Stratacruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 53 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 20366 times:
I had seat 8D on this morning's UA18 EWR-LHR. That's the starboard aisle closest to the usual boarding door on a 757. At the 1000 departure time all passengers were loaded but the door wasn't closed. An ops manager (I think) kept coming back and forth from the jetway, talking to the FA in BusinessFirst, then the cockpit, then running out again. After 15-20 minutes the "inflight service manager", or lead FA - sCO folks don't seem to like the sUA term "purser" - announced they were trying to resolve a "technical" - not mechanical - problem. There were a couple of guys - apparently off-duty pilots - in the aisle chatting in hushed tones with the ops guy and crew. At about 1030, still at the gate, the lead FA came on the PA and announced that the problem was they had some deadheading flight crew who where required to be seated in C-class, which was full, so the gate folks were working on "downgarding" - his term - some customers. He then offered that he would distribute "commentary cards" - i.e. complaint forms - for anyone who wanted them. After making the announcement, he explained to those of us in the first couple of main cabin rows that the pilots contract requires they deadhead in C-class.
The problem was finally resolved and we and pulled away at 1045. On the taxi-out the lead was back on the PA offering his sincerest apologies for the way "Chicago" handled the situation, and again offering to provide "commentary cards". He also reminded everyone that the flight was operated by "United Continental". Really?? That's so sixteen months ago! As far as solving the seating issue, it appeared that deadheaders did right by the customers and took Y seats, with one in-uniform guy taking the forward jump seat - kudos to them!
Obviously seating and operations snafus happen, although hopefully rarely. But what was so odd, and indicative of ongoing post-merger tension, was the public airing of the issue. I'm sure the lead FA felt that he was advocating for the needs of his customers - admirable - but a public spat between employee and employer is never good. UA really needs to work on getting the everyone on the same page as one company.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2533 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 20119 times:
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 1): not very professional at all to blame an entire station for that
By "Chicago" the FA meant HQ, not the station. I heard "Houston" used as an off-hand, disparaging term for management a couple of times pre-merger, so "Chicago" is just the current incarnation of that.
Quoting Stratacruiser (Thread starter): the "inflight service manager", or lead FA - sCO folks don't seem to like the sUA term "purser"
To be fair, that is still the correct term for sCO crew until there is one contract.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5344 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 20078 times:
Quoting Stratacruiser (Thread starter): As far as solving the seating issue, it appeared that deadheaders did right by the customers and took Y seats
Right by customers or not, those guys are entitled to whatever their contract says they are. I am the LAST PERSON to defend a pilot, but the rules are the rules. Unfortunately, it looks like operations snubbed things up, and booked F full, or allowed upgrades.
Quoting Stratacruiser (Thread starter): On the taxi-out the lead was back on the PA offering his sincerest apologies for the way "Chicago" handled the situation
Well, I don't blame him. It's useful to put the blame on someone in a city uninvolved in that particular flight, lest you have a mutiny on your hands!
As far as CO people being CO proud, well.... I don't blame them there, either. Both carriers lost a lot in the merger.
I, having been an elite with CO for years and years, had the pleasure of sitting next to a pmUA flight attendant last week from LAX to DEN. She'd been stuck in SYD for ten days, due to a 747-422 going AOG (I started a related thread, but was quickly crucified by the UA apologists). We had a GREAT TALK about the pros and cons of UA, the pros and cons of the merger, etc etc etc. I wish that everyone involved could manage to see things from the opposite point of view, so that crews could quit throwing bricks at each other in the parking lot! I exaggerate, to make a point...
In short, she was a fantastic F/A, and there are many of those from pmUA as well as pmCO. I really feel for the losses that both have experienced.
airportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3070 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 20070 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 2): By "Chicago" the FA meant HQ, not the station. I heard "Houston" used as an off-hand, disparaging term for management a couple of times pre-merger, so "Chicago" is just the current incarnation of that.
Good point. I missed the part where the flight left from EWR
jerseyguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1120 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 19918 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3): Right by customers or not, those guys are entitled to whatever their contract says they are.
And us customers are entitled to not fly your airline ever again. I'm glad the pilots in question had a better attitude then you and took whatever seats were available. If your contract says that you are entitled to C then the airline should leave adequate seats but as soon as they sell them or upgrade passengers to those seats, get your ass back into Y and if it happens all the time you need to complain to HQ.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 19013 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3): Right by customers or not, those guys are entitled to whatever their contract says they are. I am the LAST PERSON to defend a pilot, but the rules are the rules. Unfortunately, it looks like operations snubbed things up, and booked F full, or allowed upgrades.
Exactly, and upgrades should have been rescinded if they were standby upgrades and no other options.
Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 5): And us customers are entitled to not fly your airline ever again.
It shouldn't have reached this point, but the pilots have required rest procedures and on CO aircraft involves a J seat. If this was the morning flight are we to assume they needed to get to LHR in order to sleep there and fly home in the morning? In that case, the rest requirement should be met by the hotel stay and this was more of a comfort thing.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2411 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18948 times:
Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 5): Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
Right by customers or not, those guys are entitled to whatever their contract says they are.
And us customers are entitled to not fly your airline ever again. I'm glad the pilots in question had a better attitude then you and took whatever seats were available. If your contract says that you are entitled to C then the airline should leave adequate seats but as soon as they sell them or upgrade passengers to those seats, get your ass back into Y and if it happens all the time you need to complain to HQ.
Yes the deadheading pilots are entitled as part of the union contract to have seats in C. The union and the airline wants to make sure the pilots are well rested for their upcoming flights. The pilots can waive the contract and sit in Y or a jumpseat like what happened on this flight.
C might have been full when it was learned that UA needed to deadhead crews at the last minute. Situations like this happen quite often, unfortunately at or near departure time. It is definitely better to hold a flight for deadheading pilots instead of having a flight cancel in a city like LHR, stranding hundreds of passengers.
Based on what the OP stated, it sounds like the situation could have been handled better. They could have discretely talked to passengers in C, offering compensation to give up their seats. Also it sounds like the lead FA needs to get an attitude adjustment. There was no reason for him to air his frustrations over the PA and encourage passengers to fill out complaint forms. He should be thankful he still has a job.
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18808 times:
You don't get "rest" on a plane. The CBA covers the seat issue for COMFORT--not "rest" into duty at the end of the flight. Was it annoying for the pilots to sit in Y and on the FD. Yes. Crime? No. Comply; then complain.
There should have been no delay for this. Let's put a little perspective on this, too. EWR-LHR isn't exactly a "long" flight. No augmented crew. Many airlines don't have "crew rest" b/c it's so "short" in INTL terms...Sub-8, often in the 7 hr range. For crying out loud, I did a JFK-SEA a month back that blocked out at 6:50--:20 mins short of our JFK-LHR flight that night.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3652 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 18173 times:
Quoting Stratacruiser (Thread starter): the lead FA came on the PA and announced that the problem was they had some deadheading flight crew who where required to be seated in C-class
Same thing happened on AC231 Saturday night. Two Mexican flights and a Las Vegas flight all arrived in YYC at the same time in a snow storm. The pilot and FO from the Cancun flight got 1A and 2E outgoing to Vancouver. The service director and one of the FAs from the Cancun flight became crew on the YYC-YVR flight (odd--the Cancun flight was a 319 and the Vancouver flight was an E190). I'm guessing a number of crew timed out in getting all the planes into Calgary late.
Anyway, they finally deiced the now *packed* 190 and we took of from Calgary for Vancouver just prior to midnight.
Perhaps someone else who was also there can straighten out my shadowy perceptions.
ThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 674 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 17671 times:
Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 5): And us customers are entitled to not fly your airline ever again. I'm glad the pilots in question had a better attitude then you and took whatever seats were available. If your contract says that you are entitled to C then the airline should leave adequate seats but as soon as they sell them or upgrade passengers to those seats, get your ass back into Y and if it happens all the time you need to complain to HQ.
They should get their a** back to Y? Really???
No, it's an agreed upon provision of the contract by both Management AND the Union... the company failed to comply.. No, they shouldn't have made a scene.. but as a pilot (and not one in question for this issue at all)... I simply wouldn't get on the flight.. refuse the trip as illegal with crew scheduling and wait for them to book me an appropriate flight... the flight in question would leave without me... down line repercussions in LHR? unfortunate if it happens... but, not my issue... I honor my side of the contract, management must do the same...
The official title for the lead FA position on sCO metal is: "International Service Manager". So why would they call themselves : "Purser"? It has nothing to do with preference. That's what the job title is. The work force has not been merged or united and United has kept the two titles so far. No decision on the eventual official title has been announced.
thegoldenargosy From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16766 times:
Typical merger drama, some people just dwell on their new working situations. Until recently I was still be welcomed aboard Northwest. It's very immature and shows a total lack of professionalism. No one is making you work at the airline. This is the way things are, if you don't like it please leave. I'm so sick of merger drama.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16752 times:
Quoting Stratacruiser (Thread starter): After 15-20 minutes the "inflight service manager", or lead FA - sCO folks don't seem to like the sUA term "purser" -
sCO uses the term ISM or International Service Manager. sUA uses purser. Has nothing to do with sCO folks liking or not like the term purser. The flight attendant work group hasn't been integrated and some terms are still different.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 12):
The CO stuff needs to stop. Some users are way too sympathetic to the usage of CO name. It's dead. Leave it alone.
It does. I am former CO and I work for UA now. I cringe when I hear coworkers still say Continental. Its not for whom we work or what our airline is called. We are UA now. Proud to be so, too.
DLD9S From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 14094 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8): upgrades should have been rescinded if they were standby upgrades and no other options.
Downgrading a couple people on a transatlantic flight - even if they did pay for the upgrade with earned miles - has the potential to create more bad press and a social media assault, especially when it is discovered that airline employees are taking their spots.
Don't get me wrong - I think the pilots deserve a J seat if that is what their contract is called for - but if an airline overbooks a cabin by mistake and inconveniences the people who paid to be on the plane instead of those getting paid to be on the plane, then they should probably expect a few complaints. Get the pilots on VS or BA if they must.
ABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 834 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13906 times:
Quoting thegoldenargosy (Reply 17):
Typical merger drama, some people just dwell on their new working situations. Until recently I was still be welcomed aboard Northwest. It's very immature and shows a total lack of professionalism. No one is making you work at the airline. This is the way things are, if you don't like it please leave. I'm so sick of merger drama.
Amen. This is getting tiresome to hear about. And very juvenile I might add. I think its time for everyone to move on. Its not going to change and it you cant go back to the way it was. Every airline will have a snafu. Someone in Crew scheduling likely failed to contact CRC (Central Res Control) (or what ever the new UA term may be for that Dept.) and tell them to block seat allocation in C for dead heading crew. The crew opting to take a seat in Y and F/D was admirable.
yowza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4781 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13825 times:
I had a similar experience recently flying YYZ-IAH on a UA regional. The cabin crew repeatedly badmouthed anyone they could. The crew apologized for the "substandard boarding facilities that United makes us use here in Toronto" even though it was a UA flight as well as a half-promise that "operational issues were still being looked at." The announcer also took the time to throw in "although I'm not sure how much snow the decisions makers see".
I fully grant that boarding from the high numbers in Concourse F (which involves a brief outdoor stroll) is sub optimal especially in a snow snowstorm but I fully reject the idea that this kind of behavior is acceptable. Get it together UA!
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it seems, for the pilots or ground service reps involved. The only thing I have to say about the F/A's announcement (though I didn't hear it first hand) is that while the information delivered sounds like it was technically correct, it seems as if he was rather "indelicate" in his delivery. He might do well to think about that, as some of those "comment cards" might end up being more reflective of his attitude than the situation. One must be careful lest he reap what he sows.
Now to the matter at hand. The first part is just a guess. I'd imagine the chat in the aisle was something along the lines of the pilots citing their contract and insisting that they be given seats in the assigned class per their CBA, though why this was being done in the aisle, I don't know. From the pilots' perspective, it's a really simple matter. It's nothing new. It's in the CBA. Where's my damned seat? This is where it gets contentious for a crew member (F/A's, too). Those guys didn't go back to Y class because they wanted to. They went back because nobody up front would give up their seats and the ground service reps refused to bump anybody. It had nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with contract law. The pilot's knew this, and the problem is that the airline does, too, and takes advantage of the employee groups.
I'm referring to the concept of "comply first and grieve later". In this situation, the pilots have two options. Go in the assigned seats, or get off. If they'd gotten off, they would have faced discipline for refusing the assignment. There is a very simple threshold for CBA violations, even one as clear and obvious as this. Every crew member has to ask themselves whether or not "irreparable harm" will come of complying with the company assignment even though it is a clear violation of the CBA. In this case, that was obviously not the case. What the idea is, is thusly: If I comply with the assignment will it cause such harm that it can not be undone through the grievance process. If the answer is yes, then the crew member can refuse. Unfortunately, not getting your seat in the class of service wouldn't meet this threshold. As such, the crew members complied, because doing otherwise most likely would have resulted in a trip to see their chief pilot and some form of discipline.
The crappy thing for the crew members is that this has become an all to common tactic by management. We see these types of violations on a daily basis. Funny enough, I wouldnt be surprised if my CBA was to be violated today when it comes to the company supplying me a day room for a ground sit of greater than 5 hours. I suppose I could call out fatigued, but given the time of day that the sit occurs and when my show time is, including that I've been off for the preceding 24 hours, my argument would be met with skepticism at best.
The company is well aware of this, and takes advantage of the CBA and the grievance process. We all know it, and we work through it. Sometimes it benefits the crew member and sometimes it benefits the company.
For all the crew members involved, though, it is a terribly frustrating situation that occurs all too often. It seems that the pilots did a reasonable job complying (though the location of their pow wowin the aisle is a bit inappropriate), but again, I might counsel the F/A to be a bit more diplomatic in parsing out his words.
GEN2STEW From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13344 times:
Quoting Reply 9: "There was no reason for him to air his frustrations over the PA and encourage passengers to fill out complaint forms. He should be thankful he still has a job."
Actually the Lead did take the appropriate action by offering comment cards. How else are the boobs and their minions who breathe the rarified air in the Willis Tower going to know what is going on in the real world. The intent was good but presentation was not.
So far as "being thankful he has a job", it is obvious that you have not been a flight attendant and you are speaking from the lofty vantage point of complete ignorance of the profession (seeing it done "a million times" is not the same as really doing it). As the "face of the company" it is quite difficult to be THANKFUL when your company screws up and looks inept, only to leave you to face the customers who through no fault of your own are livid for the next six or eight hours. Good for him for having the PAX who are rightfully disgusted direct their frustration toward those who actually make the decisions. Furthermore, it is attitudes such as yours that glean you no respect from those who serve and make us all the more happy to see the back of you! Oh, and, when you say :" I'll never fly this airline again" , I know you will next time we offer a sale or milage bonus. As always, thank you for with (insert any carrier here)_______!
The only things PAX see is the fare thay paid and the seat in front of them. Gotta love the race to the bottom!
To be accurate? EVERYBODY both SUA and SCO are at the Willis Tower In Downtown CHICAGO,
BUT!! Still running separate operations.
I've seen crew scheduling in action and it's NOT pretty!! so much last minute stuff going on and Crew scrambling.
It boggles the mind. The last minute crews have privileges per their contract and Customer service has their Job to do and the two don't always mix. The fact that there is so much last minute scrambling is the worst thing but then again?? A flight with no flight crew?? Isn't saying much either. So "WHQ" no matter which side is at fault, and you are correct that they need to get OVER it! But Having said that?? We're all Human and we all fall SHORT every day.
Heck! We still worry about any Delay and whose Fault it was as if we had some intention of fixing the "root cause" !! What a Joke!! No matter WHO took the delay, the name on the side of the airplane is UNITED and for that flight ,
on that Day?? We Failed! Who in the hell CARES what the problem was?? I've gotten the 3rd degree because an airplane had a problem INBOUND that wasn't leaving OUTBOUND until it was fixed, and the station STILL put passengers on board as if they were leaving when they knew good and well I had that airplane LOCKED DOWN !!
It wasn't going anyplace before it was fixed to MY satisfaction !!
Their lament is. "we've got the airplane loaded and you're going to inconvenience all those passengers?"
My answer? "YEAH" I AM !
I'm not PAID to get the passengers there on TIME!
I'm paid to get them and the crew there SAFELY! If I can't Guarantee THAT?!?
Then they're NOT going at ALL! And guess What?!?
The FAA likes it Just LIKE THAT!!
So all this SCO and SUA stuff?
A bunch of BUNK!!
FlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13168 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 10): There should have been no delay for this. Let's put a little perspective on this, too. EWR-LHR isn't exactly a "long" flight. No augmented crew.
As I recall, all EWR-LHR on sCO run with augmented crews.
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 18): sCO uses the term ISM or International Service Manager. sUA uses purser. Has nothing to do with sCO folks liking or not like the term purser. The flight attendant work group hasn't been integrated and some terms are still different.
Isn't the use of the term "Purser" going away? Is ISM the surviving title or something else entirely?
Quoting DLD9S (Reply 19): Don't get me wrong - I think the pilots deserve a J seat if that is what their contract is called for - but if an airline overbooks a cabin by mistake
From what I've heard, it isn't a mistake. Despite it being in the new contract, the company did not "pre-block" the rest seats in J class. I assume that means that for each and every flight, this has to get resolved. Shouldn't the onus be on the company to comply with the contract (that they agreed to)?
Further, it's my understanding of the new rest rules (FAR 117), that a coach seat isn't acceptable to the FAA as a rest seat. So with or without the new pilot contract, the company needs to comply with this soon.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19722 posts, RR: 56 Reply 27, posted (2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13325 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 10): You don't get "rest" on a plane. The CBA covers the seat issue for COMFORT--not "rest" into duty at the end of the flight.
You're not officially on rest while deadheading, of course, but there's no question that you're going to arrive at your destination more rested if you go in C rather than in Y. A transatlantic flight in Y can really screw up your sleep cycle, which is not what you want when you have a flight to fly the next day, and not what your passengers want either.
That's why the contract calls for deadheading in C, not because the pilots deserve a certain amount of comfort.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 28, posted (2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13016 times:
I don't agree with the title UA airs dirty laundry the FA did the right thing by making the announcement the passengers need to know why they are being delayed. Lying, hiding the truth or not making an announcement at all is simply not the right thing to do and every thing the FA said was factual and there is no dirty laundry there. When the company deadheads pilots their contract allows them to occupy a seat in C and sometimes these things happen at the very last minute 10-15 minutes prior to departure (by that time upgrades have already been cleared) and the pilots are not sitting at the gate the deadheading pilots are downstairs in flight ops and airport operations has to delay the aircraft even though once in LHR they are not going to fly an aircraft back to the U.S. they still are entitled to an appropriate "REST" period. If operations were to let the aircraft leave without these pilots on time and put the pilots on the next flights they risk severely delaying or canceling whatever flight from LHR these pilots are now scheduled to work. The deadheading pilots made the right call by taking a seat in coach and allowing the upgraded passenger to keep their seats in businessfirst so there is no dirty laundry is it is just the way an airline is ran and I'm sure United pilots aren't the only pilots with this provision in their contract.
max999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 906 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 12213 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 28): I don't agree with the title UA airs dirty laundry the FA did the right thing by making the announcement the passengers need to know why they are being delayed. Lying, hiding the truth or not making an announcement at all is simply not the right thing to do and every thing the FA said was factual and there is no dirty laundry there.
Of course this was airing dirty laundry because of the way the FA handled the situation unprofessionally. Based on what the thread starter witnessed, the FA told everyone about the situation on the PA instead of discreetly speaking with the affected passengers. He used terms like 'Chicago' and 'United Continental' to purposefully drive home his displeasure.
Quoting jayunited (Reply 28): The deadheading pilots made the right call by taking a seat in coach and allowing the upgraded passenger to keep their seats in businessfirst so there is no dirty laundry is it is just the way an airline is ran and I'm sure United pilots aren't the only pilots with this provision in their contract.
And what's with all these unsubstantiated claims that passengers upgraded don't deserve their seats? First, none of us know what method the passengers were upgraded. Second, considering this was an international flight, it's very unlikely the passengers got free upgrades; most airlines are pretty strict about free upgrades on international C class. It's more likely the passengers paid with miles or certificates.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 30, posted (2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11577 times:
This sort of thing happens a lot, at all airlines, and I really can't see much of a solution.
Often pilots, with their booked J seats arrive at the gate well after all other passengers. This is a result of a lot of operational issues. But ... the J reservation is usually tagged AOG, in that the crew MUST be on that aircraft. If the gate agent gets over eager and gives a away the seats, because he/she thinks we are not showing up, there is not much we can do. Those upgraded passengers must be removed, and we get our booked seats.
If there is bad publicity as a result, then the problem will be fixed, namely educating these gate agents about Positioning Crew Rules.
But, as I continually tell new hire F/Os and R/Ps I fly with, we can't do everyone's job, and we can't solve everyone's problems. We just do our job, to our standards, following our contract. If we pull someone else's irons out of the fire for them, then the problem doesn't get fixed.
I recently had an interesting occurrence. I was to position from YYZ-YUL to operate YUL-GVA. There was a last minute cancellation, so people, including our Crew Scheduling were scrambling. I got to the gate, checked in with the agent and she said, "just sit down, I'll call you". Looking at the long line of people, I said, "I don't need a J seat, but I do need to be on this flight". She just shrugged and said, "yeah, everyone needs to be on this flight". Fine, I just sat down.
20 minutes later the aircraft left, without me. The agent caught my eye, and said, sorry, it was full. I reminded her that I was AOG, and I was to operate the continuation from YUL-GVA ... she paled. "Well, you should have said something!" "You mean other than what I did say, or other than what my reservation says?"
I called Crew Scheduling and they were irate.
I eventually got the next flight, and the YUL-GVA flight was two hours late. I very nearly had to pull the plug due to duty day restrictions, and this is the interesting part .... If I had elected to work over my maximum duty day, the problem would never be solved. If the YUL-GVA flight was cancelled, rest assured, these gate agents would be re-educated, and the problem would never happen again. So which is better?
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Nice attempt at a dig... I am completely professional at work and mature... I'm proud of the job I do and am not embarrassed in the least... As I said, I wouldn't have made a scene at all... I simply wouldn't have taken the deadhead, I don't feel making a scene is by any way appropriate in a public area for something like this... I would have walked up to the gate to check in, been given a Y seat, I would have then said our contract requries a J, had they said they were unable, I would have said thanks, walked away from the area and called scheduling.... I don't get frustrated, I don't throw a hissy fit.. I simply stand up for what was agreed upon... It then becomes schedulings responsibility to make the arrangements... further, when it all rolled down hill from it.. I guarantee you the gate agent would have been the one in trouble, not the pilot... so long as the pilot remained professional and respectful to the employees and passengers... This policy, btw, is hardly new... almost every major has this provision..
As the fly now, grieve later, part of the contract and dispute, every carrier views it different, further it sounds like your carrier actually punishes for Fatigue call.. you know by law they can't right?!? No matter any case and whether it's warranted or not... a Fatigue call can never be questioned as it is white flag of the FAA's "I'M SAFE" stance... that said, used inappropriately will put the said member to be "targets" for management,... mind your p's and q's from then on...
My airline doesn't do these high brow international flights.. we're just a regional... even that said per my contract AND flight ops manual, my bags are to explicitly NEVER be checked when deadheading (sorry about your overhead space), I am to be preboarded whenever time allows, I am to be seated in an Aisle seat first, Window seat second, and Middle seat ONLY as a last resort, I am to never be bumped even at cost of passenger, and I am NEVER required to take a jumpseat (Nor will I) on a scheduled "deadhead"
ThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 674 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11280 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 30): I called Crew Scheduling and they were irate.
I eventually got the next flight, and the YUL-GVA flight was two hours late. I very nearly had to pull the plug due to duty day restrictions, and this is the interesting part .... If I had elected to work over my maximum duty day, the problem would never be solved. If the YUL-GVA flight was cancelled, rest assured, these gate agents would be re-educated, and the problem would never happen again. So which is better?
AMEN... couldn't have said it better and seems we're very similar in view point... don't get mad, irate, cause a scene.. just let it play out, keep cool, and fly the contract.
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11192 times:
Quoting max999 (Reply 29): Of course this was airing dirty laundry because of the way the FA handled the situation unprofessionally. Based on what the thread starter witnessed, the FA told everyone about the situation on the PA instead of discreetly speaking with the affected passengers. He used terms like 'Chicago' and 'United Continental' to purposefully drive home his displeasure.
So I guess no one else of the plane deserves to know the reason for the delay because the other passengers on this flight were not effect by this delay is that what you are saying? The fact that the plane did not leave on time effects all passengers on board and it has been my experience as an employee that most passengers like to know the reasoning behind a lengthy delay meaning a delay that lasts longer than 15 minutes which in this case was a fact.
Quoting max999 (Reply 29): And what's with all these unsubstantiated claims that passengers upgraded don't deserve their seats? First, none of us know what method the passengers were upgraded. Second, considering this was an international flight, it's very unlikely the passengers got free upgrades; most airlines are pretty strict about free upgrades on international C class. It's more likely the passengers paid with miles or certificates.
If you had taken your time and read what I actually wrote you will see that no where did I mention that the passengers received a free upgrade. Reading and understanding what someone wrote is fundamental and what I wrote was simply commending the pilots for doing the right thing by taking a seat in coach because if these pilots had wanted to press the issue and enforce the contract United would have had to refund those passengers the miles and/or money they used in order to upgrade and then there would be a real problem with real dirty laundry because the headline would read United pilots bump passengers out of their businessfirst seat.
There is no dirty laundry here the FA told the people on the aircraft the true reason for the delay instead of lying or worse not saying nothing at all. The passengers in business were not put on display to be embarrassed and forced to give up their seats and the United pilots did the right thing by taking seats in coach.
So go back and read it again and perhaps you will get a better understanding of what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote.
max999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 906 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11104 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 33): If you had taken your time and read what I actually wrote you will see that no where did I mention that the passengers received a free upgrade. Reading and understanding what someone wrote is fundamental and what I wrote was simply commending the pilots for doing the right thing by taking a seat in coach because if these pilots had wanted to press the issue and enforce the contract United would have had to refund those passengers the miles and/or money they used in order to upgrade and then there would be a real problem with real dirty laundry because the headline would read United pilots bump passengers out of their businessfirst seat.
There is no dirty laundry here the FA told the people on the aircraft the true reason for the delay instead of lying or worse not saying nothing at all. The passengers in business were not put on display to be embarrassed and forced to give up their seats and the United pilots did the right thing by taking seats in coach.
So go back and read it again and perhaps you will get a better understanding of what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote.
Other comments on here have implied upgrade weren't deserved so I apologize if I mistakenly took your words out of context.
However, I still believe the behavior is still 'airing dirty laundry.' I'm all for telling passengers the truth, but the way a message is communicated is as important as the message itself. What the thread starter witnessed described seemed unprofessional to me.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
It's not that upgrades aren't deserved. For me at least I was wondering about any pax with "standby upgrades" which are only cleared at the gate. If they were granted they should be rescinded and credited back just as if they had never been cleared. Those are the only upgrades cleared based on space available at departure. This is for international travel.
Any upgrade granted earlier should be honored because customers often make their flight choice base on availability of class of service. Same day people were flying anyway and hoping for an upgrade, anyone granted an upgrade ahead of time was rightfully planning their trip, at least partially, based on "this flight at this time on thus day has a J seat for me."
It's not about deserving but expectation. Customer service is mainly about meeting, exceeding or managing expectation.
I have a CO example. A few years back I flew to Germany. I was on a J saver award. LAX FRA via EWR F/J was available, but on return HAM EWR was in J but EWR LAX was not. I was told that day if they might move me to F but because it was a 757 and a busy connection flight it was not assured. Day of, I didn't get upgraded. I was disappointed but not mad. Had I been seated and then downgraded I might have been more upset, but still I knew that that flight I was only assured a Y seat.
On a flight like EWR LHR there may not be any same day upgrades cleared anyway. The speculation was only that if there were, they should have been downgraded, miles refunded, and provided with an advance upgrade on their next flight.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9494 times:
Quoting web500sjc (Reply 11): How long is LHR-EWR... Does that flight need to be augmented?
Maybe contractually, but not for "simple" block time. Though there could be daily considerations that create the need more often than not to augment so for ease of operation they may build it with a 3 pilot crew all the time.
RE: DH in C v/s Y there is no trans-oceanic flight where a crew member would DH one way and immediately work back. ORD-YVR, sure...but not EWR-LHR. They'll duty off, go to the hotel for rest and then operate their next sector. Arriving "more rested" for crew rest is nice, but the FAA isn't about to mandate that. Additionally, if they are DH, they aren't using a "Crew Rest" seat/bunk. They are not operating, they are positioning. The FAA doesn't speak to DH/positioning crew "rest" on a flight--only the operating crew. Besides, if the DH crew is in the "crew rest" seat, where does the operating crew go for *their* rest?
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 38, posted (2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9331 times:
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 18): It does. I am former CO and I work for UA now. I cringe when I hear coworkers still say Continental. Its not for whom we work or what our airline is called. We are UA now. Proud to be so, too.
Good on you, thats what i like to hear.
When I turn up at LHR, I check in at a United desk, I speak to United Staff, I liaise with United staff at the podium and i get on an aircraft that has United all the way over the side.....so as far as i am concerned and i hope the majority of the travelling public, Its United not Continental. I dont care if internal issues need to be resolved on contracts etc and people still see it who work for the airline as United Continental, the fact is to Joe Public, its United...period.
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2411 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 8662 times:
Quoting GEN2STEW (Reply 24): So far as "being thankful he has a job", it is obvious that you have not been a flight attendant and you are speaking from the lofty vantage point of complete ignorance of the profession (seeing it done "a million times" is not the same as really doing it).
Do you know what my background is to make such a comment? If you don't then it shows you're ignorant. I used to work in the airline industry until the airline I worked for went out of business. I have a job now. It's not a great job but it pays the bills. Am I thankful I have the job? YES! Even though there are quirks at the job, I don't air the dirty laundry to the customers. The FA in question could be in my shoes someday. Therefore I stand behind my statement he should be thankful to have a job.
Quoting GEN2STEW (Reply 24): Furthermore, it is attitudes such as yours that glean you no respect from those who serve and make us all the more happy to see the back of you!
Your rambling earned NO respect from me.
Quoting GEN2STEW (Reply 24): How else are the boobs and their minions who breathe the rarified air in the Willis Tower going to know what is going on in the real world.
That statement tells me you are ignorant of airline operations in general. The people in Willis Tower know a lot more than you think.
atct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2038 posts, RR: 40 Reply 40, posted (2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 8678 times:
From what ive heard around the system, the Chicago guys and gals (read: Operations, not gate etc.) will do anything to hose the CO crews. Sorry but Ive heard many stories to say its completely untrue. Where there's smoke, there is fire.
Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons
My beloved dad instilled in us from as far back as I can remember: you get more with honey than vinegar. Let's face it we all no matter what industry or line of work have our crappy moments where we say, do the wrong things.
So, if I were in that situation whether I made it to inflight (the stuff of a bad Judd Apatow comedy) or customer service: I'd say:
Ladies and gentleman, we are so sorry for this delay and any inconvenience caused. There are flight crew that must take this flight in order to make a series of flights operate. We may have to have several passengers move from business class to the main section of the plane. I need ------seats. For doing this, you will receive.....>whatever incentives/perks are allowed per company policy i.e. free flights, upgrades, etc. Usually you get takers. If that doesn't work go to plan B. Again follow your company procedure. Try ommtting the blame game. I under my breath will say F.U. many times silently as I go about serving our passengers.
I'd have kept the merger mania out of this. If I needed to refer to it I'd say transitional company policies.
Maybe I'm jaded because my experiences in a merger/conversion, purchase or whatever has been nothing but positive.
Good luck US/UA. I've non-revved on US several times and have received excellent treatment.
sonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7633 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 40): From what ive heard around the system, the Chicago guys and gals (read: Operations, not gate etc.) will do anything to hose the CO crews. Sorry but Ive heard many stories to say its completely untrue. Where there's smoke, there is fire.
Its really unfortunate if things have sunk to the point that Operations in Chicago would go out of their way to target sCO crews. I know the merger has been a bit FUBAR but at some point, you'd think these folks would have some semblance of professionalism.
Kudos to the deadheading pilots for taking the high road and sitting in Y. Given how grim things are at times at the new and improved UA, I'd have likely stuck to the letter of the contract, period.
Time to do a Ward Clever and mete out some sage advice.
No matter how "FUBR" the whole merger process goes down, try to at least show a positive facade. Chances are, higher ups are watching you with a fine tooth comb so, at least do the dance and put on a happy face. Off the clock is when you can go balls out and vent and rant if that's what you want to do. And don't do this in uniform!
displane From United States of America, joined May 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6617 times:
This situation has happened many times before the merger and will continue to do so after the merger. It just happens- either its crew scheduling failing to put it in the system properly, CSRs not paying attention to the list or the pilots not arriving in time.
Kudos to the pilots for taking the high road and not delaying the flight any further or causing more of a ruckus.
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6340 times:
All of this diatribe is abour ONE Person's opinion!! No Matter What the delay was about and WHY,, the statement on the PA WAS LAME!! And it really needs to stop. You Don't like the merger?? Cool !! And that means What??
We're all in this together now, WHQ is in Chicago and Houston is a memory. Heck !! San Francisco is a memory for me and I DIDN'T want to go to Houston so We all got "Jacked" !! So Where do we go from Here?? The Pilots sat in the back and will and SHOULD greive it. and Pay them if they Win!! Maybe next time they'll get their stuff together !!
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6327 times:
All of this diatribe is about ONE Person's opinion!! No Matter What the delay was about and WHY,, the statement on the PA WAS LAME!! And it really needs to stop. You Don't like the merger?? Cool !! And that means What??
We're all in this together now, WHQ is in Chicago and Houston is a memory. Heck !! San Francisco is a memory for me and I DIDN'T want to go to Houston so We all got "Jacked" !! So Where do we go from Here?? The Pilots sat in the back and will and SHOULD grieve it. and Pay them if they Win!! Maybe next time they'll get their stuff together !!
DTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 541 posts, RR: 2 Reply 48, posted (2 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6282 times:
All airline titles go back to the days of the Pan Am Flying Boats--they were taken from the great ocean liners. Captain, First Officer, Purser...all proud traditions of the sea.
My guess is that when the dust settles "purser" will be United's title of choice. Two syllables are so much easier to say than "International Service Manager" with ten.
I had to laugh--my first set of NW Purser wings had a star surrounded by a ring of wheat sheaves on top of the regular f/a wings--I felt like a banana republic air force general.
Such seating situations can go awry quickly depending on the attitudes of the pilots and agents involved. If the agent had no notice there were deadheading crew aboard he or she would have rightfully filled BC with the usual folks. You'd be surprised how often crew scheduling "forgets' to make the proper entry into the PNR. 99% of the time they will just quietly slide into whatever y seat is available with no fuss but every once in a while you get one who is a stickler for the contract and refuses to budge and gums up the whole situation. I myself have used the term MSP or ATL as a generic for corporate management, not the station and I can see where that could be confusing for some folks.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1837 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (2 months 1 week ago) and read 5680 times:
Quoting filejw (Reply 44): FYI you don't have to be in uniform to be deadheading...
I believe that deadheading sCO does have to be in uniform but not necessarily full uniform. Working crew are supposed to wear their jackets and wings, pilots are supposed to have their hats and ties. Deadheads do not have to wear all of that stuff but they are wearing is supposed to be part of their uniform, although I believe they can wear a personal outer garment such as a sweater.
Deadheads are flying to their scheduled work flight or returning to their base after working a flight. I guess the SNAFU was caused by scheduling placing them on the flight at the last minute.
FlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (2 months 1 week ago) and read 5561 times:
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 49): I believe that deadheading sCO does have to be in uniform but not necessarily full uniform. Working crew are supposed to wear their jackets and wings, pilots are supposed to have their hats and ties. Deadheads do not have to wear all of that stuff but they are wearing is supposed to be part of their uniform, although I believe they can wear a personal outer garment such as a sweater.
No.
Also, a deadhead could have completed a flight assignment and is (now) deadheading to the rest facility.
In the case mentioned by the OP, we don't know for certain whether this was an augmented crew, a deadheading pilot (one or more) or both. Different rules (regulations and contractual) may apply.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 51, posted (2 months 1 week ago) and read 5546 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 40): From what ive heard around the system, the Chicago guys and gals (read: Operations, not gate etc.) will do anything to hose the CO crews. Sorry but Ive heard many stories to say its completely untrue. Where there's smoke, there is fire.
That really sound believable especially considering that United now looks and feels a lot more like CO than UA.
sCO pilots are not the only ones who end up being deadheaded to foreign destination to work a flight back to the U.S., this happened to sUA pilots as well it just so happened that the flight in question happens to be crewed by sCO flight crew. And the fact that Chicago (Willis Tower) got involved in this situation is not unheard of when there is the potential of an international flight being canceled no matter what the reason WHQ gets involved to make sure that the station/s is doing everything they can to avoid that cancelation and there are a lot of people at Willis Tower who are from the sCO side. Willis tower is not just filled with sUA employees.
And another reason why your wrong is because sUA flight operations have no control over sCO flight operations or crew scheduling even though the pilots have a single contract there is still much work to be done before the two sides fully merge and become one singular unit. sUA pilots are not flying sCO planes nor are sCO pilots flying sUA planes there is till work left to be completed before that can happen. No one is picking on sCO crews and if they are being pick on it is by their own people because they are still two separate units they are just operating under one contract.
BC77008 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 231 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (2 months 1 week ago) and read 5201 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 40): From what ive heard around the system, the Chicago guys and gals (read: Operations, not gate etc.) will do anything to hose the CO crews. Sorry but Ive heard many stories to say its completely untrue. Where there's smoke, there is fire.
Many of those ops people in Chicago are former CO ops people from Houston. I don't believe this one bit.
"He waited his whole damn life to take that flight. And as the plane crashed down he thought 'Well isn't this nice...'"
gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, RR: 1 Reply 53, posted (2 months 1 week ago) and read 5069 times:
You can see why airlines like Ryanair ban staff from joining a union, when they have such a strangle hold over the airline.
By the airline agreeing to the terms of the unions demand, that crew have to travel in Business, so they can be "well rested", are almost admitting they offer a crap product in Economy, and passengers traveling in cattle class are not going to get a comfortable or well rested flight.
I hate to start an argument over unions, but they just hold the public to ransom in so many situations, and this is a new one on me.
I am pleased the crew saw sense and decided to travel in economy, but I am not going to praise them. Due to stupid union regulations the passengers on that flight would have probably have been delayed for 1.5-2hrs, by the time they got in to Heathrow.
Unions are things of a bygone era, and in this day and age, they should be grateful they have jobs. There are already regulations and rules in place, to protect crew and ensure they have sufficient rest between flights.
If that had been a non-unionised airline or one where the unions aren't so entwined in the day to day running, as seems to be the case with UA. The person in charge would have told that standby crew to just get on that flight and sit where they told, and if they were refusing, they would have been facing disciplinary proceedings... In actual fact, that is how nearly all modern companies work, you do as your boss says and just get on with it!
As a member of the public, Im sick of unions having an impact on us, going about our normal business. I can however take comfort and feel a bit more happy, that it is not just here in the UK, where unions hold the public to ransom!
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4646 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 28): I don't agree with the title UA airs dirty laundry the FA did the right thing by making the announcement the passengers need to know why they are being delayed. Lying, hiding the truth or not making an announcement at all is simply not the right thing to do
No, it is unprofessional and unacceptable. And it clearly appears that he has a beef with pilots because my guess is they get to deadhead in front, and FAs do not. This purser should be fired for the way he made this into a public bashing of fellow employees and of his employer. There are other ways the delay could have been explained without having to show attitude and be unprofessional. In no other industry would someone get away with this kind of nonsense. I hope people took the comment cards and wrote HIM up!
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 35): IMO, good customer service does entail giving help.
However "rubbishing" your employer is always unprofessional.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2533 posts, RR: 2 Reply 55, posted (2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4579 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 25): I've seen crew scheduling in action and it's NOT pretty!! so much last minute stuff going on and Crew scrambling.
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 25): So "WHQ" no matter which side is at fault
Oh I agree, I wasn't trying to be disparaging to Ops, and I fully understand that you guys cop the s*** whenever something goes wrong. I was just pointing out that - rightly or wrongly - frontline staff have a habit of blaming those who aren't there to defend themselves!
Just a point: everyone is assuming that BF was full due to upgrades. There is no evidence to suggest that it was, and in my experience of LHR-EWR there is a very good chance that it was full of paid J. Admittedly this was the daylight eastbound so premium demand is lower, but filling 16 J seats NYC-LHR is nothing, yes even for EWR.
usdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 756 posts, RR: 2 Reply 56, posted (2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4487 times:
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53):
You can see why airlines like Ryanair ban staff from joining a union, when they have such a strangle hold over the airline.
You can also argue that when staff do not join a union, the airline basically places a stranglehold on THEM. Is that preferable?
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): By the airline agreeing to the terms of the unions demand, that crew have to travel in Business, so they can be "well rested", are almost admitting they offer a crap product in Economy, and passengers traveling in cattle class are not going to get a comfortable or well rested flight.
Actually, it's the union saying that the Economy cabin in insufficient for their membership. In some cases, it may be. Many airline managers get to fly business class; why shouldn't flight attendants and pilots? Also, if the pilots are making 4-6 roundtrips a month, making them fly Economy is really going to aggravate them and give them a poor quality of life. I believe workers need better accommodation if they're having to fly all the time rather than once a year, and that would include domestic trips that are over 2 scheduled hours. Most pilots end up flying economy on domestic trips quite often, and I usually see the poor guys snoozing between two fat passengers. I really do feel sorry for them.
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): The person in charge would have told that standby crew to just get on that flight and sit where they told
Actually, this particular crew was deadheading, NOT flying standby. That means they were traveling on business. They would NEVER, EVER get away with throwing a fit if they were flying to London to hit up the boys.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 57, posted (2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): You can see why airlines like Ryanair ban staff from joining a union, when they have such a strangle hold over the airline.
Or why doesn't the airline just abide by the contract written that they agreed to. (Or in a lot of cases, wrote themselves!)
Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 56): You can also argue that when staff do not join a union, the airline basically places a stranglehold on THEM. Is that preferable?
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
db373 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 227 posts, RR: 1 Reply 58, posted (2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3787 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 30): I recently had an interesting occurrence. I was to position from YYZ-YUL to operate YUL-GVA. There was a last minute cancellation, so people, including our Crew Scheduling were scrambling. I got to the gate, checked in with the agent and she said, "just sit down, I'll call you". Looking at the long line of people, I said, "I don't need a J seat, but I do need to be on this flight". She just shrugged and said, "yeah, everyone needs to be on this flight". Fine, I just sat down.
20 minutes later the aircraft left, without me. The agent caught my eye, and said, sorry, it was full. I reminded her that I was AOG, and I was to operate the continuation from YUL-GVA ... she paled. "Well, you should have said something!" "You mean other than what I did say, or other than what my reservation says?"
I called Crew Scheduling and they were irate.
I'm not sure what the point to this story was, but the message I get from this wonderful anecdote is that you didn't care one bit that the continuation YUL-GVA flight was two hours late. Instead of doing what any other responsible person would have done and made the gate agent aware of why you needed to be on the flight, you chose to just sit around and wait until AFTER the flight had left to throw it into the gate agent's face. You were just as responsible for that snafu as that poor girl was for playing the whole "not my job" card.
And then people wonder why there's no sympathy when pilots get laid off or have to take pay cuts.
ThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 674 posts, RR: 9 Reply 59, posted (2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
Quoting db373 (Reply 58): I'm not sure what the point to this story was, but the message I get from this wonderful anecdote is that you didn't care one bit that the continuation YUL-GVA flight was two hours late. Instead of doing what any other responsible person would have done and made the gate agent aware of why you needed to be on the flight, you chose to just sit around and wait until AFTER the flight had left to throw it into the gate agent's face. You were just as responsible for that snafu as that poor girl was for playing the whole "not my job" card.
And then people wonder why there's no sympathy when pilots get laid off or have to take pay cuts.
I can't speak for him... but you wonder why most professionals in the industry don't respond on this site anymore? It's because it's always the same thing.. people that are fascinated and engrossed in our actual industry... then demonize and make villains of the people that do the jobs in the industry. It's a no win on here... People expect us to just sit down and shut up and do our job... until you want to know why it happened, or what it's for.. then people here ask and wonder why it's full of silent echos... there used to be a lot more colleagues on here.. I hardly even post anymore because of the love/hate relationship of the membership here...
Cold hard truth hurts... I love my industry, I care about my people, but I look out for myself, just as management has proven they do... I voluntarily took pay cuts, gave in on my agreed upon contract to sacrifice for the company I fly for... where did it get us? Sold, Merged, and now engrossed in an over year long contract negotiation... granted my concessions were in '08, we furloughed hundreds of my friends and colleagues, my pay and work rules have been violated by management countless times, and our contract expired 3 years ago... Now you know what I do... I still go to work.. as expected. I fly to my utmost. I perform EACH of my functions and duties with the highest degree of professionalism and what you demand.. so that YOU can get to your loved ones. I don't care whether or not a flight cancels or not because of managements errors. It is not my mistake to correct... most of us are at that point now in our careers.. Fair is Fair, both sides of the house made an agreement on the rules.. it wasn't strong armed by either side.. the fact of the matter is, they can't have it both ways, I refuse to not hold their side to their end of the bargain.. just as I refuse to not perform exactly as I'm expected by my Company.
Now I never advocate airing dirty laundry in public.. I don't think it is ever appropriate to make a scene in front of our paying passengers.. but it does mean I'll hold my contract firm... and I would do exactly as longhauler said he did... I would sit back and let it play out after being shoved aside by an agent... I won't be the one at the counter raising a fuss to make sure I got on the plane only for people to watch the battle between agent and pilot.. nope.. in that case I too would have stepped back and sat down... and then call scheduling up and tell them I'm not getting on the plane.. it's up to them to straighten it out from there.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 60, posted (2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
The problem here is not "chicago" or a dead heading crew its the use of 757's from Newark to LHR. How dare UA only use planes with 16 J seats, they need 767 or 777's with 40 J class seats.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 61, posted (2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Quoting db373 (Reply 58): Instead of doing what any other responsible person would have done and made the gate agent aware of why you needed to be on the flight,
And how would you do that?
I told her twice, AOG was printed on my boarding card, and it was line 2 in bold faced type on the PNR. Apart from jumping up and down and screaming, (which I wont do, for the whole intent of this message thread as it doesn't look good to the passengers) there doesn't seem much I could do other than get behind her desk and do her job for her.
Remember ... I told her, I "need" to be on that flight. Her answer, I say again, "yeah, everyone needs to be on this flight, now ... sit down".
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
FlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 62, posted (2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 59): I can't speak for him... but you wonder why most professionals in the industry don't respond on this site anymore?... ...it's up to them to straighten it out from there.
Well said, thank you.
I've been retired for a while now, but that was an excellent summary. Many of my former colleagues have said very similar things about the bashing that occurs on this site.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 2561 posts, RR: 8 Reply 63, posted (2 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 5): And us customers are entitled to not fly your airline ever again.
Feel free. The angry customers over at Delta, U.S. American and every other airline say the same thing but offered the right fare, they'll be right back in the seats. If every disenfranchised passenger truly never flew some company again nobody would be flying.
Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 5): get your ass back into Y and if it happens all the time you need to complain to HQ.
Give an inch, they'll take a mile. I've seen it done because people refused to uphold the contract that both labor, and management agreed to.
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53):
You can see why airlines like Ryanair ban staff from joining a union, when they have such a strangle hold over the airline.
You cannot ban unions in the states to my knowledge.
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): but they just hold the public to ransom in so many situations, and this is a new one on me.
A truly ignorant statement. Unions are their for the employees the represent (in theory) and often, especially in the airlines, they are still necessary. If you think otherwise you are sadly misinformed.
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): Unions are things of a bygone era, and in this day and age, they should be grateful they have jobs.
I suggest you talk to people who have flown for non-union shops and union shops. I've flown for both. Let me tell you which I prefer. This whole "grateful to have a job" nonsense needs to stop. The idea that any one side is "fortunate" to have the other is absurd. Everyone from the bottom guy to the CEO is necessary to the successful operation of a company.
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): As a member of the public, Im sick of unions having an impact on us, going about our normal business. I
I'm sick of management being able to do as they please, wreak absolute havoc on my quality of life, my pay, and my well being with no recourse. Unions are far from perfect, I'll be the first to admit that, but I'll also be the first to defend them because I've seen the difference they can make.
The bottom line is the contract is a two-way street. Labor via the union agreed to the same terms management did. Either side holding the other to the terms agreed upon is perfectly reasonable and to be expected.
NWAESC From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3324 posts, RR: 9 Reply 64, posted (2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1464 times:
Quoting thegoldenargosy (Reply 17): Until recently I was still be welcomed aboard Northwest.
Old habits die hard... it's not always intentional...
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 63): This whole "grateful to have a job" nonsense needs to stop. The idea that any one side is "fortunate" to have the other is absurd. Everyone from the bottom guy to the CEO is necessary to the successful operation of a company.
+1000
"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 31 Reply 65, posted (2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
I think we can agree that could have been handled better.
Unfortunately, a couple things are true:
1) Last minute crew chances necessitate crews being repositioned (or deadheaded). In those cases, pilots are booked on the flight according to the rules of the contract. If the flight is overbooked, then the station has two choices: a- Bounce the pilots and cause a huge inconvenience (aka cancelled flight) down the line or b- Bounce a few passengers, pay them off (handsomely) for the inconvenience, upgrade them on the next flight out and move on.
2) Upgrading passengers is tricky. Once you move them up, it's a bear getting them out of the seat. Some carriers tend to move up their premium passengers early, especially if the flight is oversold, to make room in the back and/or off load oversells in Y which is less costly (both in $$ and PR) to the airline. Add repositioning pilots to the mix at the last minute and it's just a bad situation.
The pilots have the right to act according to the contract. So does the airline. If the pilots moved back to Y class to not inconvenience the passengers (including the jump seat), then they get kudos for doing the right thing. After all, it's paying passengers that pay their salaries...ultimately. Pilots are not required to do this.
We've had gate agents refuse our pilots before because the flight was oversold and they refused to offload passengers. It's hard to fault the gate agents for taking care of the paying passengers in front of them; however, they aren't always put in the loop on the bigger picture and the bigger question: Do you inconvenience a few passengers and board a repositioning crew or cancel a flight and inconvenience a whole lot of passengers?
It's a difficult question to answer, especially if you are the gate agent telling a passenger they have to get off for a deadheading pilot.
Something to consider.
baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
EagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1621 posts, RR: 2 Reply 66, posted (2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3): ight by customers or not, those guys are entitled to whatever their contract says they are. I am the LAST PERSON to defend a pilot, but the rules are the rules. Unfortunately, it looks like operations snubbed things up, and booked F full, or allowed upgrades.
And in this situation the person who make the mistake should have got the blame after the light departed. The customer should not have been inconvenienced due to a mistake by a back office union mandated stipulation. The pilot should have taken the Y seats and ensured that someone would get a heckling without affecting paying customers.
This issue should have been resolved before boarding commenced, surely they knew when they were issuing boarding cards?
toobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 673 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1281 times:
I as well find it unprofessional to put the blame on anyone on the PA. This should just have been addressed as a technical issue and dealt with internally. This is one merger that is just horrific to stand by and watch. I have a feeling AA/US will be even more of a nightmare. At least DL had a competent mngmt team to execute a smooth and effiecient merger.
That is idle speculation, BUT! I will pose thus. I'll bet GOOD money that UA ALPA will NOT take from UA OR CO what these Pilots took. JMHO. If the contract says it will be "Thus and So"? In 99% it WILL BE "Thus and SO".
I can tell you from LONG experience The Chief Pilot will change his tune or he Won't be here,(in good health by the time these guys finish sending him out for stomach problems) And That you can take to the Bank!
PanAmPaul From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
Regardless of the business (airline or supermarket or what have you), airing such dirty laundry in front of customers is just wrong and there is almost never any justification for it.
I stopped buying fish for my aquarium at a fish store locally after seeing the manager berate (quite loudly) two of the kids who worked there (who were barely 16 I would guess) - right in the middle of the store.
I've seen airline crews commit lesser sins but what the OP describes is really beyond the pale.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 53 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2533 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7727 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4781 posts, 
From Marshall Islands, joined Feb 2009, 188 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6363 posts, 
to the deadheading pilots.
, 2561 posts, 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1621 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 673 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
