jimntx said:
Actually I think it works quite well. I'm hearing an awful lot of "if only they had left things the way they were. The system I am used to was perfect." And, I think it is going to continue.But, each of you make yourselves just as miserable as you wish over the changes. NEWSFLASH! They are not going to change back to suit you.Another quote: "Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be." --Abraham Lincoln
There was a similar debate in 2006-07 with HP/US.
The company made a decision:
"When making the decision on boarding priority, we looked at the fact that 20,000 of our employees worked for years in a seniority-based system. It just didnt seem right to simply take that away. "
It looks like they went with a similar methodology. Adopt the policy of the larger employee group.
Screen name, Fly with US had some advice years ago. Shoe is on the other foot in 2014.
"Come on guys, I can't believe we are agruing about a long-accepted thing, which is seniority. You do know that the earth does not evolve around you, so there will be times when you don't get a seat. Non-reving happens to be that way. There was/is no guarantee that there is a seat for you. Tough luck, life sucks; complain and get on with your life. "
The debate in 2006...
traderjake, on Mar 7 2006, 05:44 PM, said:
The senior employee makes more money and works a better schedule. Why should he be the only one who gets to commute or go on vacation?
First come, first serve gives everyone an equal chance of getting to work or Grandma's house.
The pilot's at US East reserve the jumpseat 7 days in advance on a first come, first serve basis. I would like a system where the non rev list is determined by the order that people list themselves online 2 or 7 days before the flight.
rjh
Posted 07 March 2006 - 08:09 PM
Agreed 100%. Flight benefits are just that: a BENEFIT. Senior employees don't get better medical, dental or vision coverage .why should they get a better chance to get on flights? They already get higher pay, more vacation, and a better choice of schedules. The better choice of schedules also gives many of the senior people long stretches of days off (in addition to vacation)--that gives them more opportunities to travel than junior people.
And the commuter excuse is the worst reason to go with seniority. Commuters made the CHOICE to be commuters. Yes, I know all the arguments: they did not choose to change bases and all that. But . they DID choose to stay in their current city and they DID choose to commute to their base. They could have moved or quit. In addition, most commuters are pilots or FA's, and they have an advantage most employees don't: access to jumpseats. Also, pilots (and maybe FA's, but I'm not sure) can also jumpseat for free on many other airlines. Other employees have to pay fees to travel on other airlines. In short: most (notice I did not say all) commuters have more options available to them.
Someone else said that using seniority helps plan better. How? When using first come/first serve, you plan your flights based on how many employees are already listed on the flight. If there are more non-revs than seats available--you know you need to check in early.
With senioirity--you would have to pull up the PNR for every employee, type in their badge # into DRS, determine their seniority date, and then compare their seniority to everyone else on the list.
fly with US
Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:06 PM
Don't be ridiculous guys, seniority is the *only* fair way. They have *earned* it. Somebody mentioned why should the senior worker get to go on vacation while the other doesn't? Well, because they *earned* it. They have been there longer, so they should have more benefits. Just like all the companies who reward more vacation days to the senior employees.
Imagine this, what if a person (person A) who has been working for US for 20 years is commuting to his job, while another person (person is a part-time, 1-year Joe Blow visiting his grandma. Person A is flying on flight A, while person B is flying on flight B. They both check in for their flight 12 hours before, so they are set. However, flight A is cancelled so person A has to fly on flight B. Why should person B have more rights to the seat?
For the most part, it seems that it is US and HP employees fighting against each other. Why don't you see US people arguing about not getting a seat on a flight to a senior person? Because they realize that that is a benefit with seniority. You HP guys are just freaking out because you think all the US employees will be senior to you. Don't worry, there will be a day (most likely soon) when you can bump off the newbies. I bet you won't be complaining then.
Seniority, way it may not seem fair at times, it the *only* fair way. Besides, for much of the years to come, a lot HP employees will stick to the West side, while US employees will stick to the East side, so that way, you won't have an unfair seniority issue here.
Come on guys, I can't believe we are agruing about a long-accepted thing, which is seniority. You do know that the earth does not evolve around you, so there will be times when you don't get a seat. Non-reving happens to be that way. There was/is no guarantee that there is a seat for you. Tough luck, life sucks; complain and get on with your life.
Company decision in 2007:
Q. This seems to heavily favor the seniority system of the East.
A. This is a seniority based boarding process, which is what the East had. When making the decision on boarding priority, we looked at the fact that 20,000 of our employees worked for years in a seniority-based system. It just didnt seem right to simply take that away. So we struck a balance, although its clear that seniority is the main determinant. It was important to recognize that the East operation is heavily supported by commuters, and commuters can travel for work easier on a seniority based system.
