AA, why can''t we do the same?

Hey there,

United still serves free liquor on international flights. I will be very surprised if it starts to sell drinks and food on long-haul trips. Reduced meal portions is an option, but if not, can you imagine charging yet another fee for tickets? TWA used to charge for booze ten years before it closed, and as one can see, it made little difference. As for crew meals, domestic flying is one thing, but 16-hour trips to HKG clearly are another. If the airline wants to cut my pay and slash my work rules, at least it can provide me with a modicum of nourishment (and I do not mean ice cream sundaes). I look forward to my meal when I fly, and I can assure you that most f/as out there do, too. I suggest that you take a ten-day trip around the world and see for yourself how the cost of those airport/hotel sandwiches and Panda meals adds up. Have you any idea how much a burger at Heathrow is these days? Besides, with the bizarre check-in times for certain trips, it is hard to find a terminal that serves food, period. So you think I should pay for my crew meal? While you are at it, maybe I should pay to go to work altogether.
 
----------------
On 4/4/2003 12:56:55 PM FWAAA wrote:

If FAs have enough time to screw around selling $5 cocktails in Y on international flights (most major airlines think they do), then they can certainly begin selling food to pax AND TO THE CREW. Not all that many employees in this world get no-cost meals provided by their employer (unless they work in a restaurant or oil rig).

Besides - who likes airline food anyway??

----------------​
Crew meals are one negotiated form of compensation, in exchange for lower rates of pay or other givebacks. Nothing is free. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
----------------
On 4/4/2003 12:56:55 PM FWAAA wrote:

If FAs have enough time to screw around selling $5 cocktails in Y on international flights (most major airlines think they do), then they can certainly begin selling food to pax AND TO THE CREW. Not all that many employees in this world get no-cost meals provided by their employer (unless they work in a restaurant or oil rig).

Besides - who likes airline food anyway??

----------------​

...and "screwing around selling $5 cocktails" is very profitable for the airline- is this hard to understand, too? Are you sure you work in this industry?
 
----------------
On 4/4/2003 9:27:09 AM MiAAmi wrote:

Its funny how "crew meals" are such an issue. Ask anyone who works 9-5 if they expect to be fed at work. Is "crew meals" a reason to take the airline into BK court???? Some people need to get a grip.

----------------​
I think you missed the joke.

At least, I thought it was funny.
 
----------------
On 4/4/2003 6:26:26 PM AOA wrote:

Crew meals are one negotiated form of compensation, in exchange for lower rates of pay or other givebacks. Nothing is free. Why is this so hard to understand?

----------------​

Wow. Really?? I had no idea...

My point was that any company stupid enough to screw its customers by selling them $5 cocktails was probably "overcharging" its employees for the first class entrees anyway. Cutting the "no-cost" meals allows the FAs to see just how much those meals were costing them.
 
----------------
On 4/4/2003 1:22:21 PM Wild Onion wrote:

One time, I made a sandwich and took it with me to work.

----------------​
How''d it taste on day 5?
 
Spacewaitress,

Only UAL f/a''s can see your t/a. I have seen the AMR t/a on the boards and you do not need a code at the U afa site to see their new contract, but it appears the UAL t/a is a secret to all but. Is there anyway to see your t/a without a code or employee number. Just curious to compare all three contracts...interesting time for us stews.
 
Hi there,

Pardon me if I respond to your note, but it is just too tempting. See, thus far, UA f/as have yet to see the t/a (hush, don''t tell anyone, it''s a secret!). They get to see it only a few days before the vote. Then, with hardly any time to read the agreement and come to an educated conclusion about it, the membership gets to see its union dues in action: fancy webcasts, more contract talks in Waikiki, and hundreds of media in place to tell all why they should ratify the agreement. Furthermore, if one happens to be on voluntary furlough, and has spent more than three months away, the employee can vote, but only if he/she pays dues for the months he/she has been off work. That, however, is a different topic altogether. Well, I better go to the airport and rack up those hours before my next pay cut!
 
Sastal-

The UA T/A will be released in a matter of hours.

There will be quite a lengthy period to review the T/A and educate oneself.

From what I have heard, although parts of the T/A will be hard to swallow, overall it is less severe than thought, certainly much better than what UAL management wants to impose in the 1113c filing.

I have been told that our deal is overall less severe than what has been negotiated by APFA for the AA flight attendants. We will soon know and be able to form our own opinions.....
 
----------------
On 4/8/2003 8:43:20 PM mmahpeel wrote:
I have been told that our deal is overall less severe than what has been negotiated by APFA for the AA flight attendants.
----------------​
That is a HUGE understatement.
 
spacewaitress,

AGAIN, right on!

It''s like they are "punishing'' us for our last contract and the ''93 strike.

Our revenge, however small, has been "pundits" at MSNBC calling our feAArless leader a "buffoon". Still doesn''t put food on my table though.

It has been a PR disaster over here, even paxs seem to care!

I''m so sick of airlines that cite 9/11 as the source of their ills. Only 2 airlines have that right...UA and AA. I lost one of my best friends and 4 acquaintances on AA11 and UA lost equally. You have my understanding, sympathy, and shared pain.

don''t even know where I was going with this post...oh yeah, our concessions were not negotiated. Our union found the $340mil in savings but AA found different values for them.

Apparently, during our last "industry leading" contract, crew meals were valued at $7mil, now during concessions, they''ve depreciated to $2mil.

With all 3 of our unions, we were more than willing to give up, but MGMT got very greedy.

They basically came in and said, "this is what we want".

They threatened us with BK at every turn. Now in light of their protected pensions and the Exec Retention bonus, there is no doubt in my mind what they intended to do all along.

I do not work at Baskin-Robbins, and I will NOT be double-dipped!

Good luck to us all, again!

Coop
 
----------------
On 4/20/2003 2:01:28 AM flydcoop wrote:

Apparently, during our last "industry leading" contract, crew meals were valued at $7mil, now during concessions, they''ve depreciated to $2mil.

Hi Fly,
Welcome to don carty''s one waay street. His way! Unfortunately, the examples of what you bring up are endless.
 
AOA.
Crew meals are not a negotiated "benefit". They can be a safety issue. Talk to the Alaska captain who went off of the end of the runway one "dark and stormy night". Part of the cause was hypoglycemia due to not eating all day. Made his reaction time slow and thought process fuzzy. Why don''t you work for a 14 hour shift and not eat anything and see how you feel at the end of the day, try it. I don''t think anybody except another crewmember understands the life of a pilot or F/A (not even their spouses fully).
 
flydcoop,

I really feel for you guys over there. It''s crap for all of us, but it seems (at least) that over here there is a change in attitude at the top. Somehow, we all seem to be working together for a change...that''s UPPER management... The local saps still suck for the most part.

Good luck, buddy.