Retiree travel

[BoeingBoy]

You're right - there is some of "the way it's always been" floating around. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen much from the folks that really matter - DP & company.

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

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.

The US east people are looking for a way to reconstitute a modicum of the pride that was taken (or given) away during the last few years "unpleasantness". To do this they are playing the only card they have left which is seniority/DOH. Since they may not be as "good" as they once was, to steal a line from a country song, in their own mind they're at least better than someone who started with another airline after they did. This is very destructive since it treats pride ands self esteem as a zero sum gain, where one side increases only at the expense of another, in this case HP/USwest.

The blame for allowing this leadership vacuum to exist lies directly at the feet of Doug Parker. He chose a false economy of keeping the name that one side claimed as it's own, without dedicating nearly the resources necessary to counter this. He failed to see how expensive this one decision would be and now he has to spend far with each passing day that this tribalism is allowed to continue and build. The loyalty that airline employees exhibit is legendary, but it must be managed during a merger to avoid having the management tossed out of the driver's seat.

 

[ChrisUS]

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? <_<

I dont think the name matters at all. Could have been called Schmuck airlines. When you are promised something and then its taken away, just not right. A name is a just a name.

. One suggestion I brought up before is to perhaps automatically give them first class seating free of charge if first class is available.

Never happen for two reasons, " revenue dilution" and its RARE there is ever an F seat open. It would just be an empty offer. Appreciate the thought though,

 

[AIRWOMAN]

You're right - there is some of "the way it's always been" floating around. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen much from the folks that really matter - DP & company.

Jim

In all honesty, the youth of AWA in comparison with the melting pot (no offense intended if any is to be perceived) of US Airways, does not preclude the same statements made at AWA, especially pre-merger. Everyone can use that reasoning/excuse at one point or another.

And the "new" US Airways is much easier said than done.

 

[MarkMyWords]

The US east people are looking for a way to reconstitute a modicum of the pride that was taken (or given) away during the last few years "unpleasantness". To do this they are playing the only card they have left which is seniority/DOH.

I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this type of thinking. So we (original US) are trying to "reconstitute a modicum of the pride that was taken" by taking the same pride away from them (original AWA). Somewhere in all this DOH vs FCFS there has to be some sort of compromise that will melt these two programs into one that will be deemed as fair to all.

 

[flyguy121]

I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this type of thinking. So we (original US) are trying to "reconstitute a modicum of the pride that was taken" by taking the same pride away from them (original AWA). Somewhere in all this DOH vs FCFS there has to be some sort of compromise that will melt these two programs into one that will be deemed as fair to all.

The Original subject being discussed in this thread was not DOH vs. FCFS, it was should retirees continue to board with the same priority as those who are actively employed. Although as usual, some here have taken this to the extreme, implying that the company is trying to take away a benefit (free Non-Rev Travel) that has always been enjoyed by these fine retired folks...when that is completely false. The company has stated the retirees boarding priority just be after those actively employed which many of us feel is the logical and fair order anyway, and should always have been the boarding priority from the very beginning.

 

[highcountryflyer]

How 'bout this as a compromise:

Do what United does-
Boarding priority determined by length of active service.

No Date of Hire, Senority, Retired/Active, or other confusion to get in the way. Just "How long on payroll".

 

[allegheny37]

The Original subject being discussed in this thread was not DOH vs. FCFS, it was should retirees continue to board with the same priority as those who are actively employed. Although as usual, some here have taken this to the extreme, implying that the company is trying to take away a benefit (free Non-Rev Travel) that has always been enjoyed by these fine retired folks...when that is completely false. The company has stated the retirees boarding priority just be after those actively employed which many of us feel is the logical and fair order anyway, and should always have been the boarding priority from the very beginning.

I dont think most people have taken this to the extreme, its just that boarding one level below active now makes traveling very difficult if not almost impossible. In my 36 years I had no problem when a retiree boarded before me.
I felt they earned it, plus contrary to popular belief that didn't happen very often.

 

[Seatacus]

I believe that there are only two ways to change the priority for retiress. One: Doug has to change his mind and do the right thing for retirees. But that won't happen because he is too concerned about his "active" employees being upset. Two: The "active" employees have to rally for us and try to convince Doug to change his mind or change their contract. And I don't think that there are enough who support us to make a difference.

Retirees have made their case only to fall on deaf ears. There is nothing else we can do. We are out of everyones way. We can't vote, we can't strike, we can only accept what crumbs are thrown our way. All of those years that we worked thinking we were making a downpayment on our future retirement benefits were a waste. What fools we were. I can say for myself that when I was working I was proud of the way my airline treated retirees.

So....retirees have to just learn to live with it and hope that the next merger/sale for US (and it will happen) will have someone in charge who will change things for the better.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Flying benefits helps to retain people. In today's ecomomic environment with airline pay where it has been for US West and where it is now for US East...if Retirees were given the same boarding priority AND it was based on DOH some of us West folks could hang up non-reving and so could many US East folks. Now maybe the answer is give retirees the same boarding priority, but make it first check-in? Just a thought. If it became impossible to fly home a couple times a year because folks couldn't get on because of DOH...well alot of people would not stick around. The flying benefit is a major reason why alot of active West and now maybe even East stick around. Just something else to consider.

 

[ChrisUS]

How 'bout this as a compromise:

Do what United does-
Boarding priority determined by length of active service.

No Date of Hire, Senority, Retired/Active, or other confusion to get in the way. Just "How long on payroll".

A buddy from UA told me retiress go ahead of active. maybe because of length of time on payroll as you say? I dont think thats right though. We shouldnt carte blanche go ahead of ALL actives.

In my 36 years I had no problem when a retiree boarded before me.
I felt they earned it, plus contrary to popular belief that didn't happen very often.

Same here and yes, can only recall one or two times that happened in 33 years.

 

[EricLv2Fish]

Same here and yes, can only recall one or two times that happened in 33 years.

Sometimes it's the fear of the "unkown". Good to know that your personal experiences were favorable a large majority of the time. If that is the case then I'd be in favor of it. Plus...I forgot about the new "vacation passes" we get (2 per year) that gives us SA1 priority.

 

[flyguy121]

It's a matter of opinion how far a company should take honoring retirees. The military way is retirees always wait behind active duty and do so happily. Voluntarily giving up a spot inline for an active duty member by a retiree is common place and is expected in the military. Why should civilian aviation be different? Active employees are the reason why we even have benefits as retirees. Now if I run into a US Airways/AWA retiree I'll always give them due respect, swap an my aisle seat for a middle seat if they so desire, help crossing the street, a ride to the grocery store, help carrying the luggage...no problem, but don't ask me to voluntarily bump myself off the flight to give them my seat unless it's a hardship case which the case above would qualify. Always give elders their due respect, but respect should also be given by the elders to those who take care of them. Give and take in both directions, not to the point of "worshipping" one side or the other, but to show mutal respect.

Flying benefits helps to retain people. In today's ecomomic environment with airline pay where it has been for US West and where it is now for US East...if Retirees were given the same boarding priority AND it was based on DOH some of us West folks could hang up non-reving and so could many US East folks.Now maybe the answer is give retirees the same boarding priority, but make it first check-in? Just a thought. If it became impossible to fly home a couple times a year because folks couldn't get on because of DOH...well alot of people would not stick around. The flying benefit is a major reason why alot of active West and now maybe even East stick around. Just something else to consider.

EricLv2Fish makes some excellent points.

Some have argued that it would be nearly impossible for the Retirees to enjoy Non-Rev Travel if they were to board one level below active employees. Instead, these folks would rather the employees that continue to keep the airline running not enjoy the one benefit that makes an airline job the most attractive. It's not enough that these folks have enjoyed their Travel Benefits for 30 or 40 years with far fewer Retirees standing between them and an available seat. God forbid some Junior Employee need to commute to get to work as all these former employees once did...he/she will likely not make the flight because Retired Rhonda needs to get back home from her vacation.

As much as you want to call this a lack of respect for the more Senior folks, I see very little respect in the other direction either. It's a two way street folks.

 

[Doc]

They were told they had the perk and that is how it should be.

It's the gold watch people it's all you get why are some of you so selfish.

It's why some are staying it not the medical or the pension
it's the passes.

 

[ab320driver]

EricLv2Fish makes some excellent points.

Some have argued that it would be nearly impossible for the Retirees to enjoy Non-Rev Travel if they were to board one level below active employees. Instead, these folks would rather the employees that continue to keep the airline running not enjoy the one benefit that makes an airline job the most attractive. It's not enough that these folks have enjoyed their Travel Benefits for 30 or 40 years with far fewer Retirees standing between them and an available seat. God forbid some Junior Employee need to commute to get to work as all these former employees once did...he/she will likely not make the flight because Retired Rhonda needs to get back home from her vacation.

As much as you want to call this a lack of respect for the more Senior folks, I see very little respect in the other direction either. It's a two way street folks.

AMEN! Well said...