As others have said there is zero chance of a strike, do not let it even enter your head reguarding travel plans.
US is currently hiring FA's and I have heard had over 10 thousand applicants. So as is usual unionized employees greatly over estimate their own worth. |
Originally Posted by bevoinva
(Post 19724092)
This is spot on. I can't remember the last time any group of US flight attendants or pilots actually got to the point of striking. The Federal Government would surely delay a strike until who knows when.
In 2005 the Northwest Mechanics went on strike and Northwest had plenty of replacement mechanics that were out of work from other airlines that were glad to step in. Northwest basically gave the jobs to the replacements and told the union to pound sand When the mechanics wanted to talk again, Northwest offered them less money than what they had when they went on strike. |
Originally Posted by AggieNzona
(Post 19724724)
As others have said there is zero chance of a strike, do not let it even enter your head reguarding travel plans.
US is currently hiring FA's and I have heard had over 10 thousand applicants. So as is usual unionized employees greatly over estimate their own worth. |
Originally Posted by ILovetheReds
(Post 19724839)
And I am sure there are still plenty of laid off FA's from other airlines who would be happy to step in for the pay US is offering. If a strike would occur, I can see the same thing as the Northwest Mechanics strike in 2005. They will have plenty of replacements to take the jobs, operations won't really suffer, and the replacements will be happy to take the jobs and US will tell the union to pound sand.
|
Originally Posted by GaryZ
(Post 19723901)
Nothing that gobs of $$$ wouldn't solve.
Also, it should be pointed out that just over 60% of the FA's actually voted for the strike. |
Originally Posted by iztok
(Post 19727454)
Could you be less specific? Telling it is just a paycheck issue is not a real answer. I am sure $ is in the mix but that can't be the major thing holding this up I am sure.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11722...-contract.html The failed TA would have given the FAs substantial raises, but even with the raises, their pay would still have been lower than UA, DL or AA. The West (PMHP) FAs would have seen larger raises than the East (PMUS) FAs, due to their much lower pay than their East colleagues. |
So substantial increase but reason for holdout is that new contract doesn't keep pairing with the pilots? Seriously? That is the holdout in Charlotte? I understand potential advantages of pairings with the pilots but in doing so it would still prevent mixing of the crew and unifying labor force until pilots are under single contract as well. It looks to me that holdout is deliberate to lend more leverage to USALPA instead of taking it away (as they would be the last major stronghold preventing total merger of the East and West).
If this is the case (what is written in the article) then shame on FAs. It is not Doug's fault this felt through it truly is an union issue and a bogus one. |
Originally Posted by AggieNzona
(Post 19724724)
As others have said there is zero chance of a strike, do not let it even enter your head reguarding travel plans.
US is currently hiring FA's and I have heard had over 10 thousand applicants. So as is usual unionized employees greatly over estimate their own worth. |
Originally Posted by iztok
(Post 19728305)
So substantial increase but reason for holdout is that new contract doesn't keep pairing with the pilots? Seriously? That is the holdout in Charlotte? I understand potential advantages of pairings with the pilots but in doing so it would still prevent mixing of the crew and unifying labor force until pilots are under single contract as well. It looks to me that holdout is deliberate to lend more leverage to USALPA instead of taking it away (as they would be the last major stronghold preventing total merger of the East and West).
If this is the case (what is written in the article) then shame on FAs. It is not Doug's fault this felt through it truly is an union issue and a bogus one. I keep preaching it. Many of us are not after lots of money. We are after the QOL issues that are in the contract. East would have given up QOL issues so I dont blame them for voting down the contract. Two different times they went to the table. Two times they went with people who didnt listen to the group. Two times they got an agreement that the majority didnt want and two times it was voted down. Yes that was a Union issue. The strike vote was just the next part of the process that needed to be filled. Now I don't expect people here to like unions... I know the vast majority of FTers loath them. They do have a purpose and many airlines need them for protection of the employees. I will also point out that I have a graduate degree in Business and I know that employment contracts should be written at every level. You better believe that Doug Parker & Co. have extensive contracts with the company that spells out everything from hours served to compensation to benefits. Tell me why is it that the top 1% should have a contract thats binding and enforceable but not the front line staff? (not that I am looking for a response since I know what the answers will be...) Just think of your own contract with your employer. Im sure that some of you all will be able to relate when thinking of it that way. |
Originally Posted by cwe84
(Post 19728797)
If the F/As give up the pairing with the pilots the F/As will lose a lot of "Me Too" clauses. Such as scheduling rules, rest issues, hotel policies etc. its not just the East that is holding out for that. Most airlines (except DL and WN) stick with their pilots on pairings. The new FAA rules will begin implementation soon and those will have an effect on pairing construction. I don't know anyone at my airline that would vote for a contract that split us up from our pilots.
|
Originally Posted by cwe84
(Post 19728797)
Two different times they went to the table. Two times they went with people who didnt listen to the group. Two times they got an agreement that the majority didnt want and two times it was voted down. Yes that was a Union issue. The strike vote was just the next part of the process that needed to be filled.
I'm a bit puzzled - are you saying the negotiating committee isn't/wasn't on the same page with rank and file? Seems kind of pointless to keep them in place IMO. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand. |
Originally Posted by Mykle
(Post 19734299)
Hotel policies in the failed TA required the same hotels as pilots. There was increased rest in the failed TA, independent of the pilots. The scheduling rules for the pilots are changing in a year, and those rules are not desirable to flight attendants who want to work coast-to-coast turns (pilots won't be able to do those). Some FA's want to work a long day, and then be done for the, sleeping in their own bed at night (QOL). The PHX based crews don't co-pair, and I've not yet met one PHX FA who wants to co-pair. See Item 20 from OurAFA about why they don't want to co-pair. AFA was correct to write their own requirements into their contract, instead of relying on the pilots.
Originally Posted by LowlyDLsilver
(Post 19734373)
CWE:
I'm a bit puzzled - are you saying the negotiating committee isn't/wasn't on the same page with rank and file? Seems kind of pointless to keep them in place IMO. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand. |
Originally Posted by LowlyDLsilver
(Post 19734373)
CWE:
I'm a bit puzzled - are you saying the negotiating committee isn't/wasn't on the same page with rank and file? Seems kind of pointless to keep them in place IMO. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand. |
Originally Posted by AggieNzona
(Post 19718476)
Why do you say that? Managment has negotiated and reached agreements with the union leadership twice and it was voted down by the rank and file, the last time by 49 votes, this like most US Airways union problems is almost entirely the result of infighting between east and west. West FAs overhelmingly voted for the last contract was the word on the street. They cannot strike, a merger is way more likely to happen before they could even be realeased to strike. This is just a thrown bone move by the union trying not to look out smarted at every turn and of corse hard core union people like those back east will eat it up.
Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and California is my suggestion Go to the lands of boom and bust after the housing crisis and find people willing to work. |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 19718798)
And somehow Dougie thinks bringing in a 3rd group of unionized employees to mix in with the 2 fighting unions he already has is a good idea ... :rolleyes:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:46 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.