Immediate termination

[Fly4Free]

Question.. Where the HE#$ did this topic start changing to talk about COMMUTERS? That's some totally unrelated topic to the original post.

I was told, to clarify, that if you cannot show up to work due to non-rev travel, (say you get bumped from every flight you try to get on) that it is still grounds for termination. There are specific departmental instructions I was told if that happens, but they will INVESTIGATE your travel itenerary. If you schedule the very LAST available flight out originally, kiss your job goodbye if you can't get on. If you schedule early in the morning, and just happen to not be able to get on any flight from any airline, it must be some natural disaster or something going on, so they may let you off with a warning.

I have no idea what the policy is for commuters, but this original policy I was speaking of is for a Tempe-based department. I am not sure if it applies to HQ, Res or any of the numerous-other office based employees here who are not FAs or pilots, but based on the severity of the actions, I'm guessing it's a corporate-wide initiative. (That's why I said to call HR and ask, they should know!)

I'm sure those who commute to work have a little more lenient policy, since you're taking numerous flights as part of your job. Those land-based employees here do not need to fly to do their job (usually) and I am purely talking about NON-REV / Entertainment / Benefit travel that we get as a privy.

 

[Bear96]

Question.. Where the HE#$ did this topic start changing to talk about COMMUTERS? That's some totally unrelated topic to the original post.

Check out the thread title. You might notice the word COMMUTER in it.

In any case, what you describe is the policy at UA. If you don't show up for work often enough, they often will investigate your pass usage and if they find you were NRSA'ing to HNL for the weekend while you were supposed to be at work on the ramp or behind the counter ORD, your outta there.

 

[PITbull]

Again, bad treatment of employees justify the needs for unions. I would love to find and hire idiots that are qualified to do the job the company requires of them without complaining. Idiots that will move regardless of whatever crap the company throws at them and that have no lives. That would be a dream come true! Atlease it would be for a short term. In my experience, someone that will move willy nilly,constantly after base closing or however you people in the airline world word it, without complaining, on the wishes of the company, is an idiot. That person is not truely long term material and caliber tends to be lower.If US or any company seeks that sort of individual----one without a desire for a higher standard of living and quality of life and improved working conditions better than the rest, i say let it reflect in every single paid position within the company--beginning at the top and moving down the chain. Cut the salaries and benefits to the bone, with the top echelon, the ones that are there the shortest amount of time taking on most of it. I predict attitude will change overnight.

Yup. That's the way I see it. B)

Bear,

My point was not for folks who abuse policy. Folks who call in sick who are to be at work, and are extending vacation, or going on trips is a violation of the contract as well. My issue with the company is regarding those who make every effort to get to work, but flights are cancelled, or road weather conditions are so poor that the individual could place themselves in peril. F/as can not afford one personal cataclysmic event in their lives...would take them over a decade to recover financially on the wages at U. We discussed that; company knew it too.

Because of the f/a furloughs approx. 7,000 in 3 years, more folks are finding themselves having to commute to get to work, AFA wrote a provision to lessen the discipline or give some slack for those situations that occur. AFA also included "personal days" instead of sick... 2 per calendar year.

We covered ourselves, because we anticipated the event. How other groups work it out, I have no idea.

 

[Travelpro72]

and to you PITBULL as a commuter I say Thank You. I know some feel it's a choice but for some it's not that simple. Shall I uproot my partner from his job and just assume another will be available in another HUB until they decide to close or downsize that one? Maybe just live out of an RV and park it in the employee lot until I get my slip to head off to the next spot. I don't work for the military now..... Hmmmm maybe pull your children out of schools 1 2 or even 3 times during their schooling and buy a home three times over. Yes when you take a job as a flight attendant or pilot you run the risk of displacements but what has happened at US is absolutely out of the ordinary and people cannot be expected to afford to move over and over and over and over.....NO WAY. Live the life before preaching to commuters. If your partner husband or wife can't change cities I guess divorce or splitting to keep the precious job could always be an option? We again are in an extraordinary situation here on the East. It's not the company's fault or worry about where you live but neither is it mine for bad management and the fallout after 9/11 either. It all comes down to $$$$ for most and I'd say that most of us don't have it to move.

 

[hula-flyguy]

I guess you would have to come up with a definition of "every attempt" to make it work.
Is not catching the last flight the night before report which might have had seats, but meant a night in a hotel, making every attempt?
Is giving yourself 1 "extra" flight into PHL in the summer to catch a 900pm International trip while 3 am flights went out with seats (or a jumpseat open) making every attempt?
Do you use one of your newly acquired S1s to get to work or do you save that for something important like the vacation trip to Europe?
Everyone is going to have a different definition of "every attempt" and the ones who are abusing the system now are going to be the same ones whose definition of "every attempt" means they showed up at the airport some time in advance of their report time and tried to get on A plane, nothing more, nothing less.

PS- Not all commuters work like this, but I've worked the gates enough to see there are quite a few who do. 😛h34r:

I agree 100% and this is the problem that we have with a handfull of commuters that make the the rest of the group look bad. The policy that AA has in place that jimntx mentioned below this quoted text sounds great. Seems like that would safeguard both sides, crew members and schedule integrity.

I have to admit, I was origninally on the side of "you chose to commute" but as I have stated in previous posts in recent months my stance has changed.

Losing SYR,ORF,MIA,GSO all sucked but to a much lesser degree than the west coast bases and now for all intents and purposes, PIT. The PI bases were small and didnt really offer protection. The PS closures hurt a bit more. Though they were small, they were strategic and you'd have expected atleast one to have been retained. A total west coast elimination hurt, much more than the PI bases because of the geographics involved. This was the point where my feelings about commuting started to change. Thought I dont feel one group should be treated any differently than another, I did feel that something needed to be done for west coast crews. That of coarse never happened. Now with the near elimination of PIT, "stuck commuting" is at an all time high, especially for PHL where most of the PIT crews have been displaced. With PIT PHL service reduced to to trickle at best, crew members have virtually no way to get to and from work. The flights are full, frequencey sucks, crew members pretty much have been screwed by a company (in name only) who pretty much promised them a job for life. They built their lives around this promise and now as many of them aproach middle age, they have to deal with the stress of making life altering decisions of leaving their job (which still pays a decent wage even though it's not what it used to be), uproot their families (is it worth it...the pay is good, but not that good), or take on the additional risk and stress of attempting to commute 5,6,7 times per month?

I wish I had the answer. I do know that a blanket " Screw them....they chose to commute" is NOT the answer. But again, I think that a policy such as the one AA has in place sounds pretty good.

sorry for the long post, I sort of got carried away

 

[jimntx]

I would love to find and hire idiots that are qualified to do the job the company requires of them without complaining. Idiots that will move regardless of whatever crap the company throws at them and that have no lives. That would be a dream come true! Atlease it would be for a short term. In my experience, someone that will move willy nilly,constantly after base closing or however you people in the airline world word it, without complaining, on the wishes of the company, is an idiot. That person is not truely long term material and caliber tends to be lower.If US or any company seeks that sort of individual...

Watcher, the truth is that what you describe is EXACTLY the kind of person that the airlines would like to hire as Flight Attendants! The bolded part of your statement is the key.

The airlines would very much like to go back to the "good old days" where young ladies of good family worked as flight attendants for 4-5 years until they found a husband. No top of scale earners, no career f/as, no pensions to pay, no "seniority" issues to deal with, no weight gain problems, no gray hair, no wrinkles. Airline Nirvana!

The other alternative would be people like me who take up flight attending as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or (in my case) 5th career. Some might not work long enough to even earn a pension from the company (minimum 5 years under Federal law). Others might not put in the 10 years required to get lifetime travel benefits from the company (that's what I'm holding out for ). But, again, no top of scale earners and low seniority.

My guess is that over the next few years as contracts come up for renewal, the airlines are going to do everything possible to reduce the "attractiveness" of the job to the point that one would only be willing to put up with the job for a few years, and certainly, no one in their right mind would consider making a career out of the job.

And, one of the things that the companies are going to "crack down" on in the next negotiations is commuter employees. I heard that in the latest round of hiring for EWR, Continental is requiring that new hires provide proof of residency in EWR vicinity. I know that CO is like AA. Non-rev travel is not permitted without management approval ( death in the family, etc) until you finish probation.

 

[Bear96]

. . . Some might not work long enough to even earn a pension from the company (minimum 5 years under Federal law). . . .

I agree with you that airlines would prefer "temporary" F/As, for the reasons you mentioned.

But one correction -- federal law does not impose any type of minimum years of service to be eligible for pension benefits. Rather, ERISA provides a MAXIMUM five-year period -- employees must be 100% vested (under a cliff vesting scheme) in a pension program after NO MORE THAN five years of service.

Employers are free to have employees vest in a pension program from Day 1 of employment if they wish.

 

[jimntx]

Well, true on the ERISA rules, but how many companies do you know that don't take advantage of the full 5 years before you are vested?

 

[Bear96]

Not many, but I'm not sure how that is relevant. I was simply responding to the portion of your statement that attributed as a requirement "under Federal law." It is not.

 

[azjetdude]

C'mon bear,

U has had 7 bases close just from mergers alone the past 10 years and in addition, 3 displacements between 2004 through 2006.

You know better. Company didn't pay for the moving for the first 2 displacements because the VF program sideletter had that if a f/a was saved by a voluntary furlough, the company would not pay for a displacement of that f/a.

On reduced wages, f/as can no longer afford to move...just to save a substandard wage job. No one can aford to be treated like a yo-yo.

Did your union approve this contract? If so, you are really talking out of both sides of your mouth aren't you? You like to bash the company for everything "management" does "to you" and yet you agree to a contract and still want the company to give you more that what you deserve contractually? I love that!

If you don't think your contract is fair, don't vote for it. But once a contract is in place, you have to be crazy for asking the company to give you more that what is required contractually. WOW!

Oh please...I love it how some people fail to take responsibility for their own lives. In any other industry, one is expected to be to work and show up on time. If one CHOOSES to be in a sub-standard wage job, one still has to take responsibility for his/her life choices and also accept responsibility for gettting (or not getting) to work on time. The problem with many commuters is that they tend to blame the company they work for, for their life-style choices. It is not the company's problem that an employee CHOOSES to live away from the city where they are based. Pit, I don't and won't accept your response that somehow the F/A is a victim. At the end of the day, it comes down to CHOICE. The only constant in the universe (and especially in this industry) IS change. One either accepts it and adapts to those changes, or otherwise, one needs to re-evaluate and re-assess their life choices (as you have done). When one chooses to put their livelihood in the hands of a major corporation, be it an airline or otherwise, the employee is at the company's mercy as to where that company will need to base its employees...and more often than not, operations bases will change as market conditions change. The individual is still responsible for getting to work...ON TIME. Furthermore, I think it is an "entitlement" mentality to imply or suggest that an airline employee can expect to stay put in the station or base that they were hired in or assigned to at D.O.H. I am pretty sure that the stews hired by PSA in San Diego never dreamt that they'd be stationed outside of California working night-time runs across the Atlantic some 35 years into their flying career. Like the bumper sticker states, "expect the unexpected." Words to live by...

Even within the industry, everyone else has to get to work on time no matter where they work. And there are plenty of airport people and various Management people who commute to different cities to work. They have to be to work on time and can't blame the company that, "how could you expect me to get to work on time, the flights were full". Yeah right.

 

[PITbull]

az,

I voted NO, and did not endorse any of the concessionary contracts...for your inquiring mind.

When it passed; after giving 25 years of service, I left.