Message to Retirees RE: Pass Policy

[Snafu]

If I were a union official I would think relocation expenses to be a common sense contract agreement. Those non-union, non management folks that were asked to relocate from Pitt and Charlotte as far as I know where given some sort of relocation allowance. I base this on the assumption that I read zero posts complaining about the cost to relocate. I could be wrong, but it seems common sense if the company offers you a job in another location they would assist you in moving. If this is not true then the company's position on this is unethical.

I assime you're not a union official so how would you know? You're not even in a union. Have you ever been?

Common sense?? Come on........are you living under a rock?? Where in the aviation business industry does one find common sense??

Those given a relocation allowance were way up there in the food chain. Not your common, every day, expendable non union/management employees. Those are NOT the people that are on this board. Wake up and smell the jet fuel!!

Unethical?? How many rocks are you living under??

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Yea, I know, you produce the koolaide for the employees to gulp for DP.

Good job.

Pitbull, I respect your position. Believe it or not, my opinions and views are very similiar to many of my co-workers upstairs in the Hangar. Do we all have rosed colored glasses? No. One of my co-workers warned me to stop coming to this board..."it will rot your brain" was his remark. I can't stop. In part to tell our story and share our experiences so our East counterparts can begin to understand us, much in the same way we are coming to understand the East.

The gloom is understandable. I respect your experiences. It will be interesting in a year or so to see where we are.

Those given a relocation allowance were way up there in the food chain. Not your common, every day, expendable non union/management employees. Those are NOT the people that are on this board. Wake up and smell the jet fuel!!

Your sure about that? Were you asked to relocate on your own expense? I'd be very interested to hear from someone asked to relocate at their own expense. There is talk we may be asked to relocate to Charlotte and if the company won't help in the relocation then I'll probably turn down the offer.

 

[Paul]

This has gone from Pass policy to Relocation allowances. Start a new topic if need be, but get this one back on track. Thank you.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

I've posted the question in the Questions for Management thread. Thanks Paul for pointing this out.

 

[allunionsdeceive]

: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:

good, leave

 

[rjh]

Smoooth talker ... this DP! No matter how he has his script writer "spin" it .... he has screwed Dedicated Retirees out of a hard earned and valued Benefit! He sees no value in Retirees ..... so this is no big suprise!

I sense this is just the beginning .......

How are you screwed out of anything?? You still have the benefits--be lucky you have that at all!

No matter what is decided, somebody will be unhappy.

 

[allunionsdeceive]

How are you screwed out of anything?? You still have the benefits--be lucky you have that at all!

No matter what is decided, somebody will be unhappy.

the retirees get guest passes

 

[rjh]

the retirees get guest passes

They also get free travel for themselves. They get the benefits, they just board at a lower priority than active employees.

 

[2BorNot2B]

They also get free travel for themselves. They get the benefits, they just board at a lower priority than active employees.

You are perfectly correct! And with load factors being what they are.. there are hardly any seats available to/from major destinations! Seniority is what counts ...! Lower priority will have the same effect as removing seniority, just sounds better for the Spin Doctors!

 

[RedOne]

Looking thru my bi-focals....appears that he is just looking out for acive US-west employees. This keeps retired east employees from bumping west active.

 

[john john]

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.)

Well there seems to be a problem with your fist come first served. Your interpretation of the Violation of corporate non-rev travel policy is laughable. (You gave your computer password to another person. listing oneself on multiple flights) It is what it is. You have to give your password to family and your have to list multiple flights

 

[BearHunter]

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!

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your belief that commuters should have first priority over anyone else and then retirees. Commuters may have to live out of base because of home and family obligations but some of us bit the bullet and got crash pads in our assigned bases and don't wait until the day we are due to fly or go on call to get into base. If one has worked in this industry for any length of time, they have some idea what the loads and schedules are like any given day of the year and should plan their flying accordingly. I should not be bumped down the list just because someone chooses to try to get to base at the last minute and we all know someone that tries to do it with regularity. As for the retirees, while I appreciate their years of service and am greatful that when they left I moved up a spot in seniority, I, just like them, in the last few years took huge pay and benefit cuts but unlike them, don't have enough time to take advantage of the EO program. Yes I could leave and do something else but I love this job. I understand that some of the retirees have had to take other jobs as a result of taking the EO but they didn't have to leave as far as I know and as such should have expected that the new face of this company was also going to mean new rules for all, regardless of the perks that were promised by USEast. And so there we have it, the active workers have priority and the retirees have been relagated to the middle of the list, be thankful that it wasn't to the bottom or eliminated all together. It is afterall a perk that you wont find other companies offering their retirees at other mainstream companies.

 

[rjh]

I agree that commuters should NOT be given higher priority. Although they did not choose to change bases, they DID choose to commute rather than move (or get a new job at their home). Trying to commute to work is really no different than trying to get back to work after vacation. Another point: most commuters are crewmembers, especially those that commute due to base changes. For those people, they have another option available to them: the jumpseat. Most other employees do NOT have this option.

 

[700UW]

I think it is not right to put the retirees below actives, they worked hard and sacrificed just like everyone else, the US/East retirees lost their healthcare, had their pensions reduced and some of them had to go back to work to make ends meet.

They deserve the respect and dignity to be treated as a active employee when it comes to flying.

 

[Seatacus]

Will someone please let this thread die. It's nauseating to hear all the "actives" tell us how important they are. Those of you who stood up for retirees to keep their boarding priority, thank you so much. Those of you who wanted us to go away, I guess you are getting your wish.