Flight Attendant Pay Cuts

[BostonTerrier]

What I can't understand is, if you feel like you aren't getting paid enough, you should leave for higher paying job.

The company doesn't owe you anything. If you think you are worth more, prove it to yourself by going to another company and getting that higher salary!!!!

[post="191084"][/post]​

jack,

I think that your words may be prophetic. Many will realize that they can't subsist on the soon to be imposed pay-scale and leave the airline. And not with a nice "great job, so sorry to leave" two-week in advance resignation letter. Rather a "NO SHOW" at the aircraft, kiss-my-ass, thanks for the memories but gotta pay the bills, kind of resignation.

People will vote with their feet. Just watch.

BT

 

[BoeingBoy]

How about you BoeingBoy, what would fair for us?

Sometimes I feel like bou guys lose the big picture (survival) and think this is a section 6 nego.

[post="191065"][/post]​

You might be surprised at the answer....

If I were the judge, I'd make the pay cuts similiar to the tax brackets - the more you make the bigger the cut. For me and those around my income level, that'd probably be at least the 23%. Make the range something like 5% to 50%, with the top "bracket" depending on what achieved the desired total.

As for the big picture, as you put it, this whole process is somewhat like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound. I've seen little chance for survival for a while now and nothing lately has changed my mind. Take our non-labor costs and add in even 2/3 of what the company says they want labor costs to be and you're still over 10 cents CASM - above most legacy carriers and well above the LCC's. If you want to talk about survival, I've said for 6 to 9 months now you have to look at MDA contracts for your template since that's at least what it will take.

Assuming, of course, that survival of the airline as we know it is really the goal. Looking at the company's actions (as opposed to listening to their words) paints a somewhat different picture.

Finally, this is effectively section 6 negotiations even if not technically. We may not be opening the lid on the "box" called a contract, but the company is draining everything out thru a hole in the bottom. So you can call this just a LOA, but the gutting of the contract is the same. Not being section 6 just deprives us of the protections and options offered in that process, while not limiting the company "take" one bit.

Jim

 

[SKY HIGH]

Well dear: That comes out to $12.52 an hour....guess how many people in this country make $12.52 an hour....yep...millions.

SKY HIGH states:
But do millions take 14 YEARS TO "TOP OUT" at $12.52 an hour?
And remember what TOP OUT means? NO MORE scale after that!.....so guess how many people in this company WILL NOT even be able to afford "rent", let alone gas, food, cars, heating/electric/phone bills, credit cards, cable, living expenses..etc......

 

[Light Years]

jack,

I think that your words may be prophetic. Many will realize that they can't subsist on the soon to be imposed pay-scale and leave the airline. And not with a nice "great job, so sorry to leave" two-week in advance resignation letter. Rather a "NO SHOW" at the aircraft, kiss-my-ass, thanks for the memories but gotta pay the bills, kind of resignation.

People will vote with their feet. Just watch.

BT

[post="191086"][/post]​

That wouldn't surprise me at all. The active mainline corps can be easily replaced with furloughees and new hires- with enough notice. Now, if everyone just didn't show up one day, the company is screwed. What else is there to lose?

US Airways will go down in history as a lesson in mismanagement. For an airline made up of airlines (and people) with such innovative, glowing proud histories, US Airways will be looked at as a folly, and a source of pain and detriment to it's industry. It was never a leader in anything, but in the end it may lower industry standards to disgusting lows before gasping it's last breath.

In regards to flight attendant pay, there's a huge difference in flight attendant compensation, always has been- at major airlines, low cost airlines, smaller airlines, charters, corporate, commuter, military. There's always been confusion as to whether it's a technical or sevice job, with more in common with pilots or service employees.

For most F/As today, any type of actual service is a very little part of thier job... they are not there to serve drinks, and I wouldn't be surprised to see even beverage service leave airlines soon. As for customer service skills, you don't pay people to be nice, you hire them to be, lead by example, and hold them to a standard. However, the type of employees and commitment level does depend on compensation a bit. It sounds terrible, but to get a certain class of people you have to be at a certain level- look at a cabin crew (and number of complaints/ compliments) on an MDA flight, former mainline, and then one of the high-turnover Express carriers. Less vested, less interest, less regard for the product you are trying to sell.

It's the technical standpoint that F/As need to argue. They have a level of proficiency they need to maintain, and every year there are more duties added. A few years ago they were teaching you how to present the Dom Perignon, now they are teaching how to clock someone in the head with a bottle of Sutter Home. While the profession gains more roles regarding safety, and the career becomes more technical/equiptment related, the compensation levels are dropping. There are not many other careers these days doing that. Do we compensate policemen and firefighters less if they don't use thier skills every day?

There are things both safety and service related that youhave to price. How much does a popped slide cost the company? A mishandled medical situation or death? A botched fighting of a fire? Damaged aircraft due to improperly placed equiptment? FAA fines for non-compliance? And on the other side of things, the loss of a Chairman's Preferred? The loss of a major corporate account? A customer feeling a crew to be unprofessional, unsafe, and incopetent, and therfore the airline?

A friend of mine works at Starbucks and makes more than my other friend who went the MidAtlantic route. Another made more waitressing with high schoolers a few nights a week while studying than they do working 20 nights away from home as a flight attendant. You can make the same at Wendy's in a month as you do as a flight attendant for PSA. Is it a high school job level that the company and public want? The McDonalds fares will be caught up with, and McDonalds service is what you'll get. It's the McDonalds level of safety that frankly terrifies me. What is happening in America to the middle class worker is horrifying- I guess the shameful and dangerous disease is taking over every industry. How long until we have Wal-Mart doctors?

The airlines are a unique industry in that they are needed but not regulated, the safest skies in the world but a source of ridicule to the general public. They are extremely complex operations that work, and work well, the majority of the time but are one of the most hated by the media and public. They employ mostly passionate people who's work is not only work, but a joy and a hobby (that's where they get us). Airline employees, particularly pilots and flight attendants, worked hard and fought for safer conditions for customers but are viewed with either contempt or some sort of bizarre sexualization. They have the most unique and misunderstood way of being compensated, that can be very misleading to the public. Thier compensation and benefits are more public and picked over than any others I can think of.

One of the few permanent things at an airline are it's employees. They don't leave with a bag of money after trying for a couple of years, or jump ship when it's failing. They don't warn customers away in the media. They are always there, doing the most important work- safely transporting people around the world in flying machines, something that's very much taken for granted while some sit in thier comfy offices collecting millions and never doing what they were meant to, before jumping ship. Entire business plans are concocted from ripping off the very people who run the place, while the competition pays thier folks better, treats them better, and makes profits. Who knows, could they be related?

The industry in general needs to say no to this. Flight Attendants are getting certified this year. A Flight Attendant is a trained, vauable crew member who's value does not change with fares, oil prices, titles on the plane, or number of seats on it. This is a job that needs to be reclaimed, defined and defended.

Sorry about the rant.

 

[cavalier]

Well dear: That comes out to $12.52 an hour....guess how many people in this country make $12.52 an hour....yep...millions.

SKY HIGH states:
But do millions take 14 YEARS TO "TOP OUT" at $12.52 an hour?
And remember what TOP OUT means? NO MORE scale after that!.....so guess how many people in this company WILL NOT even be able to afford "rent", let alone gas, food, cars, heating/electric/phone bills, credit cards, cable, living expenses..etc......

[post="191137"][/post]​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




If your really really read my post it says I "saw" this coming and therefore others have too. So I took the necessary actions like others could have too...see my point? This didn't happen overnight like you people are making it seem. It's been on a steady decline for years....acting shocked now is acting the fool. UNLESS $12.52 an hour with terrible benefits suits you fine. Is your sky any clearer, sky?

 

[FWAAA]

A long time ago, the position of flight attendant was not a lifelong career. FAs were let go when they reached a certain age, if they married or became pregnant. Add to that the other limits like weight, etc. that provided the basis for airlines letting go of FAs once they reached about 30.

Then, our society changed. Many believed that FAs should be able to keep being FAs as long as they wanted. The new president of the APFA at AA details this history on the APFA website.

Well, change happens. Just because a job used to pay well enough to be considered a career position doesn't mean it will always stay that way.

And it is looking like low pay may be the factor that returns the job of FA to the type of position typically held by young people who find traveling the world to be an adventure. The low pay may discourage people from thinking they should do it all their lives.

This is a very controversial view, I realize. But every time I hear about how tough it is for people to raise a family on minimum wage (and therefore, the minimu wage should be increased), I am reminded that minimum wage jobs aren't really the types of jobs people should hold if they plan to raise a family. Perhaps in the near future, flight attendant is not going to be the type of job that is compatible with raising a family.

I'm not saying that flight attendants should only make minimum wage. But thanks to the FAA rule that limits the productivity of FAs (one per 50 seats), the argument that older FAs should make lots of money doesn't hold as much water as even pilots making more money as they gain experience - after all, it only takes 2 pilots no matter how many seats are on the airplane (unless the flight time exceeds 8 hours). Pilots are allowed to become more productive as they age (by flying ever larger airplanes) yet FAs are no more productive on their retirement date than on their first day. One FA per 50 seats. And there's no shortage of young people who want to be FAs at low wages.

 

[Light Years]

I'm not really understanding the relation between seats and productivity? Typically, F/As on larger planes, or working for an airline with generally larger planes, are compensated better. This is based vaguely on how pilots make more on larger aircraft. This is all changing with the blurring of the lines between different types of airlines.

The idea of a temporary job is all well and good (and nostalgic I guess) but it doesn't happen. All those senior mamas intended for it to be temporary. So did the Southwest folks who finally demanded, and got, an industry leading contract. If you haven't done it, it's easy to say "what a fun temporary job that would be"- which doesn't really apply to anything based on seniority and seniority alone. It's cyclical- the better contracts will be won back. We're talking still very average compensation in a multimillion dollar industry.

The $70,000 figure is ridiculous, if it ever applied it was to maybe 10 senior F/As a few years ago. How come we never hear mention of the $27,000 F/As? Or the five year, $19,000 F/As at MDA?

 

[harleyrider]

:angry: Some of you on this site are complaining about f/a's wages,if you have never none the job, PLEASE, shut your pie hole. Keep reading the papers. The Judge just a minute ago gave ALL USAirways employees a 21% pay cut, But management only takes a 10%. Guess they won't go bankrupt ! The 21% is for 4 months.

 

[DCAflyer]

I'm not really understanding the relation between seats and productivity? Typically, F/As on larger planes, or working for an airline with generally larger planes, are compensated better. This is based vaguely on how pilots make more on larger aircraft. This is all changing with the blurring of the lines between different types of airlines.

[post="191252"][/post]​

I agree that it makes no sense. 50 seast is 50 seats, whether they are on a CRJ or on a 767. The argument is that on a 767, you have four times as many seats and the ability to insert four times as many butts. It's a matter of economics and economies of scale.

The argument that pilots are more productive when they get older because they can fly bigger planes is also without merit. What keeps a 27-year-old pilot from flying the 767 as opposed to the CRJ? It's simply a matter of seniority, not ability. I am not saying that the 59-year-old pilot doesn't bring years of experience, but from a legal standpoint, there is nothing stopping an airline from placing a pre 30-year-old butt in a 767 left seat and paying him or her $25K. And does nobody here see that this is what the company is trying to do? That is exectly what will happen when it is given permission, whether by ratification or by court order, to furlough out of seniority order. The company will park some or all of the 767's for a few cold months, and let all of those pilots go. Then it will park some or all of the 330's for a couple of cold months, and let those pilots go. By the time the airline grows, if ever, and it needs more pilots, the ones who were topped out 330 captains and FO's will be over 60, therefore ineligible for recall.

Flight attendants make the same whether they are working a 330 (except for international premium) or a 733. It is based on their number of years of service to the company.

 

[FWAAA]

I'm not really understanding the relation between seats and productivity? Typically, F/As on larger planes, or working for an airline with generally larger planes, are compensated better. This is based vaguely on how pilots make more on larger aircraft. This is all changing with the blurring of the lines between different types of airlines.

[post="191252"][/post]​

My point about productivity is that it takes 2 pilots to fly a 19 seat Beech and it takes two pilots to fly an Airbus A380 and everything in between. The youngsters flying the Beech or the RJs generally make slave wages compared to the widebody captains. But at least the pilots can claim (it may not be a valid claim) that as they age, and move up to larger aircraft, they are carrying more paying butts per hour of flight, and so they can be paid more. In fact, more and more airline pilot payscales break down into a consistent per-pax per-hour figure.

Compare that to FA. A 19 year old FA on his/her first day might fly as the only FA on a 19 seat Beech. And when that FA moves up to a 50 seat RJ, they have become more productive, since more paying butts can cover that FA's salary.

But that's the productivity ceiling. Every 50 additional seats (or fraction thereof) requires another FA. But the flight deck still only has those two seats. As long as a 767 or 777 or 747 or even A380 is scheduled for 8 hours or less, it only needs to carry those two pilots. Long international routes require more pilots by edict of the FAA (and also require more FAs). But on some widebodies, there are 15 or more FAs. And they can be 19 years old or they can be 100 years old.

I'm positive that airline executives would probably prefer to pay all pilots at their company the same wage, without regard to senority. And likewise the FAs. All I'm saying is that the pilots have one argument (which the FAs lack) as to why years of service should equate to more money. There may be other reasons to pay people more as they age, but only the pilots have the "I carry many more pax on much larger, more valuable airplanes as I move up the senority ladder" argument. The FAs don't.

And I'm neither a pilot nor an FA.

Hope the USAir situation works out for everyone.

 

[BoeingBoy]

"The argument that pilots are more productive when they get older because they can fly bigger planes is also without merit."

Technically, that isn't the argument though some may have phrased it that way because "older" is thought to equate to "senior" (and at most airlines for many, many years it generally did).

Pilot pay evolved on a productivity standard:

Start with a "base pay" for captains which increases with longetivity (generally 12 years - that's the "experience" factor).

Add an increment for certificated T/O weight for each A/C type - that's the "size" productivity factor (as well as complexity for the first half of the industries existance).

Add an increment for speed for each A/C type - another productivity factor (and complexity factor as above).

Throw in an increment for night flying - more difficult and dangerous in the first half of the industries existance.

Now you've got the Captains pay scale.

F/O's get a percentage of Captain pay with the percentage increasing with longevity (generally from 50% up to about 65% over 12 years).

F/E's (which used to be common) get a smaller percentage of captains pay, again increasing with longevity (if memory serves, 35% up to 50% over 12 years)

So that's how the pay system evolved. Of course it's undergone fundamental changes at many, if not most airlines so that it bears little or no resemblence to the above.

Jim

 

[Light Years]

Compare that to FA. A 19 year old FA on his/her first day might fly as the only FA on a 19 seat Beech. And when that FA moves up to a 50 seat RJ, they have become more productive, since more paying butts can cover that FA's salary.

[post="191267"][/post]​

I vaguely understand what you're getting at. But its one for 20-50 (no F/A required on 19 seaters as long as they only have one door). Doors also come into it, but to simplify: what's the difference between a sole F/A on a 50 seater, and three on a 150 seater? Aren't they each as productive? I think your point is they never are responsible for more than the 50, which has merit, but then why doesn't the US Airways F/A (PSA) that flys the 50 seater make what the narrowbody/ widebody F/As make? And why does the widebody US F/A now make less than a Southwest F/A on a 737, with less and lower yielding seats?

 

[FWAAA]

I vaguely understand what you're getting at. But its one for 20-50 (no F/A required on 19 seaters as long as they only have one door). Doors also come into it, but to simplify: what's the difference between a sole F/A on a 50 seater, and three on a 150 seater? Aren't they each as productive? I think your point is they never are responsible for more than the 50, which has merit, but then why doesn't the US Airways F/A (PSA) that flys the 50 seater make what the narrowbody/ widebody F/As make? And why does the widebody US F/A now make less than a Southwest F/A on a 737, with less and lower yielding seats?

[post="191290"][/post]​

Doh! Forgot about the 19 seaters. I haven't been on anything smaller than a SAAB 340 in a long time. B)

The fact that 2 pilots can fly 600 bodies (or whatever the 380 will seat) yet those seats require at least a dozen FAs might at least provide a way for the airline execs to rationalize why the widebody captain makes 10 times more than the RJ captain. But it may not even have any real merit. I only pointed out the possible argument the pilots have. I'm not sure I agree with it.

As to your other questions, I'm smart enough to know that I don't know the answers.

Hope US can pull out before the CFIT happens.

 

[Light Years]

It's really a hard thing to pinpoint alot of jobs, and flight attendants, and especially pilots, are two that have huge differences in compensation without much rhyme or reason. Agents have a similar dillemma- it's really hard to put a price on these things.

I just hope that out of all of this negativity comes some sort of solidarity and across the board fairness. Most of this can be traced back to one group thinking another group in the same profession weren't good enough, and it's come back on them. Hopefully this is the equivalent of rock bottom, and the only way is up.

I've seen the future, and I can't afford it... but we can all try to change it for the better.

 

[Dea Certe]

Light Years,

As usual, every post you made is eloquent, elegant and well-said. You are a class act!

BT is right. I do see people finding other jobs and not bothering with a courtesy phone call to say "Oh, yeah, I won't be making that departure." I don't fault them one bit, either.

As I've said before, US Airways is about to become a cautionary tale. Whether others learn from it and what they do with it will be interesting.

I am so sorry to have a front row seat to the dismantling of what could have been a great airline.

Folks, please take care of yourselves and be kind to each other.

Dea