Message to Retirees RE: Pass Policy

[mlt]

Don't be angry or envious of the new hire. They are responsible for you being able to use your current retiree flying benefit.

To write/believe the above statement there must be a traumatic head injury in your past. Even though your comment is almost worth a trip to the cornfield, I think I will walk away.

 

[airportman]

:down: :down: :down: Whats the point. So i leave after 25 years, retire, and now go at a LOWER priority that someone whos brand spankin new..HOW PATHETIC.... Didnt get SQUAT for leaving US, so my business, full fare and better serivce, will now go to JET BLUE and soon VIRGIN AMERICA. No point in having airline benefits, they dont F...N exist.
Better off going full fare ( cheap fare ) on A REAL airline. Will also make it a point to direct family and friends to now fly JET BLUE and VIRGIN. What a waste of 25 years! :down: :down: :down: :down:

Well at least he took the time to explain the policy reasoning unlike our other Leaders. As to the anger and bitterness in your post, Why? It isnt the end of the earth, it will just take a little more planning....As an active employee i will adjust to the rule when I retire and be glad i still get to travel free.......Consider this if after 25 years, your upset and ready to sink usairways for boarding status your not a very good person....think of those 25 years of freinds/coworkers you met along the way, the good times you had the people you met and just that one fun layover you had in elmira, ny during that 3 day blizzard back in 63.

IT IS WHAT IT IS>>>>>> MOVE ON

 

[PQAKnow-It-All]

The career airline employee is just about dead. For that matter of fact, career ANYTHING is just about dead. Corporate America has seen to that. I advise anyone considering a job at an airline to reconsider though. There is NO reason at all to stay anymore. Hell, the airlines dont WANT you to stay.

Now you get it!!!....you don't have to agree with it, but this is excatly why retirees board at a lower priority..The company doesnt want (regardless of what they actually NEED) your service for life. Your senior pay is too much (haha), and replacing you with a new-hire is several $$ per hour cheaper!

 

[retiredman]

Of course not. Retirees are only a liability, like it or not. Just exactly what do you contend the value of retirees is to an organization? The cutting of all sorts of retiree benefits has been an ongoing process throughout all sectors of the US economy. Have you looked at your healthcare plan lately? The reality is, retirees have NONE, except for what they buy, or a government provided plan (medicare). It ain't gonna get any better for the guys still working, either!

 

[kobe1]

Active employees get almost no vacation anymore while retires who at least are truley retired from all work have a much more flexible schedule. I think it was the right decision.

 

[ChrisUS]

Active employees get almost no vacation anymore while retires who at least are truley retired from all work have a much more flexible schedule. I think it was the right decision.

AH, thats the keyword here! TRULY! If I was TRULY retired, i'd still think it was a slam but I could see the logic. The fact is, MOST of the "retirees" arent TRULY retired. We HAVE to work to get medical coverage and income. So we start a new job, with as much vacation as a new hire but go below them despite our past service. This is what has us all pissed off. We did our time at the bottom of the list.

 

[Old PSA]

I would like to take exception to one of the premises that Mr. Parker stated, that is that retirees have more leisure time and therefore can adjust their travel plans. I believe a great many of the retirees from the old US, left because of other issues that actually retiring from work. I left(laid off and then retired) after 34 years, I continue to work a 50+ hour week and don't have a lot of time to sit in airports. That being said, the decision was his to make and he did.

It is clear that I am part of the past and he is looking to the future. That seems to be the way America now works.

 

[UWCactus]

It would been nice to offer people with over 25 years of service, a higher priority. Obviously that won't happen, but I understand where they are coming from. Quite frankly if someone can retire after only 10 years of service, there is no reason they should go ahead of a hard working 20 year employee. They just didn't put in enough time.

Just remember guys, the Old US Airways is gone...you will continue to see policy changes that reflect the America West business model.

 

[ChrisUS]

Your senior pay is too much (haha), and replacing you with a new-hire is several $$ per hour cheaper!

That is one of the reasons I left. I knew the company was offering the EO to get rid of the top pay people and replace them with bottom scale pay and vacation level people. Things were getting worse and worse and I decided it was time to leave. It was benefitual to both. We were given a contract to sign that stated we would be boarded as active employees since we had over 25 years.

I never realized US originally cared more for it's people than HP did/does. Makes you wonder, when management leaves and they keep their pass privileges, we they board BELOW the active employees since THEY will now have all the flexibility we have supposedly?

 

[jimntx]

Just another indication that an airline job is no longer a career. The Vacation Pass is a nice idea, I guess.
Could someone sign in for whole bunch of flights?

If you mean, can a person list on multiple flights, such as in the DFW-ORD market. Technically, yes but there is no need to. If you are listed and checked in for the first flight of the day and you don't get on and you have presented yourself in person at the gate podium, you are automatically rolled over to the standby list for the next flight. In addition, you take priority over the people who are just checked in for that next flight.

Also, I understand that the company is cracking down on "non-rev" abuse--such as listing oneself on multiple flights--because it messes up load estimates, etc. It is technically a violation of corporate travel policy to multi-list.

A couple of other things the company is cracking down on...
1. Say you are a f/a or pilot, and you are non-revving home at the end of your sequence, but you will be in the air when the 4-hour window for check-in is reached; so, you have someone else sign on to the computer with your id and password and check you in for the flight. Termination offense--2 times. Violation of corporate non-rev travel policy (first come, first served applies always within a category) and you gave your computer password to another person. Violation of corporate computer security policy.
2. Same situation, but you list and check in for a flight that will depart before you arrive at base because you know that you will roll over to the standby list for the flight you want, but at a higher priority than the people who just listed for that flight. (This should not happen because of the "present yourself at the gate podium" rule, but the poor agents are so short staffed and overworked these days that they don't have time to purge the standby list of no shows most of the time. They just roll the entire "leftover" list to the next flight.)

 

[ChrisUS]

It is clear that I am part of the past and he is looking to the future. That seems to be the way America now works.

Yeah, " Thanks a lot, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye! Hey, are you still alive?"

 

[ChrisUS]

If you are listed and checked in for the first flight of the day and you don't get on and you have presented yourself in person at the gate podium, you are automatically rolled over to the standby list for the next flight.

The way I understood it, yes, this works if we are in the same city pair. Say you are trying to get from BOS to LAX and list through PHX. Now either you dont get on or the flight has a mechanical and you will misconnect. If you go over to the LAS connection that leaves an hour later, you are now on the bottom of the list. THIS people think is a GOOD PLAN?

Also, I understand that the company is cracking down on "non-rev" abuse--such as listing oneself on multiple flights--because it messes up load estimates, etc. It is technically a violation of corporate travel policy to multi-list.

If it works like I think it does, you HAVE to check in for multiple flights or you will fall into the scenario I described above. PLEASE, if Im wrong in this, correct me.
This is why seniorty is much more fair but wont be the policy selected because it isnt the way HP did it in the past.

1. Say you are a f/a or pilot, and you are non-revving home at the end of your sequence, but you will be in the air when the 4-hour window for check-in is reached; so, you have someone else sign on to the computer with your id and password and check you in for the flight.

Again, this is FAIR? You are working so you cant comply with the 4 hour rule so tough luck? Bottom of the list.
:-(

Quite frankly if someone can retire after only 10 years of service, there is no reason they should go ahead of a hard working 20 year employee. They just didn't put in enough time.

I agree with you on this.

Just remember guys, the Old US Airways is gone...you will continue to see policy changes that reflect the America West business model.

Yeah, and they pass it off as "FAIR" or "what everyone else does".

 

[mlt]

Just remember guys, the Old US Airways is gone...you will continue to see policy changes that reflect the America West business model.

deleted by moderator


QUOTE(UWCactus @ Dec 14 2005, 04:35 PM)

As it turns out, it's cheaper to train for the turnover than it is to have long term employees that eventually seek higher and higher wages, retirement plans, etc.



QUOTE(UWCactus @ Dec 7 2005, 08:01 AM)

or better yet, figure out a way to have them terminated.

 

[Bambi]

Some may want to read my response on another thread

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...pic=24789&st=15

However, I want to first thank all retirees for their service thru the years. I don't want you to think I'm pacifying you when I say that. I just want you to know that your service is valued highly by many here today.

That being said, I am not an active employee who has to commute to get to and from work, and as I've stated prior on another thread, I truly do believe those who commute should maintain a higher priority. One thing I have never understood is why the airline doesn't allow commuters a higher priority than anyone else anyway. IE: f/a's, pilots, crew...besides the exhaustion of flying all over God's creation all day/nite long, just to know you can get home to your family and relax for a day or two is comforting. Many crewmembers thru the years have been forced to commute due to "base" city changes etc. This should not be something that is held against them for choosing not to go to the expense of moving to another base or the emotional issues along with that if you have children settled into a school, etc.

I am a firm believer that perhaps there should be a different priority created for commuters first...then, fine, give secondary to retirees, then next active employees. To me, this seems like the most fair thing to do. This way those who have to commute to get to and from their bases can do so without the fear of missing their jobs and/or having to call in sick because they were "bumped."

Well, this is all IMHO and I will forward this to CHQ to perhaps consider one final revision.

AGain, I thank all here for their continued support and concern for their company. I do hope you'll take the time to read my other post on the other thread.

Have a great day all! OH..and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

 

[ChrisUS]

However, I want to first thank all retirees for their service thru the years. I don't want you to think I'm pacifying you when I say that. I just want you to know that your service is valued highly by many here today.

Thanks my friend, we all appreciate your sentiments and hope that someday you get to retire also.

I am a firm believer that perhaps there should be a different priority created for commuters first...then, fine, give secondary to retirees, then next active employees.

Well, I agree with commuters having a higher priority. You are away from family and relatives and deserve every chance you have to get back to them! I dont agree with retirees having a priority AHEAD of active though. Just equal to. If we are forced into time of check in for clearing, then they REALLY should give priority to commuters. Its only fair.