Yup. And how many pilots/ FA's commute? That would shut the airline down that same day. Brilliant....
NON REV
- Thread starter Sthrnboy
- Start date
Back in 1991, HP, spiraling down into Bankruptcy imposed a service charge for non revs of $10 rt for employes and $20 for dependants. They made allownaces for employees commutting to and from work assignments. Being able to fly free is a great perk and I still say we need to pick our battles and not wine over little details.Yup. And how many pilots/ FA's commute? That would shut the airline down that same day. Brilliant....
When every little aspect of your job is hotly contested, it sends the message thst you bi.ch about everything so management doesn't take them seriously. When you only complain about those things that are really important, then management can focus on that.
We need to acknowledge our flight benefits are great and the priority boarding, although maybe not what you wanted to see happen, is aceptable and we'll let that lie. But we need to be paid more money to make a fair and decent wage. That sounds better that saying everything sucks and Tempe is a bunch of idiots and I won't stand for it anymore. You're not likely to get anywhere with that kind of attitude. Just my opinion.
Really? So I guess I should just shutup and be thankful I have a job, right? I am not sure if you are from the East or West (I'm assuming West by your post...), but I believe it is fair to "b.tch" about things at this point. 40% of my pay, benefits, and work rules have been invested in keeping this combined company afloat, and I will and should demand a fair contract and a livable wage. ( I know blah blah you have heard it before, but dat is da reality, dude...) No matter how small, a contract violation is a violation. You are aware that mgmt simply used the BK process (TWICE) to shred our contracts, and planned to do the same for the DL people, right? Wake up.
Now, maybe you could give me a nice example of what is an "important" thing that is worth complaining about? Obviously contract violations don't qualify, so what would you complain about? If you are not outraged, you are either not paying attention, or you are heavily medicated for one reason or another.
I'm just saying to leave the whole Non Rev thing alone. It's a fair system and by complaining about it we are showing management we are a bunch of winers.
Pay is a different story. By all means, if we are making more profit than any other network carrier, then we should be earning incomes equivelant to the other carriers. The question is....for those work groups who are not....who is holding it up...is it management or the unions? Passenger Service seemed to be able to agree to terms right after the merger. Why can't FA and pilots?
SpinDoc replies:
Yeah. That will show them, those meanies in Tempe. Let's just be unprofessional for a day, and take it out on the customers who rely on US for their transportation needs.
How old are we? Like 13 and a half? Grow up children. It's a different world, and change will be constant.
For me, the issue is that the company needs to know that it is not alright to make changes that are against any contract without approaching the unions about the changes first and working it out.
It seems to be a theme with new management to just ignore the contracts and do what they want and then sort it out later. I know the company ignored the East's contract when it came to the 190 (I can dig up the e-line if anybody needs to see it) and now it seems they have ignored contracts with regard to non-rev travel and boarding priority language in several contracts.
By ignoring the contract language, no matter how small, the company is disrespecting the employees and contracts they agreed to. While the non-rev issue itself may not seem like a big deal to some, if the unions let it go without a word what next item in the contract will the company attack.
Management is pushing the unions to see just how much they can get away with. IMHO The company knows that this issue is not important enough to cause a job action and can be settled at the table; therefore, they just did what they wanted and will take a slap on the wrist from the unions if they were wrong.
It seems to be a theme with new management to just ignore the contracts and do what they want and then sort it out later. I know the company ignored the East's contract when it came to the 190 (I can dig up the e-line if anybody needs to see it) and now it seems they have ignored contracts with regard to non-rev travel and boarding priority language in several contracts.
By ignoring the contract language, no matter how small, the company is disrespecting the employees and contracts they agreed to. While the non-rev issue itself may not seem like a big deal to some, if the unions let it go without a word what next item in the contract will the company attack.
Management is pushing the unions to see just how much they can get away with. IMHO The company knows that this issue is not important enough to cause a job action and can be settled at the table; therefore, they just did what they wanted and will take a slap on the wrist from the unions if they were wrong.
allegheny36
Advanced
- Nov 9, 2005
- 186
- 0
I,ve posted this before, maybe I,ll get an answer this time
December 22, 2005
File: USA-18
2005-172
US AIRWAYS SPECIAL BULLETIN PASS POLICY CHANGE
To All US Airways Mechanics and Related Employees:
The Union is in receipt of a publication put out by the company to all employees announcing changes in the company’s pass policy and boarding priorities for retirees. The union was not notified of this intended change, nor was the matter discussed with the Union. We demand a meeting with the company to discuss this matter. We believe the change in policy is a violation of the seniority rights’ of our members and a serious breech of our collective bargaining agreement. We request the company maintain the status quo regarding pass policy until the issue is resolved.
We will keep you advised of future developments.
Wishing you a happy holiday season.
Fraternally yours,
William O’Driscoll
President-Directing General Chairman
Note the Date still no follow up on this.
Did I miss any response from the IAM to the retirees?
December 22, 2005
File: USA-18
2005-172
US AIRWAYS SPECIAL BULLETIN PASS POLICY CHANGE
To All US Airways Mechanics and Related Employees:
The Union is in receipt of a publication put out by the company to all employees announcing changes in the company’s pass policy and boarding priorities for retirees. The union was not notified of this intended change, nor was the matter discussed with the Union. We demand a meeting with the company to discuss this matter. We believe the change in policy is a violation of the seniority rights’ of our members and a serious breech of our collective bargaining agreement. We request the company maintain the status quo regarding pass policy until the issue is resolved.
We will keep you advised of future developments.
Wishing you a happy holiday season.
Fraternally yours,
William O’Driscoll
President-Directing General Chairman
Note the Date still no follow up on this.
Did I miss any response from the IAM to the retirees?
allegheny36
Advanced
- Nov 9, 2005
- 186
- 0
Unless your retired with 36 years then the 2 year will board first. In fact 6 months would do.
OK, here is the latest, nice to see AFA (West) standing up for themselves.
From AFA66 newsletter, dated 2/8/07:
Mr. Al Hemenway
Vice President Labor Relations
US Airways
4000 E Sky Harbor Blvd.
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Re: US Airways' Unilateral Change in the AFA-AWA Collective Bargaining Agreement
Dear Mr. Hemenway:
In his January 30, 2007 presentation titled "4Q 2006: State of the Union," CEO Doug Parker announced a unilateral change in the procedures for awarding non-revenue boarding passes for the Company's employees. As embodied in Section 27 (Q)(2) of the AFA-AWA CBA, however, the Company agreed with AFA that the policy in effect on the date of contract ratification "shall not be reduced or discontinued during the life of the Agreement." The "current" policy is based on a "first come, first-served" system without regard to a flight attendant’s seniority. As presented by Mr. Parker, the new, unilaterally imposed boarding procedure will be as follows:
Non-rev boarding will be sorted by:
FIRST, priority code (SA3P before SA4P)
THEN, by year of hire (1983 before 2001)
THEN, by first come, first-served (8:00a.m. before 8:15 a.m.)
Based on this presentation, the current policy has been changed drastically by making the "first come, first-served" criterion the third and final basis for awarding flight attendants a non-revenue seat. On its face, this new boarding policy thus "discontinues" the current policy and reduces the current procedures agreed to by US Airways in the flight attendant CBA. As a result, the Company has violated the status quo requirements of the Railway Act through its unilateral action.
By this letter, AFA demands that US Airways cease and desist from all efforts to implement a new and unilaterally imposed non-revenue boarding procedure. Any changes to the current boarding policy must be agreed to by AFA. If AFA does not agree to any changes to the CBA, then the Company is prohibited from implementing this policy, as announced, on March 3, 2007.
Furthermore, if the Company pursues this unilateral change to the CBA, then AFA will be compelled to use all available legal remedies to enforce its statutory rights under the RLA.
AFA appreciates your attention to this matter, and looks forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Gilmartin
Associate General Counsel
From AFA66 newsletter, dated 2/8/07:
Mr. Al Hemenway
Vice President Labor Relations
US Airways
4000 E Sky Harbor Blvd.
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Re: US Airways' Unilateral Change in the AFA-AWA Collective Bargaining Agreement
Dear Mr. Hemenway:
In his January 30, 2007 presentation titled "4Q 2006: State of the Union," CEO Doug Parker announced a unilateral change in the procedures for awarding non-revenue boarding passes for the Company's employees. As embodied in Section 27 (Q)(2) of the AFA-AWA CBA, however, the Company agreed with AFA that the policy in effect on the date of contract ratification "shall not be reduced or discontinued during the life of the Agreement." The "current" policy is based on a "first come, first-served" system without regard to a flight attendant’s seniority. As presented by Mr. Parker, the new, unilaterally imposed boarding procedure will be as follows:
Non-rev boarding will be sorted by:
FIRST, priority code (SA3P before SA4P)
THEN, by year of hire (1983 before 2001)
THEN, by first come, first-served (8:00a.m. before 8:15 a.m.)
Based on this presentation, the current policy has been changed drastically by making the "first come, first-served" criterion the third and final basis for awarding flight attendants a non-revenue seat. On its face, this new boarding policy thus "discontinues" the current policy and reduces the current procedures agreed to by US Airways in the flight attendant CBA. As a result, the Company has violated the status quo requirements of the Railway Act through its unilateral action.
By this letter, AFA demands that US Airways cease and desist from all efforts to implement a new and unilaterally imposed non-revenue boarding procedure. Any changes to the current boarding policy must be agreed to by AFA. If AFA does not agree to any changes to the CBA, then the Company is prohibited from implementing this policy, as announced, on March 3, 2007.
Furthermore, if the Company pursues this unilateral change to the CBA, then AFA will be compelled to use all available legal remedies to enforce its statutory rights under the RLA.
AFA appreciates your attention to this matter, and looks forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Gilmartin
Associate General Counsel
Change will be constant, I get that, but will the screwing be constant? Look around you.
To bad the union isn't putting the pressure on the company for a UNIFIED CONTRACT, instead of putting their energy into this so called non-rev violation...because at the end of the day, we're going to be going by seniority either now or later......
Agreed. However, seems that the Company continues to drag their feet, despite the following excerpt from a letter from MEC/East to S. Shamblin dated 12/18/06:
Or maybe you don't know, as you also stated during the CLT meeting "you are at the negotiating table two weeks a month". You made that statement to fortify the Company position that the Company is not "dragging its' feet in negotiations". The fact is, you have not been at the negotiating table with any consistency. During the nine months of negotiations the committees have met many times, including the first two weeks of this month without your being present.
Again, the negotiations have not even touched on the issues of Compensation and Reserve, sections that will take a long time. The Company simply does not care about livable wages for their employees, and that speaks volumes on their views with respect [disrespect?] to employee morale. I will guess that we are looking at well over a year in negotiations still, so that coveted PHX base for Easties is still a looooong way off..... :blink:
Outraged yet?
Barbell
Senior
- Nov 16, 2005
- 335
- 0
I wasn't going to get involved here, but it seems there's a side of the story missing here. While I neither agree nor disagree that 2 weeks a month is adequate for negotiation, you should also be aware of the following situation.
On more than one occassion, the Company and the Union have agreed to meet at a mutually determined place and time. The Company officials sat at the table all day while the Union couldn't be bothered to show up. Is this the type of representation you are paying for?
On more than one occassion, the Company and the Union have agreed to meet at a mutually determined place and time. The Company officials sat at the table all day while the Union couldn't be bothered to show up. Is this the type of representation you are paying for?
