UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

caleb1 · Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:10 am

Just curious if anyone has any thoughts as to the possibility of the UA FA group ratifying the new TA. On paper at least, the contract looks very generous. I understand that a major sticking point,however, is that there is no retro or signing bonus included in the tentative agreement. United is on a bit of a roll and I hope the positive momentum continues which, in my opinion, would include ratification of the proposed contract. In the past, I have been one of many UA detractors. While they still have more work to do to further improve their reputation, I firmly believe that they are on the right track. Unifying the FAs would be a MAJOR step in the right direction.

MIflyer12 · Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:17 am

There's discussion in this thread, in which you posted.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1336235

caleb1 · Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:26 am

Thank you for that. Because it was a fairly old thread for A.Net standards, I wanted to get a more recent perspective and any updated opinions since both the TA, and that thread, were introduced.

Cointrin330 · Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:29 am

I know nothing about the specifics, but I do think if United really wants to narrow the gap with Delta but more importantly, run a more reliable schedule more consistently, it needs to have flight attendants under one contract. Crew scheduling and the inability to have sCO and sUA crews work each other's planes has to add to costs, result in increased delays and cancellations.

jetblastdubai · Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:05 am

I spoke with a friend (sUA FA) last week about the proposed contract. She is SFO-based, 1980 seniority and commutes from HNL for work. She said she normally just flies ONE trip per month...a SFO-PVG turn. She is also language qualified. She's unhappy with the proposal because she claims the layover in PVG can now be reduced to 15 hours from her current 47-hour layover and she can't visit with all her friends in Shanghai on her trips. She's voting against the TA.

Hopefully, this type of entitlement isn't too common among the rest of the group. If it is, they've got a mountain to climb to get any workable agreement.

edcho · Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:25 am

I think the AFA asked all FAs to refrain from posting about how they will vote (esp on the boards and social media) as well as general discussion of the JBCA to prevent misinfo from spreading.

In general, I think the lack of discussion is a positive thing but I know the time it took to get to this point wasn't all SMI/J's fault. Combining 3 different established workforces under one contract is a huge challenge.

IMO All we can do is wait for Aug 12 to roll around.

CONTACREW · Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:15 am

A majority of sub CO NTA are a big no.

HALFA · Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:48 am

CONTACREW wrote:
A majority of sub CO NTA are a big no.

What is sub CO NTA?

CONTACREW · Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:38 pm

HALFA wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:
A majority of sub CO NTA are a big no.

What is sub CO NTA?

Subsidiary Continental
NTA - Newark Transatlantic (Newark intl fa base).

SonomaFlyer · Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:24 pm

The big challenge for UA is the radically different approach United and Continental took on their FA contracts. Bringing the two airlines together results in a FA culture clash. Cutting that knot won't be easy and though the new T/A attempts to thread the needle, both groups are grumpy about losing some of their perceived perks.

The vote will likely be close, just no idea if there is enough to squeak by.

piedmont762 · Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:50 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
The big challenge for UA is the radically different approach United and Continental took on their FA contracts. Bringing the two airlines together results in a FA culture clash. Cutting that knot won't be easy and though the new T/A attempts to thread the needle, both groups are grumpy about losing some of their perceived perks.

The vote will likely be close, just no idea if there is enough to squeak by.

Seems like they took the best of both contracts for the proposal. Would be sad to see if this doesn't go through.

HALFA · Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:27 pm

CONTACREW wrote:
HALFA wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:
A majority of sub CO NTA are a big no.

What is sub CO NTA?

Subsidiary Continental
NTA - Newark Transatlantic (Newark intl fa base).

Thanks for the clarification. May I ask why a majority of the sub CO NTA are a big no? What do you/they find objectionable?

flyua · Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:21 am

I'm an SFO-based subsidiary United flight attendant, voting yes.

I have yet to hear a cogent, logical,
unselfish explanation as to why we would all -- from all subsidiaries -- be better off voting down this tentative agreement.

exunited · Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:30 pm

CONTACREW wrote:
A majority of sub CO NTA are a big no.

Some sub-co people are still holding out for their dream of starting the UAFA union to bypass the AFA - I still see their bag tags every so often. No chance of that happening, and this t/a will pass without question- people want to move on finally. All of the people who have told me they will vote no are saying so for seemingly single issues that are personally important to them.

codc10 · Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:59 pm

My unscientific, anecdotal analysis says most (virtually all) sUA flight attendants are a yes vote, despite the lack of retro/signing bonus. On the sCO side, it's way murkier, leaning toward no. Still, the sUA contingent plus the 'yes' votes on the CO side should push this one over the top.

It's a pretty rich contract and it's time to move forward with the warring subsidiaries nonsense. A 'no' vote is a big step backward for the company.

B737900ER · Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:49 pm

exunited wrote:
All of the people who have told me they will vote no are saying so for seemingly single issues that are personally important to them.

That is the point of a vote, especially in a union. Nobody votes for the other person, people are always going to vote what's best for them. Especially in this company.

piedmont762 · Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:51 pm

There are plenty of crooked unions to not back, the the AFA isn't one of them.

retaliashun · Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:08 pm

Most of the subCO FA's I've talked with plan on voting no. Lack of retro pay/signing bonus, length of contract, pay raise not enough when they factor in insurance costs/work rules. I've seen mixed reactions from sUA FA's, most concerned with the lack of retro and insurance benefits.

910A · Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:24 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
I spoke with a friend (sUA FA) last week about the proposed contract. She is SFO-based, 1980 seniority and commutes from HNL for work. She said she normally just flies ONE trip per month...a SFO-PVG turn. She is also language qualified. She's unhappy with the proposal because she claims the layover in PVG can now be reduced to 15 hours from her current 47-hour layover and she can't visit with all her friends in Shanghai on her trips. She's voting against the TA.

Hopefully, this type of entitlement isn't too common among the rest of the group. If it is, they've got a mountain to climb to get any workable agreement.

Are you telling me this FA can get her monthly trip hours just on one round trip?

Rdh3e · Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:25 am

910A wrote:
Are you telling me this FA can get her monthly trip hours just on one round trip?

There is no minimum flying requirement. With a prime line like SFO-PVG she could easily drop the trips she doesn't want to fly to the pool to be picked up by another FA. There are many who do this. It allows them to hold down a separate full time job while doing minimal work for the airline which in turn gets them free healthcare and flight benefits.

Its genius really and totally within the rules laid out in the CBA.

quiet1 · Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:20 am

Rdh3e wrote:
There is no minimum flying requirement. With a prime line like SFO-PVG she could easily drop the trips she doesn't want to fly to the pool to be picked up by another FA. There are many who do this. It allows them to hold down a separate full time job while doing minimal work for the airline which in turn gets them free healthcare and flight benefits.

FREE health care? I think you're thinking of a past century.

Rdh3e · Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:33 pm

quiet1 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:

FREE health care? I think you're thinking of a past century.

Many of United's unions have negotiated a "No Premium" HMO option for their members. Hence "Free" insurance. Sure they pay the deductible and out of pocket but their insurance is otherwise "Free" to them.

exunited · Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:50 pm

B737900ER wrote:
exunited wrote:
All of the people who have told me they will vote no are saying so for seemingly single issues that are personally important to them.

That is the point of a vote, especially in a union. Nobody votes for the other person, people are always going to vote what's best for them. Especially in this company.

I'm sorry, did I say or imply otherwise? I said, and you quoted, that people have their reason for voting no and that those I spoke to were voting no over a single issue that was important to them. Never the same issue, just one that they thought made the deal a no go. And nowhere did I say or imply that anyone should vote for what's good for someone else and not good for themselves.

deltal1011man · Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:07 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
The big challenge for UA is the radically different approach United and Continental took on their FA contracts. Bringing the two airlines together results in a FA culture clash. Cutting that knot won't be easy and though the new T/A attempts to thread the needle, both groups are grumpy about losing some of their perceived perks.

The vote will likely be close, just no idea if there is enough to squeak by.

Seems like they took the best of both contracts for the proposal. Would be sad to see if this doesn't go through.

unless you are one of the people getting screwed over......

B737900ER · Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:09 pm

exunited wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
exunited wrote:

I'm sorry, did I say or imply otherwise? I said, and you quoted, that people have their reason for voting no and that those I spoke to were voting no over a single issue that was important to them. Never the same issue, just one that they thought made the deal a no go. And nowhere did I say or imply that anyone should vote for what's good for someone else and not good for themselves.

Chill out. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm reinforcing the fact that there's not some campaign going around for a wholesale no vote just to cause problems.

Take it easy

Italianflyer · Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:36 pm

I think it will pass...barely. While it is far from ideal; the reality is that going back to the drawing board will result in a net loss of what is being offered. Based on the smoke signals about revenue weakness in the Q2 call I can't see management willing to sweeten the pot based on cloudy Q3,4 and 2017 guidance.

My .02 is take the money and run. There are plenty of macro factors that say we are at an economic peak and things will weaken going forward.

quiet1 · Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:43 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
quiet1 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
There is no minimum flying requirement. With a prime line like SFO-PVG she could easily drop the trips she doesn't want to fly to the pool to be picked up by another FA. There are many who do this. It allows them to hold down a separate full time job while doing minimal work for the airline which in turn gets them free healthcare and flight benefits.

FREE health care? I think you're thinking of a past century.

Many of United's unions have negotiated a "No Premium" HMO option for their members. Hence "Free" insurance. Sure they pay the deductible and out of pocket but their insurance is otherwise "Free" to them.

Are you sure that the F/As have a "No Premium" HMO option?

exunited · Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:55 pm

B737900ER wrote:
exunited wrote:
B737900ER wrote:

Chill out. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm reinforcing the fact that there's not some campaign going around for a wholesale no vote just to cause problems.

Take it easy

I am taking it easy but will also call you out every time you try to correct me by using incorrect statements.

What's going to be a huge problem is that there will be a huge loss of flight attendants when the sub-co people go from having international lines with a year of seniority to being on reserve for many years. AFA rightfully went DOH for seniority. I was told directly by a flight attendant trainer that the attrition rate in the first year at a couple domiciles is already 75%+ so a mass loss on top of that will be a big issue for the company.

piedmont762 · Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:08 pm

exunited wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
exunited wrote:

Chill out. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm reinforcing the fact that there's not some campaign going around for a wholesale no vote just to cause problems.

Take it easy

I am taking it easy but will also call you out every time you try to correct me by using incorrect statements.

What's going to be a huge problem is that there will be a huge loss of flight attendants when the sub-co people go from having international lines with a year of seniority to being on reserve for many years. AFA rightfully went DOH for seniority. I was told directly by a flight attendant trainer that the attrition rate in the first year at a couple domiciles is already 75%+ so a mass loss on top of that will be a big issue for the company.

Such a mess. UA has been royally screwed up on so many levels thanks to Smisek and his crew. Not fair to Oscar at all.

B737900ER · Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:48 am

exunited wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
exunited wrote:

Chill out. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm reinforcing the fact that there's not some campaign going around for a wholesale no vote just to cause problems.

Take it easy

I am taking it easy but will also call you out every time you try to correct me by using incorrect statements.

If you bothered to read what o wrote you'd see that I AGREED with you. Not trying to correct you. And I didn't use any incorrect statements. Chill with the sensitivity. Not everyone is out to get you.

B737900ER · Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:49 am

quiet1 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
quiet1 wrote:

FREE health care? I think you're thinking of a past century.

Many of United's unions have negotiated a "No Premium" HMO option for their members. Hence "Free" insurance. Sure they pay the deductible and out of pocket but their insurance is otherwise "Free" to them.

Are you sure that the F/As have a "No Premium" HMO option?

Yes. The sUA technicians also have one also. And they haven't been too fond of the idea of having to give it up.

airzim · Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:58 pm

exunited wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
exunited wrote:

Chill out. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm reinforcing the fact that there's not some campaign going around for a wholesale no vote just to cause problems.

Take it easy

I am taking it easy but will also call you out every time you try to correct me by using incorrect statements.

What's going to be a huge problem is that there will be a huge loss of flight attendants when the sub-co people go from having international lines with a year of seniority to being on reserve for many years. AFA rightfully went DOH for seniority. I was told directly by a flight attendant trainer that the attrition rate in the first year at a couple domiciles is already 75%+ so a mass loss on top of that will be a big issue for the company.

Out of curiosity, what is the average discrepancy between DOH and training date? Are there many sUA folks that were offered jobs, but for whatever reason delayed training for months or years? If that's the case, I could see why sCO aren't big fans of DOH if FA were allowed to push back their training and thus start dates. If however it was company imposed delayed training rather than self selected delay. If it was all company imposed, the sUA crews are right to ask for DOH. But is United allowed FAs some indefinite deferral, then that seems rather unfair to the sCO folks that were actually working those years.

All that being said, I assume it's a combo of both and thus much muddier.

exunited · Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:08 pm

airzim wrote:
exunited wrote:

What's going to be a huge problem is that there will be a huge loss of flight attendants when the sub-co people go from having international lines with a year of seniority to being on reserve for many years. AFA rightfully went DOH for seniority. I was told directly by a flight attendant trainer that the attrition rate in the first year at a couple domiciles is already 75%+ so a mass loss on top of that will be a big issue for the company.

Out of curiosity, what is the average discrepancy between DOH and training date? Are there many sUA folks that were offered jobs, but for whatever reason delayed training for months or years? If that's the case, I could see why sCO aren't big fans of DOH if FA were allowed to push back their training and thus start dates. If however it was company imposed delayed training rather than self selected delay. If it was all company imposed, the sUA crews are right to ask for DOH. But is United allowed FAs some indefinite deferral, then that seems rather unfair to the sCO folks that were actually working those years.

All that being said, I assume it's a combo of both and thus much muddier.

The difference is negligible, maybe a month or two typically. What I was referring to more so was DOH vs relative seniority which is what the sub-co pilots tried to get (and actually succeeded in many cases). AFA policy is DOH for mergers and like I mentioned the difference is not much as sub-ua and sub-co calculates it slightly differently. If I remember correctly, ua uses end of training as seniority hire date and co uses day 1 of training. (I may have it backwards).

UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Re: UA and the new FA TA-Any Predictions?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net