US Relaunches Its Envoy Experience
- Thread starter N965VJ
- Start date
phlgreaser
Advanced
- Mar 26, 2008
- 134
- 15
We will have some of the best service across the pond due our front line employees but the desk jockey that decided order the 767 first class seats should be ______! ( fill in the blank )
Actually there are those that disagree with the above assessment - see here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807937
Although I do not usually put loads of confidence in the whiners and competition "plants" who post in FlyerTalk, I have to somewhat agree from my own experience with #4 in the reference. A while back I wrote several letters to Tempe suggesting that a separate, dedicated, specially trained group of FAs be used exclusively for TA flights - particularly in Envoy. My experience has not been a total absence of quality services in Envoy, but it's a hit and miss situation. Some FA's appear as though their experience and demeanor was limited to Coke and peanut serving on PHX-LAS flights and some strive to make the Envoy experience what it was historically - in spite of the logistical and infrastructure shortcomings. IMO, with the advent of LHR and other new Long Haul services (e.g., hopefully China/Japan) and consequently new direct route competition with major international carriers, US needs to upscale their services (and aircraft) or they will never attract the necessary premium passengers required to support such routes, regardless of Fare undercutting. On a side note: it's interesting how Tempe sometimes issues press releases on such matters. They suggest by content, as I interpret it, that Charlotte is the major international gateway to the 20 TA destinations.
FlyGuyBWI
Advanced
- Feb 12, 2003
- 237
- 13
There are a lot of us front line employees that agree that the old Trans-Atlantic Division should be re-instated. Back when our Envoy service really was something to brag about, we did have a separate group of highly trained F/A's that did nothing but Trans-Atlantic. That was deemed too expensive -- we had a lot of Trans-Atlantic trained reserve F/A's that could not be used on domestic flights. Those F/As in the "Division" did a great job. Today, the majority of the F/A's that have the Trans-Atlantic trips in their monthly schedules are hold-overs from the old "Division." However, if something goes wrong, and a new crew needs to be called out, chances are you get a whole crew of reserves who were not as well trained in Trans-Atlantic service (not their fault, the "trans-atlantic training" those of us that were never in the "Division" got was minimal), and many of them may have never worked a 330 or 767 before. So, it's no wonder service is "hit & miss". I can't say it is all the cabin crew's fault. This is just another example of Tempe not giving the employees the tools to do the job.
As a flight attendant who was in the dramatically named International Transoceanic Division, I can tell you that it was the most pointless thing ever. The company can not choose who flies what, if that were the case you'd have very senior people taking 737s to Florida and some of the more polished, worldly junior folks serving in premium cabins in higher profile markets. A division might keep people with no interest away, but just because someone chooses to bid into it for whatever reason, doesn't mean they are better suited to the mission. The operational and economical impracticality and inefficiency is extremely obvious too.
US Airways did have a very nice TA product in the Wolf era. He did all he could to take rusty regional USAir and dress it up as a big player, and the rebranding was very effective. There was a lot of buy-in from the crews because they wanted to be part of something bigger and better, and realized they had to step up their own game. The culture of professionalism, global vision, and the company's own internal product standards undoubtedly influenced the demeanor and service of it's employees. One only has to look at today's joke of the industry mess to see the influence of corporate culture on product. Not to mention labor relations and morale, which also come from the top.
A major airline with any kind of network is going to have some degree of market segmentation, with amenities and service style differing between business markets, leisure ones, and particularly international service dependant on destination. That's a given. However, the point of a network is to have some level of seamlessness and continuity. The transpacific Envoy customer can and will connect to a Mesa RJ, a packed Vegas flight on West metal, a US Airways Shuttle, a Dash 8 and so on. The level of amenities and service delivery should be fine tuned to those individual settings, but not the service itself.
In a perfect world, the F/A on a one hour flight should have the same professional demeanor, cultural sensitivity, knowlege of the company and it's product, and service ettiquette as the one on a long haul to an exotic destination. They serve the same customer. US Airways is tiny compared to it's network competitors, but has insisted, even pre-merger, on segregating flight attendants. When you are hired by a United Airlines or such as a flight attendant, you attend comprehensive training on every aspect of their service from Ted to international first. All F/As are qualified on all aircraft, and able to fly any airplane, position, or service. US F/As are only qualified on aircraft flown by base crews from their domicile, and do not get 'trained' for international service unless they are in the two hubs. What's most bizarre about the set-up is that US's international service consists of a few short transatlantic hops, with service on par of a transcon on other carriers. At it's current level there is nothing special about it that really requires any more training or expertise. Even the service we had before was not really anything beyond the scope of any major airline new hire stew- our F/As just thought culinary training was a big deal because of their decidedly limited and parochial F/A experince to that point. Every F/A should be equally qualified for the entire airline, particularly at one the small size of US. Merger integration training should have been one week retraining from the ground up.
It's part of the larger problem of US Airways identity crisis. It wants to be a bottom-dollar Vegas hauler but maintain a transatlantic gateway on the east coast. It desperately wants to be part of consolidation with the big boys but insists on descending further and further towards fly-by-night bare bones operator. Many of US Airways flight attendants are the same- they want something with more opportunities and dare we say glamor, but are the first to be lazy and unprofessional because it's their comfort zone and they have never been held to task for it. The group itself is also a tired, betrodden group, with more than half of the Wolf era group gone by choice or furlough. US Airways has thousands of furloughees that they can't even convince to come back- what does that say about the culture and motivation of the ones they do have?
An effective program would be a Purser program. If US Airways ever gets the F/A workforce it desires- a young, temporary, high turnover group of minimum wage workers- it will need a few people in a leadership role to ensure basic standards and consistency are met. The benefits of such a program to the customer, the F/As themselves, and the company are numerous are reach far beyond having any further training segmentation ever could. It would be a small but important part of the major cultural overhaul US Airways needs.
US Airways service and personnel issues are not unique, nor are they new. They are just ignored by a company that promotes an idea that it is not in the service industry at all, but in an ongoing fight against the customers it sees as the unfortunate source of revenue. Corporate culture is an amazingly powerful thing, and US Airways is a great example.
US Airways did have a very nice TA product in the Wolf era. He did all he could to take rusty regional USAir and dress it up as a big player, and the rebranding was very effective. There was a lot of buy-in from the crews because they wanted to be part of something bigger and better, and realized they had to step up their own game. The culture of professionalism, global vision, and the company's own internal product standards undoubtedly influenced the demeanor and service of it's employees. One only has to look at today's joke of the industry mess to see the influence of corporate culture on product. Not to mention labor relations and morale, which also come from the top.
A major airline with any kind of network is going to have some degree of market segmentation, with amenities and service style differing between business markets, leisure ones, and particularly international service dependant on destination. That's a given. However, the point of a network is to have some level of seamlessness and continuity. The transpacific Envoy customer can and will connect to a Mesa RJ, a packed Vegas flight on West metal, a US Airways Shuttle, a Dash 8 and so on. The level of amenities and service delivery should be fine tuned to those individual settings, but not the service itself.
In a perfect world, the F/A on a one hour flight should have the same professional demeanor, cultural sensitivity, knowlege of the company and it's product, and service ettiquette as the one on a long haul to an exotic destination. They serve the same customer. US Airways is tiny compared to it's network competitors, but has insisted, even pre-merger, on segregating flight attendants. When you are hired by a United Airlines or such as a flight attendant, you attend comprehensive training on every aspect of their service from Ted to international first. All F/As are qualified on all aircraft, and able to fly any airplane, position, or service. US F/As are only qualified on aircraft flown by base crews from their domicile, and do not get 'trained' for international service unless they are in the two hubs. What's most bizarre about the set-up is that US's international service consists of a few short transatlantic hops, with service on par of a transcon on other carriers. At it's current level there is nothing special about it that really requires any more training or expertise. Even the service we had before was not really anything beyond the scope of any major airline new hire stew- our F/As just thought culinary training was a big deal because of their decidedly limited and parochial F/A experince to that point. Every F/A should be equally qualified for the entire airline, particularly at one the small size of US. Merger integration training should have been one week retraining from the ground up.
It's part of the larger problem of US Airways identity crisis. It wants to be a bottom-dollar Vegas hauler but maintain a transatlantic gateway on the east coast. It desperately wants to be part of consolidation with the big boys but insists on descending further and further towards fly-by-night bare bones operator. Many of US Airways flight attendants are the same- they want something with more opportunities and dare we say glamor, but are the first to be lazy and unprofessional because it's their comfort zone and they have never been held to task for it. The group itself is also a tired, betrodden group, with more than half of the Wolf era group gone by choice or furlough. US Airways has thousands of furloughees that they can't even convince to come back- what does that say about the culture and motivation of the ones they do have?
An effective program would be a Purser program. If US Airways ever gets the F/A workforce it desires- a young, temporary, high turnover group of minimum wage workers- it will need a few people in a leadership role to ensure basic standards and consistency are met. The benefits of such a program to the customer, the F/As themselves, and the company are numerous are reach far beyond having any further training segmentation ever could. It would be a small but important part of the major cultural overhaul US Airways needs.
US Airways service and personnel issues are not unique, nor are they new. They are just ignored by a company that promotes an idea that it is not in the service industry at all, but in an ongoing fight against the customers it sees as the unfortunate source of revenue. Corporate culture is an amazingly powerful thing, and US Airways is a great example.
EMB makes a good point (and I am a new poster, so be kind)....but his final line certainly says something. Corporate culture is a powerful thing, and US is the only carrier I know of that has two officers responsible for that - both a VP and SVP. So, if by title it means so much to them, why then has it not been addressed?
A simple rhetorical question - but one that begs asking.
A simple rhetorical question - but one that begs asking.
Whether or not there should be a need for an international division isn't really the issue. Frankly, Tempe's too cheap to do it.
It would, however solve a bunch of their problems. I think it would be a morale booster for most flight attendants who like to fly International, you'd have service continuity, the reserve duty period problem would be solved, there would be less "adaptations" and as EMBFA said, there would be a "buy in" because those who would be there would choose it. They might even be allowed to dictate which part of the uniform you'd wear, because it's voluntary.
I fly international, and there are zillions of issues, but I disagree that the flight attendants are causal. Reactive, yes. You have a morale in the toilet, absent tools, and a management that doesn't even pretend to care, they just say 'do it" and is it a Western thing that they actually expect it to happen or what? That's like saying "I don't care that you don't have feet, walk."
What exactly am I supposed to do when the video implodes every flight? How exactly am I supposed to spin it? How am I supposed to explain a coffin seat to you and make it all better? Yes, you'd never buy this wine unless trapped in a white and blue swoosh tube, would you like some more?
Yes, there are down trodden, tired, over flying, cranky flight attendants out there, but newsflash, they weren't always that way. CO has well paid FAs, United has pursers. Circumstances DO MATTER.
BK2 + Tempe = you get what you pay for.
It would, however solve a bunch of their problems. I think it would be a morale booster for most flight attendants who like to fly International, you'd have service continuity, the reserve duty period problem would be solved, there would be less "adaptations" and as EMBFA said, there would be a "buy in" because those who would be there would choose it. They might even be allowed to dictate which part of the uniform you'd wear, because it's voluntary.
I fly international, and there are zillions of issues, but I disagree that the flight attendants are causal. Reactive, yes. You have a morale in the toilet, absent tools, and a management that doesn't even pretend to care, they just say 'do it" and is it a Western thing that they actually expect it to happen or what? That's like saying "I don't care that you don't have feet, walk."
What exactly am I supposed to do when the video implodes every flight? How exactly am I supposed to spin it? How am I supposed to explain a coffin seat to you and make it all better? Yes, you'd never buy this wine unless trapped in a white and blue swoosh tube, would you like some more?
Yes, there are down trodden, tired, over flying, cranky flight attendants out there, but newsflash, they weren't always that way. CO has well paid FAs, United has pursers. Circumstances DO MATTER.
BK2 + Tempe = you get what you pay for.
Chicken or Beef??
Advanced
- Feb 6, 2007
- 167
- 0
Bravo EMB and GP very well put. In addition to the demise of “the division†flight attendants are asked to work more for less pay. I think that when flight attendants (by choice) are working 8 or 9 trans-Atlantic trips a month. 4-6 trips in a row, these employees are tired. I don’t care how much coffee you drink, you still look tired, lose your patience easier and your bad attitude and inability to get along with your crew and passengers is pretty evident. Under the days of “THE DIVISION†flight attendants could ONLY fly a maximum of 6 trips per month, with a minimum of four. Crews were better rested and perhaps that helped our appearance and behavior in the cabin.
FlightChic
Veteran
- Feb 18, 2007
- 954
- 0
I won't be surprised if they bring the division back because during negotiations the company brought up the idea of having a separate transatlantic division. It sounds suspicious doesn't it? Well, IMHO, they did it for control and manipulation purposes because they want the union to say yes to it then they will say, since you agreed to the division, you'll need to make concessions in such and such part...Also, according to MF, a majority of the f/as want a separate transatlantic division according to the survey. About 50% said yes to a separate division, about 25% said it didn't matter, and 25% said no. I don't know if it will actually happen but it is a possibility...
donttouchthebeauty
Veteran
- Jan 11, 2006
- 545
- 0
I believe having a seperate division is pointless. It gives you less options and basically, just b/c you are in the "division" doesn't mean you will be a fabulous international flight attendant, actuall wuite the contrary. Thats like saying "oh i'm in the T/A division, therefore I am fabulous and beautiful" not likely..... Anywho, Proper training is key with a good product.
FlightChic
Veteran
- Feb 18, 2007
- 954
- 0
It is pointless. What really gets on my nerves is when f/as smugly say "Oh, I only work transatlantic flights" like that makes them superior to those of us working domestic flights.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Until they make some sort of fix to the 24 hour on duty rule I'm for the division all the way. I'm not actually FOR a division of domestic and int'l BUT this is an issue that will only get worse once the summer storms roll in and the PIT commuters can't make it to work. Sorry I don't mean to single out the PIT commuters but it IS the only city where you have anywhere from 20 some to 50 some f/a's call off almost at ONCE. Anyway, as for those that fly int'l, quite a few said they are over the idea of flying to Europe. They only do it because they are HIGHLY commutable trips.
CynicalResAgent
Veteran
This sounds like a good idea. Most international carriers have this and it does seem like it would lend to some degree of consistency.
I love the idea NZ had of hiring for an inflight concierge. While I think they are well suited to that given the nature of the routes they fly and people visiting New Zealand.
Article
They are supposed to be travel ambasadors for New Zealand, give travel advice and be extremely helpful and knowledgable.
Why do I imagine that if US did something like this that they'd end up just making them just give pitches for timeshares in Vegas.....
Transatlantic division... cheesy, so very fitting of US Airways. I guess because they never really went anywhere too exciting in their career they feel they have 'arrived' going over to Europe on one of the airlines ten decrepid 767-200s... Meanwhile teenagers at Continental and Delta hold the same lines our senior mommas do and perform much more complex services, and it's not a big deal. Our ladies are toting around the Aeroboutique or Harrods bag and telling anyone who'll listen that they "are international" LOL... I love when you go to the briefing, you would think you are preparing for a lunar mission. Then you get on the plane, and there's a ten minute meeting about "how to do the service" (why is it a question?), a big to-do about breaks, followed by some sort of minor drama between several of the flight attendants. You can tell this is an airline where the flight attendants are not used to being part of a crew larger than three... some are not used to a crew with actual positions and varying levels of responsibility. There's also an overemphasis on seniority at US. Every airline bids by seniority, but nowhere else are people trying to determine who goes on breaks, picks up trash, or gets the biggest piece of chocolate (or get on another airline) by their date of hire. Not everyone, but combining that inexperience and entitlement with the complete lack of accountability of US (East) F/As is a recipe for a poor service culture. US could do a better job top to bottom in cultural awareness and basic ettiquette, even basic customer service to be honest. We're talking about a company, however, that encourages being overly casual, trumpets it's cheapness, and shows an open disdain for it's customers. The great F/As who are service oriented are overshadowed or discouraged by the lousy ones, because it's the latter the company encourages.
Last summer I had the pleasure of working several flights with all 98-00 seniority, and was CSD or Purser on a few of them. On one particular A330 flight I was Purser and the service flow in both cabins was smooth and choreographed, there was no drama, everyone looked professional, and we received compliment letters despite being three hours delayed and short on supplies as usual. We even enjoyed ourselves! And our morale is just as low as everyone else's, the only difference being that our compensation and treatment matches. We just lucked out in having an entire cabin crew that despite all, still enjoys the craft. US needs a major cultural overhaul starting with management and it's entire philosophy. Nothing will change without that. On the inflight level a buyout would help wittle the flight attendant group down to people who maybe want to be there for starters, and some fresh faces and perspectives couldn't hurt either.
Last summer I had the pleasure of working several flights with all 98-00 seniority, and was CSD or Purser on a few of them. On one particular A330 flight I was Purser and the service flow in both cabins was smooth and choreographed, there was no drama, everyone looked professional, and we received compliment letters despite being three hours delayed and short on supplies as usual. We even enjoyed ourselves! And our morale is just as low as everyone else's, the only difference being that our compensation and treatment matches. We just lucked out in having an entire cabin crew that despite all, still enjoys the craft. US needs a major cultural overhaul starting with management and it's entire philosophy. Nothing will change without that. On the inflight level a buyout would help wittle the flight attendant group down to people who maybe want to be there for starters, and some fresh faces and perspectives couldn't hurt either.
Similar threads
