US1YFARE
Veteran
- Mar 31, 2004
- 3,932
- 54
how do you want to board
- Thread starter etops1
- Start date
Uh-Uh- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #17
ok ... that was funny but totally uncalled for.
USCREW
Veteran
I am concerned about FCFS versus DOH mainly for commuters. For leisure travel, I buy real tickets for a family of six, including three small children who can not sit alone. The twelve-hour check-in simply will not work when I'm travelling a very long distance, starting in a very remote Asian village.
USCREW
Veteran
Oh that's funnyLike Honolulu?
You mean like from the "Hilton Hawaiian Village"? I used to commute from HNL to PIT a long time ago. I live in base now. My family and I usually travel to Asia a couple times a year.
US1YFARE
Veteran
- Mar 31, 2004
- 3,932
- 54
Oh that's funny
that may get easier once US buys NW
h34r:
USCREW
Veteran
I can't wait!that may get easier once US buys NW
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
This decision isn't going to effect me no matter how it is resolved. But I wonder about the mindset of some who think that commuters should have an advantage over leisure travellers.
Commuters had a choice whether or not to move to base or commute. They continue to have a choice whether or not they continue to work in a field and at an airline that has caused many folks to feel like gypsies. But how does your choice to live like that override or have some form of priority over someone else's choice to go on a pleasure trip?
While you may come back and say "they made me move here" etc., the bottom line is you decided to either not move or stay with the company. Other folks shouldn't have to subsidize your decision with their equal right to an airline seat that is also part of their benefits.
Commuters had a choice whether or not to move to base or commute. They continue to have a choice whether or not they continue to work in a field and at an airline that has caused many folks to feel like gypsies. But how does your choice to live like that override or have some form of priority over someone else's choice to go on a pleasure trip?
While you may come back and say "they made me move here" etc., the bottom line is you decided to either not move or stay with the company. Other folks shouldn't have to subsidize your decision with their equal right to an airline seat that is also part of their benefits.
I agree with hp_fa 100%. But, in the same breath, I think I might have a solution. Seems to me like the biggest argument for DOH boarding comes from those who commute to work. Why not have commuters list at a different boarding priority? We don't all need to fly SA3. There's SA1 and SA2 that could be used.
Here's the catch, however. A supervisor would need to approve any commuter listing at the higher priority.
To sum up: Commuting? Fly SA1 with DOH boarding. On vacation? Fly SA3 (or SA1 with pass) with FCFS boarding.
Thoughts?
Here's the catch, however. A supervisor would need to approve any commuter listing at the higher priority.
To sum up: Commuting? Fly SA1 with DOH boarding. On vacation? Fly SA3 (or SA1 with pass) with FCFS boarding.
Thoughts?
USCREW
Veteran
I personally do not believe that commuters should get a higher priority. Who is to say that one type of non-rev travel is more important than another, except for bereavement travel. It should be DOH, and the employee's purpose of travel is irrelevant.
Also, most commuters are crew who have access to jumpseats. F/As who are registered commuters get two "unable-to-commutes" per year. An F/A or pilot can also work the flight for another if it is the crew member's last live leg. These are a few advantages that commuting crews get that other non-revs do not.
Also, most commuters are crew who have access to jumpseats. F/As who are registered commuters get two "unable-to-commutes" per year. An F/A or pilot can also work the flight for another if it is the crew member's last live leg. These are a few advantages that commuting crews get that other non-revs do not.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #27
I've followed the commuting argument, which resulted in my doing a little polling of the crews I fly with. The results are that almost all the commuting crewmembers don't (repeat - don't) commute from a base that they were displaced from. The majority don't even commute from a city that was ever a US East base.
Admittedly, CLT is something of an exception since it's the most senior base in the East system - more people have been displaced from CLT than to CLT. So that skews my results. The same would be true of PIT, with the reductions there.
So my thoughts - if someone is commuting from a base they've been displaced from, giving them some kind of higher priority between their former base and their current base is fine with me (StuckHere's suggestion is as good as any). But if someone chooses to commute from MCO, DFW, DTW, STL, etc, that's their choice. That choice shouldn't give them any higher priority.
Just keep in mind that not only crews commute. For example, one of the staff in the CLT base office has commuted from GSO since it closed in 1991, riding an airplane back and forth 5 days a week. People like that deserve the same higher priority that any crewmembers might get.
Jim
USCREW
Veteran
Yes, but there have been cases where proof was needed prior to travel, and there was not enough time. In these cases, FCFS would be clearly worse if you could not have twelve hours to plan as well.
USCREW
Veteran
What if someone has not been displaced but must commute to another base to be able to fly at all? Like many who CHOOSE to commute from PIT since they can not get in their time sitting reserve after 25 years? Is their situation any better than being forced out through displacements?
Not sure where I am being confusing, but I am saying that this boarding issue affects commuters the most, and that I am FOR DOH, without priority.
