V
VAflyGal
Guest
Good morning. I hope I'm not violating a rule of the board and that this isn't considered a labor thread, which I'm aware can only be started by a Moderator. That said, it is my hope to keep this as a separate topic, open for serious and RESPECTFUL conversation, not as a means for a name calling, dismissive debate.
First of all I would like to say I have worked for several airlines and US Airways is the only one I have worked for that copairs with the pilots the entire pairing, minus the occasional person who splits off a trip for legality, days off, training, etc. For the most part, I have found that copairing has been most helpful for many reasons, mainly, during the pairing, we come to know one another a little better professionally, and, if it's a good day, pleasantries are exchanged and maybe a new friend is made. Part of me believes that CRM is much better being copaired, but I don't take the position that not being copaired creates a safety issue, as every other airline that doesn't copair, to my knowledge, has about the same safety record. We are all trained to do our duties, and, God forbid, if an emergency ever presented itself to any of us, I believe we would immediately take the measures we were trained to do.
I, myself, am very familiar with many things in my contract, and, if I don't know an answer to something, I am proactive enough to look it up in the contract, and, if I can't find the answer or if I need clarification, I know the phone numbers of AFA reps. Let's just be honest - if we were all one super-huge, contract waving membership, we would make our best efforts to never ever break the contract for any reason, and I believe for the most part, we are diligent in our efforts to ensure we are honoring its purpose. However, as we all know, there are times where we are willing to bend a little for our own convenience. For example, East language states that we are to be available to receive passengers 30 minutes prior to departure on aircraft with X number of seats (737, E-190, A319, A320) and 35 minutes prior to departure on aircraft with Y number of seats (757, 767) - 99% of the time, we flight attendants guard that number as sacred, for during the work day our "down time" is precious to us as so often we barely have time to reapply lipstick, much less grab a bite to eat; not to mention that we don't get paid one red cent for boarding and we all know it is the most challenging time on the aircraft in our day to day activity.
That said, who doesn't want to board a few minutes early when it's the last leg of the trip, because it benefits us to get home early if possible? I think most of us do, but, the truth is, and the LECP in PHL has put it out in e-lines before, doing that, indeed, is a violation of our contract.
Something that drives me crazy, personally, is, when we have a short overnight that may or may not be down to minimum rest, the transportation to the hotel is late. East contact language provides for taxicab expense reimbursement if the prearranged transportation is not available within 20 minutes after requested by a flight attendant. 10 minutes for an overnight that has less 10:30 RON or less. How many times have we stood on the curb, exhausted from the day, only to wait and wait for the van that's "on the way"? - Recently I was working a pairing where we waited for close to 30 minutes for transportation and our RON was just at 9:15 (barely legal) - The captain refused to take a cab, and, without giving you rambling details, as a crewmember who wanted to maintain good working conditions and to not tick off someone I would have to fly with for the next three days, I did not hail a taxi for myself, despite the agreement by both the company and AFA that I had that right.
One issue I take regarding copairing with the pilots regards the scheduling and staffing issues regarding multiple day layovers in hub cities by flight attendants from other bases. For those of you unfamiliar with the issue, PHL operates the 757-767 as what's considered an international base for that metal. International flying means international pay which means more dollars being spent on crew pay. If, however, a 757 or 767 is being operated with a PHL crew domestically, because of the international language, we receive international pay for operating that segment. CLT, however, operates the 757-767 as domestic metal, and therefore, when a 757 or 767 is flying around the US, most likely, you will have a CLT crew operating the flight with domestic rates in play. Because the 757 and 767 go in and out of PHL all the time and operate domestic flights, the company has multiple pairings with one, two, and three overnight layovers operated by CLT crews. Apparently it is more cost effective to spend tens of thousands of dollars on hotel rooms, per diem, crew transportation, etc, than it is to have a PHL crew operate the flights that would eliminate that expense. Further, if PHL operated those flights, I believe we would have a reduction in the life-changing displacements which are taking effect as I type this.
When I inquired about this, I was told that to change it, PHL would have to be reopened as a domestic 757-767 base, therefore pilots would have the opportunity to bid the equipment, then they would have to be trained, and all that came a cost to the company. Apparently this cost would be more than what it would save despite the tens of thousands of dollars on crew accommodations and uprooting the lives of the flight attendants who make the least amount of money, who have been furloughed and displaced multiple times already, and, who, in my opinion, are treated the worst because they are the most junior reserves, and have been since they got hired. This flying issue is a result of our copairing with the pilots.
So I try to take the emotion out of the equation and I ask myself to make a mental list of pros and cons of not being copaired. I am not a person who is terribly resistant to change and have been open to the idea, in large part because I didn't have a bad experience at another airline where we weren't copaired.
I realize that the flight attendants at Piedmont who weren't copaired were used and abused, and I understand why that group is very resistant to the idea.
I want to believe that rock solid language that is written in black-and-white terms will provide protections to flight attendants that are "no less favorable" than those afforded to our pilots. I also know that, even with the "me too" clause, the bottom line is there are legal ways the company has been able to get around the language that was designed to protect the flight attendants and provide them the professionalism afforded to the pilots. For example, the crew bunks on the Tel Aviv flight. Pilots have them, flight attendants don't. Even after arbitration, the flight attendants lost that fight, despite the "me too" clause that is supposed to allow for equal treatment of both groups.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point. I have flown it both ways. I have seen it both ways. I have heard flight attendants from the West who don't mind not being copaired (albeit many have never flown with the same pilots for an entire pairing, ever). I have heard from flight attendants from the West who can't stand it.
I, personally, don't want to fly PHL-PHX-PDX-PHX-LAX while the pilots fly PHL-PHX or PHL-PHX-PDX. I realize some like long days with lots of hard time, and, while I don't object to that, I also do not want to be forced into it when the two up front are enjoying a frosty beverage at the hotel while I'm on my 4th flight of the day.
What happens if we split and there is a difference of opinion regarding the contract or a decision to be made about calling a cab because the van is late or taking the flight out because we are just about to go illegal. Is it up to the lead what we do? Is it up to the most senior person? Is it up to the person who knows his or her contract better? Will it be up to scheduling and a supervisor who is demanding, "Are you refusing to fly?!"
It is my understanding that the current proposal includes language that has us split from our pilots with the ability to copair in the future. Will the company, "in the future," regard this clause as a cost prohibitive measure and cast it away with the support of an arbitrator who has no idea what it's like on the line?
How much of what we are being told is lip service versus the truth?
Bottom line. I want to see the contract, IN ITS ENTIRETY, before I vote on it. I don't want bullet points. I want the WHOLE THING. After all, it's what's NOT BEING SAID that is saying the most to me now. No one will put the gray areas onto a power point. We have to be a professional, educated, united group regarding this upcoming contract. After all, it's probably going to be the one with us for much of our career. What could be more important?
First of all I would like to say I have worked for several airlines and US Airways is the only one I have worked for that copairs with the pilots the entire pairing, minus the occasional person who splits off a trip for legality, days off, training, etc. For the most part, I have found that copairing has been most helpful for many reasons, mainly, during the pairing, we come to know one another a little better professionally, and, if it's a good day, pleasantries are exchanged and maybe a new friend is made. Part of me believes that CRM is much better being copaired, but I don't take the position that not being copaired creates a safety issue, as every other airline that doesn't copair, to my knowledge, has about the same safety record. We are all trained to do our duties, and, God forbid, if an emergency ever presented itself to any of us, I believe we would immediately take the measures we were trained to do.
I, myself, am very familiar with many things in my contract, and, if I don't know an answer to something, I am proactive enough to look it up in the contract, and, if I can't find the answer or if I need clarification, I know the phone numbers of AFA reps. Let's just be honest - if we were all one super-huge, contract waving membership, we would make our best efforts to never ever break the contract for any reason, and I believe for the most part, we are diligent in our efforts to ensure we are honoring its purpose. However, as we all know, there are times where we are willing to bend a little for our own convenience. For example, East language states that we are to be available to receive passengers 30 minutes prior to departure on aircraft with X number of seats (737, E-190, A319, A320) and 35 minutes prior to departure on aircraft with Y number of seats (757, 767) - 99% of the time, we flight attendants guard that number as sacred, for during the work day our "down time" is precious to us as so often we barely have time to reapply lipstick, much less grab a bite to eat; not to mention that we don't get paid one red cent for boarding and we all know it is the most challenging time on the aircraft in our day to day activity.
That said, who doesn't want to board a few minutes early when it's the last leg of the trip, because it benefits us to get home early if possible? I think most of us do, but, the truth is, and the LECP in PHL has put it out in e-lines before, doing that, indeed, is a violation of our contract.
Something that drives me crazy, personally, is, when we have a short overnight that may or may not be down to minimum rest, the transportation to the hotel is late. East contact language provides for taxicab expense reimbursement if the prearranged transportation is not available within 20 minutes after requested by a flight attendant. 10 minutes for an overnight that has less 10:30 RON or less. How many times have we stood on the curb, exhausted from the day, only to wait and wait for the van that's "on the way"? - Recently I was working a pairing where we waited for close to 30 minutes for transportation and our RON was just at 9:15 (barely legal) - The captain refused to take a cab, and, without giving you rambling details, as a crewmember who wanted to maintain good working conditions and to not tick off someone I would have to fly with for the next three days, I did not hail a taxi for myself, despite the agreement by both the company and AFA that I had that right.
One issue I take regarding copairing with the pilots regards the scheduling and staffing issues regarding multiple day layovers in hub cities by flight attendants from other bases. For those of you unfamiliar with the issue, PHL operates the 757-767 as what's considered an international base for that metal. International flying means international pay which means more dollars being spent on crew pay. If, however, a 757 or 767 is being operated with a PHL crew domestically, because of the international language, we receive international pay for operating that segment. CLT, however, operates the 757-767 as domestic metal, and therefore, when a 757 or 767 is flying around the US, most likely, you will have a CLT crew operating the flight with domestic rates in play. Because the 757 and 767 go in and out of PHL all the time and operate domestic flights, the company has multiple pairings with one, two, and three overnight layovers operated by CLT crews. Apparently it is more cost effective to spend tens of thousands of dollars on hotel rooms, per diem, crew transportation, etc, than it is to have a PHL crew operate the flights that would eliminate that expense. Further, if PHL operated those flights, I believe we would have a reduction in the life-changing displacements which are taking effect as I type this.
When I inquired about this, I was told that to change it, PHL would have to be reopened as a domestic 757-767 base, therefore pilots would have the opportunity to bid the equipment, then they would have to be trained, and all that came a cost to the company. Apparently this cost would be more than what it would save despite the tens of thousands of dollars on crew accommodations and uprooting the lives of the flight attendants who make the least amount of money, who have been furloughed and displaced multiple times already, and, who, in my opinion, are treated the worst because they are the most junior reserves, and have been since they got hired. This flying issue is a result of our copairing with the pilots.
So I try to take the emotion out of the equation and I ask myself to make a mental list of pros and cons of not being copaired. I am not a person who is terribly resistant to change and have been open to the idea, in large part because I didn't have a bad experience at another airline where we weren't copaired.
I realize that the flight attendants at Piedmont who weren't copaired were used and abused, and I understand why that group is very resistant to the idea.
I want to believe that rock solid language that is written in black-and-white terms will provide protections to flight attendants that are "no less favorable" than those afforded to our pilots. I also know that, even with the "me too" clause, the bottom line is there are legal ways the company has been able to get around the language that was designed to protect the flight attendants and provide them the professionalism afforded to the pilots. For example, the crew bunks on the Tel Aviv flight. Pilots have them, flight attendants don't. Even after arbitration, the flight attendants lost that fight, despite the "me too" clause that is supposed to allow for equal treatment of both groups.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point. I have flown it both ways. I have seen it both ways. I have heard flight attendants from the West who don't mind not being copaired (albeit many have never flown with the same pilots for an entire pairing, ever). I have heard from flight attendants from the West who can't stand it.
I, personally, don't want to fly PHL-PHX-PDX-PHX-LAX while the pilots fly PHL-PHX or PHL-PHX-PDX. I realize some like long days with lots of hard time, and, while I don't object to that, I also do not want to be forced into it when the two up front are enjoying a frosty beverage at the hotel while I'm on my 4th flight of the day.
What happens if we split and there is a difference of opinion regarding the contract or a decision to be made about calling a cab because the van is late or taking the flight out because we are just about to go illegal. Is it up to the lead what we do? Is it up to the most senior person? Is it up to the person who knows his or her contract better? Will it be up to scheduling and a supervisor who is demanding, "Are you refusing to fly?!"
It is my understanding that the current proposal includes language that has us split from our pilots with the ability to copair in the future. Will the company, "in the future," regard this clause as a cost prohibitive measure and cast it away with the support of an arbitrator who has no idea what it's like on the line?
How much of what we are being told is lip service versus the truth?
Bottom line. I want to see the contract, IN ITS ENTIRETY, before I vote on it. I don't want bullet points. I want the WHOLE THING. After all, it's what's NOT BEING SAID that is saying the most to me now. No one will put the gray areas onto a power point. We have to be a professional, educated, united group regarding this upcoming contract. After all, it's probably going to be the one with us for much of our career. What could be more important?