UAL ELIMINATES 2,700 FURTHER F/A POSITIONS
- Thread starter Bear96
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #2
From AFA/UAL:
FURLOUGH ANNOUNCEMENT
United has informed us that a furlough of Flight Attendants will be announced due to the continued reduction in flight schedules. Management says it anti****tes that approximately 2,700 additional Flight Attendant furloughs will be necessary, on top of the 2,100 Flight Attendants currently on voluntary furlough, and that the official announcement will be released next week.
AFA is working once again to minimize the impact on Flight Attendants. Before any Flight Attendant is placed on involuntary furlough status, a voluntary furlough will be bid (Section 21.A.). We are also advocating for other possible options in an attempt to avoid involuntary furloughs as a part of the reduction.
The MEC is resolute in providing Members all information about our job as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we do not yet have all of the specifics about the furlough. Until United makes the official announcement, we are working closely with the company to finalize procedures for the furlough.
We will update you as soon as we have any further information. Please continue to stay informed through AFA communication channels: www.unitedafa.org, E-lines, and 1-800-DEAR-AFA.
FURLOUGH ANNOUNCEMENT
United has informed us that a furlough of Flight Attendants will be announced due to the continued reduction in flight schedules. Management says it anti****tes that approximately 2,700 additional Flight Attendant furloughs will be necessary, on top of the 2,100 Flight Attendants currently on voluntary furlough, and that the official announcement will be released next week.
AFA is working once again to minimize the impact on Flight Attendants. Before any Flight Attendant is placed on involuntary furlough status, a voluntary furlough will be bid (Section 21.A.). We are also advocating for other possible options in an attempt to avoid involuntary furloughs as a part of the reduction.
The MEC is resolute in providing Members all information about our job as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we do not yet have all of the specifics about the furlough. Until United makes the official announcement, we are working closely with the company to finalize procedures for the furlough.
We will update you as soon as we have any further information. Please continue to stay informed through AFA communication channels: www.unitedafa.org, E-lines, and 1-800-DEAR-AFA.
Bear,
Any inside info on what the holdup is on our contract...is the company lowballing us as usual or what? The more things change the more they stay the same?
Any inside info on what the holdup is on our contract...is the company lowballing us as usual or what? The more things change the more they stay the same?
spacewaitress,
I don't know if the company is low balling the FA's or not, but unfortunately there are going to be more furloughs. If and when the pilots ERP 2 passes, I will be most likely be furloughed in January. As angry as I am about alpa allowing upto 600 more pilot furloughs. Current economic times just do not support extra employeess. Right now, I am one of those extra employees. For United to get back on its feet, Tilton said that there is going to be change and be prepared for it. Change at this time includes more furloughs.
I don't know if the company is low balling the FA's or not, but unfortunately there are going to be more furloughs. If and when the pilots ERP 2 passes, I will be most likely be furloughed in January. As angry as I am about alpa allowing upto 600 more pilot furloughs. Current economic times just do not support extra employeess. Right now, I am one of those extra employees. For United to get back on its feet, Tilton said that there is going to be change and be prepared for it. Change at this time includes more furloughs.
The union says: The MEC is resolute in providing Members all information about our job as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we do not yet have all of the specifics about the furlough.[BR][BR]Then why give us the info? I have yet to hear about the union's finalized plan to recover the company. I am sick of this union not being straightforward with its members. United really should work on retiring some of the grandmas in DEN, SEA, ORD, and LAX, rather than hiring, firing, and then rehiring people every six months. If I were at the bottom 2000 of the seniority, I would not give this company another chance.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/9/2002 1
59 PM 300guy wrote:
spacewaitress,
I don't know if the company is low balling the FA's or not, but unfortunately there are going to be more furloughs. If and when the pilots ERP 2 passes, I will be most likely be furloughed in January. As angry as I am about alpa allowing upto 600 more pilot furloughs. Current economic times just do not support extra employeess. Right now, I am one of those extra employees. For United to get back on its feet, Tilton said that there is going to be change and be prepared for it. Change at this time includes more furloughs.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Are you saying that the company must get approval from ALPA to furlough pilots we don't need? Before anyone replies, I already know about the sit on your ass pay that (some) pilots receive because of fleet retirements.
If this company has excess people on the payroll they should be furloughed, regardless of what they do. This company will never trim its fat with contract provisions, whether management or labor, that allows all too precious revenue to end up in the pockets of employees who aren't necessary. No offense to you, but have you been following the How many supervisors do you need to load a plane? thread.
Can you explain why surplus pilots should not be furloughed (after the necessary training takes place for seat/fleet change) like the rest of us. Don't you think that's rather elite, and bad for the airline as a whole? I really don't understand this.
Sastal,
AFA gives what info they have because the press is reporting it...for one reason. So I imagine it's partly damage control, which in your case didn't seem to work (but probably did in a whole lot of others). And I wouldn't be so quick to malign the grandmothers as you call them, that work here. After all, you might be there some day if that is what you want for yourself...and if this company survives. And if it isn't, then you have the right and the opportunity (so far) to leave when you would like. Just have a little respect for those who choose (or find it necessary) to continue their work at the company that THEY HELPED BUILD. You're pretty far out of line with that comment. You are someone's kid by the way (and someone's grand kid). Make them proud.
----------------
On 11/9/2002 1
59 PM 300guy wrote: spacewaitress,
I don't know if the company is low balling the FA's or not, but unfortunately there are going to be more furloughs. If and when the pilots ERP 2 passes, I will be most likely be furloughed in January. As angry as I am about alpa allowing upto 600 more pilot furloughs. Current economic times just do not support extra employeess. Right now, I am one of those extra employees. For United to get back on its feet, Tilton said that there is going to be change and be prepared for it. Change at this time includes more furloughs.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Are you saying that the company must get approval from ALPA to furlough pilots we don't need? Before anyone replies, I already know about the sit on your ass pay that (some) pilots receive because of fleet retirements.
If this company has excess people on the payroll they should be furloughed, regardless of what they do. This company will never trim its fat with contract provisions, whether management or labor, that allows all too precious revenue to end up in the pockets of employees who aren't necessary. No offense to you, but have you been following the How many supervisors do you need to load a plane? thread.
Can you explain why surplus pilots should not be furloughed (after the necessary training takes place for seat/fleet change) like the rest of us. Don't you think that's rather elite, and bad for the airline as a whole? I really don't understand this.
Sastal,
AFA gives what info they have because the press is reporting it...for one reason. So I imagine it's partly damage control, which in your case didn't seem to work (but probably did in a whole lot of others). And I wouldn't be so quick to malign the grandmothers as you call them, that work here. After all, you might be there some day if that is what you want for yourself...and if this company survives. And if it isn't, then you have the right and the opportunity (so far) to leave when you would like. Just have a little respect for those who choose (or find it necessary) to continue their work at the company that THEY HELPED BUILD. You're pretty far out of line with that comment. You are someone's kid by the way (and someone's grand kid). Make them proud.
Are you saying that the company must get approval from ALPA to furlough pilots we don't need?
--------
Did I say this in my reply?? No. The company hasn't been following our contract since Sept. 11, why should they now.
------------------
Before anyone replies, I already know about the "sit on your ass" pay that (some) pilots receive because of fleet retirements.
-----------
As for the sit on your butt pay, you and I both know that F/A's are trained on every type of equipment UAL has and pilots are trained specifically to a type of airplane and seat. Would you rather the company pay these pilots, who no longer can holder a particular seat due to aircraft retirement or bumps, the full 75 hours to sit at home, or pay them 60 hours and save the company some money??
---------------------
If this company has excess people on the payroll they should be furloughed, regardless of what they do. This company will never trim its fat with contract provisions, whether management or labor, that allows all too precious revenue to end up in the pockets of employees who aren't necessary. No offense to you, but have you been following the "How many supervisors do you need to load a plane?" thread.
-----------------
Yes I have been following this thread and I agree about the number of supervisors. I have some friends who are F/A's and all they tell me about is the excess number of supervisors they have. As someone stated, I have also seen guys on my walk arounds just sitting in tugs on the ramp watching the hard working guys load the airplane while they get the sit on your butt pay.
-----------------
Can you explain why surplus pilots should not be furloughed (after the necessary training takes place for seat/fleet change) like the rest of us. Don't you think that's rather elite, and bad for the airline as a whole? I really don't understand this.
-------------
Like I said, the company has extra employees and I am one of them right now. So yes, I will be at the unemployment office most likely Jan. 1, 2003. Tilton has already stated that there are going to be more pilot furlouhgs and I am going to be one of them.
---------------------
--------
Did I say this in my reply?? No. The company hasn't been following our contract since Sept. 11, why should they now.
------------------
Before anyone replies, I already know about the "sit on your ass" pay that (some) pilots receive because of fleet retirements.
-----------
As for the sit on your butt pay, you and I both know that F/A's are trained on every type of equipment UAL has and pilots are trained specifically to a type of airplane and seat. Would you rather the company pay these pilots, who no longer can holder a particular seat due to aircraft retirement or bumps, the full 75 hours to sit at home, or pay them 60 hours and save the company some money??
---------------------
If this company has excess people on the payroll they should be furloughed, regardless of what they do. This company will never trim its fat with contract provisions, whether management or labor, that allows all too precious revenue to end up in the pockets of employees who aren't necessary. No offense to you, but have you been following the "How many supervisors do you need to load a plane?" thread.
-----------------
Yes I have been following this thread and I agree about the number of supervisors. I have some friends who are F/A's and all they tell me about is the excess number of supervisors they have. As someone stated, I have also seen guys on my walk arounds just sitting in tugs on the ramp watching the hard working guys load the airplane while they get the sit on your butt pay.
-----------------
Can you explain why surplus pilots should not be furloughed (after the necessary training takes place for seat/fleet change) like the rest of us. Don't you think that's rather elite, and bad for the airline as a whole? I really don't understand this.
-------------
Like I said, the company has extra employees and I am one of them right now. So yes, I will be at the unemployment office most likely Jan. 1, 2003. Tilton has already stated that there are going to be more pilot furlouhgs and I am going to be one of them.
---------------------
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/9/2002 11:36:35 PM 300guy wrote:
Are you saying that the company must get approval from ALPA to furlough pilots we don't need?
--------
Did I say this in my reply?? No. The company hasn't been following our contract since Sept. 11, why should they now.
------------------
Before anyone replies, I already know about the "sit on your ass" pay that (some) pilots receive because of fleet retirements.
-----------
[/blockquote]
No, you didn't say that but it seemed implicit in your earlier post. If ALPA approved the furloughs then it would seem that they had some sort of control over them. I must've misread.
Of course it is better for pilots to be paid only the 60 hours as they wait for training. I wasn't begrudging that, only stating that I was aware of that provision of your contract.
I just hope we are successful in remaking the airline and all who want to work, will be able to. But I'm really concerned about the future. When I read aboout Marvin Davis and other vultures circling, that concerns me. And when you read in Newsweek that suicide bombers are in the plans on future US Ailine flights...that concerns me. How will the industry ever really regain its former vigor. Is it possible? The whole free world has changed, and certainly this industry has.
----------------
On 11/9/2002 11:36:35 PM 300guy wrote:
Are you saying that the company must get approval from ALPA to furlough pilots we don't need?
--------
Did I say this in my reply?? No. The company hasn't been following our contract since Sept. 11, why should they now.
------------------
Before anyone replies, I already know about the "sit on your ass" pay that (some) pilots receive because of fleet retirements.
-----------
[/blockquote]
No, you didn't say that but it seemed implicit in your earlier post. If ALPA approved the furloughs then it would seem that they had some sort of control over them. I must've misread.
Of course it is better for pilots to be paid only the 60 hours as they wait for training. I wasn't begrudging that, only stating that I was aware of that provision of your contract.
I just hope we are successful in remaking the airline and all who want to work, will be able to. But I'm really concerned about the future. When I read aboout Marvin Davis and other vultures circling, that concerns me. And when you read in Newsweek that suicide bombers are in the plans on future US Ailine flights...that concerns me. How will the industry ever really regain its former vigor. Is it possible? The whole free world has changed, and certainly this industry has.
If there are to be 2700 F/A's furloughed, how many a/c are being parked? UA cannot come close to running the schedule of today with 2700 less F/a's in the near future. I am figuring that about roughly 80 planes would have to be parked to need 2700 less F/A's. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense(cents also)!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/10/2002 5:23:03 AM coolflyingfool wrote:
If there are to be 2700 F/A's furloughed, how many a/c are being parked? UA cannot come close to running the schedule of today with 2700 less F/a's in the near future. I am figuring that about roughly 80 planes would have to be parked to need 2700 less F/A's. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense(cents also)!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Coolflyingfool,
I'm not sure how many aircraft are being parked, but I do know that their utilization rate will be down. I remember a few months after Sept. 11, I would go into a city early evening (5 p.m.) and ask operations if this plane was going back out?? They would say, Nope, it's here for the night. If I remember correctly, UAL stated that they were cutting out a lot of the late evening departures to the Mid-West. Less flights, less people needed.
----------------
On 11/10/2002 5:23:03 AM coolflyingfool wrote:
If there are to be 2700 F/A's furloughed, how many a/c are being parked? UA cannot come close to running the schedule of today with 2700 less F/a's in the near future. I am figuring that about roughly 80 planes would have to be parked to need 2700 less F/A's. This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense(cents also)!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Coolflyingfool,
I'm not sure how many aircraft are being parked, but I do know that their utilization rate will be down. I remember a few months after Sept. 11, I would go into a city early evening (5 p.m.) and ask operations if this plane was going back out?? They would say, Nope, it's here for the night. If I remember correctly, UAL stated that they were cutting out a lot of the late evening departures to the Mid-West. Less flights, less people needed.
No, you didn't say that but it seemed implicit in your earlier post. If ALPA approved the furloughs then it would seem that they had some sort of control over them. I must've misread.
Of course it is better for pilots to be paid only the 60 hours as they wait for training. I wasn't begrudging that, only stating that I was aware of that provision of your contract.
------------
In contract 2000, there was a provision for pilots being furlough protected when they came off of probation. I fall in this category. The company furloughed some pilots protected under the contract, but the company used the Force Majure clause to furlough. With ERP 2, the UAL and ALPA agree Force Majure is over, but that UAL may furlough up to 600 more guys who were originally protected. When we are recalled, we once again protected. I'm not happy about this, but economic times do not support extra pilots at this point.
As for the 60 hour part, this was not a part of contract 2000. It is something that was negotiated post Sept. 11. I do know for a fact that atleast a couple other airlines have negotiated something similar to this.
Of course it is better for pilots to be paid only the 60 hours as they wait for training. I wasn't begrudging that, only stating that I was aware of that provision of your contract.
------------
In contract 2000, there was a provision for pilots being furlough protected when they came off of probation. I fall in this category. The company furloughed some pilots protected under the contract, but the company used the Force Majure clause to furlough. With ERP 2, the UAL and ALPA agree Force Majure is over, but that UAL may furlough up to 600 more guys who were originally protected. When we are recalled, we once again protected. I'm not happy about this, but economic times do not support extra pilots at this point.
As for the 60 hour part, this was not a part of contract 2000. It is something that was negotiated post Sept. 11. I do know for a fact that atleast a couple other airlines have negotiated something similar to this.
Spacewaitress,[BR][BR]No, I don't believe I will be there someday. As a matter of fact, I have two degrees from the University of Notre Dame and am on my way to complete my MBA. Besides, I have more dignity than to aspire to bid first class aisle and galley at 65. Other airlines around the world force their aging employees into retirement and it is distasteful that U.S. airlines do not. There is no reason a grandma has to fly to Tokyo when she can be with her grandkids. Obviously, our seniors enjoy the easy money and months of vacation they get at United; why retire, then? If you think I am the only one who thinks the way I do, then look around you: those stares you get at ORD are not ones of sympathy. And in light of the current situation, this is even more the case.
First let me say that it sickens me once again to see that we'll be furloughing more of our employees. It is probably one of the worst parts of this industry. However, I think most people realize by now that if UA is going to successfully turn itself around and prosper once again, painful steps like this are necessary. Let's just hope they are short-lived painful steps. Once we get on solid financial ground again, we will be in a position to capitalize once the economy/industry recover down the road. Hopefully then we can get our furloughed co-workers back on the payroll if they choose to return.
spacewaitress,
You raised an excellent point when you brought up Marvin Davis. If any more incentive is needed to get employees to do what's necessary to fix UA, news that investors like Marvin Davis, George Soros and TPG are interested in bidding on UA in bankruptcy should provide such incentive. Because if you think it's bad now, just let one of those folks get their paws on a controlling interest in UA. They will attempt to crack labor in half and it will be a bloody mess for all. We have a very good chance to avoid bankruptcy. If we're successful in getting approval for our ATSB loan guarantee (which I believe we will be), I think we'll be able to pull it off. But that can't happen without T/A's from all unions (IAM are you listening). Time is running out. Let's get the T/A's done and ratified so that we can start implementing more of our recovery plan. And for those of you who doubt such a plan exists, don't. It does. And it involves LOTS of changes to the typical UA way of doing things. Much of it is actually out-of-the-box type of stuff. Tilton is 110% dead serious about forcing change at this company. It is coming. We've only seen the very tip of the iceberg so far (please excuse the Titanic comparisons, LOL).
However, receiving the ATSB loan guarantee and avoiding bankruptcy only gives us more breathing room. We still must restructure this company into a leaner competitive force that can generate substantial revenue again. That's because with all this debt that's being restructured, plus the ATSB loan money with interest (which will probably be at least around 10%) that must be repaid within about 5 1/2 years, plus pension obligations, the pressure will still be on our balance sheet. So we need to ensure that we don't view the ATSB loan money and bankruptcy avoidance as the solution to the problem. It isn't. It only buys us the time we need to implement the changes that will make us successful in the long-run.
spacewaitress,
You raised an excellent point when you brought up Marvin Davis. If any more incentive is needed to get employees to do what's necessary to fix UA, news that investors like Marvin Davis, George Soros and TPG are interested in bidding on UA in bankruptcy should provide such incentive. Because if you think it's bad now, just let one of those folks get their paws on a controlling interest in UA. They will attempt to crack labor in half and it will be a bloody mess for all. We have a very good chance to avoid bankruptcy. If we're successful in getting approval for our ATSB loan guarantee (which I believe we will be), I think we'll be able to pull it off. But that can't happen without T/A's from all unions (IAM are you listening). Time is running out. Let's get the T/A's done and ratified so that we can start implementing more of our recovery plan. And for those of you who doubt such a plan exists, don't. It does. And it involves LOTS of changes to the typical UA way of doing things. Much of it is actually out-of-the-box type of stuff. Tilton is 110% dead serious about forcing change at this company. It is coming. We've only seen the very tip of the iceberg so far (please excuse the Titanic comparisons, LOL).
However, receiving the ATSB loan guarantee and avoiding bankruptcy only gives us more breathing room. We still must restructure this company into a leaner competitive force that can generate substantial revenue again. That's because with all this debt that's being restructured, plus the ATSB loan money with interest (which will probably be at least around 10%) that must be repaid within about 5 1/2 years, plus pension obligations, the pressure will still be on our balance sheet. So we need to ensure that we don't view the ATSB loan money and bankruptcy avoidance as the solution to the problem. It isn't. It only buys us the time we need to implement the changes that will make us successful in the long-run.
