B
B.O.B.
Guest
Once Jane Allen, always Jane Allen. Just like she did at AA, she is doing it at UA. Making life a b***h for all flight attendants!
F/A Base closings
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
trollydolly
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
And now it's your turn Trolley. 😀
Glad to see the jobs coming back to the Americans.
And who said that I was not American? I hold a US passport and was born in the states. Pity that you thought different.
The idea that the closing of CDG is going to mean a large increase in the number of positions for US bases is false. Almost all of the CDG flight attendants will be going to LHR and FRA. They will have to fly something, which means positions currently covered by US bases into and out of FRA/LHR will be flown by FRA and LHR. So, for example, both ORD and DCA will lose many positions to FRA and LHR, and in their place will gain positions to CDG. Pretty much a wash.
Further, it is highly unlikely that UA will close LHR, FRA or NRT. UA management loves to have the additional 'culture and language' on the airplane that FRA and NRT provide.
Should UA decide to close FRA, HKG, LHR and NRT, every single one of these Flight Attendants would have to be guaranteed a job SOMEPLACE else. They are on the seniority list. The vast majority of them do not have the ability to work in the US, and the chances of UA management getting green cards for them (or even trying to) is slim to none. And if UA was interested in getting green cards for them, most of them are early 90's seniority. There are thousands of Flight Attendants JUNIOR to them here in the states. They would come and take positions currently flown by some of these more junior Flight Attendants.
So, UA closes all of the overseas bases, what do they do with the almost 2000 Flight Attendants who cannot come to the states to work? They can't furlough them out of seniority order. Do they pay them to just sit at home? Kind of defeats the purpose of closing the base doesn't it?
Also, it is very possible that later this year we will see the return of the very inexpensive Foreign Nationals. They will take some of the intra-Asia flying currently being done by NRT and HKG. So, NRT and HKG will have to take more of the flying to the states, to the detriment of the US bases.
UA has created a mess by having these overseas bases, but closing them would create just another mess that doesn't really benefit anyone, especially those of us based here in the states.
Further, it is highly unlikely that UA will close LHR, FRA or NRT. UA management loves to have the additional 'culture and language' on the airplane that FRA and NRT provide.
Should UA decide to close FRA, HKG, LHR and NRT, every single one of these Flight Attendants would have to be guaranteed a job SOMEPLACE else. They are on the seniority list. The vast majority of them do not have the ability to work in the US, and the chances of UA management getting green cards for them (or even trying to) is slim to none. And if UA was interested in getting green cards for them, most of them are early 90's seniority. There are thousands of Flight Attendants JUNIOR to them here in the states. They would come and take positions currently flown by some of these more junior Flight Attendants.
So, UA closes all of the overseas bases, what do they do with the almost 2000 Flight Attendants who cannot come to the states to work? They can't furlough them out of seniority order. Do they pay them to just sit at home? Kind of defeats the purpose of closing the base doesn't it?
Also, it is very possible that later this year we will see the return of the very inexpensive Foreign Nationals. They will take some of the intra-Asia flying currently being done by NRT and HKG. So, NRT and HKG will have to take more of the flying to the states, to the detriment of the US bases.
UA has created a mess by having these overseas bases, but closing them would create just another mess that doesn't really benefit anyone, especially those of us based here in the states.
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
Yep....but yank them around a little and they'll quit. Already, the CDG's want to leave. buh bye!!
Anything is possible at UAL. You saw it already with your pay cuts and pension. Many said that the govt would never allow this to happen. So wake up and smell the coffee. You better start planning your next career. I've already mortgage my house to open a small business besides on top of flying. Now i am just sitting back and waiting for the next move at UAL. Look at NW and Delta.. UAL, will follow Northwest next. Our union won't be able to stop. Just enjoy the low wages you make now. I am only here at UAL for the health benefits not the pay now. I never wish anything bad to my company nor my co-workers. Just this is the way it is now. We have to live with whatever, UAL does.
SoftLanding
Senior
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 1
Sounds like the CDG based F/A's might play a little hardball. And that is why labor keeps and maybe gets some extra "stuff". And labor in the EU (Western part) knows how to do that. Good for them...Maybe their US counterpart could learn something?!!!
FLY, you would not be a little jealous, would you? You know perfectly well the European F/A's did not loose as much as you in CH 11...Vacation, retirement etc. is state mandated. (BTW, likewise for the US Airways European workers!)
FLY, you would not be a little jealous, would you? You know perfectly well the European F/A's did not loose as much as you in CH 11...Vacation, retirement etc. is state mandated. (BTW, likewise for the US Airways European workers!)
JAMAKE1
Veteran
I am simply amazed at the negative tone, pettiness, and small-mindedness of the majority of the postings on this thread regarding base closings. It is very disrespectful to those F/A's who are based in Paris. They are on the AFA seniority list and pay the same union dues as their U.S. counterparts. Furthermore, U.S.-based flight attendants have had the opportunity to be based overseas over the years, whether it be FRA, LHR, CDG, HKG, or NRT. It is rather disingenious of you, Fly, to suggest that the U.S.-based F/A's get "stuck" with multiple legs and layovers in places such as DSM at domestic rates of pay, while the foreign-based F/A's enjoy 1 leg per day at international rates of pay. The fact of the matter is, is that the vast majority of U.S.-based flight attendants did not seize the opportunity to be based abroad, when the opportunity was handed to us, for many years. Additionally, our AFA collective bargaining agreement with UAL does not allow the company to staff N. American flights with F/A's from the foreign domiciles.
For the record, United has to accommodate the displaced F/A's at a domicile where the the affected F/A's have a legal right to work. In the case of CDG, they have a legal right to work within the E.U., and hence, LHR and FRA will be made available to them. Conversely, U.S.-based flight attendants have a legal right to work within the U.S. and North American bases will be made available to those displaced F/A's; As was the case with the TPE-based F/A's who went to NRT. The suggestion that the foreign-based F/A's enjoy "superseniority" is utter nonsense.
And B.O.B: I am no fan of Jane Allen, but to suggest that she is somehow "screwing" the United flight attendants by closing bases, is equally disingenious. She merely is the messenger who is in the unfortunate position of having to communicate management directives to the work group that she happens to represent. While base closings are disruptive to those involved, it is a reality of the business that we CHOOSE to be in, with the only constant being continual change. It's a business decision based on economics, not Jane Allen's scheme to screw over the work group she happens to represent, as you have implied.
I strongly believe that when we play small and delight in the misfortune of our fellow flight attendants, whether they happen to be a citizen of the U.S. or elsewhere, collectively, it makes us lose credibility as professionals. I can appreciate the fact that the issue of foreign domiciles has long been a heated one, but our fellow colleagues deserve to be treated with respect and dignity...characteristics that are severely lacking in the majority of postings on this topic. :down:
For the record, United has to accommodate the displaced F/A's at a domicile where the the affected F/A's have a legal right to work. In the case of CDG, they have a legal right to work within the E.U., and hence, LHR and FRA will be made available to them. Conversely, U.S.-based flight attendants have a legal right to work within the U.S. and North American bases will be made available to those displaced F/A's; As was the case with the TPE-based F/A's who went to NRT. The suggestion that the foreign-based F/A's enjoy "superseniority" is utter nonsense.
And B.O.B: I am no fan of Jane Allen, but to suggest that she is somehow "screwing" the United flight attendants by closing bases, is equally disingenious. She merely is the messenger who is in the unfortunate position of having to communicate management directives to the work group that she happens to represent. While base closings are disruptive to those involved, it is a reality of the business that we CHOOSE to be in, with the only constant being continual change. It's a business decision based on economics, not Jane Allen's scheme to screw over the work group she happens to represent, as you have implied.
I strongly believe that when we play small and delight in the misfortune of our fellow flight attendants, whether they happen to be a citizen of the U.S. or elsewhere, collectively, it makes us lose credibility as professionals. I can appreciate the fact that the issue of foreign domiciles has long been a heated one, but our fellow colleagues deserve to be treated with respect and dignity...characteristics that are severely lacking in the majority of postings on this topic. :down:
JAMAKE1
Veteran
Rebuttal:
Fly: The CDG base remained because the CDG-based flight attendants held enough seniority to avoid furlough. Call it for what it is; Furloughs are based on union-negotiated seniority rights, not on where the company chooses to base flight attendants. Had the numbers got down to early 1990's seniority, then furloughs would have occurred in Paris as well. Sorry Fly, your logic is flawed.
Rebuttal:
Our CBA, which the membership has approved and ratified, does not allow the company to staff flights within N. America (read, domestic) with foreign-based F/A's. You imply that the French reserves somehow enjoy better treatment. You know damn well that you could've chosen to go abroad and earn the SAME pay. You're not telling the truth here, Fly. Additionally, when American reserves are assigned international trips, they too, earn $5.00 more per hour. Again, your logic is skewed and your statement is misleading.
Rebuttal:
Fly...I won't let you get away with such a rediculous statement. Any American F/A with 20 years of seniority has had plenty of opportunities to transfer abroad. I believe I have said enough on the subject without the risk of sounding redundant...
Rebuttal:
Spoken like a true ugly American...Come on Fly, show a little more class by having some respect for our colleagues who wear the same uniform as you and perform their jobs with the same pride and professionalism as you do. Enough said...
Wrong.
The UA F/As based overseas are covered by the same AFA agreement as those in the US and therefore have the same contractual vacation and (now-terminated) pension that US-based F/As have. The only difference would be any state-run pension scheme, but we have that here in the U.S. too, called social security.
I agree with Fly's point about the reserve base / guarantee pay being unfairly slanted towards non-U.S. based F/As (and those in HNL). Other than that s/he's distorting and omitting a lot, and Jamake nailed it.
Just passing on from what another DCA F/A writes ;;;
For those in Paris who have to commute - I am sympathetic - BUT - in no way are they any
worse off than many of us who have had to commute AND be on reserve AND cover three
airports on B scale - WITHOUT that guarantee of the International pay!!!! My January 16
paycheck was $732. Try living on that!!!!!!
My crash pad is $200 per month. I either have to have a car in DC in order to cover three airports (and all the expenses that go along with that - maintenance, gas, insurance, wear and tear, parking, etc.) or the other option is to rely on public transportation - which is a nightmare in the DC area - this can run you $100 in one direction, and a lot of stress and a lot of time. You can get a Baltimore turn, or standby - and pay that $100 each way, and then turn around and get the same thing the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day - for six days in a row!! And have to pay every day!! AND - IT HAS HAPPENED! I have seen it, and I have had it happen to me.
In addition to that, I am ALWAYS TIRED, commuting home, worrying about getting on flights. No, I don't have the option of B-P10 tickets on other airlines either!!! So, the point is, though we are ALL sympathetic to the Paris F/As - don't act as if they are the ONLY ones who have received the short end of the stick.
This is only a SMALL portion of my personal "hardships" with United, and I've barely touched the surface! If I gave my ENTIRE list of woes, you wouldn't have enough time to listen.
ADDITIONALLY - what about the MIASW F/As who now have to commute - AND in most cases,
don't even have the option of the jumpseat - let alone a BP-10!!! Add on to that, the reduced
flights, and when they DO get on - dealing with TED!!!!
Like I said, it's not that we're not sympathetic, but PLEASE stop acting as if the world has hit you any harder than it's hit the rest of us.
Do you still have a home??? Try living in New Orleans, and having NOTHING left! This is not me,
but I know more than one F/A who have NOTHING except the clothes they were able to leave with!!!!!!
STOP dwelling on it, and move on, and make the best of it. You'll see a heck of a lot more sympathy from the rest of us if you stop acting like you're the martyrs of the group! We ALL have our stories, and believe me, yours is by far NOT the worst!!!!
Judy
Boo hoo.
Commuting is always a poor lifestyle choice.
Especially in DC, with three airports to cover, it is a downright stupid choice.
But it is a choice. You [Judy] made it, so live with it.
Not sure what this has to do with the thread though? I haven't seen any CDG-based F/As here complaining about having to commute?
JAMAKE1
Veteran
Uh Judy...You imply as if United Airlines forces you to commute. All of the woes you discribed in your posting, you have brought upon yourself because you CHOOSE not to live where you are based. You have a job that bases you in the Washington D.C. area, yet you are unwilling or choose not to live where the job is. Take some personally responsiblity here. The company is not responsible for you CHOOSING to be based at a domicile that covers three airports. You, made that choice. You make the choice to expend several hundreds of dollars out of your own pocket each month on crash pads and commute costs because YOU have chosen not to live where you are domiciled. Additionally, it is a rather weak argument to suggest or imply that it is unfair that flight attendants earn only international pay when they only fly international flights. If you want international reserve guarantee, then transfer to a foreign domicile. Paris, London, Hong Kong, Frankfurt, and Narita attendants only fly international flights, YOU, on the otherhand, by being based in a domicile that has both domestic and international flights, get paid according to the trip in which you are assigned. If Washington D.C. only had international flying, then you too, would be paid accordingly.
Deleted by Moderator
Advanced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 235
- Reaction score
- 0
She just said she knew that everyone has hardships. Just didn't want the Paris f/a's to think they have it harder than others. JAMAKE and BEAR.......having a reading comprehention problem?
fyi...........sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad to see the CDG's leaving.
fyi...........sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad to see the CDG's leaving.
JAMAKE1
Veteran
No reading comprehension problem at all. I am merely pointing out that she doesn't HAVE to commute and that she doesn't HAVE to be based in a domicile that requires reserve coverage at co-terminals. The tone of her posting implies that she is somehow a victim. I am just merely pointing out that United Airlines doesn't force anyone to commute. It's a personal lifestyle CHOICE. Just as she complains of her $732 check. Nobody is telling her to work in a that pays her $732 per month.
As for your latter comment, the CDG F/A's aren't leaving. 70 are going to FRA, the remainder to LHR. Your posting isn't very professional, nor is it very mature.
As for your latter comment, the CDG F/A's aren't leaving. 70 are going to FRA, the remainder to LHR. Your posting isn't very professional, nor is it very mature.
trollydolly
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2002
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
Just to add to your post... The numbers are out. 90 are going to FRA, 5 to NRT, 4 to HKG, a few to SFO and JFK, and the rest to London. These are the figures given to me from a CDG based flt att.
