out on valuable customers...period. She should be fired.

Once again...the threat of security How many times have we heard that raised in simple situations. Why don't they just call a supervisor to straighten out the "misunderstanding"? The answer is probably clear.

iluv2fly

So where do you draw the line? At a SWU that you might be entitled to for ~$300?

Your argument makes no sense.

PhlyingRPh

I might be getting my terminology mixed up so please bear with me.

Strictly speaking, shouldn't OP be using the term "Dragon" rather than "Matron"?
I thought the SYD FA's were the "Matrons" and the IAD RCC entry staff were "Dragons" (Yes, I'm getting technical)

fastair

This would be correct if you don't want a problem solved. If you want someone with knowledge, always go to the SD, if you want someone who will agree with you, skip them and go to the supe.

How many Supes can reissue even a simple domestic ticket? How many SD's can reissue a complex intl ticket? Supes are face men. Non-union, but also non-trained. When I want a complex thing done properly, I go to the experts, not the yes men, but to each his own.

Sounds like you may get the profile re-written to exclude the IAD club as it appears from what the supe said their is no reciprocal agreement there. If no agreement exists, then the profile should eliminate the use of NH passengers having UA pay for their drinks when NH can provide that service and doesn't reciprocate.

Sometimes, a battle for the purpose of proving a point is not a good battle. You "won" but learned from the supe (which you hold in high esteem) that there is no agreement for "payback" or reciprocation from NH.

It would be very ironic if they adjusted the profile (it may already have been done...you have a hardcopy, which is not a living doc, the profile is electronic and can be changed on the spot) to exempt such lounges where this situation exists from use.


Congrats...you have much support on this, but I fear that winning this battle could make you a winner now, but the rest of the public a loser in the future.

And as for who should be fired? I believe it is a more serious offence for whoever gave lucky/FT internal UA profiles in a hardcopy form.

If they were meant for customers to have access, they would not be an Apollo only thing, they would be included on UA.com So the profile in your hand, is the fruit of an unholy action by an employee, and therefore any use of an improperly obtained internal doccument equally as improper. Fruits of the poison tree are best kept quiet for personal info, and not to be flaunted to the arborist (is that a word? What do you call a tree grower?)

I love you battle, but I hate the actions/possible implications.

IAHflyer

Just picked up on this thread.

Great work lucky!

You have this FT'ers full support !! ^ ^

dan1431

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT denigrating Lucky in the slightest.

Lucky was doing something not only for the FT community but, for the UA flying public as whole and deserves congrats for that. Where I take issues is that Lucky is underage, while the agent did not deny him based on his age, the agent would have had every right to. Would Lucky have backed off if she said, I am sorry sir, you are under age and unable to drink therefor you are ineligible for chits? My point is that Lucky really had no expectations for chits as he is under the age of 21 and thus in eligible to drink.

Had an "of age" Lucky carried out the same scenario it would have been truly beneficial, he left an out for the agent, she could have claimed that he was underage and therefore not eligible for chits. Was she wrong for trying to deny a Gold *Alliance member 2 drink chits? YES! Was Lucky wrong for asking them? I also think yes.

Lucky's intentions were in the right place but, IMHO he was wrong for trying until he is of age to drink.

Dan