DOT Fines United Airlines $1.9 M for Holding Passengers on Tarmac Too Long

DOT Fines United Airlines $1.9 M for Holding Passengers on Tarmac Too Long

/* social sharing plugin styles */ .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing a { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; color: #cf7d72!important; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.facebook:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.twitter:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.pinterest:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.stumbleupon:hover { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; } .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing .sharer-flat.sharer-flat-8 { width: auto!important; } /* style the category links */ .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a { color: #cf7d72; } .dd-spl3 p.et_pb_title_meta_container { padding-bottom: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a:hover, .dd-meta-author a:hover { opacity: 0.66; } /* set divider margin */ .dd-spl3 .dd-divider { margin-bottom: 0!important; } /* increase paragraph padding */ .dd-spl3 .dd-post p { padding-bottom: 2em; } /* style the comment form */ .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form .form-submit { float: none; } .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button, .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button:hover { padding: 9px 20px!important; } /* responsive media queries */ @media only screen and (min-width: 981px) { /* Remove default padding from body area on desktop*/ .single #left-area { padding-bottom: 0; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 479px) { /* remove boxed layout effect on mobile*/ .dd-spl3 .dd-row { width: 100%!important; } }

DOT Fines United Airlines $1.9 M for Holding Passengers on Tarmac Too Long

[supsystic-social-sharing id='3']

From DOT.gov

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today fined United Airlines $1.9 million for violating federal statutes and the Department’s rule prohibiting long tarmac delays.  The airline was also ordered to cease and desist from future similar violations.  This is the largest fine issued by the Department for tarmac delay violations.  

An extensive investigation by the Department’s Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (OACP) found that between December 2015 and February 2021, United allowed twenty domestic flights and five international flights at various airports throughout the United States to remain on the tarmac for a lengthy period of time without providing passengers an opportunity to deplane, in violation of the Department’s tarmac delay rule.  The tarmac delays affected a total of 3,218 passengers.

Under the DOT tarmac delay rule, airlines operating aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats are prohibited from allowing their domestic flights to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours at U.S. airports and their international flights to remain on the tarmac for more than four hours at U.S. airports without giving passengers an opportunity to leave the plane.  The rule prohibiting long tarmac delays for domestic flights took effect 2010 and was expanded to include international flights in 2011.  An exception exists for departure delays if the airline begins to return the aircraft to a suitable disembarkation point in order to deplane passengers by those times.  An exception to the time limit is also allowed for safety, security, or air traffic control-related reasons.  The rule also requires airlines to provide adequate food and water, ensure that lavatories are working and, if necessary, provide medical attention to passengers during long tarmac delays.

DOT’s aviation consumer protection website makes it easy for travelers to understand their rights.  The page on tarmac delays can be found here.  Consumers may file an airline complaint with the Department here.

The consent order is available at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/united-airlines-consent-order-2021-9-21

Recent Articles

United Delays Action Against Employees With Medical or Religious Exemptions

United Delays Action Against Employees With Medical or Religious Exemptions

/* social sharing plugin styles */ .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing a { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; color: #cf7d72!important; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.facebook:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.twitter:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.pinterest:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.stumbleupon:hover { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; } .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing .sharer-flat.sharer-flat-8 { width: auto!important; } /* style the category links */ .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a { color: #cf7d72; } .dd-spl3 p.et_pb_title_meta_container { padding-bottom: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a:hover, .dd-meta-author a:hover { opacity: 0.66; } /* set divider margin */ .dd-spl3 .dd-divider { margin-bottom: 0!important; } /* increase paragraph padding */ .dd-spl3 .dd-post p { padding-bottom: 2em; } /* style the comment form */ .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form .form-submit { float: none; } .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button, .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button:hover { padding: 9px 20px!important; } /* responsive media queries */ @media only screen and (min-width: 981px) { /* Remove default padding from body area on desktop*/ .single #left-area { padding-bottom: 0; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 479px) { /* remove boxed layout effect on mobile*/ .dd-spl3 .dd-row { width: 100%!important; } }

United Delays Action Against Employees With Medical or Religious Exemptions

[supsystic-social-sharing id='3']

Facing a lawsuit filed by six United Airlines employees, the carrier has announced that it will postpone the decision to place those with medical or religious exemptions on unpaid leave until October 15. Employees who were denied an exemption have been given individual vaccination timelines from the company, which have not changed. Those who never placed a request for reasonable accommodation must have proof of first vaccination by today, September 27.

The lawsuit is not challenging the vaccine mandate at the airline and is not seeking to delay or stop the requirements that all 67,000 employees at the airline must be vaccinated by today. Instead, the lawsuit asks a Texas court to force the company to revise its “Reasonable Accomodation” policy for those who qualify for medical or religious exemptions. According to the complaint, the existing reasonable accommodation policy discriminates against specific disabilities or religious beliefs. If successful, the lawsuit will require United to allow unvaccinated employees with a medical or religious exemption to remain on the clock and submit to regular testing and masking rules instead of unpaid time off.

However, federal law also allows a company to deny a request for accommodation if doing so would impose an “undue hardship” for the employer. United argues that allowing unvaccinated employees to spread the deadly COVID-19 virus at work represents an undue burden to the airline. Therefore unvaccinated employees must be separated from the rest of the workforce.

“Given our focus on safety and the steep increases in COVID infections, hospitalizations and deaths, all employees whose request is approved will be placed on temporary, unpaid personal leave on October 2 while specific safety measures for unvaccinated employees are instituted,” United said in a September memo to employees. “Given the dire statistics…we can no longer allow unvaccinated people back into the workplace until we better understand how they might interact with our customers and their vaccinated co-workers.”

According to the complaint, the airline violates Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying pay to unvaccinated employees who are not permitted to enter the workplace.

The lawsuit states that “United’s actions have left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs and their health, or losing their livelihoods.” It goes on to argue that, “In doing so, United has violated Title VII and the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, and also by retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity.”

One of the plaintiffs, Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, who works as a Customer Service Representative at the United Club at DFW airport, has requested both religious and medical exemptions from the vaccine policy. Ms. Thal was granted a medical exemption but has joined the lawsuit because United did not provide her a way to file a second request on religious grounds.

Another plaintiff, Flight Attendant Genise Kincannon, was granted a religious exemption but is joining the suit because she feels that unpaid leave is unreasonable and a violation of her rights under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.

The union representing flight attendants at United, the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), has said that it will not assist members that apply for vaccine exemptions, saying that the process should be a “private matter.”

At a time when mixed messaging can have devastating results, United has struggled to find a consistent narrative on the subject. In January, United CEO Scott Kirby said United could not realistically mandate vaccinations unless other airlines and companies do the same and require their employees to take them as well. By this summer, Kirby had changed course and implemented the most sweeping vaccination requirements of any of the Big Three carriers at the time. United Ground Express, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Airlines, first told employees that there were no plans to require vaccinations, then changed course less than a month later. United first told employees that they would have to be “fully vaccinated” by September 27. The company is now telling employees that they only need the first shot by that date.

The position of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union is that vaccine mandates are unnecessarily controversial and should not be used until a good faith effort to employ incentives has been tried first. Throughout this process, United Airlines has failed to provide clear communications and a consistent policy towards vaccinations.

“The IAM will pursue any grievance where our members were wrongfully denied an exemption and then terminated,” IAMAW District President Mike Klemm said in a September 3 statement. “Let me be abundantly clear. Your IAM attorneys have advised us that the company is within its legal rights to mandate the vaccine as a condition of employment so any grievance would be an uphill battle. Morally it’s deplorable, but welcome to Kirby Airlines.”

IAMAW International President Robert Martinez has also demanded that any vaccine mandates be part of the bargaining process. “The IAM will work to enforce the legal obligation of employers to bargain with unions over effects that implementation will have on union-represented employees,” said Martinez. “Rest assured, the IAM will, as always, continue to vigorously protect our members’ rights.”

All major airlines in the United States have announced plans to implement vaccine requirements, including American Airlines, Delta, Southwest, Hawaiian, Frontier, JetBlue, and United. In September, OSHA began drafting policies that will require all US-based employers with more than 100 workers to require vaccinations protecting against COVID-19 or allow weekly testing.

Recent Articles

DOJ: JetBlue, American Airlines Deal is a “De-Facto Merger.”

DOJ: JetBlue, American Airlines Deal is a “De-Facto Merger.”

/* social sharing plugin styles */ .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing a { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; color: #cf7d72!important; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.facebook:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.twitter:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.pinterest:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.stumbleupon:hover { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; } .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing .sharer-flat.sharer-flat-8 { width: auto!important; } /* style the category links */ .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a { color: #cf7d72; } .dd-spl3 p.et_pb_title_meta_container { padding-bottom: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a:hover, .dd-meta-author a:hover { opacity: 0.66; } /* set divider margin */ .dd-spl3 .dd-divider { margin-bottom: 0!important; } /* increase paragraph padding */ .dd-spl3 .dd-post p { padding-bottom: 2em; } /* style the comment form */ .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form .form-submit { float: none; } .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button, .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button:hover { padding: 9px 20px!important; } /* responsive media queries */ @media only screen and (min-width: 981px) { /* Remove default padding from body area on desktop*/ .single #left-area { padding-bottom: 0; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 479px) { /* remove boxed layout effect on mobile*/ .dd-spl3 .dd-row { width: 100%!important; } }

DOJ: JetBlue, American Airlines Deal is a “De-Facto Merger.”

[supsystic-social-sharing id='3']

This sweeping partnership is unprecedented among domestic airlines and amounts to a de facto merger between American and JetBlue.

The U.S. Department of Justice, together with Attorneys General in six states and the District of Columbia, is suing to stop the virtual merger of  American Airlines and JetBlue. The two airlines are trying to consolidate their Boston and New York City operations with the “Northeast Partnership,” as the arrangement is called.

In a civil antitrust complaint, the DOJ argues that the partnership will act as a de-facto merger, eliminating important competition in the New York and Boston markets, and greatly diminish competition between the two carriers everywhere they interact. The deal would create a level of coordination that violates antitrust laws, according to the DOJ.

If allowed to proceed, the near-merger will further consolidate an already highly concentrated industry.

Federal law prevents a single company, entity, or partnership from eliminating competition within a given market, and creating a monopoly on goods and services. Monopolistic power allows companies to completely control the prices and availability of their products, creating dangerous economic bottlenecks that can destabilize markets. According to the DOJ allegations, this is exactly what American Airlines has been attempting to do for years. American executives have created informal mergers since the airline cannot legally control more markets through a legal merger process. 

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union has expressed concern that the informal merger between American Airlines and JetBlue could threaten the jobs of JetBlue Ground Operations Crewmembers. In examples where the two airlines have overlapping services, union workers at American would be impossible to remove from their jobs, thanks to unbreakable job protections that American ramp workers negotiated and ratified in 2020. However, non-union JetBlue Crewmembers would have no such job protections, and could potentially be fired and replaced with the unionized workers at American. 

JetBlue does not formally lay off non-union employees, the company just fires them. 

From the Department of Justice statement:
“Millions of consumers across America rely on air travel every day for work, to visit family, or to take vacations. Fair competition is essential to ensuring they can fly affordably and safely,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “In an industry where just four airlines control more than 80% of domestic air travel, American Airlines’ ‘alliance’ with JetBlue is, in fact, an unprecedented maneuver to further consolidate the industry. It would result in higher fares, fewer choices, and lower quality service if allowed to continue. The complaint filed today demonstrates the Justice Department’s commitment to ensuring economic opportunity and fairness by protecting consumers and competition.”

“The Northeast Alliance would eliminate significant competition in this important industry,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Powers of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “This sweeping partnership is unprecedented among domestic airlines and amounts to a de facto merger between American and JetBlue in Boston and New York City. The impact on consumers extends far beyond Massachusetts and New York, as evidenced by the participation and our ongoing cooperation with Attorneys General from across the country, including Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia, in this lawsuit.” 

The Northeast Alliance combines American’s and JetBlue’s operations at four major airports: Boston Logan, John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty. The airlines have committed to coordinate “on all aspects” of network planning, including which routes to fly, when to fly them, who will fly them and what size planes to use for each flight. The two airlines will also share revenues earned at these airports, eliminating their incentives to compete. The Northeast Alliance will also allow the parties to pool their gates and takeoff and landing authorizations, known as “slots.” According to the complaint, this unprecedented combination would raise prices and reduce choices for air passengers traveling to and from Boston and New York City. 

As alleged in the complaint, American is the largest airline in the world. Just four airlines — American, Delta, United, and Southwest — collectively control 80% of domestic air travel. According to the complaint, American has relentlessly pursued an industry consolidation strategy in the United States and worldwide. Unable to combine with foreign airlines through formal mergers, American has pursued consolidation through a series of international joint ventures. The complaint alleges that JetBlue’s CEO stated, “it may look as if a dozen or more airlines [are] providing service. But when you go under the surface, it’s really just three big mega-alliances controlling 87% of the traffic…Consumers effectively have very little choice in markets where JVs have a stranglehold – and they also face higher fares.” The Justice Department alleges that American now seeks to import this strategy to domestic air travel.

According to the complaint, JetBlue has positioned itself as an essential source of competition against American and the other large airlines, particularly in the northeast. According to the complaint, JetBlue’s reputation for lowering prices is so established that the industry refers to it as the “JetBlue Effect.” JetBlue’s internal estimates show that it has saved customers at least $10 billion since its launch, offering lower fares and better service and forcing its competitors to do the same.     

According to the complaint, the Northeast Alliance will cause hundreds of millions of dollars in harm to air passengers across the country through higher fares and reduced choice. The complaint alleges that JetBlue and American planned to compete more intensely before entering the Northeast Alliance, including Boston, New York City, and other areas. If allowed to proceed, the Northeast Alliance would eliminate this important existing and future competition — creating, as American’s senior executives put it, “further domestic consolidation.” The Northeast Alliance will dampen American’s incentive to expand service elsewhere in its network and will significantly reduce JetBlue’s incentives to challenge its much more significant partner across the country.  

American Airlines Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. In 2019, it flew over 215 million passengers to approximately 365 locations worldwide, earning about $45 billion in revenues.  

JetBlue Airways Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Long Island City, New York. In 2019, JetBlue flew over 42 million passengers to approximately 100 locations worldwide, earning about $8 billion in revenue. 

 

Recent Articles

Watch This Couple Scream at JetBlue Crewmembers, Get Thrown Off Flight

Watch This Couple Scream at JetBlue Crewmembers, Get Thrown Off Flight

/* Styling the category buttons */ .dd-spl1 .dd-categories p.et_pb_title_meta_container { color: #fff; } .dd-spl1 .et_pb_bg_layout_light.dd-categories p.et_pb_title_meta_container a { color: #fff; } .dd-spl1 .dd-categories a { font-size: 11px; padding: 6px 12px; background-color: #415370; border-radius: 3px 3px 3px 3px; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease-in-out; -moz-transition: all 0.4s ease-in-out; transition: all 0.4s ease-in-out; } .dd-spl1 .dd-categories a:hover { background-color: rgba(65,83,112,0.66); } /* Increase post paragraph padding */ .dd-spl1 .dd-post-content p { padding-bottom: 2em; } /* Styling the comment form */ .dd-spl1 .dd-comment-form .form-submit { float: none; } .dd-spl1 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button, .dd-spl1 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button:hover { padding: 9px 20px!important; } /* Styling for the social sharing plugin */ html body .dd-spl1 .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button { padding: .63em .55em .63em .55em!important; } .dd-spl1 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a { background-color: #415370!important; margin-left: 5px; } .dd-spl1 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.facebook:hover, .dd-spl1 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.twitter:hover, .dd-spl1 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.pinterest:hover { background-color: rgba(65,83,112,0.66)!important; } /* responsive media queries */ @media only screen and (max-width: 980px) { /* remove margin from code module on mobile */ .dd-spl1 .dd-code .et_pb_column { margin-bottom: 0; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 980px) { /* display post image in landscape on tablet */ .dd-spl1 .dd-post-image img { height: 360px; object-fit: cover; object-position: 50% 50%; width: 100%; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 767px) { /* display post image in landscape on mobile */ .dd-spl1 .dd-post-image img { height: 180px; object-fit: cover; object-position: 50% 50%; width: 100%; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 981px) { /* Remove default padding from body area on desktop*/ .single #left-area { padding-bottom: 0; } /* Increase left column width on desktop */ .dd-spl1 .et_pb_gutters2 .et_pb_column_2_3, .dd-spl1 .et_pb_gutters2.et_pb_row .et_pb_column_2_3 { width: 63.666%; } .dd-spl1 .et_pb_gutters2 .et_pb_column_1_3, .dd-spl1 .et_pb_gutters2.et_pb_row .et_pb_column_1_3 { width: 33.333%; } /* Position share buttons on title line on desktop */ .dd-spl1 .dd-share { position: absolute; top: 0; right: 0; z-index: 999; } }

Warning: Adult Language and Content: The tantrum is the latest in a record-shattering number of air-rage incidents that have happened this year. This year, entitled and enraged passengers have been fined more than $1 million, resulting from more than 3,000 serious rage incidents in 2021.

Watch This Couple Scream at JetBlue Crewmembers, Get Thrown Off Flight

Last week, flight crews booted a couple from a JetBlue flight to San Diego during a screaming, drunken tirade over masks. As usual, the event was captured on video and posted online for all to enjoy.

In the video posted on Reddit, a man can be seen screaming and grabbing at a male flight attendant who, he said, did not give him enough warning that his nose needed to go in his mask.  “You gave me one “f-ing warning,” he shrieked in the viral video.  “I pulled it up the second he said something,” he continued. “The second he said something, I pulled it over my nose,” he cried in a high-pitched wail as cellphones recorded.

At one point, Alice Runkevich, who recorded the video, grabs some snacks and turns her attention to a female passenger accompanying the man. As she enters the video, his counterpart is correctly wearing her mask, nose in, but she seems to lose those skills soon after. Stumbling and slurring her speech, she pleads to the other passengers that they tried to follow the Federally-mandated mask rules but just couldn’t satisfy the flight crews.  “We’re being kicked off the flight and we don’t know why,” she explains, adding, “we’re Americans.”

Despite this, they were both removed from the flight before it left Fort Lauderdale, to the delight of onlooking passengers. Flight B6 529 had been delayed for several hours before the incident, which went down while the plane was on the tarmac.

JetBlue said in a statement that the would-be travelers had been asked “multiple times but would not comply with the federal mask mandate.”

“Eventually the customers were asked to leave the aircraft at which time one customer became verbally and physically aggressive toward crewmembers before eventually exiting the aircraft,” the carrier said in a statement to local media outlets. “The customers will not be allowed to fly JetBlue in the future.”

The tantrum is the latest in a record-shattering number of air-rage incidents that have happened this year. This year, entitled and enraged passengers have been fined more than $1 million, resulting from more than 3,000 serious rage incidents in 2021. According to IAMAW District 141 Legislative Director David Roderick, the attacks are not limited to in-flight; they are becoming a problem for gate and ticket counter agents, as well. 

“it’s really not just airline workers getting abused this way,” said Roderick. “There have been 85 assaults on uniformed TSA Agents this year, too.” Roderick suggested that increased penalties for those who abuse airline workers and other airport staff may need to be increased to discourage more assaults. “Most of these attacks are provoked by Federal masking rules and alcohol,” he said. “We don’t make Federal masking rules, no airline does. We just have to enforce them – which puts our members in danger too often.”

Roderick is participating in discussions with a coalition of labor unions, including the Chicago Federation of Labor to develop legislative strategies to deal with the rise in air rage incidents. On September 4th, Roderick and representatives from the Airport Labor Committee met with AFL-CIO President Robert Reiter and Vice President Tefere Gebre to discuss the issue. “The main goal was finding ways to get more union members involved in this issue,” Roderick said of the meeting.

In September, the Biden Administration doubled the penalties for not wearing masks at airports and aboard aircraft to between $500 and $1,000. Fines for repeated violations can go as high as $3,000. Disrupting or attempting to intimidate or interfere with a flight crew is now a federal offense that can potentially result in prison time. 

United Airlines September 27 Ultimatum: Union Guidance

United Airlines September 27 Ultimatum: Union Guidance

/* Post title separator line with icon */ .dd-spl4 .dd-divider-container { width: 66%; max-width: 800px; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-flow: row nowrap; margin: auto; } .dd-spl4 .dd-sep-holder { flex: 1 1 auto; height: 1px; min-width: 10%; position: relative; } .dd-spl4 .dd-sep-lines { border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-color: #fff; display: block; height: 1px; position: relative; top: 1px; width: 100% } .dd-spl4 .dd-icon-holder { margin: 0 5px!important; } .dd-spl4 .dd-icon-inner { line-height: 1; } .dd-spl4 .dd-icon-inner i { color: #fff; font-size: 27px; height: 1em; width: 1em; text-align: center; } .dd-spl4 .dd-icon-inner .et-pb-icon::before { content: "e0dc"; /* Change this to use a different ETModules character */ } /* Social sharing plugin styles */ .dd-spl4 .supsystic-social-sharing a { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; } .dd-spl4 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.facebook:hover, .dd-spl4 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.twitter:hover, .dd-spl4 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.googleplus:hover, .dd-spl4 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.pinterest:hover, .dd-spl4 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.delicious:hover { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; opacity: 0.66; } /* increase paragraph padding */ .dd-spl4 .dd-post p { padding-bottom: 2em; } /* style the comment form */ .dd-spl4 .dd-comment-form .form-submit { float: none; } .dd-spl4 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button, .dd-spl4 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button:hover { padding: 9px 20px!important; } /* responsive media queries */ @media only screen and (min-width: 981px) { /* Remove default padding from body area on desktop*/ .single #left-area { padding-bottom: 0; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 479px) { /* remove boxed layout effect on mobile*/ .dd-spl4 .dd-row { width: 100%!important; } }
[supsystic-social-sharing id='4']

United Airlines September 27 Ultimatum: Union Guidance 

As you are aware, United Airlines’ deadline of September 27, 2021, to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or face separation from the Carrier is fast approaching. We know that many of you have applied for religious or medical exemptions and have received notice if it has been accepted or rejected. The following concerns the next steps available for those who had their exemption request denied as well as those who were approved for an accommodation which they find to be unacceptable.

As the District Lodge 141 leadership has stated before, and bears repeating, we encourage members to get vaccinated as long as doing so is safe for each individual, but we do not believe United should accomplish vaccinations through a mandate under threat of termination. Nonetheless, the IAM’s attorneys have advised us that the Carrier is within its legal rights to mandate the vaccine as a condition of employment.

For those employees who have been approved for a religious or medical accommodation, we have recently learned more details about the “accommodation” United intends to put in place. We had hoped that once those employees who applied were approved, that we could move forward from this matter, but unfortunately it now appears that United’s “approval for an accommodation” places many employees in an untenable situation.

As has likely become clear to many of you who have been approved for an accommodation, United is imposing involuntary unpaid leave effective October 2, 2021. According to United, its reason for removing non-vaccinated employees from the workplace is because it cannot in “good conscience” allow them to continue to report to work and may require significant time to put safety protocols in place before they can be recalled. United has thus announced that:

      • Effective October 2nd, employees approved for a religious accommodation will be placed on unpaid personal leave, and employees approved for a medical accommodation will begin using their sick leave bank and then transition to EIS.

      • Employees on personal leave (i.e., with a religious accommodation) face the additional hardships that medical coverage does not continue during personal leave, and seniority will cease accruing after three months. 
      • The details of the conditions United is imposing on each group can be found on United’s HelpHub.

For those in customer-facing roles (Customer Service Representative), United has said that this involuntary leave will continue until the “the pandemic meaningfully recedes”, which essentially leaves it indefinite at this point. For non-customer facing roles (including Fleet Service and Storekeepers) this involuntary leave will continue until safety protocols are put in place and non-vaccinated employees are recalled; no date has been set for that return, although United promises an update by mid-October.

Being placed on what essentially amounts to indefinite unpaid leave is not really an accommodation at all and is likely not what anyone thought they were signing up for when they first applied for an accommodation. We have explored the legal options available to challenge this compelled unpaid leave and we want you to know the following.

If you wish to challenge the so-called accommodation which United has imposed (i.e., open-ended unpaid leave), you have the individual right to file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). There are no fees or costs for filing an EEOC charge and hiring an attorney is not required. Filing an EEOC charge is a right available to each individual employee and the initial steps can be accomplished online. If you decide to file a Charge, here is what you will need to know and can expect:

        • The deadline for filing an EEOC charge is generally 300 days but is only 180 days in some states,  so if you decide to file, we encourage you to do so as soon as possible.  
        • Filing will require you to register an account with the EEOC’s website and provide an email address and other personal information. Do not use your United Airlines email address.  
        • The Charge is filed once the needed sections of the form are complete and you have signed and dated it. Make sure you receive and save a confirmation notice that it is filed and are assigned a  case number.  
        • The EEOC will notify United that you have filed a charge against it. The EEOC process is not  anonymous. However, federal law forbids United from retaliating against you for filing a Charge. 
        • After you have filed, an EEOC investigator will likely contact you for further information and may request to conduct an interview or request additional documents from you. You should cooperate with the EEOC investigator in a timely manner if you wish your case to be continued. You can request a  withdrawal at any time. 
        • Be advised, EEOC investigations often take many months and just because several weeks may
          pass without communication with the EEOC does not mean your case has been closed or denied. 

Instructions on the Charge filing process can be found at the following link:  

https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination 

Charges can be filed online using the EEOC’s Public Portal: 

https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx 

The District Lodge will continue in its effort under the collective bargaining agreement and Railway Labor  Act to obtain fair and safe working conditions for all of our members and will keep you updated on those efforts.  

 

Sincerely,  

Michael G Klemm 
President/Directing General Chairman 
IAM District Lodge 141

 

Recording Secretaries: Please print and post on all IAMAW bulletin boards.

VIDEO: Passenger Screams at Flight Crews, Chews Mask, Gets Arrested

VIDEO: Passenger Screams at Flight Crews, Chews Mask, Gets Arrested

/* social sharing plugin styles */ .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing a { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; color: #cf7d72!important; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.facebook:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.twitter:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.pinterest:hover, .dd-spl3 .dd-share .supsystic-social-sharing a.social-sharing-button.sharer-flat.stumbleupon:hover { background-color: #0c0c0d!important; } .dd-spl3 .supsystic-social-sharing .sharer-flat.sharer-flat-8 { width: auto!important; } /* style the category links */ .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a { color: #cf7d72; } .dd-spl3 p.et_pb_title_meta_container { padding-bottom: 5px; } .dd-spl3 .dd-categories a:hover, .dd-meta-author a:hover { opacity: 0.66; } /* set divider margin */ .dd-spl3 .dd-divider { margin-bottom: 0!important; } /* increase paragraph padding */ .dd-spl3 .dd-post p { padding-bottom: 2em; } /* style the comment form */ .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form .form-submit { float: none; } .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button, .dd-spl3 .dd-comment-form.et_pb_comments_0 .et_pb_button:hover { padding: 9px 20px!important; } /* responsive media queries */ @media only screen and (min-width: 981px) { /* Remove default padding from body area on desktop*/ .single #left-area { padding-bottom: 0; } } @media only screen and (max-width: 479px) { /* remove boxed layout effect on mobile*/ .dd-spl3 .dd-row { width: 100%!important; } }

VIDEO: Passenger Screams at Flight Crews, Chews Mask, Gets Arrested

[supsystic-social-sharing id='3']

The meltdown tantrum adds to a year of record levels of violent attacks on airline workers.

61-year-old Timothy Armstrong was arrested and released with a citation for public intoxication and disorderly conduct.

(Play Video on Tik Tok)  61-Year-old Timothy Armstrong was arrested after a drunken, racist rampage on an American Airlines Flight.

On Monday, police arrested and ticketed Timothy Armstrong after a bizarre racist rant onboard a flight from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City. The incident was captured on a cellphone camera and shared on social media, where it immediately went viral. American Airlines flight 1802 had 162 passengers and six crew members on board at the time. The flight landed safely at Salt Lake City International Airport.

So far, authorities have not charged Armstrong with intimidating a flight crew, a federal offense.

Tik Tok user Dennis Busch, a resident of Salt Lake City, filmed the incident and posted it to his account on Monday, where it quickly earned 2.3 million views.

“To clarify,” Busch said of the video, “he was being a racist jerk to a couple of asian passengers before I started filming.”

According to Busch, “He began by yelling at the Asian woman in front of me to sit down when she was standing to deal with a back issue.”

“He proceeded to tell multiple flight attendants that she and her companion ‘didn’t belong here,'” Busch continued. “After asking him to calm down the man went into a complete meltdown of racist, sexist and belligerent comments, culminating in his arrest at the gate.”

The video shows Armstrong growling and chewing at his facemask before getting out of his seat to berate flight attendants and other passengers. A member of the flight crew at one point ordered him to return to his seat. As he did so, he shouted “Joe Biden? Really?” at other passengers.

Upon returning to his seat, Armstrong seemed to go into a drunken stupor, apologizing for his behavior and repeatedly mumbling, “America,” until the police arrived to arrest him.

Busch thanked the flight crew for their composure in handling the incident. “We were lucky to have such a well-trained crew who kept their cool throughout the flight,” he said

“The flight landed safely at (Salt Lake City) where local law enforcement removed the disruptive passenger from the aircraft,” American Airlines said in a statement. “We thank our crew for their professionalism and our customers for their understanding.”

Upon landing, police boarded the plane and detained Armstrong on drunk and disorderly charges.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has been a leading voice in calls to increase penalties for attacks on airline workers. IAMAW District 141 Legislative Director, David Roderick sits on an airport labor committee tasked with dealing with air rage. “We are working with other unions to coordinate an industry-wide way to handle the rise in attacks on airline workers,” Roderick explained. “On Saturday, we had a meeting with the Executive Vice President of the AFL-CIO Trefere Gebre, along with 20 representatives from other unions,” Roderick said. “We discussed some of the many concerns we have in the transportation industry, which seems to change every day,” Roderick said. 

Since the beginning of this year, the FAA has fined unruly passengers more than $1 million for similar outbursts. Since January 1 of this year, the agency has logged just under 4,000 reports of violent and abusive incidents involving passengers. About 3/4s of the attacks were motivated by federal mask requirements, which have been extended to January 2022.

The Machinists Non-Partisan Political League works to drive the interests of airline workers through legislation and public advocacy efforts. The MNPL is funded entirely through voluntary contributions from members like you. Please consider recurring, automatic payroll-deducted contributions of any amount today. Every dollar helps the cause. 

 

Recent Articles