As far as I know, and I may not be updated, but we have not heard about them changing it back to first come, first serve. It hadn't changed last time I non-rev'd which was about 10 days ago...again, I could be wrong on this, but we haven't been briefed from our local about a change back...
Nonrevs behaving badly... what's new?
- Thread starter Bridogger6
- Start date
InternationalShannon
Veteran
This is wrong information - - the non rev policy is the same for the entire airline - - it is one policy and there isn't an east or west . If those agents are doing it that way, they are wrong. ...this is a really good way to get a lot of people all bent out of shape, it is 100% false information..DOH all t he way, it is ONLY first come first served for buddy passes and those within the same hire year .
missthe727
Senior
- Dec 19, 2006
- 313
- 35
I agree with you wholeheartedly. We ALL know the rules and regulations for non-revs. I wonder how many other times this person has pulled this and gotten away with it. Writing her up and having her losr her pass privileges for a while will help her to appreciate what she has and learn how to act with respect around passengers and fellow co-workers/crew members.PLEASE write this person up!!!! We do not need folks like this working here anymore, they do nothing but bring all of us down; I can only imagine how she treats our customers and coworkers. :down:
Get rid of the garbage!Write HER UP!!!!!!
On a similar topic (nonrevs behaving badly) we had a F/A that would run up to the counter 30-45 mins before the WN flight she was trying to catch was scheduled to leave. We had a bunch of newbies and they had trouble doing her nonrev WN tickets because they didnt have the practice so it took them a while. She would have a fit when they had to get help. She would go to the FC line if the ticketing line was long and once even asked to cut to the front of the line. Well, one day she went to the FC line when we were working a cancelled flight and got up to the counter and got a supv who was working ot (normally a gate supv). She told her sorry, you need to be in the ticketing line and NOT the FC line that you just cut in. We're working a canx flight and have revenue customers that need help and that she wasnt familiar with doing passes since she didnt normally work the counter. She started to make a scene about her flight leaving NOW and that in PHX she could get help if she needed it and we were just treating her mean. Well, the station manager happened to walk into the break room when the supv came in the back to cool off a minute. Another agent and I knew exactly who she was talking about and said something about how she always did this, said we treated her like cr*p, didnt know what we were doing, etc. The manager asked me to please go out and take care of her this time. He followed me out, told her that THIS time, he would have an agent take care of her, but in the future, she needed to get in the regular ticketing line and not give the agents a hard time and that it also might be in her best interest to get a couple of passes at a time so she would have a backup if she were running late, and that any further issues she had would be addressed with her manager if she would like him to contact them for her. She said thanks, no, and hasnt been a problem since.
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2006
- 2,269
- 571
Did it happen to be PIT-PHL/PHL-PIT?
Be Careful What You Wish For.
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2006
- 2,269
- 571
Well if it was PHX they can take care of their own - what I'm concernened about is people being mean to people in PHL.
I'm sorry, but after commuting for years and others commuting much longer than me, that we do not mess things up with our greatest resource- the agents.
I'm sorry, but after commuting for years and others commuting much longer than me, that we do not mess things up with our greatest resource- the agents.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
REALLY???????
Read The Award at the bottom InternationalShannon!!!! I put it in bold for you
AFA Update Tuesday, April 8, 2008
In This Issue:
Pass Travel Arbitration Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEC President Gary Richardson filed a grievance in May of 2006 (Grievance #24-66-2-14-06) when management changed the company's pass policy and reduced the number as well as the associated benefits of Flexi Passes. Richardson filed an additional grievance in March of 2007 (Grievance #24-66-2-17-07) when the company implemented a shift in the way that former America West flight attendants utilized their pass benefits by changing the boarding priority from first-come first-serve to year-of-hire. AFA-CWA and the company agreed in May of 2007 to combine these two grievances into one amended grievance covering all issues (Grievance # 24-66-2-14-06 as Amended).
On November 1, 2007, AFA-CWA Associate General Counsel Mark Bigelow, assisted by Master Executive Council (MEC) Grievance Chairperson Linda Campagna, presented their case-in-chief on the diminishment of pass travel benefits before the AWA/AFA System Board of Adjustment with Fred Horowitz presiding as Arbitrator.
Arbitrator Horowitz and System Board members Monica Wilfong (AFA), Gene Labat (AFA), Cindi Simone (USA), and Sherri Shamblin (USA) heard testimony from MEC President Gary Richardson, MEC Secretary/Treasurer Mary Cost, and AFA-CWA Executive Assistant to the International President Bill McGlashen regarding AFA's belief that management violated Section 27 Q and all relevant sections of the AWA/AFA Collective Bargaining Agreement when they reduced or discontinued the then current pass policy in effect as of the signing date of the 1999 agreement.
The Company put on as witnesses Al Hemenway-Vice President of Labor Relations, Erin Lewin-former Associate General Counsel for US Airways, and Joe Haik-Director of Reservations.
On Monday, April 7, 2008 Arbitrator Horowitz issued his final decision in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION BY THE ARBITRATOR
The opportunity to utilize free and reduced rate travel privileges is a treasured benefit for employees of any airline. Prior to the merger, America West Flight Attendants enjoyed a generous package of travel benefits including Flexi-Passes and boarding priority assigned at check-in. Not surprisingly, US Airways had a different array of passes and boarding priorities for their employees. Faced with sharply conflicting policies and contractual obligations among the employee groups after the merger and the limited capabilities of their computer system, management implemented a policy which it believed preserved essential benefits and could be uniformly applied. The Union asserts some of the changes imposed by the Company resulted in a diminution of benefits to Flight Attendants in violation of the Agreement. The Company, however, maintains the changes viewed as a whole enhanced the former policy for Flight Attendants and was thus not inconsistent with the Agreement.
Section 27.Q.2. of the Agreement provides the Company shall not reduce or discontinue pass privileges for Flight Attendants and eligible dependents during the life of the Agreement.
The parties agree this language does not prohibit the Company from making periodic changes or enhancements to the program which do not diminish benefits for Flight Attendants or their dependents. Rather, the disagreement here focuses on changes in boarding priorities and the elimination of Flexi-Passes claimed by the Union to be violative of the Agreement. Because changes per se are not prohibited, the Company correctly contends the reduction or elimination of any given travel pass privilege or benefit cannot be viewed in isolation. If the loss of one benefit is offset by the addition of another of equal or greater value, a violation will likely not be established.
Prior to the merger, Flight Attendants received 24-40 Flexi-Passes per year depending on their attendance each quarter. Flexi-passes could be used for up to 40 guests, up to 20 companions, or up to 13 vacation passes as well as higher boarding priority, $20 reductions in parent travel fares, upgrades to first class, or pet passes in any combination.
In April 2006, the Company eliminated these passes in favor of two vacation passes per year for Flight Attendants, later increased to three with eight guest passes per year. Although the cost of those passes was somewhat reduced, the new guest and vacation passes carried none of the flexibility of Flexi-Passes which empowered Flight Attendants to use for upgrades or a higher boarding priority accorded vacation passes. Moreover, the reward for perfect attendance in a quarter was lost. The Company cites improvements said to be ignored by the Union, such as a price and payment system for guests using a credit card online, the ability for unmarried employees to declare a "registered guest" for unpaid travel on the same basis as a spouse, free pet travel, and the ability to ship cargo without needing a pass. In addition, many of the travel fees associated with travel under the new policy are less for employees than under the prior policy. These improvements are unquestionably significant to many Flight Attendants, especially those able to take advantage of the registered guest, pet and cargo privileges unavailable before. Yet the fact remains that the much greater number of passes, as well as the flexibility of use accorded those passes, has been lost for all Flight Attendants under the new system. A similar disagreement exists concerning boarding priority at the airport. The Union bemoans the loss of first come-first served boarding priority enjoyed by Flight Attendants prior to the merger. Under that system, Flight Attendants could determine with greater certainty their chances of boarding at the airport. This is a particular value all Flight Attendants, junior or senior, who travel on time off as well as commuting to work.
The Union correctly argues this method gives equal opportunity for all Flight Attendants to establish their priority for having a seat on any given flight. Date of hire boarding removes that valued element of certainty by allowing a senior employee to bump a Flight Attendant who checked in early and would otherwise have been able to take the flight.
The Company argues the new policy has not resulted in a material number of boarding denials to Flight Attendants. But the studies conducted by management do not take into account Flight Attendants who forgo checking in because they did not want to take a chance of being bumped by a senior employee at the gate. The Company also contends date of hire no longer disadvantages senior employees who for a variety of reasons are not able to check in as early as other employees. But a mere reallocation of boarding priority among employees from junior to senior, or senior to junior, cannot objectively be considered an enhancement.
The Company also seeks credit for other benefits, such as access to East routes on an equal footing with East employees, as significant for West Flight Attendants. Yet these gains do not necessarily offset the loss of boarding priority at check in for Flight Attendants as well as fewer less flexible passes for use on those routes.
The evidence in this proceeding reflects management made a sincere and determined effort to reconcile these competing policies in the fairest manner possible following the merger.
One cannot quarrel with the desirability of a uniform system, compatible with existing computer systems, for monitoring and controlling such policies. Nevertheless, the duty in Section 27.Q.2 to refrain from reducing or discontinuing travel pass privileges cannot be sacrificed merely on the mantle of administrative convenience. The parties agreed in 1999, through the process of collective bargaining, that a pass policy which included Flexi-passes and first come-first served boarding would be preserved for the duration of the Agreement. So long as that compact remains in effect, any reductions in the travel pass program for Flight Attendants can only be achieved by mutual agreement. In this case, the Company bypassed the Union when making changes to the travel pass policy it believed were necessary due to the merger. The elimination of Flexi-passes and changes in boarding priority resulted in a diminution of travel pass benefits to Flight Attendants. A finding those changes thereby violated Section 27.Q.2. is manifest.
Having determined the Company violated the Agreement as alleged, the discussion turns to the appropriate remedy. The Union requests a return to first come-first served boarding on West metal, reinstatement of Flexi-passes, and additional passes to compensate for the loss of Flexi-passes over the past two years. But just as administrative convenience is no defense for management's violation of the Agreement, a System Board does not have the authority to determine selectively which provisions of the pre-September 2005 pass policy should be retained. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is status quo ante and leave for the parties to decide in the crucible of collective bargaining which features of the pre-September 2005 pass policy for Flight Attendants may be changed and to what degree. All other requests for relief are denied.
THE AWARD
1. The Company violated the Agreement by the series of changes it made to the employee pass program following its merger with US Airways in September 2005.
2. For remedy, the Company is ordered to return to the pass policies as existed for Flight Attendants prior to the changes made in September 2005.
DATED: April 7, 2008
Santa Monica, California
FREDRIC R. HOROWITZ, Arbitrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of this award cannot be underestimated. Management attempted to subvert the collective bargaining process and that could not be left unchallenged.
Throughout this merger, management has made unilateral changes to policies without conferring or bargaining over those changes where required. As in this grievance and all others filed, the Union will vigorously defend its member's rights under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
We will continue to provide you with information regarding this matter as it becomes available. Additionally, we will place this decision on the agenda for discussion during our April 16, 2008 Local Council meeting.
Gary Richardson
MEC President
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
InternationalShannon
Veteran
okay, putting that on the agenda and actually having that happen is two separate things.
We are not first come first served. The nonrev policy is DOH unless you are in the same year then first come first served.
Jumpseat is a different can of worms , I am assuming you are referring to SA3P travel.
We are not first come first served. The nonrev policy is DOH unless you are in the same year then first come first served.
Jumpseat is a different can of worms , I am assuming you are referring to SA3P travel.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
This was my original post....
"West went back to first come first serve. Or they are supposed to. Arbitration ruling..... "
I did say "supposed to" and we weren't talking about the jumpseat.
hp-csr-phx
Senior
Have not heard a word from the company on the arbitrators ruling.
TheNewUSAirways
Member
- Sep 6, 2006
- 72
- 10
ummm. .how does the AMerica West pass policy screw things up when the entire airline is now boarded by DOH??? And when it was FCFS the agents didn't look to see who checked in at what time, the list automatically puts the first person checked in at the top of the list.
TheNewUSAirways
Member
- Sep 6, 2006
- 72
- 10
Seniority doesn't have to get you EVERYTHING. The gate agents shouldn't have to take the time to switch seats for the senior crybabies, especially when there are 40 non-revs!
YVINTERN
Veteran
Amen...
PHX/LAS is not doing First Come First Served on the 8 flights I've took through the barbell cities since that Arbitration ruling was handed down as a FYI.
Seniority has nothing to do with which seat you receive, (except for upgrades). It just means you will be cleared for a seat before those junior to you. The gate agent did nothing wrong by trying to seat families together IMO, because their actions did not prevent the more senior non-revs from obtaining a seat.
