Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
JetBlue is non-union and their FAs fly transcon turns.
No disrespect, but we're not JetBlue and we are unionized. And we're not aspiring to adopt the work rules of non-union carriers.
JetBlue is non-union and their FAs fly transcon turns.
No disrespect, but we're not JetBlue and we are unionized. And we're not aspiring to adopt the work rules of non-union carriers.
No disrespect, but MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns. Actually, I would kill to be able to be as productive as Jetblue FA's. They actually get paid to work, not sit around in dump hotels for 27 hours after flying one leg... UAL does LAXHNLLAX turns, etc.... They're unionized, and the trips are quite senior, and enjoyed by many. Wouldn't you like to work less days and have more personal time?? These trips are not a "fatigue" issue. Airlines have been doing turns for years, and no one has dropped off the face of the earth...
Like I said, ebwgs, those turns would go so senior, you would still be able to hold your long layovers that you seem to enjoy. MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots. Remember those high paying 4 days trips, before the pilots decided to "protect" us and negotiate the rigs away?
You still haven't clearly answered my question: What abuses do the pilots protect you from more so than any strong contractual language could?
No disrespect taken. The above reply was in response to the post that addressed a non-legacy carrier that was non-unionized with no contracted work rules or legal protections, and as a consequence I felt was irrelevant to this post.
You say "MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots." So, correct me if I'm wrong: You want our next contract and our way of life to hinge on a "maybe?" I thought the whole point of having a CBA is to have some definitive idea as to what our working conditions, work rules and protections are. To hinge all of that on a maybe doesn't inspire a lot of confidence and security to me.
I agree that airlines have been doing turns for years. That's been part of their culture. The "Me Too" has been a unique aspect of our culture which I happen to treasure. One aspect of our culture, domestic flying specifically, is that the men, whether they be flight attendants or pilots, check with the women on our crews to make sure they're safe in their hotel rooms before we retire to ours. I have friends at other airlines that don't practice this. The "Me Too" clause, while a cultural icon at US Airways, has protected flight attendants from being unsafely overworked, and has also provided our work group with duty rigs. If not for the clause our work group would have no rigs. Should we negotiate away the "MTC" we will have, in effect, negotiated away the rigs we do have in place.
I'm not sure how you define "strong contractual language", but it has been my experience that strong contractual language can be fleeting when the company sees fit. Strong FAA language has seemed to be all for naught, as, for example, crew rest accomodations on long flights. The company has unilaterally deemed that they are not obligated to install crew bunks although the FAA says flights blocked in excess of 12 hours should have bunks for flight attendants. And as you duly noted about other unionized legacy carriers regarding the MTC "MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns." If the precedent at unionized carriers in your mind justify our separation from the pilots then why do they not justify parity as far as crew rest? If the company chooses to thumb their nose at the FAA, what makes you think they won't do the same to "strong contractual language?"
You steadily maintain that west coast turns would go senior because they do at other carriers. Maybe, maybe not. I do know this: Although it's still a brand new route everyone assumed that Tel Aviv would go junior too because it has at other carriers. Perhaps the jury is still out on that. But I know in the nearly two months that we've been flying it it has been a very senior trip. We can't always assume that what goes on at other carriers will play out at ours. Keep the MTC. No separation!
You say "MAYBE, if we split from the pilots, those 4 days will again be worth 25-27 hours, with still decent layovers, as we can continue flying for a leg each fay with new pilots." So, correct me if I'm wrong: You want our next contract and our way of life to hinge on a "maybe?"
I thought the whole point of having a CBA is to have some definitive idea as to what our working conditions, work rules and protections are. To hinge all of that on a maybe doesn't inspire a lot of confidence and security to me.
I agree that airlines have been doing turns for years. That's been part of their culture. The "Me Too" has been a unique aspect of our culture which I happen to treasure. One aspect of our culture, domestic flying specifically, is that the men, whether they be flight attendants or pilots, check with the women on our crews to make sure they're safe in their hotel rooms before we retire to ours. I have friends at other airlines that don't practice this. The "Me Too" clause, while a cultural icon at US Airways, has protected flight attendants from being unsafely overworked, and has also provided our work group with duty rigs. If not for the clause our work group would have no rigs. Should we negotiate away the "MTC" we will have, in effect, negotiated away the rigs we do have in place.
I'm not sure how you define "strong contractual language", but it has been my experience that strong contractual language can be fleeting when the company sees fit. Strong FAA language has seemed to be all for naught, as, for example, crew rest accomodations on long flights. The company has unilaterally deemed that they are not obligated to install crew bunks although the FAA says flights blocked in excess of 12 hours should have bunks for flight attendants. And as you duly noted about other unionized legacy carriers regarding the MTC "MANY unionized airlines do transcon turns." If the precedent at unionized carriers in your mind justify our separation from the pilots then why do they not justify parity as far as crew rest? If the company chooses to thumb their nose at the FAA, what makes you think they won't do the same to "strong contractual language?"
You steadily maintain that west coast turns would go senior because they do at other carriers. Maybe, maybe not. I do know this: Although it's still a brand new route everyone assumed that Tel Aviv would go junior too because it has at other carriers. Perhaps the jury is still out on that. But I know in the nearly two months that we've been flying it it has been a very senior trip. We can't always assume that what goes on at other carriers will play out at ours. Keep the MTC. No separation!
One aspect of our culture, domestic flying specifically, is that the men, whether they be flight attendants or pilots, check with the women on our crews to make sure they're safe in their hotel rooms before we retire to ours. I have friends at other airlines that don't practice this. The "Me Too" clause, while a cultural icon at US Airways, has protected flight attendants from being unsafely overworked, and has also provided our work group with duty rigs. If not for the clause our work group would have no rigs. Should we negotiate away the "MTC" we will have, in effect, negotiated away the rigs we do have in place.
I am going to jump in here and say that at the former AWA we generally made sure that all the women, pilots and FA's, were safely in their rooms before the men entered theirs. We simply thought of it as good manners. If other airlines do differently it isn't a function of their contracts per se, but other issues.
Duty rigs can, and are, worked into contracts. Take a look at the West contract and you will see that they have duty rigs, despite not usually being paired with the pilots for the whole trip.
I agree. Any movement or action until the FAA issuse the new pilot rest rules this fall is fool hardy. We fly pilot lines at usairways. There are no F/A lines so to speak (save the 321 or extra pairings) Has anyone thought the company is moving at a brisk pace all of a sudden because they want to do this on their terms?
When NOT if the new rest ruling comes down the POO POO is going to hit the fan. The company has even admitted it's not IF but how deep will it cut. Some projections take up to 15-20% more pilots needed. Since we the F/As fly those pilot lines what do you think that translates to on the East? More F/As needed and lower block values. I understand some pilot blocks may be built to only 60 hours!
Of course the company has a bee up their buns to get this hashed out quick so we are not pulled in on the "restrictive pilot terms." This is long over due and I say time out at this point. This will come out in early fall with guidelines and the implementation period. Stay tuned becuase if we play the cards right we can say wow, sorry Doug but we got pulled in with the pilots. You want us to be more productive is going to cost my dear....so pony up or no dice.
wow thanks. what do you mean by "If that's block to block or duty periods"? 12 hour layover should be a no brainer...Goes further than that I assure you. No more On Duty All Nighters....no less than 12 hour overnights. If that's block to block or "duty" periods; the words will be the proof in the pudding. Our head of scheduling sits on the panel as a rep for all airlines. This is not just a US Airways issue or a commuter issue. It's all pilots period.
The "Devil" is always in the details. Do you have a competent negotiating committee?