You've Got To Be Kidding

[The Ronin]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cs...fin-econ13.html


You know....just read and puke...

 

[maddogdriver]

Sick, I'm gunna hurl too. :down:

 

[JAMAKE1]

Just curious as to why you guys are reacting that way?

 

[Bear96]

I'm curious too.

United did something illegal, got busted for it, and now is being held accountable.

Why does this make you (guys, I assume) sick to your stomachs?

I am sure if UA illegally fired some pilots, they, their colleagues, and ALPA would be screaming bloody murder and wanting restitution.

 

[maddogdriver]

I may be reading this wrong, but according to THIS article (in two places) 13 people were awarded 36.5 million. That's one big chunk (no pun intended) of change for 13 people who couldn't meet those former guidlines. That equates to more than most victims families of 9-11 were given til now.

Those guidlines United had in place certainly discriminated. United should be held acountable. It's the 36.5 mil & lawyers that makes me sick. I'm sorry, but when I hear millions and attorney in the same sentance, I get a bit defensive!

Bear 96: I agree, ALPA would be going after this...

 

[Bear96]

I may be reading this wrong, but according to THIS article (in two places) 13 people were awarded 36.5 million. That's one big chunk (no pun intended) of change for 13 people who couldn't meet those former guidlines.

I imagine most of that was legal fees for the plaintiffs, which the court probably ordered UA to pay (not uncommon in civil rights claims). The case has been in litigation for many years, and that certainly has a tendency to drive legal costs up.

But, it is not unlike UA to refuse to admit they were wrong earlier on in the process, thereby saving themselves millions of dollars by avoiding a long drawn-out losing fight. It seems like company policy is to litigate to the bitter end, regardless of what the ultimate cost will be to them.

 

[magsau]

My complaint is that the weight program was in place when these employees were hired. If you do not like the terms of employment then why even start?

On another note I just finished an Intl trip that the FA's had to walk down the stairs of the bus with assistance and unsteady pauses along the way due to a bit of slope in front of the hotel. These are all very nice ladies but all very mature in years. If they can not make it down the stairs of a leaning bus, how will they get to the emergency doors with say one gear collapsed and the airplane sitting at an undesirable angle?

 

[Bear96]

1. My complaint is that the weight program was in place when these employees were hired. If you do not like the terms of employment then why even start?

2. On another note I just finished an Intl trip that the FA's had to walk down the stairs of the bus with assistance and unsteady pauses along the way due to a bit of slope in front of the hotel. These are all very nice ladies but all very mature in years. If they can not make it down the stairs of a leaning bus, how will they get to the emergency doors with say one gear collapsed and the airplane sitting at an undesirable angle?

1. Because the policy was unfair and ILLEGAL. If a company had a policy that stated "No hispanics need apply," would you expect a hispanic person who really wanted the job to shrug her shoulders and say, "Oh well, that's their policy, guess I'll just do something else?" Would it be wrong for her to fight the unfairness?

2. Different issue. I agree with you that there probably is a point where people get too large to perform the F/A job properly. However the issue in the court case wasn't weight but rather discrimination on the basis of sex (which, again, is illegal). Women were being held to a different standard than men. In your example, it would be like an overweight male F/A being unable to function effectively in an emergency and an overweight female F/A having the same problem, but UA only firing the female.

 

[magsau]

Bear,

Did AA not have a similar program? Seems that the AA FA's are a bit trimmer than ours. Do they still have one?

If a pilot could not get through the window and down the escape rope I think they should be put on the ATKINS diet 😉 Till they can squezze through.

Also, do not try and compare weight with race. I would never be convinced that they are similar. You have no choice about your race. Your appearance is a different issue.

Maybe we could get obesity into the minority status on the applications. Think I might try to eat my way into a new job. 🙂

 

[jimntx]

Bear,

Did AA not have a similar program? Seems that the AA FA's are a bit trimmer than ours. Do they still have one?

If a pilot could not get through the window and down the escape rope I think they should be put on the ATKINS diet 😉 Till they can squezze through.

ALL airlines at one time had weight restrictions for flight attendants, including AA. I'm can't say for sure, but I think that AA does have a requirement that you must be able to fit through the window exit on any so-equipped a/c that you are qualified on. But, a lot of the very senior flight attendants have dropped their quals on all a/c except 777 and 767 which do not have window exits.

I don't know if other airlines allow f/as to drop quals on a/c that the company still flies. I think Continental requires that all f/a's be qualified on every single a/c that the company uses--of course, mainline f/as do not have to be qualified on Continental Express a/c. It certainly gives the company more flexibility in utilization of flight attendants.

I agree that cockpit crew members should be required to demonstrate ability to get through the cockpit windows. Not that I want to force anyone onto a diet, but rather because in the case of a fire in the forward cabin or galley or if that newfangled reinforced door jams, the window may be the only way out for the cockpit crew.

 

[Bear96]

1. Did AA not have a similar program? Seems that the AA FA's are a bit trimmer than ours. Do they still have one?

2. Also, do not try and compare weight with race. I would never be convinced that they are similar.

3. You have no choice about your race. Your appearance is a different issue.

1. I am not familiar with AA's programs. But note that the issue is not a weight policy per se; it is a weight policy that sets unfair standards for women as compared to men.

2. Legally in this case they are comparable. It is not me making the comparison; it is the law. There is civil rights legislation which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race; and there is similar legislation which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. Therefore there is similar legal recourse through the courts (if necessary) for either. (Note that there is currently NOT legislation making it illegal to discriminate based on weight that I am aware of, at least at the federal level-- but again, weight is not the real issue here; sex discrimination is.)

3. There are many medical conditions and treatments that can make a person become bloated or gain weight. And there are many things that can happen during life (like plain old aging) that can make a person less than a perfect Bo Derek 10. An otherwise good employee who can meet all pertinent job requirements shouldn't be fired because s/he does not match your (or anyone else's) ideal image of beauty.

I don't particularly like flying with ugly pilots (and we have plenty of those). But if they can fly the plane safely, I consider that to be my problem and somehow I am able to live with it. If I want a cheap thrill, I can ask a cab driver to take me to the local adult entertainment center when I get to my layover.

 

[The Ronin]

There is only one airline that I know of that makes any sense when it comes to F/A's.....SINGAPORE

 

[mga707]

There is only one airline that I know of that makes any sense when it comes to F/A's.....SINGAPORE

The PC brigade will throw their usual fit, but I agree: It was better the way it was 40 years ago.
FA wasn't a lifetime carreer, and not for everybody. Female, fit, foxy, and goodbye if 30 or married. No [DELETED], hags, or heifers.
For those too young to remember (apparently most on here), rent "Catch Me If You Can" to see what the era was like... 😉

 

[Dea Certe]

Ah yes! The good old days! Gas was 35 cents a gallon, bread was less than a dollar a loaf and doctors advertised cigarettes on the Philco Black and White TV.

Anyone remember scarlet fever or polio?

How about a one-income family who could afford a house and a car?

Jim Crow Laws, what a fine thing that was!

Drunk drivers usually didn't go to jail or lose their license.

Kids under twelve got in to see movies for free.

Pay for parking? Are you kidding? Gas stations had attendants to wash your windows, check the tires and even give you a free set of steak knives!

People had manners and wouldn't dream of "cussing" in front of ladies and children.

Companies lived up their obligations and didn't think to cheat retirees out of their pensions.

CEO's didn't scam millions out of a corporation and get "golden parachutes" when they failed to suceed with the business.

There was such a thing as ethics in business.

"Made in Japan" meant it was shoddy and cheaply made.

Ladies in China had their feet bound as a sign of status.

The whole world has changed, some good and some bad. A lot of wrongs have been corrected and there's more to be corrected yet.

If you require subservience, get a dog. In need of cheap thrills? Hey, the internet is full of them and lots of planes these days have power ports.

Safety is one issue, discrimination is another.

Perhaps some of us old hags could retire if we had a decent pension and could be assured it wasn't going to be ripped out from under us. And affordable health care.





:angry:

 

[Light Years]

Good post Dea!