Combined Travel Rules

[UPNAWAY]

Actually during the AWA/US merger the initial decision was FCFS, but the East (Primarily FAs) went ballistic and they changed to seniority. BTW Seniority has almost completely ruined aviation as a career not made it better.

 

[700UW]

Actually during the AWA/US merger the initial decision was FCFS, but the East (Primarily FAs) went ballistic and they changed to seniority. BTW Seniority has almost completely ruined aviation as a career not made it better.

Wrong
 
It was going to arbitration as its contractual in the AFA/US CBA and the company backed down.

 

[AANOTOK]

700, how about the grievance you talked about being filed in the AA/US situation. Any ruling yet?

 

[Hope777]

Snap...  careless about seniority or fcfs.   just dont agree with the current sa5a sa5p, thats all but it changing soon enough.  With good planning it rarely matters

 

[UPNAWAY]

It is a none issue for 99% of us 99% of the time. 

 

[snapthis]

 

Snap...  careless about seniority or fcfs.   just dont agree with the current sa5a sa5p, thats all but it changing soon enough.  With good planning it rarely matters

True, good planning goes a long way..I could go with either policy since I have used both. It's fear of the unknown and learning something new syndrome. FCFS is a fairer system as well. The company used a similar methodology when they made the CTR decision years ago with US-HP.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I've been watching the videos of Parker'semployee meetings, and the subject of retiree travel keeps coming up.  He gives the same excuse as always about why the retirees now come behind active employees.  It is not a matter of fairness, per se, since he acknowledges that retirees have spent decades expecting one thing, then get it taken away.  He simply says a decision had to be made one way or the other, and he made it.  Given the huge number of retirees of the combined airline, it kind of makes sense, and it's still kind of unfair.
 
How about this compromise which should be fairly easy to institute:  For retirees who stay until at least 65 AND have at least 35 years of service (basically giving their entire professional life to AA or its merger partners), why not let them in the same queue as the active employees?  (For pilots who previously had to retire by law at 60, give them a bonus 5 years in both calculations if they stayed until 60.)   
 
Bottom line:  It really isn't fair to spend your entire life working for one company with the promise of this perk, only to be bumped out of line by an arbitrary decision.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I've been watching the videos of Parker'semployee meetings, and the subject of retiree travel keeps coming up.  He gives the same excuse as always about why the retirees now come behind active employees.  It is not a matter of fairness, per se, since he acknowledges that retirees have spent decades expecting one thing, then get it taken away.  He simply says a decision had to be made one way or the other, and he made it.  Given the huge number of retirees of the combined airline, it kind of makes sense, and it's still kind of unfair.
 
How about this compromise which should be fairly easy to institute:  For retirees who stay until at least 65 AND have at least 35 years of service (basically giving their entire professional life to AA or its merger partners), why not let them in the same queue as the active employees?  Sorry, but it is rather unseemly for some agent who has been enduring daily BS for 40 years to get bumped out of the ten available seats by youngsters who don't have 40 years of service combined among them.  (For pilots who previously had to retire by law at 60, give them a bonus 5 years in both calculations if they stayed until 60.)   
 
Bottom line:  It really isn't fair to spend your entire life working for one company with the promise of this perk, only to be bumped out of line by an arbitrary decision.

 

[MetalMover]

I've been watching the videos of Parker'semployee meetings, and the subject of retiree travel keeps coming up.  He gives the same excuse as always about why the retirees now come behind active employees.  It is not a matter of fairness, per se, since he acknowledges that retirees have spent decades expecting one thing, then get it taken away.  He simply says a decision had to be made one way or the other, and he made it.  Given the huge number of retirees of the combined airline, it kind of makes sense, and it's still kind of unfair.
 
How about this compromise which should be fairly easy to institute:  For retirees who stay until at least 65 AND have at least 35 years of service (basically giving their entire professional life to AA or its merger partners), why not let them in the same queue as the active employees?  (For pilots who previously had to retire by law at 60, give them a bonus 5 years in both calculations if they stayed until 60.)   
 
Bottom line:  It really isn't fair to spend your entire life working for one company with the promise of this perk, only to be bumped out of line by an arbitrary decision.

Life's not fair. I had my pension frozen. It was promised to me when I started. I also had retiree medical which I funded..Gone!
I for one am glad Parker is sticking to his guns.
And yes I will be retired one day.  Yes, I am aware that people gave their lives to the company only to have it taken away. Well, guess what? There are active employees who have suffered the same fate and continue to do so moving forward. . The retirees to date have kept their medical. That is way more valuable than their boarding priority. 
But they're not happy. They want the same boarding priority as well as equity. 
They took their buyout but want more....
To them I say, enjoy your retiree medical. Good for you! 
But you will just have to watch me board the aircraft before you. 
Nothing is for certain except for death and taxes.
 
I can't help but wonder how many of these retirees voted YES to the contracts past for early outs and buyouts? The "I GOT MINE" crowd.
So if it is okay for them to say "I GOT MINE" then it should be okay for active employees to say the same thing.

 

[boston]

I thought employees were to receive additional D-1's on the AA side?? Is this coming up??
Thanks
 

 

[AANOTOK]

I thought employees were to receive additional D-1's on the AA side?? Is this coming up??
Thanks
 

Jan 2015

 

[jimntx]

Given the huge number of retirees of the combined airline, it kind of makes sense, and it's still kind of unfair.

The quote button doesn't work for me. I copied this from an nycbusdriver post on previous page.

If any one is wondering how huge, there are now more living retirees for AA and US Airways combined than there are active employees combined. If the policy had remained the same none of the commuters would be able to get to work during high travel season.

 

[bob@las-AA]

The quote button doesn't work for me. I copied this from an nycbusdriver post on previous page.

If any one is wondering how huge, there are now more living retirees for AA and US Airways combined than there are active employees combined. If the policy had remained the same none of the commuters would be able to get to work during high travel season.

Try Google Chrome the ie 11 is the worst.

 

[jimntx]

Since it's already installed on my computer, I'll give it a try. Thanks.

 

[Ifly2]

Question: Flight tomorrow was fairly open when listed wife as D2 and checked her in (again, for a flight tomorrow). Looks as though flights are filling up. Can I cancel her PNR for that flight tomorrow and then list her as a D1 to increase her chances, or is that pass abuse. I understand if you were at the gate waiting, but a flight in 24 hours.
 
I think I have done it before without any repercussions. I think!

Absolutely and specifically prohibited by AA rules.

(After check-in...)

It also says that if you want to change from d2 to d1 you must cancel your listing, and create a New listing for a Later flight

The fact that you got away with it doesn't make it ok, or mean that you always will.

fwiw