Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:47 pm

One more reason why the the current system of using other companies to operate flights on your behalf is just wrong.
When the planes purposely look the same, when you board thru the same gates, when the gate and flight attendants uniforms look the same. And when the flight are marketed and sold on the mainline carriers website (with FF points too) the impression that it's the same. Until it's not.
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4924
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:54 am

txjim wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Caspian27 wrote:

Violins of the level that a professional plays are extremely expensive and there’s no way they would ever let it be put in the cargo compartment.

True and some are considered protected artworks, which is why we have these federal laws protecting such instruments from being subjected to the outside weather extremes and the abuse that bags receive in the baggage systems.


Do musicians with expensive instruments not purchase a seat for expensive items?

Some absolutely do. A few years ago I sat next to a man on a DEN-LGA flight who had purchased a seat for his guitar.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:11 am

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
Thank you all for the responses! This is truly proving to be an interesting debate - and most importantly, very respectful.

Question: If a person is allowed only one personal item that must fit under the seat, then what are the overhead bins for? I know that some very small aircraft have no overhead bins at all, but even the smallest Embraers have some sort of bin - so if the violin can't go in there, what is it for?

I'm not following the part about "one item only under the seat" in regards to jets that HAVE overhead bins.


Coats would be one example. That's about all that fits up there anyway (joking).

There's also no rule against putting a personal item up there instead of under the seat to allow yourself actual legroom. I have a laptop bag that I've carried onto 145s and put into the bins, for another example. The difference between that and a mainline bin is that on an E145, anything that fits in the bin by definition also fits under the seat and so qualifies as a personal item. Not so with mainline or even large regionals.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10465
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:08 pm

bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".
 
bigb
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:22 pm

airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".


That’s cool, that’s fine that you’ve flown so many years just As I worked and flown for the regionals at a 50 seat operator and have heard the term readily across the industry and very familiar with what our flight ops manuals, opspecs (both which the FAA signs off on this dictating policy). Now consider yourself educated, there are such thing as a no-carry on airline and it’s very common amongst 50 seat operators because of the OHB space being unable to accommodate a normal size carry-on like mainline and large RJs can accommodate.
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:00 pm

That FA would never have had a job with BA in the 1970s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwgG6b5Pypo

:D
 
bluecrew
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:27 pm

airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".

Sure - but have you ever worked at a regional?

Imagine driving to the airport every day to fly clapped out E145s that should have been turned into soda cans years ago, 5 legs in the summer heat with a ground air cart being a rare luxury reserved for truly primo destinations like the RJ gates at IAD. If you're flying the thing, you make okay money these days, but the sense of dread is real because you've seen friends go down with Compass/TSA/ExpressJet/etc.
If you're the flight attendant, same as above, but you're solo in the back, dealing with irate passengers who, honestly these days, just seem pissed off, and you're pulling down what... $14/hr?

I looked up their contract, first year pay for an FA is $19.02/hr, with about $2 per diem, and a 4 hour guarantee per duty day.
***Fancy math to get flight pay in line with duty day***
That's like $14-15/hr or less, you make more at Target.

If you want to get the customer experience of mainline, pay them like mainline.

Also yes, no carry-on airlines are very real. An E145 barely has room for crew bags. The closet is a handy little stowage compartment, but with the crew bags in there it's really only helpful if you have to hang something like a jacket up.

I'm pretty dubious on this story. I bet she got told by the agent it probably had to go under, and that's why she approached the airplane with the camera already running. My read of this is this passenger was looking for a fight to get her ten minutes of fame, and then she immediately went crying to local news. What's unfortunate is this is a per trip occurrence, if you work 9-12 legs over 3 or 4 days, at least one of those now something stupid happens/police get called/customer service supervisors come down to meet the plane.

Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument? It's not as if tickets are horrifically expensive right now. I've done a few trips this summer and paid full fare for my travel because I don't want to be in the back with a badge on. :lol: So far no trip has been over $200 round trip.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3547
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:09 pm

bluecrew wrote:
airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".

Sure - but have you ever worked at a regional?

Imagine driving to the airport every day to fly clapped out E145s that should have been turned into soda cans years ago, 5 legs in the summer heat with a ground air cart being a rare luxury reserved for truly primo destinations like the RJ gates at IAD. If you're flying the thing, you make okay money these days, but the sense of dread is real because you've seen friends go down with Compass/TSA/ExpressJet/etc.
If you're the flight attendant, same as above, but you're solo in the back, dealing with irate passengers who, honestly these days, just seem pissed off, and you're pulling down what... $14/hr?

I looked up their contract, first year pay for an FA is $19.02/hr, with about $2 per diem, and a 4 hour guarantee per duty day.
***Fancy math to get flight pay in line with duty day***
That's like $14-15/hr or less, you make more at Target.

If you want to get the customer experience of mainline, pay them like mainline.

Also yes, no carry-on airlines are very real. An E145 barely has room for crew bags. The closet is a handy little stowage compartment, but with the crew bags in there it's really only helpful if you have to hang something like a jacket up.

I'm pretty dubious on this story. I bet she got told by the agent it probably had to go under, and that's why she approached the airplane with the camera already running. My read of this is this passenger was looking for a fight to get her ten minutes of fame, and then she immediately went crying to local news. What's unfortunate is this is a per trip occurrence, if you work 9-12 legs over 3 or 4 days, at least one of those now something stupid happens/police get called/customer service supervisors come down to meet the plane.

Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument? It's not as if tickets are horrifically expensive right now. I've done a few trips this summer and paid full fare for my travel because I don't want to be in the back with a badge on. :lol: So far no trip has been over $200 round trip.


Exactly. There are regionals out there that actually treat their employees somewhat decently, and there are regionals that treat them like trash. Commutair is cleanly in the trash category.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:18 pm

bluecrew wrote:
airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument? It's not as if tickets are horrifically expensive right now. I've done a few trips this summer and paid full fare for my travel because I don't want to be in the back with a badge on. :lol: So far no trip has been over $200 round trip.


I suspect but don't know that the reason is that she was on a connecting itinerary. Someone up-thread suggested her itinerary was TYS-IAD-FRA, and of course the violin would fit in the bin for the long leg. So she'd have to buy a separate TYS-IAD for an inanimate object, which probably requires a call to reservations (good luck!) as it'd still need to link to her own PNR or pay for a seat the whole way through, which would be a lot more than $200.

Also, you're lucky with the pricing: TYS-IAD in particular is usually $275+ for the nonstop, especially booked as a one-way.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:54 pm

bluecrew wrote:
airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".

Sure - but have you ever worked at a regional?

Imagine driving to the airport every day to fly clapped out E145s that should have been turned into soda cans years ago, 5 legs in the summer heat with a ground air cart being a rare luxury reserved for truly primo destinations like the RJ gates at IAD. If you're flying the thing, you make okay money these days, but the sense of dread is real because you've seen friends go down with Compass/TSA/ExpressJet/etc.
If you're the flight attendant, same as above, but you're solo in the back, dealing with irate passengers who, honestly these days, just seem pissed off, and you're pulling down what... $14/hr?

I looked up their contract, first year pay for an FA is $19.02/hr, with about $2 per diem, and a 4 hour guarantee per duty day.
***Fancy math to get flight pay in line with duty day***
That's like $14-15/hr or less, you make more at Target.

If you want to get the customer experience of mainline, pay them like mainline.

Also yes, no carry-on airlines are very real. An E145 barely has room for crew bags. The closet is a handy little stowage compartment, but with the crew bags in there it's really only helpful if you have to hang something like a jacket up.

I'm pretty dubious on this story. I bet she got told by the agent it probably had to go under, and that's why she approached the airplane with the camera already running. My read of this is this passenger was looking for a fight to get her ten minutes of fame, and then she immediately went crying to local news. What's unfortunate is this is a per trip occurrence, if you work 9-12 legs over 3 or 4 days, at least one of those now something stupid happens/police get called/customer service supervisors come down to meet the plane.

Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument? It's not as if tickets are horrifically expensive right now. I've done a few trips this summer and paid full fare for my travel because I don't want to be in the back with a badge on. :lol: So far no trip has been over $200 round trip.



Amen brother!
 
bluecrew
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:01 pm

Giving myself PTSD from the WSCOD days... :lol:
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:29 pm

airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA...


What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10465
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:42 pm

bigb wrote:
airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".


That’s cool, that’s fine that you’ve flown so many years just As I worked and flown for the regionals at a 50 seat operator and have heard the term readily across the industry and very familiar with what our flight ops manuals, opspecs (both which the FAA signs off on this dictating policy). Now consider yourself educated, there are such thing as a no-carry on airline and it’s very common amongst 50 seat operators because of the OHB space being unable to accommodate a normal size carry-on like mainline and large RJs can accommodate.


You just made my point. Just because you work in the industry and know it exists don't assume that every single passenger knows it exists especially when it is not stated anywhere when one buys a ticket.

bluecrew wrote:
Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument?

Maybe because she was never informed at any point during the booking process that a) she was not going to be able to take it as a carry-on and b) that she had the option to do that. There's also the possibility that if she's part of an orchestra (as the OP link implies), that someone else actually handled her travel plans. At the end of the day there is such as thing a customer service and common sense which far too many people seem to lack these days.
 
AMALH747430
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:09 pm

Years ago I bought a little bag with wheels that can fit in a CRJ or ERJ overhead bin. The bag was upright rather than horizontal like a rolling briefcase. Never had any trouble on American Eagle (MQ 135/40/45s) with it, but at some point it got to where Expressjet FAs consistently threw a fit about it. I finally gave up and bought a different bag. Haven’t had any trouble since. I’ll also say, that even though I dread the CRJ-200, I never have a problem taking my small small roller bag and my backpack on board Skywest CR2 flights.

I’m glad the captain intervened and got the situation handled as it should’ve been. Experiences like these can cost the mainline carrier business. FAs throwing a fit about my bag was one reason I took a year and a half hiatus from UA, even though I was an elite.
 
bigb
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:28 pm

airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
airbazar wrote:
And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".


That’s cool, that’s fine that you’ve flown so many years just As I worked and flown for the regionals at a 50 seat operator and have heard the term readily across the industry and very familiar with what our flight ops manuals, opspecs (both which the FAA signs off on this dictating policy). Now consider yourself educated, there are such thing as a no-carry on airline and it’s very common amongst 50 seat operators because of the OHB space being unable to accommodate a normal size carry-on like mainline and large RJs can accommodate.


You just made my point. Just because you work in the industry and know it exists don't assume that every single passenger knows it exists especially when it is not stated anywhere when one buys a ticket.

bluecrew wrote:
Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument?

Maybe because she was never informed at any point during the booking process that a) she was not going to be able to take it as a carry-on and b) that she had the option to do that. There's also the possibility that if she's part of an orchestra (as the OP link implies), that someone else actually handled her travel plans. At the end of the day there is such as thing a customer service and common sense which far too many people seem to lack these days.


That’s because the no-carry policy isn’t clear to passengers up front, but the policy is there, folks just have to do some digging, I don’t disagree with you. so iBy all means, it’s frustrating for crews and passengers both as I’ve stated multiple times up thread. I’ve seen this dog and pony show too many times as a crew member and had to step in multiple times as a Captain to back my FAs up and defuse the situation. I understand the frustration hence why my stance is for these 50 seaters to go-away or be reconfigured in a way that allows carry-on baggage. However, that’s a unrealistic expectation as these planes print money for mainline carriers.

In your average passengers’ mind, all planes are the same and should be have bins that accommodate their carry-ons. Once they find out “oh shit I can’t carry my bag on” it is a disruption to their expectations which results in acceptance or being pissed off and want to stir drama. Those single FAs are only trying to do their jobs and follow company policy, get through the boarding process in a safe manner, and get the door shut for a on-time departure.
.
 
bigb
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:33 pm

AMALH747430 wrote:
Years ago I bought a little bag with wheels that can fit in a CRJ or ERJ overhead bin. The bag was upright rather than horizontal like a rolling briefcase. Never had any trouble on American Eagle (MQ 135/40/45s) with it, but at some point it got to where Expressjet FAs consistently threw a fit about it. I finally gave up and bought a different bag. Haven’t had any trouble since. I’ll also say, that even though I dread the CRJ-200, I never have a problem taking my small small roller bag and my backpack on board Skywest CR2 flights.

I’m glad the captain intervened and got the situation handled as it should’ve been. Experiences like these can cost the mainline carrier business. FAs throwing a fit about my bag was one reason I took a year and a half hiatus from UA, even though I was an elite.


Most FA’s are good at spotting which bags will be a issue with the OHBs and will bend that no-carry on policy for bags that really aren’t supposed to come onboard per policy from my experience and some take a hardline approach to enforcing that no-carry policy. I already made my stance know about it from a crew member and passenger perspective as I’ve been on both sides of the coin.
 
USAirKid
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:17 am

FlyHossD wrote:
airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
This isn’t a customer service related issue, this is issue of policy being enforced due to a no-carry baggage program due to the limitations of a 50 seat aircraft. You want this problem to go-away, tell United to get rid of their 50 seat aircraft or find a way to configure them in a way that allows carry-ons. This goes into opspecs and flight operation manual of the operator which you can’t have a single opspec or flight ops manual for multiple operating certificates.

And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA...


What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.
 
bluecrew
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:57 pm

USAirKid wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
airbazar wrote:
And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA...


What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.

100%.

From the video it looked like she just approached the airplane ready for a fight, phone drawn and already recording. And who turned this extremely common little scuffle with an FA into a local news article?

The pax wanted attention. Judging by this thread she succeeded.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4705
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:06 pm

bluecrew wrote:
USAirKid wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.

100%.

From the video it looked like she just approached the airplane ready for a fight, phone drawn and already recording. And who turned this extremely common little scuffle with an FA into a local news article?

The pax wanted attention. Judging by this thread she succeeded.


That is still a customer service failure. The airlines are always in a no-win situation. They need to train to diffuse and resolve situations. Clearly the captain was able to diffuse and resolve the situation, why was the FA not trained in how to deal with this. United has loosened up on delay codes. Stop the boarding, get a customer service supervisor involved. You are still at the gate with plenty of options for support and backup. Why engage the customer? Say “I am following my manual, but just to be sure of everything let me get a customer service supervisor down here so we can figure this out.”

She instead escalated the situation and made it worse, and the captain who should be worried about other things had to do her job to resolve the problem. This was a training issue no doubt.
 
BestIntellect
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:20 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:13 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
Ah, more quality product from CommutAir. I deal with them daily and they are a three-ring-circus of an airline. I don't know how much United saves in operating costs, but they must easily cost the company way more in unreliable operations and service.


If they don't code share with them they'll code share with some other equally lousy regional.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14741
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Mon Sep 06, 2021 12:06 pm

Ertro wrote:
A violin can be worth 10 million dollars. If this rule would not be in place there would be absolutely no possibility for orchestras to travel in any way because putting 10 million dollar item into cargo hold is clearly out of the question as is sending it with UPS or FEDEX. It will get stolen. These violins are owned by billionaires who have enough sway to write laws that suit them and then write a contract with violinists that they are allowed to play the violin with the condition that it never ever leaves their sight.

What I don't understand is the silliness with emotional support giraffes. Also big percentage of overhead bins are taken be duty-free booze which to my belief is less important item that should be cut first.


You talk about millions and billions : spend some of it to buy a seat for the instrument, problem solved.
 
User avatar
ua900
Moderator
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:39 pm

IADCA wrote:
bluecrew wrote:
airbazar wrote:


I suspect but don't know that the reason is that she was on a connecting itinerary. Someone up-thread suggested her itinerary was TYS-IAD-FRA, and of course the violin would fit in the bin for the long leg. So she'd have to buy a separate TYS-IAD for an inanimate object, which probably requires a call to reservations (good luck!) as it'd still need to link to her own PNR or pay for a seat the whole way through, which would be a lot more than $200.

Also, you're lucky with the pricing: TYS-IAD in particular is usually $275+ for the nonstop, especially booked as a one-way.


airbazar wrote:
bigb wrote:
airbazar wrote:
And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA which is ironic since it should be the other way around.
This has become an interesting topic and what makes it interesting to me is despite the fact that I have flown a lot in my 50+ years and been on this forum for a good 18 years I have never heard of such a thing as a "no-carry-on airline".


That’s cool, that’s fine that you’ve flown so many years just As I worked and flown for the regionals at a 50 seat operator and have heard the term readily across the industry and very familiar with what our flight ops manuals, opspecs (both which the FAA signs off on this dictating policy). Now consider yourself educated, there are such thing as a no-carry on airline and it’s very common amongst 50 seat operators because of the OHB space being unable to accommodate a normal size carry-on like mainline and large RJs can accommodate.


You just made my point. Just because you work in the industry and know it exists don't assume that every single passenger knows it exists especially when it is not stated anywhere when one buys a ticket.

bluecrew wrote:
Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument?

Maybe because she was never informed at any point during the booking process that a) she was not going to be able to take it as a carry-on and b) that she had the option to do that. There's also the possibility that if she's part of an orchestra (as the OP link implies), that someone else actually handled her travel plans. At the end of the day there is such as thing a customer service and common sense which far too many people seem to lack these days.


Actually, it was FRA-IAD-TYS-IAD-FRA since she's based in the FRA area as a member of the Frankfurt Radio Symphony. So her boarding at TYS would be the first leg of her return trip. She *knew* from her inbound flight on the same carrier and the same aircraft type that her violin could be an issue. Moreover, as a self-described *A Gold member, she has access to the Premier Priority Desk number, connecting her with little or no wait to highly trained representatives are UA's most qualified agents. Even if she were *A Gold via LH she'd still have access to their exclusive service hotline. This particular situation isn't a "babe in the woods" scenario, it's premeditated.

bluecrew wrote:
USAirKid wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.

100%.

From the video it looked like she just approached the airplane ready for a fight, phone drawn and already recording. And who turned this extremely common little scuffle with an FA into a local news article?

The pax wanted attention. Judging by this thread she succeeded.


Yup, and given that it was her *return* trip she knew why the camera was rolling as she approached. Sometimes I work in another semi-volunteer job where I often process hundreds of people at a time in a regulated environment. Most people who work at a place like that can sense when an exceptional, potentially troublesome individual approaches them. Your interaction will tend to become more "by the book" as a result. Doesn't matter whether you're a F/A, a cop, a judge, or a Chick-fil-A worker. A little mutual respect will go a long way, especially if you'll be stuck in a metal tube with that person for a couple of hours. As a 1K who was on a regional flight with subpar bins as recently as last night, I can tell you that I'm not excited about them either, but picking a fight is the last thing I would do.
 
Lootess
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:31 pm

I'm pretty sure a SA Gold member usually knows the drill, so that was the first problem with Commutair. Violins are pretty easy to put in a regional overhead. Some are so dense to realize these aren't student-level instruments you just buy on Amazon for cheap.

My $4k guitar has a place in the mainline bin if I bring it.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:10 am

bluecrew wrote:
Sure - but have you ever worked at a regional?

Imagine driving to the airport every day to fly clapped out E145s that should have been turned into soda cans years ago, 5 legs in the summer heat with a ground air cart being a rare luxury reserved for truly primo destinations like the RJ gates at IAD. If you're flying the thing, you make okay money these days, but the sense of dread is real because you've seen friends go down with Compass/TSA/ExpressJet/etc.
If you're the flight attendant, same as above, but you're solo in the back, dealing with irate passengers who, honestly these days, just seem pissed off, and you're pulling down what... $14/hr?

I looked up their contract, first year pay for an FA is $19.02/hr, with about $2 per diem, and a 4 hour guarantee per duty day.
***Fancy math to get flight pay in line with duty day***
That's like $14-15/hr or less, you make more at Target.

If you want to get the customer experience of mainline, pay them like mainline.

Also yes, no carry-on airlines are very real. An E145 barely has room for crew bags. The closet is a handy little stowage compartment, but with the crew bags in there it's really only helpful if you have to hang something like a jacket up.

I'm pretty dubious on this story. I bet she got told by the agent it probably had to go under, and that's why she approached the airplane with the camera already running. My read of this is this passenger was looking for a fight to get her ten minutes of fame, and then she immediately went crying to local news. What's unfortunate is this is a per trip occurrence, if you work 9-12 legs over 3 or 4 days, at least one of those now something stupid happens/police get called/customer service supervisors come down to meet the plane.

Also, glad this was brought up a bit before, if she's such an accomplished violinist traveling with such a priceless artifact, why did she not shell out the extra $200 for a seat for the instrument? It's not as if tickets are horrifically expensive right now. I've done a few trips this summer and paid full fare for my travel because I don't want to be in the back with a badge on. :lol: So far no trip has been over $200 round trip.


5/5 Would read again.
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:12 am

DiamondFlyer wrote:
Exactly. There are regionals out there that actually treat their employees somewhat decently...


Which ones?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15178
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:21 am

Cubsrule wrote:
planecane wrote:
airbazar wrote:
The regulation strictly states that musical instruments can only be accommodated if there's available space so technically it's not taking storage space away from anyone. But at the end of the day we know these decisions are based on money. People carrying an expensive instrument are likely to also be high value customers that the airline wants to please. An expensive instrument also carries a huge liability for the airline compared with a bag full of dirty socks. So yeah, if I'm running an airline I too would want to be nice to someone flying with a violin. It's just good business.

As for the no-carry-on airline thing. Do people really think that a German violinist who bought a ticket on UA to fly FRA-IAD-TYS and back, was ever informed at any point in the transaction that one of her legs would be flown on a "no-carry-on" airline? I would think that she might have chosen a different route or travel option if that was the case.


They can ship the instrument via an overnight air freight service and insure it themselves. Is an airline going to let me carry on a Ming Vase in an oversized carrier that still can fit in the bin because it's expensive and a huge liability as checked luggage? I highly doubt it.

They are taking storage space from others because it says the space must be available when they board. If they board 100 people ahead of me, there could be space at that time but there wouldn't have been if we swapped boarding spots.

I just don't understand why musical instruments get special treatment over any other expensive items that somebody may bring with them on a trip. I can guarantee you that a hard shell guitar case with a foam interior and a cut out custom sized and shaped for the guitar would allow it to survive just about any trip as a checked luggage.


I live in Nashville, so I see quite a few guitars - about the largest instrument that will fit in a mainline overhead - on flights. I can't think of any occasion where guitars caused the aircraft to run out of overhead space. Because they are shaped differently than normal carryons, there's a fair amount of flexibility about where they go. Anything smaller (flute, clarinet, trumpet, violin, viola) isn't really big enough to make a difference.

Back before airlines removed most of the closets and restricted the rest to crew and supplies only, the guitars would often be placed in the closets rather than the bins. Combined with 60% LF and it wasn’t an issue.
 
bluecrew
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:50 am

ikramerica wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
planecane wrote:

They can ship the instrument via an overnight air freight service and insure it themselves. Is an airline going to let me carry on a Ming Vase in an oversized carrier that still can fit in the bin because it's expensive and a huge liability as checked luggage? I highly doubt it.

They are taking storage space from others because it says the space must be available when they board. If they board 100 people ahead of me, there could be space at that time but there wouldn't have been if we swapped boarding spots.

I just don't understand why musical instruments get special treatment over any other expensive items that somebody may bring with them on a trip. I can guarantee you that a hard shell guitar case with a foam interior and a cut out custom sized and shaped for the guitar would allow it to survive just about any trip as a checked luggage.


I live in Nashville, so I see quite a few guitars - about the largest instrument that will fit in a mainline overhead - on flights. I can't think of any occasion where guitars caused the aircraft to run out of overhead space. Because they are shaped differently than normal carryons, there's a fair amount of flexibility about where they go. Anything smaller (flute, clarinet, trumpet, violin, viola) isn't really big enough to make a difference.

Back before airlines removed most of the closets and restricted the rest to crew and supplies only, the guitars would often be placed in the closets rather than the bins. Combined with 60% LF and it wasn’t an issue.

On a transport category aircraft, closets are a waste of space.

When cabins are configured, they go to the absolute minimum amount of emergency equipment stowage whenever possible, smallest footprint of service areas (for more info, see: Airbus SpaceFlex :ghost: ), as few emergency exits as possible, and fewer cabin jumpseats and lavatories. The whole idea is maximize the number of available seats. With airlines chasing the revenue of just-in-time pricing, you need as many possible seats as you can get. At B6 during the Airbus reconfig there was a rather ungainly and oddly configured closet that would take up the space of 3 seats at the back of the A320. That "cabinet" got greenlit by the CEO of the company, after inflight urged that they needed it during the reconfig committee process. It ultimately didn't make the cut because finance kept raising a fit that those three seats could make or break the entire project.

The closet is gone and will never come back. If it's there, there's usually union contract language dictating what that closet can be used for. Typically, if there's a forward closet, it is reserved for crew bag stowage, so the bags don't go in FC or economy plus OHBs.
If it doesn't fit in the overhead, check it. If it's valuable and you want it with you, do your best to explain the situation, be honest and upfront and gracious, everything you'd want your customer to do, to be right by you.

This is a business/consumer relationship. We get you there on time, in one piece, with (somewhat) good (possibly okay) service; you adhere to the government's and our sometimes odd and arbitrary rules. Hit the airplane with your phone camera on looking for a news story, the response should be removal from the aircraft and reaccomodation, free of charge, after you've calmed down. The folks that want to disrupt normal operations, be that by not wearing a mask, or driving their way into conflicts with flight crew... I don't care about the motivation or the reasoning or what's behind it, we've got an operation to run. Go grab a coffee at Starbucks and chill, there's surely another regional jet leaving in 2.75 hours for your backwater regional airport.

This summer was an untapped, constant, and hilarious disaster of staffing issues. I can't even imagine it at CommutAir which just a few years ago was a Dash-only operation out of two bases. Give 'em a break.
 
F27500
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:14 pm

Let's face it .. we're not talking about the cream of the crop here (crew-wise) with airlines like CommutAir, are we ?
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:46 pm

F27500 wrote:
Let's face it .. we're not talking about the cream of the crop here (crew-wise) with airlines like CommutAir, are we ?


Commutair management enters the chat
 
bluecrew
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:12 pm

F27500 wrote:
Let's face it .. we're not talking about the cream of the crop here (crew-wise) with airlines like CommutAir, are we ?

Nope!

According to what I heard, CommutAir needs 1-2 classes per month to keep up with pilot attrition. That's really bad... even with 100% attendance rate that's still unsustainable. There just aren't that many potential employees in the pool, and a lot of competition.

And with every major in the country trying to scoop up flight attendants, too, the good ones who didn't have the work experience or customer service bona fides to get hired at a major will move on too.

To me, two big things keep people at a regional:
1. Quality of Life - if you have a DAY or SBY base, people who live there will stay
2. Flow to mainline

CommutAir has the flow agreement in place, but who knows how that's running or what the realistic timeline is like. The little incentives - the pay raises, per diem increases, one-time retention bonuses - do not work at keeping pilots. One of my friends just told his regional to keep their $30k because he's gonna go fly boxes instead.

Regionals are more work for less pay with zero job security... they can't attract the high quality people because they've set up an incentive structure for people to quit and move on.
 
F27500
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:29 pm

bluecrew wrote:
F27500 wrote:
Let's face it .. we're not talking about the cream of the crop here (crew-wise) with airlines like CommutAir, are we ?

Nope!

According to what I heard, CommutAir needs 1-2 classes per month to keep up with pilot attrition. That's really bad... even with 100% attendance rate that's still unsustainable. There just aren't that many potential employees in the pool, and a lot of competition.

And with every major in the country trying to scoop up flight attendants, too, the good ones who didn't have the work experience or customer service bona fides to get hired at a major will move on too.

To me, two big things keep people at a regional:
1. Quality of Life - if you have a DAY or SBY base, people who live there will stay
2. Flow to mainline

CommutAir has the flow agreement in place, but who knows how that's running or what the realistic timeline is like. The little incentives - the pay raises, per diem increases, one-time retention bonuses - do not work at keeping pilots. One of my friends just told his regional to keep their $30k because he's gonna go fly boxes instead.

Regionals are more work for less pay with zero job security... they can't attract the high quality people because they've set up an incentive structure for people to quit and move on.



Its a wonder they can attract anyone .. check this out ... who could live on this ??

From INDEED.COM:
How much does a Flight Attendant make at CommutAir in the United States?
Average CommutAir Flight Attendant yearly pay in the United States is approximately $22,718, which is 32% below the national average.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3547
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:47 pm

bluecrew wrote:
F27500 wrote:
Let's face it .. we're not talking about the cream of the crop here (crew-wise) with airlines like CommutAir, are we ?

Nope!

According to what I heard, CommutAir needs 1-2 classes per month to keep up with pilot attrition. That's really bad... even with 100% attendance rate that's still unsustainable. There just aren't that many potential employees in the pool, and a lot of competition.

And with every major in the country trying to scoop up flight attendants, too, the good ones who didn't have the work experience or customer service bona fides to get hired at a major will move on too.

To me, two big things keep people at a regional:
1. Quality of Life - if you have a DAY or SBY base, people who live there will stay
2. Flow to mainline

CommutAir has the flow agreement in place, but who knows how that's running or what the realistic timeline is like. The little incentives - the pay raises, per diem increases, one-time retention bonuses - do not work at keeping pilots. One of my friends just told his regional to keep their $30k because he's gonna go fly boxes instead.

Regionals are more work for less pay with zero job security... they can't attract the high quality people because they've set up an incentive structure for people to quit and move on.


There is no flow at any United carrier. There may be interview pathways, but there is no direct flow, like American has with 3 carriers and Delta has with 1.
 
bluecrew
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:38 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
bluecrew wrote:
F27500 wrote:
Let's face it .. we're not talking about the cream of the crop here (crew-wise) with airlines like CommutAir, are we ?

Nope!

According to what I heard, CommutAir needs 1-2 classes per month to keep up with pilot attrition. That's really bad... even with 100% attendance rate that's still unsustainable. There just aren't that many potential employees in the pool, and a lot of competition.

And with every major in the country trying to scoop up flight attendants, too, the good ones who didn't have the work experience or customer service bona fides to get hired at a major will move on too.

To me, two big things keep people at a regional:
1. Quality of Life - if you have a DAY or SBY base, people who live there will stay
2. Flow to mainline

CommutAir has the flow agreement in place, but who knows how that's running or what the realistic timeline is like. The little incentives - the pay raises, per diem increases, one-time retention bonuses - do not work at keeping pilots. One of my friends just told his regional to keep their $30k because he's gonna go fly boxes instead.

Regionals are more work for less pay with zero job security... they can't attract the high quality people because they've set up an incentive structure for people to quit and move on.


There is no flow at any United carrier. There may be interview pathways, but there is no direct flow, like American has with 3 carriers and Delta has with 1.

Oh... I thought that cadet program thing they launched was a direct flow path.

If it's not that's even one less reason to stay at C5 ahaha
 
F27500
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:46 pm

USAirKid wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
airbazar wrote:
And yet this violin did get on the plane, did find a safe place to be stored so no this was never about the airplane. This was very much about lack of customer service skills which the pilot apparently has far more than the FA...


What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.


Then that means you're unprofessional. Customer service is not about being accomodating only to those who you decide are worthy or who kiss your behind enough. They're all customers of the carrier that writes your check. You accomodate everyone equally and fairly. You think pax are there just to stroke your ego and make you feel powerful? No.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2449
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:57 am

F27500 wrote:
USAirKid wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.


Then that means you're unprofessional. Customer service is not about being accomodating only to those who you decide are worthy or who kiss your behind enough. They're all customers of the carrier that writes your check. You accomodate everyone equally and fairly. You think pax are there just to stroke your ego and make you feel powerful? No.

Disagree. You appear to be of the opinion of "the customer is always right". That mentality has been changing for a few years already: if there is an issue to be resolved, both parties need to be adult and act as such, so a compromise can be found. When the customer acts as a Karen (or whatever the male equivalent is), all normality if thrown out of the window and the CSR should stand their ground and apply company rules; even if it means pissing a customer off. There is a very professional way to tell customers they can go pound sand.
Last edited by WayexTDI on Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
USAirKid
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:21 am

F27500 wrote:
USAirKid wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

What I find curious is how many, too many IMHO, are predisposed to a "can't do" attitude rather than a "can-do" one. Why? Was he or she just having a bad day? Why?


Having worked in customer service roles for quite a while, its often how the customer approaches me that determines what'll happen. If customers ask, instead of demand, that goes a long way for me helping them. If they become aggressive about the issue, I'm more likely to just go, "nope, policy says I don't have to do that."

Customer service is a two way street.


Then that means you're unprofessional. Customer service is not about being accomodating only to those who you decide are worthy or who kiss your behind enough. They're all customers of the carrier that writes your check. You accomodate everyone equally and fairly. You think pax are there just to stroke your ego and make you feel powerful? No.


I work in the transportation business, but not the airline business. I get passengers to many places, including the airport. I'm an independent contractor, so when I refuse service, I don't get paid. So it is in my interest to try to accommodate customers, but I also ask for minimum levels of respect. The big one currently is you must wear a mask while you're in my vehicle. No mask? No ride. (I need to post the audio recording when "Bill Gates's Neighbor" called 911 on himself for refusing to get out of my vehicle after he refused to wear a mask...)

I'm with WayexTDI, the customer is not always right. It's also one of the reasons I respect WN. For a long time they haven't fallen prey to an inflexible "The customer is always right."
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: "We Don't Go With Federal Law" Says Flight Attendant

Fri Sep 10, 2021 3:47 am

bluecrew wrote:

Regionals are more work for less pay with zero job security... they can't attract the high quality people because they've set up an incentive structure for people to quit and move on.


That was the whole point, and it worked great until too many people did the math.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos