Isn't This An Oxymoron?

[lindy]

"My focus should not be on whether the company survives, but on whether the employees can survive financially with any further concessions," she said. "I take the position that I want to maintain the integrity of the profession, the salaries and the quality of life at all costs."

From my perspective, if the Company does not survive, than the integrity of the profession, the salaries, and the quality of life for all US Airways flight attendants will be gone.

So, what is it? Does Teddy want the Company to survive or is she more interested in the integrity of the profession, the salaries and the quality of life for all flight attendants? If it is the latter, when did she appoint herself the savior for flight attendants at other airlines? I have no doubt the other airlines are applauding her efforts, in hopes that US Airways will disappear from the playing field. Too bad it will be her membership that will need to "fall on the sword" for the good of the profession.

Lindy

 

[sentrido]

Usairways is not the only place in this world to work

 

[Kev3188]

Lindy--

Everytime one carrier submits to the whims of mgmt., all of us (at all) carriers wind up paying for it. Period. At what point do you think we collectively should say enough? Minimum wage? This race to the bottom has to stop now.

 

[mweiss]

Are there really enough people willing to work for that cheap doing work that hard?

If so, you must really, really, really love the job.

 

[pitguy]

There is no need for the company to survive if the employees are going to be impoverished.


--I think Teddy speaks well for the employees of the company. PIT just laid off another 75 Mechanics. Only about 3 or 4 even bothered to transfer. They "chose" the street. Get it! Everyone has had enough.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

No, it is not by definition, an oxymoron: Jumbo Shrimp, Pretty Ugly, Goverment Organization....an oxymoron consists of two contradictory words joined together for descriptive purposes.

Class is dismissed.

 

[mweiss]

There is no need for the company to survive if the employees are going to be impoverished.

Exactly. Why should there be any worry, unless there are lots of people willing to work for peanuts at this? And if there are, why are there?

 

[lindy]

Lindy--

Everytime one carrier submits to the whims of mgmt., all of us (at all) carriers wind up paying for it. Period. At what point do you think we collectively should say enough? Minimum wage? This race to the bottom has to stop now.

The bottom has already been reached. Look at AirTran, Spirit, Jetblue, et.al.
To make matters worse, one only has to revisit what AAL did to the TWA employees.

Finally, let us not forget the wonderful "WAR of WORDS" that took place between members of the UAL AFA members and USA members when Wolfe/Goodwin were attempting to bring the two carriers together. I believe there was quite a bit of rhetoric as to who was going to do what to whom.

If U goes under, there will be dancing in the streets at the other carriers. Is this going to bring better quality of life to the 28,000 employees of US Airways?

Lindy

 

[PITbull]

mweiss,

This is the toughest decision for employees.

I personally believe that the majority of the employees would assist again willingly, even for a 3 time if managment would have approached the employees saying:

"We will do everything we can to improve our balance sheet and increase revenue by operating the airline in every way there is before coming to the employees again. We as a management will put together a plan get all the employees on board to make sure our service, product is the best in the business. If this doesn't fix our bottom line, then and only then will we sit with labor to see where we can save in cost reductions on that end."


Management would have succeeded in this endeavor with labor. They went about this the wrong way, and didn't want to work hard to take those steps FIRST. Hell, some of the cost savings given managment has not even been implemented yet:

Example:

Pref bid for pilots and f/as. This will be a huge cost savings.

Some of these grievances need to be worked out by labor and managment without arbitration first. We all have hundreds and hundreds of grievances outstanding.

Absurdity at its finest at our airline.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Lindy taking pot shots at Teddy Xidas just takes the focus off the real problems. She's fighting for the flight attendants. I guess that's a dangerous thing to those who don't want the flight attendants to have a meaningful career. You're right, other airlines will be dancing in the street if US Airways fails, but it won't be because of Teddy Xidas. If the company goes down I'll blame management and Dr. Bronner. The employees at US Airways have given more to their company than any other group of airline employees in aviation history. Nobody can fault any employees or union for demanding accountability from management when they keep coming back for more. Given the negotiating tactics of the current management regime it would be prudent to be demanding.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I notice her biggest defenders are not F’A’s. We have a reporter, camera person, mechanics, and a few F/A who obviously can afford to lose their jobs.

Aren't F/A's? You sure about that Uza? Who are the reporters, camera persons, mechanics who can afford to lose their jobs? You aren't making any sense at all.

 

[PITbull]

woah, uza,

I don't think you will be able to sleep tonight LOL...

You are a chuckle on here. Almost 50 posts today. Geez louise. You need to take a small rest and catch your little breath from all the wind you have been blowing today...

That Teddy sure makes you sweat...LOL....

 

[EyeInTheSky]

PITbull, its so obvious uza has a lot to lose by having someone like Teddy Xidas around. Uza is just going to have to get use to Teddy being around for a very long time doncha' think PITbull?

 

[jimntx]

Exactly. Why should there be any worry, unless there are lots of people willing to work for peanuts at this? And if there are, why are there?

It's all a matter of appearances. Today, we have to import people from other countries to make beds and clean toilets in hotels for $15/hr, but you can still get a line around the block for flight attendant jobs paying not much more than that.

The crowd does thin a little when they find out that
1. Yes, the job does pay $19/hr to start, but you're only guaranteed 75 hours/mo.
You'd be surprised the number of people that automatically assume a 40-hr work week even for flight attendants.
2. The 4-6 weeks of training is unpaid.
3. You will not be guaranteed being based in the city you want. Several years ago, I was at a CO open house in Houston. When they pointed out that new hire flight attendants could expect to spend a minimum of 2 years at EWR or CLE, about 25% of the attendees got up and left.
4. Travel benefits are neither as free or as liberal as they used to be.

That being said, a lot of people are still attracted to the "glamor" of the job, but they have no intention of making a career of it. They think they'll do it just until they've traveled to all the places they want to see. And, last but not least, they all think it's an easy job. I mean, you hang a few coats, you pour a few cokes, you pass out some pretzels. What's hard about that?

And, there are a lot of people out of work. The government's dirty little secret about unemployment is that the true number of people out of work is much higher than the reported numbers. Always has been. There are any number of ways to NOT include people in those numbers.

Even when AE was only paying $12/hr for new hires, they were still getting plenty of applicants. It wasn't the quality of applicant they wanted or needed, but they were getting applicants.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

PineyBob, I dare say you scored a direct hit on Chiames balls there. Don't you think? Way to go!