Retiree travel

[ab320driver]

Yea, this getting a bit old. With all due respect Jim, those commuters had "mainline" aircraft to ride on, and load factors at least 10 percent lower. As far as living in the base you fly out of, it's nearly impossible. Do I go to DCA, BOS, LGA? They are all on the chopping block. PIT? We all know what's going on there. Commuting is largely a fact of life for many here. The question I guess is who do we take care of, those that are here, or those that are not...In the end the correct decision was made. Thanks DP.

 

[a320av8r]

I think the retirees, the spouses and kids of current employees should start a media campaign and show the company in a bad light.

Also remember Colodny, Schofield, Siegel,Wolf, Gangwal, Glass, McKeen and numerous other former executives fly positive space.

They are not current nor active employees, Doug should treat them the same way!

Actually, they don't. DP took away there PS and FC travel. They now go SA in seniority order in the coach.

 

[BoeingBoy]

flyguy,

When you get back......

I'll admit I've probably been a little rough on you, and for that I apologize. Being from the West side, I can see where the idea of retiree's being in the same boarding priority as active would be a foreign concept.

Just remember, retiree's being one step lower than active is just as foreign for everyone retired from the East. That they're upset shouldn't be a surprise.

From the perspective of these folks, they are not trying to take anything away from anyone. They are seeing something taken away from them - the ability to compete for a non-rev seat on a level playing field with active employees - that they spent a career watching retirees enjoy and expected to enjoy when they retired.

Jim

 

[700UW]

You better go check your information, they had contracts that contained the language, Doug can't change that.

 

[RedOne]

I still say that as a person who had the choice of "retire or be furloughed" (and chose retirement) I had another thing taken from me when the last thing I had (boarding priority after giving 35+ yrs) was taken.

I have no voice in the matter. I have to take what is given by DP and company. Retirees have no one fighting for them for anything.

I, in reality do have a voice. When asked by the public (who by the way, pay when they fly) where I retired from, I can and do tell them I retired from US Airways. I also tell them how bad the last few years were, and how the company has treated me after retirement. I SPREAD THE WORD. (They listen too ! )

 

[ab320driver]

You better go check your information, they had contracts that contained the language, Doug can't change that.

What language are you referring to? Retirees are certainly contractually allowed to non-rev, that's not in question. The PRIORITY is what's being debated, and that is dictated by the Company as far as I know...

 

[AIRWOMAN]

Yup..your right it is a different world. It's a world where promises can be broken under the guise of making things work. People are cast aside because they happen to be in someone's way.

It's a different world for sure. And it depends on your perspective and/or position, whether or not it's better or worse. Active employees have been and continue to have "things" taken away from them that we thought to be pretty solid. I'm thinking most think it's worse. Active employees are also being cast aside because they happen to be in someone's way......sad days ahead.

 

[Seatacus]

What language are you referring to?

The language in the contracts of our dear departed former executives. Wolf, Gangwal, Sigel, etc.

 

[allegheny37]

What language are you referring to? Retirees are certainly contractually allowed to non-rev, that's not in question. The PRIORITY is what's being debated, and that is dictated by the Company as far as I know...

Your right to a certain degree.
" Effective early '06 retirees will board following active employees WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A GROUP OF FLIGHT ATTENDENT RETIREES" who have a specific contractual right to board like active employees."
That is why the unions are involved, if one group of retirees have the benefit to board as active, all should be given the same.

 

[ab320driver]

Your right to a certain degree.
" Effective early '06 retirees will board following active employees WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A GROUP OF FLIGHT ATTENDENT RETIREES" who have a specific contractual right to board like active employees."
That is why the unions are involved, if one group of retirees have the benefit to board as active, all should be given the same.

It doesn't sound like the other unions necessarily agree with the East Flight Attendants...

 

[BoeingBoy]

With all due respect Jim, those commuters had "mainline" aircraft to ride on, and load factors at least 10 percent lower.

You're obviously right - prior to you, no commuter ever had trouble getting to and from work. Despite base closings, stations going all express, RJ weight restrictions, etc, commuting has always been a walk in the park for everyone else that came before.....

Jim

 

[ab320driver]

You're obviously right - prior to you, no commuter ever had trouble getting to and from work. Despite base closings, stations going all express, RJ weight restrictions, etc, commuting has always been a walk in the park for everyone else that came before.....

Jim

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Besides you've been doing this longer.

 

[allegheny37]

It doesn't sound like the other unions necessarily agree with the East Flight Attendants...

I'll post again

CWA action to company on retiree travel

RE: Grievance Number #06-1283 - Contract/Past Practice Violation, Retiree

Boarding Priority for Non-Revenue, On-line Travel

Dear Mr. Harbinson,

This Union Grievance filed at the Staff level and referenced above is
presented for the continued violation of established travel benefits,
specific to non-revenue, online boarding priority as provided for in Article
8, Article 34 and any other Articles of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
that may apply. Moreover, this grievance is applicable to a long-standing
boarding past practice for active and retired Passenger Service Craft or
Class. Prior to a unilateral policy change made by the Company of the
long-instituted non-revenue boarding priority for qualified retired
employees and qualified family members as listed on the employee's Term Pass
have historically held the identical boarding priority, in accordance with
the employee's date of hire seniority, as active employees for the purposes
of non-revenue, online travel. The Company, under a new directive, requires
all retirees and their eligible family members to board a flight, exercising
their travel benefits, only after the least senior active employee and/or
their family has boarded, thus rendering the retiree's seniority useless,
except within the retiree pool, and consequently disenfranchising long-term,
career retired employees from a benefit long enjoyed by retirees for
decades.

As remedy, the Company shall immediately rescind and reverse improper
boarding priority for retirees and their qualified family members and return
the boarding priority for retirees to the former priority, identical to
active employees.

Sincerely ,

Timothy C. Yost

CWA Staff Representative

And another


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

 

[BoeingBoy]

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Besides you've been doing this longer.

To be honest, and as I posted to flyguy, I'm not sure we really disagree that much on the underlying issue. Beside, by choice I haven't ever commuted - except to drive to CLT - though in some ways I'd have been better off (pay, base seniority, etc) if I had.

I just enjoy picking apart what come across as somewhat self-serving rationalizations. For example, for years I've flown with pilots who regularly have had to drive from ROA, ILM, or ATL to CLT (or even GSO back in those days) because of the uncertainty of commuting by plane - even with the J/S availability pilot's have. Never once has one said "If it wasn't for those #$@%$ retirees, my commuting would be so much easier." Why? Because 95 time out of 100, it's the other active employees they're behind, not some retiree.

Peace?

Jim

 

[ab320driver]

To be honest, and as I posted to flyguy, I'm not sure we really disagree that much on the underlying issue. Beside, by choice I haven't ever commuted - except to drive to CLT - though in some ways I'd have been better off (pay, base seniority, etc) if I had.

I just enjoy picking apart what come across as somewhat self-serving rationalizations. For example, for years I've flown with pilots who regularly have had to drive from ROA, ILM, or ATL to CLT (or even GSO back in those days) because of the uncertainty of commuting by plane - even with the J/S availability pilot's have. Never once has one said "If it wasn't for those #$@%$ retirees, my commuting would be so much easier." Why? Because 95 time out of 100, it's the other active employees they're behind, not some retiree.

Peace?

Jim

Absolutely! I enjoy reading your posts. They're ALMOST always right on the money! Take care, Mark...