Attendants Asked For $116 Million

[mweiss]

Not to mention countless hours as victims of the hub and spoke system spent sitting for hours in airports waiting for thier next hour of paid work time.

And ya know what? That's perhaps the biggest tragedy of all. You want to work, but you can't, because of the stupid hub system. You're not getting paid in wages, but your medical insurance costs the company the same whether you work 1 hour per year or 2,000 hours per year. Given how expensive medical insurance is these days, wouldn't it be sensible to try to max out employees' productive hours?

LY, I'm not really asking you this, because I'm sure you agree on this point. It's just one of hundreds of dumb decisions that you are, unfortunately, forced to live with while you remain employed at US.

 

[BostonTerrier]

I do not know a lot about the non flight crew contracts, but I do know a lot about the pilot and flight attendant contracts.

Management wants the flight crew to have a contract similar in scope to America West, which has pay rates about 10% less than US Airways’ current pay rates.

USA320,

Unfortunately, your use of "10%" as a difference in pay scale betweeen the AWA flight attendants and US Airways flight attendants is only partially correct. My comparison shows the following:

AWA US

6-7 23.20 32.67

7-8 24.47 34.64

8-9 26.31 35.49

9-10 28.23 36.65

10-11 30.24 37.81

11-12 34.74 38.65

12-13 35.72 39.56

13-14 36.67 40.43

14-15 37.59 41.05


(Sorry in advance if the columns are a bit rough.)

So it appears from the above pay scale that should the company seek the above pay scale, the flight attendants that would be most disproportionately affected would be those in the 5 to 10 year category; at a far greater cost than the 10% that you have quoted.

The cost savings obtained from adopting the AWA pay scale would truly be inequitable to those with 11 years or less, wouldn't you agree? Regardless, given that the US AFA MEC has not yet released any specifics, this discussion should be recognized as being pure speculation.

Best,
BT

BTW.... The numbers quoted above are merely what I gathered off of the respective unions' websites.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

USA320


You freely abmit you don't know about non flight crew contracts and I would willing to bet you not walking in their shoes either.

Even if you did know their contracts what gives you the right to play sole negotiator (that includes flight crew contacts including yours)

Nothing is 100% even the right to free speech. But to say that things have to be this way or go that way or all is doomed is a downright lie.

There are thousands of ways to get to where you have to go that would include Usairways using what they already have to the full extent they legally can. That would not include violating current contracts.

It seems to me you are forever saying this is what has to happen and you have to live with it because thats the way it is, well poppycock to you. I am sorry I do not put that much faith in you because as others have pointed out your track record is horrible at best. The only thing I read from you that might be true a few times is when you announce that a nut has finally came in and you rush to toot that horn of yours.

I would feel sorry for anyone to have you in their negotiating party for you would sell them down the road in a blink of an eye for whatever reason. Fear?

Then again I would love to play you seven card stud because you would fold everytime unless maybe your two ace nut came in with your first two cards.

Have you ever heard of a bluff? I am not saying Usairways is bluffing about the position they are in what I am saying is you do not know everything. There are always other ways to get things done and everything is not always cut and dry, nonflexable and non negotiable.

Case in point way back you harped and harped how the loan covenants said such and such and didn't allow such and such and that was the way it was, well low and behold the covenants were changed/extended

Which brings me to my last point you do a great job of pointing out the nuts that come in and how you were the first to post such and such. Could you do us a favor and start pointing out when you are wrong. Lets say from this point on. I surely would not what to clog the bandwidth up with all the times you were wrong in the past, thats water under the bridge.

I won't hold my breath for answer to this post as you tend to ignore most responses to you especially ones that question your motives and credibility

 

[pitguy]

I do not know a lot about the non flight crew contracts...

Thats funny because you normally have tons of babble to say about them though.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

...Change will occur one way or another. Either it's an America West type of contract or bankruptcy, where the pain will likely be worse.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

At this point, I'd be willing to take the chance, and I'll bet a lot of folks feel the same way. :unsure:

 

[hp_fa]

320:

Have you put in your application at HP? They pay HP-scale wages and are hiring pilots to sit in the right seat, or is that not good enough for you?

Piney:

I lost a lot of respect for what you post when you posted that outright dumb comparison of FA working time vs. real life people. The average FA working a normal line is probably on duty 180 hours a month, which directly compares to the regular work force. The newest flight attendants could make more money at McDonalds and not need to worry about medical emergencies, inflight emergencies, appearance checks, recurrent training, TSA, FAA inspectors, late vans to a hotel when you are on a nine hour layover and being away from family.

Next time you are on a flight and things are going wrong, remember you get what you pay for.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

By reducing the pay rate and increasing the number of hours flown, the pilot's and flight attendant's can keep their gross pay about the same as today.


The intent is to reduce soft time and increase the hard time to permit an increase in aircraft utilization from 10.0 to 11.5 hours per day with the same amount of employees as today.

What has been keeping the company from increasing hard time and decreasing soft time...over the last 10 years?I will tell you what....Pilots and F/A's giving away duty rigs. The company has the ability RIGHT NOW to use the pilots about 30% more, even without efficiency, and probably another 10% more if they do it smart. Also, what does America West pay their international and island flying crews? Duty rigs, and you KNOW it, are only there to keep the company from mis-scheduling. The more has been given up, the more waste and abuse has occured. You claim to be intimate with said contracts and rules, and even fly under them. How can you be so blind to the truth?Oh yeah, I know. Your buddy Dave told you so. By the way, not all us feel we have to "keep" pay and benefits at the current levels. Of course we will go lower, but only lower if it is done smart and with the intent of making this company survive. Again. All the company has to do is FLY SMART. I do, why can't they? Greeter.

 

[USA320Pilot]

What I find interesting in this thread is that virtually all of the naysayers imply that a "no vote" on a America West type of contract means their union can get a better deal.

But, economics do not support that argument. Yield will continue to deteriorate as LCC's increase their intense pressure on legacy companies -- to the point a legacy carrier fails, period.

A no vote is likely a vote for bankruptcy where there is a greater chance of no pay, no medical benefits, no passes, no retirement except the PBGC, and no J4J (for eligible employees). However, if the company can emerge from bankruptcy, then the pay and benefits will be lower than America West.

Nobody likes what has happened to our industry, our company, and our employee group. Our challenge has been the structure of our company, the Bush Administration's opposition to labor, cyclical economic events such as September 11, the sluggish economy, SARS, the Iraqi War, and now fuel prices. But, even more detrimental are the permanent and fundamental changes of RJs, the LCCs, and Internet booking.

Change will happen not only because we have new management that is realistic and has no choice, but because the marketplace demands it. That's why Dr. Bronner has said the change will occur "with or without" employees. Therefore, if enough employees desire to have full pay until the last day than I suggest everyone reading this be prepared for no pay check and no benefits before Thanksgiving.

I firmly believe it is better to have a job while looking for a job and that if the future accords are unacceptable -- than an employee can simply quit. It serves no useful purpose to "burn the airline" down to the ground and hurt people who want to remain at the company post restructuring. What good does it do to be angry and vindictive?

Where mainline employee wages and working conditions end up will be determined by the marketplace, not by a union and certainly not by a group of employees who accuse those who disagree with them of the equivalent of selling out.

That's the way it is and will always be in business.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[Light Years]

And ya know what? That's perhaps the biggest tragedy of all. You want to work, but you can't, because of the stupid hub system. You're not getting paid in wages, but your medical insurance costs the company the same whether you work 1 hour per year or 2,000 hours per year. Given how expensive medical insurance is these days, wouldn't it be sensible to try to max out employees' productive hours?

LY, I'm not really asking you this, because I'm sure you agree on this point. It's just one of hundreds of dumb decisions that you are, unfortunately, forced to live with while you remain employed at US.

I'm furloughed, so my reality (if I go back) is more like MidAtlantic with no medical benefits. I'm not draining them of anything in that department.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

employee wages and working conditions end up will be determined by the marketplace, not by a union and certainly not by a group of employees who accuse those who disagree with them of the equivalent of selling out.

That's the way it is and will always be in business.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

Well, as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, maybe my unjaded outsider view will mean something.

The problem is not the employees working hard nor is it the wages they earn.

The problem is the basic structure and organization of the airline.

The question is whether or not the employees are going to subsidize the total failure of their management to adapt to the marketplace.

If I were an employee, which I'm not.....I would be casting a very jaundiced eye at throwing any more pearls before swine, ie....giving management additional funds to fritter away.

Before I would cough up any additional concessions, I would want to see some movement on management's part.

1. Reduction in the wages of manegement personnel. Give em stock options out the wazoo (if the airline survives, it's okay for them to get rich. If not, there is no reason they should continue to suck the company's teat dry while the rank-and-file watch their paychecks shrink).

2. Move the corporate headquarters someplace cheap. Yes, Arlington VA has a certain pizazz that Pittsburgh and Charlotte lack. But there is no need to be there. No need to nuzzle up to the CAB for route awards. If somebody from the company has business in DC, let them hop on a plane, they can be there in an hour and oh by the way, the company does have planes that go there.

3. Do something about the airlines basic structure. Talk is cheap. Rolling hubs, point to point flying, rational fare structure....you don't have to wait on the employees to cough up another gazillion dollars before you do those things. Wage concessions are just one part of the equation...and actually, not the most important one. Have evrybody work for free and your ASM cost is still higher than WN's. If management is truly serious about fixing this thing, rather than just forcing employees to cough up more so they can feed at the trough like all the previous managers.....it's time to let actions speak louder than wrods.

4. Grow the airline. That's the only viable way to get labor costs down. Nobody put a gun at management's head and forced them to give away routes to Mesa or other commuter affiliate partners. Shrinking the airline made all the junior employees go away. When the junior employees went away, the savings were negligible, since the high cost employees were left. Duh. The marginal costs of growing the airline are minimal. The marginal savings from shrinking it, as management found out the hard way, were equally minimal.

5. I don't know if the airline can be saved by the employees bearing the brunt of management's failures one more time. I do know that at this point in time, it's pretty obvious that employees didn't create this problem. The employees ought to be willing to try and save their company and source of livelihood, but I dunno...it'd be tough to give up more when there is no reasonable expectation that management would try and do the right thing. They haven't yet. Besides the nameplate on the prez's door...what has changed? It's still all talk and no action.

 

[USA320Pilot]

ELP_WN_Psgr:

Your post is valid and logical. I understand more of management's plan than has been made public and it is encouraging and if successful will be revolutionary.

That's why ALPA has been so positive on the "Transformation Plan". Will the new contracts be distasteful? Absolutely.

But, if management is successful, this company will be industry leading and the first of the top six network carriers to figure out a way to compete, grow the business, and create true job security through profits.

Management's "Transformation Plan" will have a profound effect on the other five legacy carriers that will throw those companies into traumatic turmoil, if US Airways is successful.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

320:

I was talking to the former exec VP of WN on the phone about this --- he finds it intriguing to say the least....and his take on it that ALPA is so big on the plan because they are not hurt nearly so badly as the FAs and some of the other work groups.

When you have a pilot who makes, say....$160K a year (and that's just a guess) and you decriment him by 25% down to $120K.....it hurts....but it hurts someone a whole lot more who is making $40K a year and they get whopped down to $30K.

If you guys up front wanted to truly be upfront about all this, you'd belly up to the bar and volunteer to take a much bigger butt whooping than is planned.

Oh, and one other thing......I can't believe management would confide in pilots to the degree yours' apparently have. If there is one thing this individual with whom I spoke learned in the course of 48 years in the industry...it was that if you want to run an airline correctly, the last person on earth you want to discuss things with is a pilot.

And one other thing came to mind from my previous comments:

Another thing that the "big guys" ought to give up: First class travel, either on business or for pleasure.

If they want to go someplace on a little vacation, let 'em sit in the main cabin. Har de har har.

Space available, too. If they are concerned about the airline's viability, they ought to want every speck of revenue they can get. Thast means if they get bumped by someone paying for a seat.....great.

 

[ClueByFour]

I could be wrong, but it strikes me that the only group on the property who is truly worried at this point about a radically life-altering change in lifestyle should the company fold is the pilots.

That's why ALPA is "excitied" about the transformation plan. It comes down to the fact that it's easier to go from the low 30k range to something else rather than 6 figures to something else--and the pools at SWA and B6 already have plenty of people lounging, waiting for a call.

Unemployment or loss of a job is not a big thing for those not flying mainline aircraft at U today, because it's not that far of a plunge.

If the company really does whack the low-time part time lines in the knees, a whole slew of FAs will vote no--many of them fly lower time lines to keep benefits, not for the dough (or so I've been told by several).

Ultimately, there is no incentive for any other group but the pilots to go to an AWA type contract, which is one of the reasons why Pollack keeps beating the "the pilots won't bear the burden alone" drum--I think he's going to be in a rather large pickle if it turns out that the other groups don't see thing that way--and I truly believe that AAA ALPA will give the company everything and the kitchen sink to keep things afloat.

Remember--the loss of a $30k job is easier to stomach than the loss of a $100k job, and no amount of posturing or spinning here or anywhere else is going to change that.

 

[mweiss]

ELP, you're absolutely on target there. Can't find a single point you made that I could quibble with.

So what do you do if you're an employee of the airline and management refuses to do what they really need to do? Obviously you're caught between a rock and a hard place. Do you suck it up, or do you tell them to shove it? And if you tell them to shove it, do you still work there anyway?

Yes, this is being discussed on another thread, and if you'd like to reply there instead, please do. I'm just curious what you think the line employees should be doing.

 

[mweiss]

I'm furloughed, so my reality (if I go back) is more like MidAtlantic with no medical benefits.

Please allow me to express my sympathies. It's not a pleasant place to be.