For Flight Attendants, It’s a Different Story

As a member and officer of the Assn. of Flight Attendants representing the flight attendants at United Airlines, I must say that some of the information in James Flanigan’s column of July 16 [“Employee-Owners Have United on the Ascent Again”] is erroneous.

It states that what the United employees have after a year of ESOP is survival, respect, a measure of job security and the sense of victory. This is not true for the flight attendants. Though later in the column it mentions that we did not join the ESOP [employee stock ownership plan], the reason given is wrong.

Our decision was based on the fact that we were unsuccessful in negotiating the same job security provisions provided the other two union groups on the property. The company agreed not to open any pilot bases outside the United States without the express consent of their union, and the IAM contract ensured no major overhaul work would be done outside our borders. We asked for the same guarantee.

In exchange for this job security, we were prepared to pony up $416 million in concessions. But it wasn’t good enough.

Gerald Greenwald has stated all along that he wants us to be part of the ESOP. Then he turned around and opened a base in Hong Kong. While we are accorded first opportunity to transfer to bases outside the country, there are not many of our members who currently fly international routes who can uproot their lives and families to transfer to one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Our issue has been and always will be job security. To keep the work in this country, done by U.S. citizens or green-card holders. The fact that this company, through the ESOP, now enjoys tremendous tax breaks means that you and I are subsidizing the exportation of my work to foreign workers who contribute nothing to the tax base.

Does any of this seem remotely unfair?

It should be remembered that AFA pursued participation in the ESOP for several years. It is my personal belief that if this corporation and its management truly wanted our members as participants, we would have settled our issues a long time ago. What appears to be more important to them is having absolute and utter control over their bottom line at the expense of their front-line employees.

CHARLIE COSTELLO

President,

Local Executive Council

Assn. of Flight Attendants