So what is a co-terminal ?[/quote]

As far as airline staffing goes, it is when pilots and flight attendants are responsible for staffing flights out of more than one airport in a metropolitan area. For example an LAX FA’s trips could start out of LAX, SNA, BUR or ONT. In New York LGA, JFK and EWR. In DC DCA, IAD and BWI. I know this is common for US carriers, not sure of it’s prevalence at non-US carriers.

EddieMunster wrote:

You're telling me there are hotels near NRT (not to mention Tokyo) that are less than $100 equivalent? Rooms for $40 or 4000 yen per night?

Exactly this, even less than 4000 yen for many years until recently where the prices have risen (but still not a bad deal).

I have often paid the negotiated crew rate at these properties over the past few decades and remember being shocked how low it was when I first availed myself to the opportunity.

mmahpeel wrote:

EddieMunster wrote:

You're telling me there are hotels near NRT (not to mention Tokyo) that are less than $100 equivalent? Rooms for $40 or 4000 yen per night?

Exactly this, even less than 4000 yen for many years until recently where the prices have risen (but still not a bad deal).

I have often paid the negotiated crew rate at these properties over the past few decades and remember being shocked how low it was when I first availed myself to the opportunity.

Wow, that's cheaper than a decent sushi lunch in Ginza... Of course, I'm not sure what else there is to do around Narita besides play golf.

Jamake1 wrote:

The LHR crew base was opened in 1970 by Pan Am and came as part of United’s LHR asset purchase in 1991. There are still many former Pan Am’ers based in London, and a few who have been there since the original base opening in 1970. I was privileged to be based at LHR for 4 years...the absolute highlight of my UA career.

I guess that means there are a few 68+ year old FA’s at UA’s LHR base then?

Or are you talking about manager/admin staff?

Bad for the foreign crews, but good for the U.S. based FAs who will now get to fly more of these routes. If it helps save more U.S. jobs overall, great news.

CobaltScar wrote:

Bad for the foreign crews, but good for the U.S. based FAs who will now get to fly more of these routes. If it helps save more U.S. jobs overall, great news.

Not for the customer!!! The foreign crews were much more professional and service oriented than the U.S. based crews. UA can't compete against foreign airlines or Delta nearly as well because they have some crews that are not professional and provide really poor service from the U.S.

Pi7472000 wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

Bad for the foreign crews, but good for the U.S. based FAs who will now get to fly more of these routes. If it helps save more U.S. jobs overall, great news.

Not for the customer!!! The foreign crews were much more professional and service oriented than the U.S. based crews. UA can't compete against foreign airlines or Delta nearly as well because they have some crews that are not professional and provide really poor service from the U.S.

Then book on the foreign carriers and United will either adapt or lose business. I'm restricting my comment to mean this is good for U.S. based workforce of a major U.S. airline.

The NRT base closure kind of makes sense. Over time, I would think UA's footprint at NRT will shrink further as a consequence of routes moving to HND. I would think what will eventually be left at NRT for UA in 18-24 months as the industry (hopefully recovers) will be a SFO-NRT and maybe HNL-NRT. The decision on FRA also kind of makes sense, as the longest stage length services UA has there (non-COVID are SFO and DEN). The rest of the UA portfolio at FRA can be easily staffed with US based flight attendants.

EddieMunster wrote:

mmahpeel wrote:

EddieMunster wrote:

You're telling me there are hotels near NRT (not to mention Tokyo) that are less than $100 equivalent? Rooms for $40 or 4000 yen per night?

Exactly this, even less than 4000 yen for many years until recently where the prices have risen (but still not a bad deal).

I have often paid the negotiated crew rate at these properties over the past few decades and remember being shocked how low it was when I first availed myself to the opportunity.

Wow, that's cheaper than a decent sushi lunch in Ginza... Of course, I'm not sure what else there is to do around Narita besides play golf.

You can go to the noodle houses and Star Wars bars to watch the airplane movies:)

jplatts wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

The NRT base closure kind of makes sense. Over time, I would think UA's footprint at NRT will shrink further as a consequence of routes moving to HND. I would think what will eventually be left at NRT for UA in 18-24 months as the industry (hopefully recovers) will be a SFO-NRT and maybe HNL-NRT. The decision on FRA also kind of makes sense, as the longest stage length services UA has there (non-COVID are SFO and DEN). The rest of the UA portfolio at FRA can be easily staffed with US based flight attendants.

UA's Star Alliance partner NH has hubs at NRT and HND, and FRA is a major hub for UA's Star Alliance partner LH. NH also has nonstop service to some UA hubs in the US from both NRT and HND, and LH also has nonstop service to some UA hubs in the US from FRA.

Well aware of that, thanks, but the partners really don't have much to do with crew bases for the most part, since the partners staff their own flights.

I remember the best UA flight I ever had was between Narita and Shanghai. It was staffed by Singapore-based flight attendants, and they were absolutely ASTOUNDING!!! I really couldn't believe that I was flying United. They were hands down the best crew in United's system, in my opinion. I was therefore saddened to learn that these exemplary flight attendants lost their jobs due to the Singapore base closure. I imagine many people feel the same way about United's NRT, HKG, and FRA based FAs.

CobaltScar

Only if people continue to fly with UA.

if not, then UA lose the business and the jobs.

Some of you all are so sad on this thread and it elucidates how many of the lot of you don't understand how foreign bases/crew scheduling/resources function. Over the past few years, there were only a few pairings (crew schedules) that were operated solely by foreign based crews--quite often there were a few US-based crewmembers mixed along. Those foreign based, quite literally, had the easiest jobs to work: occasional foreign base - USA hub with the occasional smattering of 6-day trips that would send them either domestically or to another international destination. E.g. for a while, earlier this year, NRT based FAs were operating NRT-SFO-ICN-SFO-NRT along with NRT-EWR-LHR-EWR-NRT and others. So please stop trying to Monday morning quarterback on how crew resources/scheduling actually operate. There are legal contractual obligations and FAA/DOT regulations that still have to be followed. Inquiries are fine and appreciated but the "would haves/could haves/should haves" can pretty much go kick rocks with barefeet.

EddieMunster wrote:

mmahpeel wrote:

Hotel expense is a major consideration in determining where an airline bases crew and was usually, but not always, the driving factor at UA.

In this regard, NRT never made sense as the hotels in NRT have traditionally been quite inexpensive relative to most of the US destinations served out of NRT. For example – if you take the assignment of flying between SFO and NRT, it is much less expensive to lay a SFO-based FA at the NRT hotel versus a NRT-based FA who is at the SFO hotel. I’m talking on the magnitude of 4-5 times as much more expensive in SFO for 1 night versus NRT.

Is this true? I get that UA's decision is obviously cost-based, and I realize that NRT is quite a ways from Tokyo city centre, but I've spent a lot of time in Japan and hotels are generally not anywhere close to 4-5 times cheaper than in the US. United must negotiate corporate rates at SFO hotels like the Hilton, where I often see flight crews, for what, maybe $125-$150 per night? You're telling me there are hotels near NRT (not to mention Tokyo) that are less than $100 equivalent? Rooms for $40 or 4000 yen per night?

Or are you comparing the cost of putting US-based FAs in Tokyo hotels compared to the full cost of maintaining Tokyo-based employees (social costs, etc.)? That would make more sense to me. I've found SF and Tokyo hotel costs to be comparable, if not generally more expensive in Tokyo.

If I understand from my UA FA friends, they stay in hotels in the town of Narita (cute town, by the way) that is quite outside Tokyo. Because of that, the costs are much lower than in major US cities.

christao17 wrote:

EddieMunster wrote:

mmahpeel wrote:

Hotel expense is a major consideration in determining where an airline bases crew and was usually, but not always, the driving factor at UA.

In this regard, NRT never made sense as the hotels in NRT have traditionally been quite inexpensive relative to most of the US destinations served out of NRT. For example – if you take the assignment of flying between SFO and NRT, it is much less expensive to lay a SFO-based FA at the NRT hotel versus a NRT-based FA who is at the SFO hotel. I’m talking on the magnitude of 4-5 times as much more expensive in SFO for 1 night versus NRT.

Is this true? I get that UA's decision is obviously cost-based, and I realize that NRT is quite a ways from Tokyo city centre, but I've spent a lot of time in Japan and hotels are generally not anywhere close to 4-5 times cheaper than in the US. United must negotiate corporate rates at SFO hotels like the Hilton, where I often see flight crews, for what, maybe $125-$150 per night? You're telling me there are hotels near NRT (not to mention Tokyo) that are less than $100 equivalent? Rooms for $40 or 4000 yen per night?

Or are you comparing the cost of putting US-based FAs in Tokyo hotels compared to the full cost of maintaining Tokyo-based employees (social costs, etc.)? That would make more sense to me. I've found SF and Tokyo hotel costs to be comparable, if not generally more expensive in Tokyo.

If I understand from my UA FA friends, they stay in hotels in the town of Narita (cute town, by the way) that is quite outside Tokyo. Because of that, the costs are much lower than in major US cities.

Do you have any idea how far in time NRT is from Tokyo? Pretty much out of the question going to Tokyo. There was a time when UAL had as many as 600 crewmembers a night staying In NRT. That's some serious money.

Pi7472000 wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

Bad for the foreign crews, but good for the U.S. based FAs who will now get to fly more of these routes. If it helps save more U.S. jobs overall, great news.

Not for the customer!!! The foreign crews were much more professional and service oriented than the U.S. based crews. UA can't compete against foreign airlines or Delta nearly as well because they have some crews that are not professional and provide really poor service from the U.S.

Agreed. 95% of my trips between IAD and NRT is via ANA, in the rare occasion, I'll take UA (though I loath UA overall), simply because the flight is staffed by a Japanese FAs. Service quality between a US and a Jpn crew is astonishing. The only other large gap in service might be when compared to AA. Sorry, to any AA loyalists out there, but I have not once had any level of acceptable service quality from an AA flight. I have literally seen better service at a Carl Jrs, than a flight on American.

Judge1310 wrote:

occasional foreign base - USA hub with the occasional smattering of 6-day trips that would send them either domestically or to another international destination. E.g. for a while, earlier this year, NRT based FAs were operating NRT-SFO-ICN-SFO-NRT along with NRT-EWR-LHR-EWR-NRT and others.

-The international bases never have had flying assigned to them containing working flight segments in the 50 US states, as a majority of those based at these locations do not have legal status to work in the US.

-NRT did not fly those 6-day 'W' pattern trips you reference earlier this year - that was HKG and was done to assign sufficient flying hours into HKG as to provide enough work for the population assigned there.

jetskipper wrote:

So what is a co-terminal ?

As far as airline staffing goes, it is when pilots and flight attendants are responsible for staffing flights out of more than one airport in a metropolitan area. For example an LAX FA’s trips could start out of LAX, SNA, BUR or ONT. In New York LGA, JFK and EWR. In DC DCA, IAD and BWI. I know this is common for US carriers, not sure of it’s prevalence at non-US carriers.[/quote]

Don't forget that UA opened some sort of co-terminal seasonal setup at new bases as of last year such as SAN, PHX, MCO etc. Not sure if those are still around because of COVID, but IIRC it allowed F/A's staffed at larger bases to move their trips out to airports locally to where they live (I think, it's been a while since there's been much news on this.)

Not sure how it works in the US, but could United sponsor the native crews to get a work visa if they wanted to transfer?

Not that I think many would uproot their lives and move, but 20+ years in your career is a lot to give up.

N649DL wrote:

Don't forget that UA opened some sort of co-terminal seasonal setup at new bases as of last year such as SAN, PHX, MCO etc. Not sure if those are still around because of COVID, but IIRC it allowed F/A's staffed at larger bases to move their trips out to airports locally to where they live (I think, it's been a while since there's been much news on this.)

Those are called satellite bases, not co-terminals. In scheduling, you can begin a trip out of one co-terminal and end in another (eg, contract dependent, start in DCA and end in IAD - it is considered a full circuit). With satellites, all flying must end and begin out of the same airport (eg, start in SAN, end in SAN). Specific pilot/FA contracts can restrict how this is all done, but there is a distinction. These satellites, as of now, still exist and feed off of their primary bases at the hubs.

Source: I have crewed flights for two of the US3 for the majority of the past decade.

Blerg wrote:

I wonder if this means that we will see a reduction in flights to FRA especially since UA has been expanding their European network for a while now so there is less need for transfers via Lufthansa.

That won't be the case; if there are less flights to FRA it won't have anything to do with closing down the FRA base but with either the pandemic or other commercial reasons.

guy739 wrote:

Not sure how it works in the US, but could United sponsor the native crews to get a work visa if they wanted to transfer?

Not that I think many would uproot their lives and move, but 20+ years in your career is a lot to give up.

The US immigration system no longer supports permanent residency petitions/sponsorships for flight attendants. It does not fall within the jobs/professions approved.

Back in the 60s and up to some point in the 70s, one was hired by Pan Am overseas, say Tokyo, and within a few months one could move to the US as a permanent resident after being sponsored by PAA to work out of the US bases: MIA, SFO. HNL, JFK, etc..

N649DL wrote:

jetskipper wrote:

So what is a co-terminal ?

As far as airline staffing goes, it is when pilots and flight attendants are responsible for staffing flights out of more than one airport in a metropolitan area. For example an LAX FA’s trips could start out of LAX, SNA, BUR or ONT. In New York LGA, JFK and EWR. In DC DCA, IAD and BWI. I know this is common for US carriers, not sure of it’s prevalence at non-US carriers.

Don't forget that UA opened some sort of co-terminal seasonal setup at new bases as of last year such as SAN, PHX, MCO etc. Not sure if those are still around because of COVID, but IIRC it allowed F/A's staffed at larger bases to move their trips out to airports locally to where they live (I think, it's been a while since there's been much news on this.)

For non -US airlines, it depends on the airline and what type of contract they have with their F/As:Two that come to mind:

* BA crews either fly out of Heathrow (worldwide/mixed fleet/european crews), out of Gatwick (LGW contract) or out of London CIty (City Flyer contract).

* Local Airlines in Buenos Aires all use the co-terminal concept, flying out of EZE, AEP or EPA per the roster. This applies mostly to AR/AU or LA.

mmahpeel wrote:

Judge1310 wrote:

occasional foreign base - USA hub with the occasional smattering of 6-day trips that would send them either domestically or to another international destination. E.g. for a while, earlier this year, NRT based FAs were operating NRT-SFO-ICN-SFO-NRT along with NRT-EWR-LHR-EWR-NRT and others.

-The international bases never have had flying assigned to them containing working flight segments in the 50 US states, as a majority of those based at these locations do not have legal status to work in the US.

-NRT did not fly those 6-day 'W' pattern trips you reference earlier this year - that was HKG and was done to assign sufficient flying hours into HKG as to provide enough work for the population assigned there.

My apologies for forgetting that it was HKG crews and not NRT... (same difference with respect to foreign bases). What you failed to reference was the specific pairings that I spoke of. So, indeed, NRT did trips to ICN via SFO (mixed with SFO LQ FAs) and HKG did trips to LHR.

The *MAIN* idea was that foreign based FAs at UA can also work legs that aren't just from their base to a US hub.

dcajet wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I wonder if this means that we will see a reduction in flights to FRA especially since UA has been expanding their European network for a while now so there is less need for transfers via Lufthansa.

That won't be the case; if there are less flights to FRA it won't have anything to do with closing down the FRA base but with either the pandemic or other commercial reasons.

Obviously they would be shutting down the crew base and the reducing flights if they were seeing weaker performance, not a good one.

Acey559 wrote:

Are these FAs AFA represented? Makes me wonder that if they’re not, and the predominance can’t or won’t transfer to US bases, then there’s some semblance of job security for US based FAs come October. Or at least a smaller number of potential furloughs.

All UAL IFS is AFA the only bases recelty not AFA we’re BKK SIN TPE

jplatts wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

The NRT base closure kind of makes sense. Over time, I would think UA's footprint at NRT will shrink further as a consequence of routes moving to HND. I would think what will eventually be left at NRT for UA in 18-24 months as the industry (hopefully recovers) will be a SFO-NRT and maybe HNL-NRT. The decision on FRA also kind of makes sense, as the longest stage length services UA has there (non-COVID are SFO and DEN). The rest of the UA portfolio at FRA can be easily staffed with US based flight attendants.

UA's Star Alliance partner NH has hubs at NRT and HND, and FRA is a major hub for UA's Star Alliance partner LH. NH also has nonstop service to some UA hubs in the US from both NRT and HND, and LH also has nonstop service to some UA hubs in the US from FRA.

Lufhty has pretty much flights too all of Yonited hubs

jetskipper wrote:

As far as airline staffing goes, it is when pilots and flight attendants are responsible for staffing flights out of more than one airport in a metropolitan area. For example an LAX FA’s trips could start out of LAX, SNA, BUR or ONT. In New York LGA, JFK and EWR. In DC DCA, IAD and BWI. I know this is common for US carriers, not sure of it’s prevalence at non-US carriers.

panam330 wrote:

Those are called satellite bases, not co-terminals. In scheduling, you can begin a trip out of one co-terminal and end in another (eg, contract dependent, start in DCA and end in IAD - it is considered a full circuit). With satellites, all flying must end and begin out of the same airport (eg, start in SAN, end in SAN). Specific pilot/FA contracts can restrict how this is all done, but there is a distinction. These satellites, as of now, still exist and feed off of their primary bases at the hubs.

Source: I have crewed flights for two of the US3 for the majority of the past decade.

what's to stop an airline as designating NRT + HND as co-terminals
flight attendant contracts?

does UA consider EWR+LGA as co-terminals for crewing?
I'm guessing that the definition for crewing is different than for fare rules (NRT and HND are considered co-terminals under UA fare rules)

paperwastage wrote:

jetskipper wrote:

As far as airline staffing goes, it is when pilots and flight attendants are responsible for staffing flights out of more than one airport in a metropolitan area. For example an LAX FA’s trips could start out of LAX, SNA, BUR or ONT. In New York LGA, JFK and EWR. In DC DCA, IAD and BWI. I know this is common for US carriers, not sure of it’s prevalence at non-US carriers.

panam330 wrote:

Those are called satellite bases, not co-terminals. In scheduling, you can begin a trip out of one co-terminal and end in another (eg, contract dependent, start in DCA and end in IAD - it is considered a full circuit). With satellites, all flying must end and begin out of the same airport (eg, start in SAN, end in SAN). Specific pilot/FA contracts can restrict how this is all done, but there is a distinction. These satellites, as of now, still exist and feed off of their primary bases at the hubs.

Source: I have crewed flights for two of the US3 for the majority of the past decade.

what's to stop an airline as designating NRT + HND as co-terminals
flight attendant contracts?

does UA consider EWR+LGA as co-terminals for crewing?
I'm guessing that the definition for crewing is different than for fare rules (NRT and HND are considered co-terminals under UA fare rules)

These are the designated co-termianls in UAs F/A contract. I would assume UA and AFA would need to negotiate NRT-HND as a co-terminal if they wanted it to be.

EWR-LGA-JFK
BWI-IAD-DCA
MDW-ORD
OAK-SFO
BUR-LAX-SNA

AA can never closed the South American bases because if I am not mistaken that is part of the deal with those counties. They must hire cabin crews to fly at lease 25% of the flights correct me if am wrong.

If UA wanted foreign crews to work in US, they can sponsor some crews for H1b visa, or can sponsor them on L-1 visa intra company transfer for some senior crews, while FA is not a specialized occupation, the language skills that many of these FA's possess is a specialty. Especially if a FA can speak multiple languages, I am sure it will be easy for UA to sponsor.

Coexstud wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

Are these FAs AFA represented? Makes me wonder that if they’re not, and the predominance can’t or won’t transfer to US bases, then there’s some semblance of job security for US based FAs come October. Or at least a smaller number of potential furloughs.

All UAL IFS is AFA the only bases recelty not AFA we’re BKK SIN TPE

TPE was an AFA base. Only BKK & SIN were non-AFA bases.

Also, apparently UA & AFA were in discussion about making NRT & HND co-terminals, which made the announcement to close NRT even more of a shock.

skystar767 wrote:

AA can never closed the South American bases because if I am not mistaken that is part of the deal with those counties. They must hire cabin crews to fly at lease 25% of the flights correct me if am wrong.

I am unsure as to what deal you are referring to. Those bases were grandfathered by American and date back to the Braniff & Panagra days. I am not familiar with any government agreement that still stands, at least for Argentina (maybe there was one in the 50s, IDK). If American still operates a base there, it's because at some level it makes business sense to them; it can be closed down at their sole will and the local authorities have no say if American increases the base staffing levels, etc. Along the same lines, BA had a base at EZE too and was closed in 2018.

In the case of the EZE base, they only fly one of the daily services to MIA (or used to... to speak in more accurate terms, as well as the now cancelled COR-MIA service 4x w), and that is because the AA contract with the US F/A union that has fences built around what flights the foreign nationals can staff. They can't fly to JFK, DFW or LAX, but they can fly from MIA to other international destinations in the region. No US domestic sectors are allowed. These F/As are licensed by the FAA, but they work for American Airlines in Argentina, are subject to local labor and airline laws and regulations, and are represented by the major F/A union in Argentina.

Perhaps a stupid question, but would someone please explain exactly what these crew bases consist of? Is it a block of rooms at a hotel and an office somewhere? I'm thinking the base means that FA's can actually live in HKG (and other cities) and they work flights primarily with others who live in that same city? Thanks-

n92r03 wrote:

Perhaps a stupid question, but would someone please explain exactly what these crew bases consist of? Is it a block of rooms at a hotel and an office somewhere? I'm thinking the base means that FA's can actually live in HKG (and other cities) and they work flights primarily with others who live in that same city? Thanks-

The latter - an airline from country A hires local nationals/residents at country B to staff their flights to/from that location, based on their business/operational needs.

BravoOne wrote:

christao17 wrote:

EddieMunster wrote:

Do you have any idea how far in time NRT is from Tokyo? Pretty much out of the question going to Tokyo. There was a time when UAL had as many as 600 crewmembers a night staying In NRT. That's some serious money.

Uh, yes, it's about an hour on the Narita Express to Tokyo Station. I've been travelling to Japan 3-4 times a year for 30 years, so yeah, I have a pretty good idea where NRT is. What I haven't done is stayed at a hotel around Narita, hence my surprise at their low cost. I've travelled extensively around other larger cities in Japan as well, and don't ever recall seeing prices below 10,000 yen/night for good western-standard business hotels like the ANA. But I believe what the experts who have actually stayed at Narita are telling me.

EddieMunster wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

christao17 wrote:

Uh, yes, it's about an hour on the Narita Express to Tokyo Station. I've been travelling to Japan 3-4 times a year for 30 years, so yeah, I have a pretty good idea where NRT is. What I haven't done is stayed at a hotel around Narita, hence my surprise at their low cost. I've travelled extensively around other larger cities in Japan as well, and don't ever recall seeing prices below 10,000 yen/night for good western-standard business hotels like the ANA. But I believe what the experts who have actually stayed at Narita are telling me.

What you are missing is that most airlines crews are not interested in jumping on a train and after a long trip into NRT. While you sat there and lapped up the service and shut eye, they worked the trip. I guarantee you that a shower, meal/beer far outweigh the sights of Tokyo regardless of the accommodations and pricing. NRT actually has any number of nice hotels and the town is but short hotel bus ride, All of the crews know the routine and can opt in or out as desired. You should give it a try sometime.

As part of the 16,000 staff being furloughed, United is about to eliminate 270 flight attendant positions at Tokyo Narita. A further shrink of UAL' s operations.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-a ... 35623.html

Surprised it was still open.

I take it LHR/FRA are the only foreign FA bases left? I think HKG was just recently closed.

Were these crew solely NRT based or TYO in general ? If it's the former, given UA was already shifting flights to HND pre-covid, this was probably bound to happen

iadadd wrote:

Were these crew solely NRT based or TYO in general ? If it's the former, given UA was already shifting flights to HND pre-covid, this was probably bound to happen

My ubderstanding it was just NRT based

FRA & HKG are closing as well.

Pretty old news. Base closures were announced back in June!

HKG, NRT and FRA are all closing the flight attendant domiciles Oct. 1. It was announced in June.

The closure of the FA domicile will not have a direct correlation on UA operations out of NRT, but they'll probably be reduced from pre-COVID levels due to the worldwide demand collapse.

Mainland crews staffed the HND flights and NRTSW only flew trips starting and ending at Narita. At least at UA, overseas bases are generally disfavored by mainland flight attendants since they occupy more desirable lines of flying that would otherwise be staffed by FAs from larger stateside domiciles, often at slightly lower seniority. WIthout international tag flying, the overseas domiciles really don't make much sense unless (like in London) the local hotel market is astronomically expensive.

What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

jetawayusa wrote:

What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

What's the basis for your statement? Do you have facts or are you making an assumption?

jetawayusa wrote:

What is crazy is that US tax payers under the "Cares Act" paid for the salary of foreign workers// Flight Attendants (non Citizens and Green Card holders) based in Tokyo Frankfurt and London.

Green card holders are US taxpayers- if you're going to troll at least get your facts straight.

I have merged the new thread into the existing thread on that subject.