Job performance has virtually no impact on your pay. You are expected to work at a high level and will never receive a bonus or promotion of any kind, even for exemplary service. This may seem a little strange to you, especially if you have spent a portion of your life in an office building trying to climb the corporate ladder.
On the positive side, since pay is tied directly to seniority, you will receive guaranteed annual pay raises; they are built right into the contract. As a new-hire, you might even receive a mandatory pay raise after only 6 months of employment, immediately following the probationary period. Another positive aspect of unionized labor is that it eliminates much of the jealousy and biases that surround compensation in corporate America.
For example, you will never hear someone say, "I wonder what they are paying him?, or "I know they are not paying me what I'm worth because I'm a minority." After all, seniority determines pay, which cannot be influenced by human prejudices.
On the negative side, however, you are essentially at the mercy of the labor contract and have no negotiating power as an individual when it comes to compensation. If you believe you are underpaid, you cannot exactly walk into your supervisor's office and ask for more money. Instead, you must rely on your union representatives to stand up for you - and every other flight attendant who works for the airline - during contract negotiations.
Since you cannot negotiate pay as a flight attendant, be sure to choose an airline that makes the most financial sense before accepting employment. You will want to choose an airline that is in an active hiring mode. This will help you gain seniority more quickly, resulting in better pay. You should also choose an airline with competitive flight attendant salaries. Granted contracts change every 3 to 5 years, but typically frugal airlines stay frugal and more generous ones stay generous. If you want to make the most amount of money, stick to the major airlines.
To a certain extent, any flight attendant can simply peruse the labor contract to determine what a fellow employee is earning. After all, if you know someone's date of hire, you can easily determine their hourly rate; it is in the contract! You must realize, however, that although flight hour base rates are fixed, actual monthly income can vary even between flight attendants with comparable seniority.
For example, some airlines offer premium flight attendant salaries for those who work the lead or "A" flight attendant position, work at night or on certain weekends and holidays, or fly international flights. Additionally, the number of flight hours a flight attendant chooses to fly in a given month has a dramatic affect on income. Certain airlines have a two-tiered wage system which also affects how much you can earn as a flight attendant.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Calculating Flight attendant salaries
s a flight attendant, you won't be paid this hourly rate for every hour that you work. The time you spend commuting to the airport, sleeping in hotel rooms, standing around the airport between flights, and assisting passengers during boarding and deplaning is essentially unpaid labor.
Most airlines only pay you from the time an aircraft pushes back from the gate to the time it arrives at the gate of its destination. This is commonly referred to as flight time, block time, or hard time. The major exception to this is meal expenses. Most airlines pay a nominal hourly rate to cover meal expenses. Hotel lodging is paid for by the airline.
Technically, flight attendants are paid based on accrued pay time, which includes block time plus any excess claim time. Claim time is time paid in excess of block time. For example, if you were required to deadhead to another city during a trip, you would not work the flight (and would not earn block time), but would be entitled to additional deadhead time. This additional time would be reflected in your pay time.
Instead of flight time-based pay, certain airlines compensate flight attendants based on the number of accrued monthly flight miles. Others pay flat salaries regardless of the hours (or miles) flown. These compensation methods are unique, but you should nevertheless be aware of them.
Most airlines only pay you from the time an aircraft pushes back from the gate to the time it arrives at the gate of its destination. This is commonly referred to as flight time, block time, or hard time. The major exception to this is meal expenses. Most airlines pay a nominal hourly rate to cover meal expenses. Hotel lodging is paid for by the airline.
Technically, flight attendants are paid based on accrued pay time, which includes block time plus any excess claim time. Claim time is time paid in excess of block time. For example, if you were required to deadhead to another city during a trip, you would not work the flight (and would not earn block time), but would be entitled to additional deadhead time. This additional time would be reflected in your pay time.
Instead of flight time-based pay, certain airlines compensate flight attendants based on the number of accrued monthly flight miles. Others pay flat salaries regardless of the hours (or miles) flown. These compensation methods are unique, but you should nevertheless be aware of them.
How awesome it is
How great is that? The longer you are there the better your pay. Just the way it should be people...it's all about the loyalty. C'mon!
The Truth of the Perk
Unlike most 9 to 5 office workers who earn salaries that are privately negotiated and performance-based, flight attendant salaries are paid an hourly union rate that is based almost entirely on seniority.
The Costume
I hope that I will be able to wear something that looks like this. I feel the hat brings out the authority figure in me. Don't you?
The PayOut
Median annual flight attendant salaries were $38,820 in 2000. The middle 50 percent earned between $28,200 and $56,610. The lowest 10 percent earned salaries of less than $18,090, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $83,630. According to data from the Association of Flight Attendants, beginning median flight attendant salaries were about $14,847 a year in 2000.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Flight Attendant
I hope to find out (tomorrow) what private companies are hiring and when they are hiring. I would like to know the pay and the perks. I would also like to know the cons. What will I be sacrificing if I were hired to be an attendant. I then will examine if it is better to go private or commercial. I presume private will be more appealing.
The Semester is coming to the Finale
I am getting very excited about this semester getting so close to the end. I can not wait to get involved in the society at large. I plan to apply to many different kinds of jobs. In fact, my posts will all be reports on many different aspects of jobs that I am interested in applying for. Cheers to the Future:)
The Latest of Papers
Formalism and Contextualism: A Comparison of Prominent Female Portraits
By Kiersten Kerr
History and Criticism of Art (4373)
Due: March 2nd, 2008
Formalism and Contextualism: A Comparison of Prominent Female Portraits
In art theory formalism is the concept that a work's artistic value is entirely determined by its form--the way it is made, its purely visual aspects and its medium. Formalism emphasizes compositional elements such as color, line, shape and texture rather than realism, context, and content. In visual art, formalism is the concept that everything necessary in a work of art is contained within it. The context for the work, including the reason for its creation, the historical background, and the life of the artist, is considered to be of secondary importance. Formalism dominated modern art from the late 1800s through the 1960s.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_%28art%29)
Contextualism describes a collection of views in the philosophy of language which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context. Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning P," "knowing that P," "having a reason to A," and possibly even "being true" or "being right" only have meaning relative to a specified context. Some philosophers hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism; nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within philosophy. In ethics, "contextualist" views are most closely associated with situational ethics, or with moral relativism.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualism)
The prior paragraphs are definitions found from Wikipedia. They are the philosophies that are the backbone supporting the following analysis of Portraits accomplished by Artemisia Gentileschi, native of Rome and Caravaggio zealot, and Judith Leyster, Haarlem native and demure painter whose claim to fame is due to her quiet statements portrayed with domestic genre scenes. The times in which these women affected their work the politics, the oppression of their sex, and, of course, the religious environment all were put into their self-portraits. The execution of either piece will be examined in order to validate the form; the context of each piece will reflect their personal morality and their societal impressions.
The allegory of painting was often depicted during the Baroque period as a female figure, Pittura. In 1611 a coin was printed depicting Lavinia Fontana as the famous Pittura. The coin portrays having wild hair and being consumed with her work. The coin had an influential impact on Artemisia Gentileschi. She took that the icon a step further with her Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting. In Allegory, Artemisia depicts herself with disheveled hair and an intense concentration on her artwork. The talisman of a mask worn around her neck signifies imitation. She utilizes a feminist ideology as a painter in the role as Pittura with the portrayal of herself as both the artist and the muse.
The form of Artemisia’s self-portrait differs greatly from her other works, especially because she does not try to portray herself as beautiful, though some may consider her as such. It was her goal to portray the action of artistic creation rather than a decorative exploitation of her outer-aesthetic-beauty. She shows herself studying an unseen model with her hand poised over a blank canvas; this explains her thought process and demonstrates her skill rather. Rather than focus on compensation of her gender she demands the viewers’ attention to be focused on her abilities.
The same base colors are used in the actual painting as the burnt red base color on the blank canvas she is portraying. This reddish-brown is echoed in the bodice of her dress and complimented by the green of her puffed satin sleeves. She intentionally uses the green from the dress and uses it subtly and sparingly in the highlights on her neck and raised hand. This enhances the form. Her use of chiaroscuro is reminiscent of Caravaggio. The dark shades on the back of her dress blend into the reflected light off of her satin sleeves. Her pale flesh punctuates the near-center of the image, catching the eye.
Gentileschi’s self-portrait is very different from that of Judith Leyster in both form and context. Financially Leyster and her family did not enjoy the economic prosperity in the Netherlands that Gentileschi did in Italy. Leyster’s father was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1624 and she began to create paintings to sell on the open market. Between 1624 and 1630, Leyster was a pupil of Franz De Grebbers. It is also suspected that Leyster was an advanced student of Frans Hals, as her style shows his influence heavily.
In the Netherlands at the time, there was an economic boom due to the sale of tulip bulbs and women were allowed a greater independence. Leyster was a member of Haarlem’s Guild of St. Luke and by 1633 she was the only female member of the guild with her own studio.
Leyster showed herself in her c.1630 self-portrait as a well-dressed young woman, relaxed and happy in front of a partially finished painting. In addition to showing herself as a talented painter by holding several brushes, her intention was also to show that she was a competent painter. Her goal with showing competency was to acquire more commissions and thus make a better living for herself as an artist.
Leyster’s self-portrait is similar to those of past masters and is in what is commonly referred to as a “work-in-progress” painting, which was developed by Frans Hals. Her refined clothing is created with thick brushstrokes to create shining purple highlights. Thin layers of white create the illusion of sheer lace with glimpses of purple fabric underneath.
In order to fully understand a piece of art it is important to know what was going on with an artist at the time of creation, as well as to take into consideration the nuances of technique. The self-portraits by Artemisia Gentileschi and Judith Leyster are fairly extreme opposites in both form and context, but both are realistic representations and portrayals of life and art at the time they were created.
Artemisia Gentileschi's Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting is an incredibly bold work for its time. Painted during the Italian Baroque period in approximately 1630, and using elements of the "Allegory of Painting" from author Cesare Ripa's 1611 Iconologia, Gentileschi took an incredibly egotistical stand- to say that she was not only a female painter at a time when women were not even admitted into the artistic academies- but that as a female painter, she is the very embodiment of painting itself. Her posturing in the piece, with her raised chin, and the dynamics of showing herself deeply focused on the act of painting, also convey a sense of pride- and in addition to that, underscore the idea that she is an artist at work, showing herself in the pursuit of the noble goal of fulfillment, of personal achievement and happiness through her own means.
Furthermore, in regards to Artemesia, an interesting addition is that Gentileschi followed the allegorical references for the "Allegory of Painting", according to Ripa, except for one. The symbols of the allegory are: - a pendant mask on a gold chain, showing the artist's capability for imitation of what they see in life. - A color changing dress (difficult to see in digital representations of this work, but the green dress she has depicted herself in shifts colors in it's folds and highlights very subtly)- another interesting side note here would be that the "Allegory of Art", according to Ripa, is to be depicted in green, thus tying together painting as part of art as a whole. - Unruly hair, depicting "the divine frenzy of the artistic temperament", or showing the artistic conveyance of depicting work with emotion and inspiration. - The tools of a painter (palette and brush), shown in this piece being used and handled directly by the artist, while in many typical allegorical pictures from the time, they were placed nearby the figure, but not in use. - A piece of cloth binding the mouth of the allegory, meant to symbolize the non-verbal means of expression that the painter is limited to. This is the part that Gentileschi left out, which leads me to think that this could have been a mark of refusing to be "kept quiet" or "stay in her place" as a woman at the time, but instead to be bold and proud- neither qualities which were particularly promoted in women at the time.
About 1635, Judith Leyster painted this self-portrait. Leyster was born in Haarlem in 1609. She was the eighth child of a brewer and cloth maker. In 1628 her family moved to a town near Utrecht. At that moment, Utrecht was the active center of group of artists working in the tradition of Caravaggio. The work of these artists including Hendrick Terbruggen and Honthorst had a significant impact on Leyster's work. In 1629 Leyster and her family returned to Haarlem. By 1633 she became one of only two women to be granted membership to Haarlem's Guild of St. Luke. Within two years, Leyster had taken on three male apprentices in her shop. There are records of a suit initiated by Leyster claiming that Frans Hals had stolen one of her apprentices. All of this indicates that Leyster during the early 1630's ran an active workshop. It is from this period that the majority of her works are attributed. In 1636, she married a fellow painter, Jan Meinse Molenaer (1610-1668). The couple moved to Amsterdam. Her artistic production drops off dramatically at this point. Is it because she took on the traditional responsibilities of the wife working in the husband's shop and caring for their five children?
The self-portrait now in the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. places Leyster's work in the dominant currents of Dutch art of the period and constructs Leyster's identity as an artist. The painting was perhaps Leyster's "masterpiece" submitted to support her admission to the Guild of St. Luke. Leyster represents herself in the fashionable dress of the Dutch middle class. This is hardly the simple smock one might expect the artist to wear in the workshop, but rather it is the dress that signifies her social and economic status. The relationship of Leyster's work to that of Frans Hals, the dominant Haarlem artist of the period, has not been fully clarified. It has been suggested that she was an apprentice in Hals' shop, but this is not certain. The similarity of Leyster's work to that of Hals led early scholars to attribute her work to Hals. Leyster's self-portrait unmistakably relates her work to that of Hals. The informality of the pose with her turning away from her easel to look out at the viewer with her right arm resting on a chair back and jutting out towards a viewer is a portrait convention made popular by Frans Hals. The 1626 portrait of Isaac Abrahamsz Massa gives an early example of this portrait type. Spontaneity and informality are characteristics of the convention, which gives the sitter a sense of active engagement with the viewer's world. The web of diagonals that Hals uses to animate the composition is echoed in the Leyster composition. What is significant is that Hals uses this convention in the representation of male figures and notably not in the representation of women. Whereas the men with their jutting elbows actively challenge the boundary between the viewer's world and the pictured world, the women in the Hals' portraits are more contained in the picture space. The women's gestures enclose the figure regularly in Hals' portraits. The 1625 portrait of Anetta Hanemans illustrates this characteristic of the female portraits.
The painting on the easel serves to advertise a particular commodity that Leyster's workshop markets as well as places Leyster's work in the context of Dutch art. The jolly musician was a popular subject among the Utrecht Caravaggisti. Hendrick Terbrughen's painting entitled Duet exemplifies this type of work. Frans Hals who was strongly influenced by Terbrughen painted a number of paintings of this subject matter.
By Kiersten Kerr
History and Criticism of Art (4373)
Due: March 2nd, 2008
Formalism and Contextualism: A Comparison of Prominent Female Portraits
In art theory formalism is the concept that a work's artistic value is entirely determined by its form--the way it is made, its purely visual aspects and its medium. Formalism emphasizes compositional elements such as color, line, shape and texture rather than realism, context, and content. In visual art, formalism is the concept that everything necessary in a work of art is contained within it. The context for the work, including the reason for its creation, the historical background, and the life of the artist, is considered to be of secondary importance. Formalism dominated modern art from the late 1800s through the 1960s.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_%28art%29)
Contextualism describes a collection of views in the philosophy of language which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context. Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning P," "knowing that P," "having a reason to A," and possibly even "being true" or "being right" only have meaning relative to a specified context. Some philosophers hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism; nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within philosophy. In ethics, "contextualist" views are most closely associated with situational ethics, or with moral relativism.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualism)
The prior paragraphs are definitions found from Wikipedia. They are the philosophies that are the backbone supporting the following analysis of Portraits accomplished by Artemisia Gentileschi, native of Rome and Caravaggio zealot, and Judith Leyster, Haarlem native and demure painter whose claim to fame is due to her quiet statements portrayed with domestic genre scenes. The times in which these women affected their work the politics, the oppression of their sex, and, of course, the religious environment all were put into their self-portraits. The execution of either piece will be examined in order to validate the form; the context of each piece will reflect their personal morality and their societal impressions.
The allegory of painting was often depicted during the Baroque period as a female figure, Pittura. In 1611 a coin was printed depicting Lavinia Fontana as the famous Pittura. The coin portrays having wild hair and being consumed with her work. The coin had an influential impact on Artemisia Gentileschi. She took that the icon a step further with her Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting. In Allegory, Artemisia depicts herself with disheveled hair and an intense concentration on her artwork. The talisman of a mask worn around her neck signifies imitation. She utilizes a feminist ideology as a painter in the role as Pittura with the portrayal of herself as both the artist and the muse.
The form of Artemisia’s self-portrait differs greatly from her other works, especially because she does not try to portray herself as beautiful, though some may consider her as such. It was her goal to portray the action of artistic creation rather than a decorative exploitation of her outer-aesthetic-beauty. She shows herself studying an unseen model with her hand poised over a blank canvas; this explains her thought process and demonstrates her skill rather. Rather than focus on compensation of her gender she demands the viewers’ attention to be focused on her abilities.
The same base colors are used in the actual painting as the burnt red base color on the blank canvas she is portraying. This reddish-brown is echoed in the bodice of her dress and complimented by the green of her puffed satin sleeves. She intentionally uses the green from the dress and uses it subtly and sparingly in the highlights on her neck and raised hand. This enhances the form. Her use of chiaroscuro is reminiscent of Caravaggio. The dark shades on the back of her dress blend into the reflected light off of her satin sleeves. Her pale flesh punctuates the near-center of the image, catching the eye.
Gentileschi’s self-portrait is very different from that of Judith Leyster in both form and context. Financially Leyster and her family did not enjoy the economic prosperity in the Netherlands that Gentileschi did in Italy. Leyster’s father was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1624 and she began to create paintings to sell on the open market. Between 1624 and 1630, Leyster was a pupil of Franz De Grebbers. It is also suspected that Leyster was an advanced student of Frans Hals, as her style shows his influence heavily.
In the Netherlands at the time, there was an economic boom due to the sale of tulip bulbs and women were allowed a greater independence. Leyster was a member of Haarlem’s Guild of St. Luke and by 1633 she was the only female member of the guild with her own studio.
Leyster showed herself in her c.1630 self-portrait as a well-dressed young woman, relaxed and happy in front of a partially finished painting. In addition to showing herself as a talented painter by holding several brushes, her intention was also to show that she was a competent painter. Her goal with showing competency was to acquire more commissions and thus make a better living for herself as an artist.
Leyster’s self-portrait is similar to those of past masters and is in what is commonly referred to as a “work-in-progress” painting, which was developed by Frans Hals. Her refined clothing is created with thick brushstrokes to create shining purple highlights. Thin layers of white create the illusion of sheer lace with glimpses of purple fabric underneath.
In order to fully understand a piece of art it is important to know what was going on with an artist at the time of creation, as well as to take into consideration the nuances of technique. The self-portraits by Artemisia Gentileschi and Judith Leyster are fairly extreme opposites in both form and context, but both are realistic representations and portrayals of life and art at the time they were created.
Artemisia Gentileschi's Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting is an incredibly bold work for its time. Painted during the Italian Baroque period in approximately 1630, and using elements of the "Allegory of Painting" from author Cesare Ripa's 1611 Iconologia, Gentileschi took an incredibly egotistical stand- to say that she was not only a female painter at a time when women were not even admitted into the artistic academies- but that as a female painter, she is the very embodiment of painting itself. Her posturing in the piece, with her raised chin, and the dynamics of showing herself deeply focused on the act of painting, also convey a sense of pride- and in addition to that, underscore the idea that she is an artist at work, showing herself in the pursuit of the noble goal of fulfillment, of personal achievement and happiness through her own means.
Furthermore, in regards to Artemesia, an interesting addition is that Gentileschi followed the allegorical references for the "Allegory of Painting", according to Ripa, except for one. The symbols of the allegory are: - a pendant mask on a gold chain, showing the artist's capability for imitation of what they see in life. - A color changing dress (difficult to see in digital representations of this work, but the green dress she has depicted herself in shifts colors in it's folds and highlights very subtly)- another interesting side note here would be that the "Allegory of Art", according to Ripa, is to be depicted in green, thus tying together painting as part of art as a whole. - Unruly hair, depicting "the divine frenzy of the artistic temperament", or showing the artistic conveyance of depicting work with emotion and inspiration. - The tools of a painter (palette and brush), shown in this piece being used and handled directly by the artist, while in many typical allegorical pictures from the time, they were placed nearby the figure, but not in use. - A piece of cloth binding the mouth of the allegory, meant to symbolize the non-verbal means of expression that the painter is limited to. This is the part that Gentileschi left out, which leads me to think that this could have been a mark of refusing to be "kept quiet" or "stay in her place" as a woman at the time, but instead to be bold and proud- neither qualities which were particularly promoted in women at the time.
About 1635, Judith Leyster painted this self-portrait. Leyster was born in Haarlem in 1609. She was the eighth child of a brewer and cloth maker. In 1628 her family moved to a town near Utrecht. At that moment, Utrecht was the active center of group of artists working in the tradition of Caravaggio. The work of these artists including Hendrick Terbruggen and Honthorst had a significant impact on Leyster's work. In 1629 Leyster and her family returned to Haarlem. By 1633 she became one of only two women to be granted membership to Haarlem's Guild of St. Luke. Within two years, Leyster had taken on three male apprentices in her shop. There are records of a suit initiated by Leyster claiming that Frans Hals had stolen one of her apprentices. All of this indicates that Leyster during the early 1630's ran an active workshop. It is from this period that the majority of her works are attributed. In 1636, she married a fellow painter, Jan Meinse Molenaer (1610-1668). The couple moved to Amsterdam. Her artistic production drops off dramatically at this point. Is it because she took on the traditional responsibilities of the wife working in the husband's shop and caring for their five children?
The self-portrait now in the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. places Leyster's work in the dominant currents of Dutch art of the period and constructs Leyster's identity as an artist. The painting was perhaps Leyster's "masterpiece" submitted to support her admission to the Guild of St. Luke. Leyster represents herself in the fashionable dress of the Dutch middle class. This is hardly the simple smock one might expect the artist to wear in the workshop, but rather it is the dress that signifies her social and economic status. The relationship of Leyster's work to that of Frans Hals, the dominant Haarlem artist of the period, has not been fully clarified. It has been suggested that she was an apprentice in Hals' shop, but this is not certain. The similarity of Leyster's work to that of Hals led early scholars to attribute her work to Hals. Leyster's self-portrait unmistakably relates her work to that of Hals. The informality of the pose with her turning away from her easel to look out at the viewer with her right arm resting on a chair back and jutting out towards a viewer is a portrait convention made popular by Frans Hals. The 1626 portrait of Isaac Abrahamsz Massa gives an early example of this portrait type. Spontaneity and informality are characteristics of the convention, which gives the sitter a sense of active engagement with the viewer's world. The web of diagonals that Hals uses to animate the composition is echoed in the Leyster composition. What is significant is that Hals uses this convention in the representation of male figures and notably not in the representation of women. Whereas the men with their jutting elbows actively challenge the boundary between the viewer's world and the pictured world, the women in the Hals' portraits are more contained in the picture space. The women's gestures enclose the figure regularly in Hals' portraits. The 1625 portrait of Anetta Hanemans illustrates this characteristic of the female portraits.
The painting on the easel serves to advertise a particular commodity that Leyster's workshop markets as well as places Leyster's work in the context of Dutch art. The jolly musician was a popular subject among the Utrecht Caravaggisti. Hendrick Terbrughen's painting entitled Duet exemplifies this type of work. Frans Hals who was strongly influenced by Terbrughen painted a number of paintings of this subject matter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)