Greg, You've asked an intersting question, as golden geese have died before. There are a whole lot of issues in this (including the ones already raised), and some I don't know the answers to -- what has happened to staffing levels (pax per F/A), benefits packages (health insurance, retirement, etc.)? A more basic question is whether United really is a golden goose, and then, if it is, who/what is killling it. It claims that it is not making money hand over fist, and I have no way of disputing that. Killing the golden goose invloved making a use of it (a meal) different than what made it profitable (lying golden eggs). Here is an airline that wanted to merge with US Airways. That shows that the goose may have already had a lobotomy. It had the United Shuttle as an attempt to compete with Southwest on the west coast -- not a bad idea, but they chose SFO as its hub, an airport wth one of the worst delay records around. Then United Business Jets (or whatever). Then their "regional" "partners" have been awful in places -- I used to fly United to South Bend but switched to American because United Express was so awful (then the ATR made me switch to Delta & Northwest). United has tried to fill planes to the bursting point (like other airlines), but it has never asked itself what is the optimal load its system (planes, machinists, terminals, etc.) can handle. If the "golden" goose dies, I think the F/A's won't be the culprit. Greg, you may be right in the ease of replacing F/A's, or you may be wrong. What has not been replaced has been the pax. I don't know about machinists, but there are furlouged pilots out there, and plenty regional airline pilots who would be willing to fly for United. These are just my two cents. A fan of United returning to what it once was. john On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Greg Newbold wrote: > Seems to me the flight attendents may be killing the golden goose. > Despite the mayhem caused on Sep 11th, I predict unlicensed flight > attendents could quickly be replaced. Unfortunately they are not in the > professional league of the pilots and machinists. > IMHO the flight attendents, and all other airline groups, should be > focusing on the survivability of the airline and preservation of their jobs > which may include a 5% pay cut. Frankly I suspected management would ask for > 20% to bring their costs down. > Am I off base? > Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of > lafrance@verizon.net > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:02 AM > To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: United Air flight attendants reject wage cuts > > > United Air flight attendants reject wage cuts > > > Friday June 21, 1:35 PM EDT > > CHICAGO, June 21 (Reuters) - Union leadership for flight attendants at UAL > Corp.'s (UAL) United Airlines has rejected a 5 percent wage cut, as > expected, endangering a deal in which the pilots' union accepted lower pay > in return for stock options in the struggling airline. > > In a resolution posted on the Association of Flight Attendants Web site, the > union said the proposal is concessionary and "not in the best interest of > the flight attendant carrier." > > A deal with pilots reached earlier in the week to cut wages by 10 percent > requires participation of other unions, according to pilot spokesman Steve > Derebey. Both machinists and flight attendants have repeatedly said they > would not talk to the airline about wage cuts. > > > Roger > EWROPS > -- John F. Kurtzke, C.S.C. Department of Mathematics 278 Buckley Center University of Portland Portland, OR 97203 503-943-7377 kurtzke@up.edu