Retiree travel

[flyguy121]

I'd certainly agree - just seems some only disagree when not doing it the same way would have an adverse effect on them.

Not necessarily. As I stated previously, I have always been under the impression that active employees were given first boarding priority for Non-Rev Travel because that is what I believe to be both logical and fair. Clearly I was wrong because (unbeknownest to myself until now) that's not how boarding priority has been traditionally handled at old US Airways. But as you stated, those in support of "the way it's always been" are those who are either retired or are close to retirement themselves. So I guess that argument works both ways doesn't it?

"Seniority" has never determined boarding priority for everyone (and I don't just mean the senior execs) - DOH has. The two are used interchangably, and for most they are - but not for everyone. East is sprinkled with people who have one date for such things as non-rev priority and another date for seniority.

So in reality, it is DOH that has always determined non-rev boarding priority for everyone on the East side. Some seem to think that's the only fair way, until it means a pretty large group of additional people in front of them - the retirees. Then they argue that "the only fair way" needs to be changed to get those "senior" people out of the way.

You either believe that seniority/DOH is the only fair way or you don't. If you do, then seniority/DOH should apply to everyone - no exceptions if it the only fair way.

If you don't believe it should apply to everyone, by default you don't believe that it's the only fair way.

Personally, I have no heartburn over any of the methods discussed. Whatever the rules for this benefit become, I can certainly live with them. I just find it amusing that some seem to be emphatic in their belief that the is one fair way, as long as if doesn't apply to this or that group.

Perhaps I am using the word "Seniority" incorrectly when I should be using DOH. Either way, I believe everyone here can follow the point I am trying to make.

My problem with your argument is this, the way "Seniority" is being defined. How can you still hold "Seniority" at a place where you are no longer employed? You are no longer on the "Seniority List" because you have chosen to remove yourself from the company for whatever reason. Sure, you may have spent many years of your life and retired from Company X, but when you retire, why should that allow you to continue enjoying the same level of benefit that is enjoyed by the active employees of Company X? Nobody is even suggesting to take that benefit away, but why should anyone be given "Indefinite Seniority" over any person that may join the company after you? Would that not make it less and less attractive to work at Company X with each and every new hire that joins that company?

I DO beleive in a seniority based system for those who are Actively Employed. Furthermore, if I were selfishly looking at what best suited myself and other very Junior employees, then I guess it would be to my own detriment to support a Seniority Based System now wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be easier for me personally to just accept the US West Policy of "First Come/First Served"? But you don't see me advocating that now do you?

If you cannot understand my point Boeing Boy, it is because you choose not to, but let's not imply that I am supporting something because it is most self-serving to myself or other junior employees, because that is simply false.

And the funny thing is that I've never heard retirees on the west complaining that they have to board after active employees.

That's probably because they can see that boarding active employees first is both logical and fair. They probably also appreciate that they can enjoy the benefit at all.

 

[AIRCRAFTMECHANIC]

I also have a problem wife my spouse getting a lower priority if I am not flying with her. There are people all over the system that have moved to keep this company a float. Now, with my great days off of Weds and Thurs with 25 years my wife decides to fly HOME to see family on the weekend, she gets the lower boarding group because I am not with her. On the OLD system, even my kids boarded with my senority. Just another slap in the face.....

I AGREE....

 

[BoeingBoy]

Most people use "seniority" when they really mean "DOH" because for most the two are interchangable. But not for everyone, so I assume that when someone means non-rev boarding by seniority they really mean by DOH. After all, that's really what's used, not seniority number.

As has been mentioned, there's a lot of people who work for this company that don't have a "seniority" number - they've just got a DOH.

There are others that have changed departments and have a seniority number based on one date but use a different, earlier date (DOH) for non-rev boarding.

Whichever term is used, I'm pretty sure folks mean the same thing - boarding by DOH (unless you really do mean boarding by seniority number - that could really get interesting). As I said, what I find amusing the the "seniority is the only fair way" statement followed by how some group should be treated differently.

It would seen that someone who truly believes that there's only one fair way wouldn't be espousing any other method for anyone, since they're espousing a less fair way for some other group by their own fairness standard. After all, if only one method is fair, doesn't that mean it's fair for everyone?

Like I said, I have no problems with whatever system is chosen. I'm just amused at those who talk about "the only fair way" then want relegate some group to a system that less fair by their own words. I usually work on the assumption that "fair" is in the eye of the beholder and that what's deemed fair can change depending on the circumstances.

I can only assume that you're looking at all those "junior" west folks that would be competing with you with a first come/first serve system - that wouldn't be "fair" - and likewise all those "senior" retirees - being behind them for a non-rev seat wouldn't be "fair" either. So a "seniority" system for active with retirees pushed to the back of the line is "the only fair system".

Jim

 

[AIRCRAFTMECHANIC]

only[/i] fair way.

If
Jim

I AGREE DOH FOR EVERY ONE..IT ISNT FAIR TO CHANGE THERE BENIFIT AFTER THERE GONE..THEY BUILT THIS COMPANY AND THEY DESERVE THERE FLYING BENIFITS AND THERE HEALTH CARE THAT WAS PROMISED TO THEM.

If a company will not take care of there old employees then where are there morals.....

How dare anyone hurt the old and weak.They have taken there medical there retirement and now you all think its ok to take there boarding senority....

with you all its all about me me me.....how about thinking about the man or woman who are now old and living on a fixed income and the company just dumps them....on the goverment with out medical insurance and now you think its ok to take everything from them....

In my book anyone who hurts and steals from the old americans that built this company and others...its happening all over this country ,are thieves and thugs.

no matter what anyone says I know whats right
and hurting old folks is plain wrong....
and trust me they have been hurt and bad...

How does someone who took from old retirees sleep at night. and how do you all just think about your selfs.

Im 45...my father retired in 95 as a mechanic.
i know what happened as it hit home...my father now has luchemeia and has no health insurance after putting in 35 years....he now has lost his gold pass and will not even fly because hes 70 and cant sit at the airport all day while 2 year employees get on in front of him and my 70 year old mother...
he worked 30 years on third shift...and now has luchemia.his medical precriptions are 600 a month..never seen before in my family.
worked in wheel and brake shop and the line...

so go ahead and hurt him some more...youve already took everthing from him, and he gave you all he had for 35 years...

sleep well...your time will come when you will be judged.Ill be there to testify.

 

[flyguy121]

As I said, what I find amusing the the "seniority is the only fair way" statement followed by how some group should be treated differently.

It would seen that someone who truly believes that there's only one fair way wouldn't be espousing any other method for anyone, since they're espousing a less fair way for some other group by their own fairness standard. After all, if only one method is fair, doesn't that mean it's fair for everyone?

Like I said, I have no problems with whatever system is chosen. I'm just amused at those who talk about "the only fair way" then want relegate some group to a system that less fair by their own words. I usually work on the assumption that "fair" is in the eye of the beholder and that what's deemed fair can change depending on the circumstances.

I can only assume that you're looking at all those "junior" west folks that would be competing with you with a first come/first serve system - that wouldn't be "fair" - and likewise all those "senior" retirees - being behind them for a non-rev seat wouldn't be "fair" either. So a "seniority" system for active with retirees pushed to the back of the line is "the only fair system".

Jim

I'm sorry Jim but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think your argument holds water because retirees no longer hold a seniority #. It supports your argument (and serves to benefit the more Senior Folks such as yourself) to include the retirees in with those actively employed, and frankly I don't see it that way.

You're correct, my stance is that what's fair for one is fair for all, but we need to be talking about the same group of people. When we are talking about people that hold a Seniority #, and those that formerly did...I don't believe we are talking about the same group of people anymore and should be classified separately as such.

To revisit the First Come/First Served issue, I think I have a better chance getting an available seat from PHL-FLL using that system than I do with the current Seniority Based System. You see, by using the Seniority Based System I have little to no chance getting on at my very junior seniority, but if the playing field is even and it's first come/first served, then I believe I have a better chance of getting on that flight because my Seniority # is no longer working against me...but again, I am not endorsing that first come/first served system because I do think that the Seniority Based System is the "fair" way even if it does drastically reduce my own chances of being able to get a seat on that flight. Please explain how that is self-serving.

I will again re-post a paragraph from my post earlier because I feel that it is a valid point that you neglected to address:

My problem with your argument is this, the way "Seniority" is being defined. How can you still hold "Seniority" at a place where you are no longer employed? You are no longer on the "Seniority List" because you have chosen to remove yourself from the company for whatever reason. Sure, you may have spent many years of your life and retired from Company X, but when you retire, why should that allow you to continue enjoying the same level of benefit that is enjoyed by the active employees of Company X? Nobody is even suggesting to take that benefit away, but why should anyone be given "Indefinite Seniority" over any person that may join the company after you? Would that not make it less and less attractive to work at Company X with each and every new hire that joins that company?

Unfortunately for many of the old-school East Folks:

East will always translate to "Entitled" - "because that's the way it's always been" and they are not open to the possibility that the system may have been deeply flawed all along.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't think your argument holds water because retirees no longer hold a seniority #.

What you're missing is the fact that we've never had a "seniority number" based non-rev system - we've had a date of hire based system. So your argument that retirees no longer have a seniority # is irrelevant - a straw man, if you will. Lots of active employees have no seniority number - would you suggest that they board at lower priority because of their lack of a seniority number?

Jim

 

[john john]

There is a group of retired F/A’s that will board by DOH because of good negotiations. No matter what management decides

 

[N965VJ]

What this guy said.

I've been bumped while trying to commute but that's the way it goes. I look at it that the retired person was bumped many more times than me, so now it was my turn.

 

[Zarah]

I am not looking at this from the viewpoint that "we have always done it this way", but from the view that people retired with a benefit of boarding priority that was taken away for no reason other than the company felt others were more entitled to have a higher boarding priority.

Honestly, I can understand the new fees as it costs the company money to move people from here to there, but boarding priority doesn't cost the company anything at all.

I would be more accepting of the change in boarding status if it were only applied to those moving forward who are retiring vs. taking away something that somebody already had.

It just makes me sad that one day I will retire and those that remain active will look upon me as a burden, and think that anything I have earned should be taken away and given to them. It will not matter to those who are young enough to work the years of service I put into the company or the pay cuts, benefit loss, struggles, I have had to endure to ensure the companies survival. All that will matter is what they can take away from me to enhance their lives.

People were promised something that was taken away because the company felt others were entitled to it. Simple as that. I do not agree with it, but sometimes in life you just have to agree to disagree.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

That's a good argument Zarah and my sympathy goes out to those who had boarding priority. The fact remains that without the merger those retirees would have certainely lost all flying benefits. Maybe they can be grandfathered in? Either way it's a decision that won't be popular with active or retireed employees. One suggestion I brought up before is to perhaps automatically give them first class seating free of charge if first class is available.

 

[buckeyefan]

I wonder what this discussion would be like if the merged airline had been named America West or if they had decided to go with a new name? <_<

 

[BoeingBoy]

My guess is that it'd be about the same - the same decisions would have to be made regardless of the name - unless one assumes that a different name would result in "this is the way we've always done it" attitude in the executive suite and I've seen that disaster movie before.

Jim

 

[Atlantic]

After what AM is doing to our retired people, slit our neck. What a bunch of dirt bags.

 

[Seatacus]

The fact remains that without the merger those retirees would have certainely lost all flying benefits.

When are you West employees going to drop this? It is not a fact and you know it. It is impossible to know what would have happened without merger. So just get off your high horse and deal with what is going on now.

 

[buckeyefan]

My guess is that it'd be about the same - the same decisions would have to be made regardless of the name - unless one assumes that a different name would result in "this is the way we've always done it" attitude in the executive suite and I've seen that disaster movie before.

Jim

You're right the same decisions would need to be made but it seems that since the name is US Airways that there is a mindset that this is not a new company.