Us Airways Says See Ya To Credit Union Employees

[MrAeroMan]

As Don't Call Me Shirley alluded to, the cost cuts aren't in getting rid of the travel priveleges b/c NRSA seats obviously aren't displacing any revenue. The real cuts are in the benefits which are becoming exuberantly expensive thanks to rising medical insurance rates.

And (Not) Shirley...I think that the main reason that travel benes were also cut was to make a clean cut. Why grandfather NRSA benefits when everything else is cut? Make it clean and eliminate any ties...

I'm talking about the list of people that tops 700 that have privileges to fly free on UAIR. They're former CEO's etc and a good many of them are not even UAIR employees. These people even displace paying pax so therefore they do displace revenue. It needs to end and end right now!

 

[Ch. 12]

I'm talking about the list of people that tops 700 that have privileges to fly free on UAIR. They're former CEO's etc and a good many of them are not even UAIR employees. These people even displace paying pax so therefore they do displace revenue. It needs to end and end right now!

I was referring to the thread and keeping on topic. To venture to your new topic, though, you must be referring to the handful that are PS. PS does not displace revenue passengers...only a booking. With overbooking, you could still fill flights with revenue and if the check-in is done correctly, the PS passenger would have to sit out the flight b/c they have to wait for seats to be open the same as a NRSA. The only difference is that space is "held" for the PS passenger b/c a seat is removed from inventory when they list. Overbook by one more passenger and there is no ill effect from the PS.

And even though you see it as this great unfairness (which, by the way, does not add to the costs at all which is what the main focus of these cuts are) there is purpose to these agreements. All airlines do this for other carrier's execs as a way to build and maintain goodwill. As you would know if you ever dealt with a flight that was on downgraded equipment and therefore overbooked by 150...it is very important to have a decent relationship with other carriers. And that is why PS is offered...there is no displacement of revenue if the passengers are checked-in correctly.

But the point of the thread is to discuss the US Airways Credit Union's benefits...not to discuss how unfair everything is that US management does. 🙄

 

[Smartest Loser]

How many people are we really talking about here...??

100...200..??? A drop in the bucket.

I'm with the other poster, pull all the logo's off the checks and buildings.

SL

 

[MrAeroMan]

I was referring to the thread and keeping on topic. To venture to your new topic, though, you must be referring to the handful that are PS. PS does not displace revenue passengers...only a booking. With overbooking, you could still fill flights with revenue and if the check-in is done correctly, the PS passenger would have to sit out the flight b/c they have to wait for seats to be open the same as a NRSA. The only difference is that space is "held" for the PS passenger b/c a seat is removed from inventory when they list. Overbook by one more passenger and there is no ill effect from the PS.

And even though you see it as this great unfairness (which, by the way, does not add to the costs at all which is what the main focus of these cuts are) there is purpose to these agreements. All airlines do this for other carrier's execs as a way to build and maintain goodwill. As you would know if you ever dealt with a flight that was on downgraded equipment and therefore overbooked by 150...it is very important to have a decent relationship with other carriers. And that is why PS is offered...there is no displacement of revenue if the passengers are checked-in correctly.

But the point of the thread is to discuss the US Airways Credit Union's benefits...not to discuss how unfair everything is that US management does. 🙄

As far as I'm concerned it's a direct association. There are many on these threads that have dealt with this small amount of people as you like to refer to them as that were not UAIR employees that bumped revenue pax so they could travel to wherever with their family.
This is not cost neutral nor is there any cost benefit to having a list of people (some have pegged it at over 700) that fly free on a positive space basis. You call it goodwill for the other airlines to travel on UAIR for free? Maybe it's time management showed their employees some "Goodwill" for a change.
It's time for that list to be torn up and those that are on it can start to add to the bottom line instead of taking from it.

 

[mweiss]

Its cost impact is probably relatively minor, but its revenue impact is harder to measure. If it removes seats from inventory, then those seats can no longer be sold. If those seats can no longer be sold, the possible revenue impact could be:

1) Zero. The seats would have otherwise gone empty (i.e., a relatively empty flight).
2) Minimal. The seats would have been sold, but only at a deep discount. Yield management pulled the seats from the deep discount buckets, leaving those revenue opportunities untapped.
3) Significant. The seats would have been sold at full Y, but now that the flight is sold out they cannot get those Y fares.

Three factors lead me to believe that impact #3 is the most frequent impact today. First, if the impact were zero, then there would be little effective difference between the SP and SA. Second, load factors continue to rise, reducing the frequency of impact #2. Finally, there is no incentive for the NRSP to fly during off-peak times, raising the likelihood that the seat taken would have been sold at Y.

 

[Ch. 12]

mweiss/Mr. AeroMan,

First off...these passengers travelling PS should NOT be displacing revenue pax. If they are, somebody at the gate is not doing their job. Secondly, there are no facts to back up your assumptions, mweiss, and when I talk about costs, that includes the cost of lost revenue. It is minimal. Nothing compared to the monetary benefits that U had been giving to the credit union employees. Regarding your three scencarios:

1) The flight does not have to be "relatively empty" as you state to have empty seats. Last I knew, 135/137 (98.5% LF) has empty seats. I would gladly give the final two to a PS or SA for goodwill.

2) You are saying that b/c the LFs are increasing that there is less frequency of deep discount bookings. Quite the contrary...the LFs are increasing b/c of low fare competition...not b/c there are all of a sudden thousands of extra full Y's looking to travel.

3) Then they aren't overbooking enough. Revenue management's job is to prevent seats from spoiling...not to protect them for PS.

And to say that there is no incentive for a PS pax to fly at off peak times is a terrible assumption. These people are trying to get to a destination...not to "beat the system" as the conspiracy theory tends to allude to. Because of that, they are not going to choose the full flights just to bump people. They will fly whenever they want...the PS status goes with them.

And there is an easy way to combat these terrible menaces...it's called overbooking by one more. If LF is up, I can assume that part of that is due to increased overbooking and less spoilage. If the flight is full of revenue passengers (that actually show up) then it is a blatant failure at the gate if a PS gets on.

 

[networking]

mweiss/Mr. AeroMan,

First off...these passengers travelling PS should NOT be displacing revenue pax. If they are, somebody at the gate is not doing their job. Secondly, there are no facts to back up your assumptions, mweiss, and when I talk about costs, that includes the cost of lost revenue. It is minimal. Nothing compared to the monetary benefits that U had been giving to the credit union employees. Regarding your three scencarios:

1) The flight does not have to be "relatively empty" as you state to have empty seats. Last I knew, 135/137 (98.5% LF) has empty seats. I would gladly give the final two to a PS or SA for goodwill.

2) You are saying that b/c the LFs are increasing that there is less frequency of deep discount bookings. Quite the contrary...the LFs are increasing b/c of low fare competition...not b/c there are all of a sudden thousands of extra full Y's looking to travel.

3) Then they aren't overbooking enough. Revenue management's job is to prevent seats from spoiling...not to protect them for PS.

And to say that there is no incentive for a PS pax to fly at off peak times is a terrible assumption. These people are trying to get to a destination...not to "beat the system" as the conspiracy theory tends to allude to. Because of that, they are not going to choose the full flights just to bump people. They will fly whenever they want...the PS status goes with them.

And there is an easy way to combat these terrible menaces...it's called overbooking by one more. If LF is up, I can assume that part of that is due to increased overbooking and less spoilage. If the flight is full of revenue passengers (that actually show up) then it is a blatant failure at the gate if a PS gets on.

Absolutely not true. If the flight is completely full, or oversold and their are PS booked on trip...they will NOT get off. Actually they are very relieved they have a seat because they KNOW the flight is full. Gate agents do not bump positive space pax. "Denied Boarding" vouchers would be given to volunteers first.

 

[MrAeroMan]

And there is an easy way to combat these terrible menaces...it's called overbooking by one more. If LF is up, I can assume that part of that is due to increased overbooking and less spoilage. If the flight is full of revenue passengers (that actually show up) then it is a blatant failure at the gate if a PS gets on.

And to say that there is no incentive for a PS pax to fly at off peak times is a terrible assumption. These people are trying to get to a destination...not to "beat the system" as the conspiracy theory tends to allude to. Because of that, they are not going to choose the full flights just to bump people. They will fly whenever they want...the PS status goes with them.

These people are trying to get to a destination on THEIR timetable not on what's best for UAIR. Do you honestly think they give a fat rats arse about the impact their travelling on UAIR will have on UAIR's pax or employees? Hell no, they only care about getting to their destination when THEY want to get there. The reason they fly whenever they want is because they have the PS status and that's the whole point. Why do they have it and don't give me the "Goodwill" line. All of this "Goodwill" that is being given out is amusing to put it mildly.

If you have an oversold/cancellation situation do you not protect your pax on UAIR first and then on other carriers that UAIR has agreements with? Don't those agreements take care of the pax getting them to their destination with the absolute minimal amount of additional inconvienence to the pax? These airlines use UAIR and UAIR uses them. Are they not compensated for those pax when they are used to transport them? If so why is there goodwill needed so they will take the pax?

This goodwill sounds more like "Good 'Ol Boy". :down:

 

[Ch. 12]

Absolutely not true. If the flight is completely full, or oversold and their are PS booked on trip...they will NOT get off. Actually they are very relieved they have a seat because they KNOW the flight is full. Gate agents do not bump positive space pax. "Denied Boarding" vouchers would be given to volunteers first.

As I said...a failure at the gate. They shouldn't be on in the first place if the flight is full of revenue pax that have checked in.


And for all that have turned a positive thread into a management-is-evil tirade I find this humourous. Here is an excellent example of where management has cut costs for the airline without going after the airline's employees and there are still complaints. The interesting thing is that no tactic will ever be good enough to save this airline in these employees' eyes ( I do know the difference that there are many that will applaud this decision rather than turn it into something evil). Please take this as a postive step towards necessary cost savings that will benefit ALL at US Airways. To me, this shows hope. But to a small crowd it apparently puts a spotlight on this "abomination" of PS travel that is part of the entire industry and shouldn't even displace revenue.

 

[Ch. 12]

Mr. AeroMan,

I guess we posted at the same time. To reply to your issue about travelling at peak times and displacing full Y pax, I was addressing mweiss's comment:

Finally, there is no incentive for the NRSP to fly during off-peak times, raising the likelihood that the seat taken would have been sold at Y.

This is ridiculous. The PS pax is not looking to beat the system b/c they have an "incentive" to displace revenue pax during peak times. They choose to fly, just like everyone else, at a time that meets their needs...not on the fullest flights b/c they enjoy seeing SA's bumped. Give me a break. There is no conspiracy.

And who cares about these people. You throw all of your emotion and energy into a silly segment that doesn't even add to cost or take away from revenue if handled correctly.

And yes...goodwill. These are the people that draw up the interline agreements or that have created major business accounts for U. It's the same as the top Mary K salespeople getting a pink Cadillac. Only I use the word "goodwill" instead of "incentive" b/c this practice exists at all carriers throughout the world. Become the carrier that won't let empty space be filled by business-generating clients and you will quickly lose the accounts and protection agreements you once had.

 

[MrAeroMan]

This is ridiculous. The PS pax is not looking to beat the system b/c they have an "incentive" to displace revenue pax during peak times. They choose to fly, just like everyone else, at a time that meets their needs...not on the fullest flights b/c they enjoy seeing SA's bumped. Give me a break. There is no conspiracy.

I don't think it's a conspiracy either but there is credence to the argument they shouldn't be flying at all on PS tickets. I grant you they don't have an incentive to displace revenue pax but they sure don't have any incentive to not do so either.

And who cares about these people. You throw all of your emotion and energy into a silly segment that doesn't even add to cost or take away from revenue if handled correctly.

The employees care and management should care too. If this doesn't add cost or take away from revenue then look at this link and tell me why these people say differently?

See previous thread on this subject.

And yes...goodwill. These are the people that draw up the interline agreements or that have created major business accounts for U. It's the same as the top Mary K salespeople getting a pink Cadillac. Only I use the word "goodwill" instead of "incentive" b/c this practice exists at all carriers throughout the world. Become the carrier that won't let empty space be filled by business-generating clients and you will quickly lose the accounts and protection agreements you once had.

I actually agree with you partially on this point but somewhere along the ride it has gotten out of hand and there are people on this list that do not belong there. If you have a business generating client then by all means put them on but other airline execs should not be on this list and UAIR execs shouldn't be on their lists. If they want to go confirmed buy a ticket and you won't have to worry about being bumped or if you want to chance it like the rest of the NRSA's then let your seniority rule where you are on the list. My belief is it's BECAUSE of the lack of seniority that these people have the perks they have so they don't have to worry about being bumped. Imagaine the outcry when an Exec and his family are bumped by another NRSA that has more seniority.

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

Just not right to give it all to them then just pull it out from under them. Some have been there longer than dirt. It is part of their lives.

Just not right!

It's called cost cutting

 

[Ch. 12]

The employees care and management should care too. If this doesn't add cost or take away from revenue then look at this link and tell me why these people say differently?

See previous thread on this subject.

With all due respect, that other thread resembled a Geraldo show on Fox News. The $ figures are exaggerated and blatantly pulled out of no where. If somebody can actually put a dollar figure on it that they can back up with facts, then I will believe it. But to just say $86k with no reasoning is preposterous. Where does the expense come from?

This is the only known reasonable scenario where the expense comes from:

All but one seat is filled by revenue passenger. All of a sudden, the PS that has been holding a seat shows up as does a couple of revenue paying pax. The couple absolutely will not be split up and therefore volunteer and are compensated as they have no seat assignments and there is only room for one. The PS gets onboard to take the last seat. The PS is not displacing revenue, but filling a seat that would have gone empty whether or not he/she showed up b/c the couple would not split.

I still think that there are bigger fish to fry b/c the PS issue may be a training issue if so many PS's are being allowed to get onboard and bump other passengers and the cost is nowhere near the alleged $86k per week from that other thread.

I'm sure that there is a minimal cost associated with instances where a PS was allowed onboard to bump a paying pax but that shouldn't occur operationally anyways. Even so...the benefits that I've mentioned before more than outweigh the measily amount (yes...far less than the un-supported $86k reported in the other wind up thread) that they "cost".

But again...there are much bigger fish to fry. I still take the credit union issue as a positive in that mgmt is seeking other ways to cut significant costs rather than the employee's paychecks. Score one for mgmt and let's all get along for a few minutes to enjoy this, at least.

 

[mweiss]

Ch. 12, when I said "relatively empty," I didn't mean emptier than average. I meant empty enough that the seats were otherwise available.

MrAeroMan is on target here. I don't see how anyone is suggesting that a PS is going to pick a flight just to screw paying passengers. Nonetheless, they have exactly zero incentive to pick a different flight just to avoid screwing paying passengers, either. And, not only do they have zero incentive to pick a different flight, they're more likely to pick a full flight. Why? Because if it's a popular flight, it's popular because the time is convenient for a lot of people. The PSes are people, so it's likely that the time would be convenient for the PSes as well, increasing the likelihood that they'll pick those flights.

I won't dispute that there are bigger fish to fry. Nonetheless, US is hungry, and any fish is still food.

 

[MrAeroMan]

I agree Michael. I think management is missing a golden opportunity to sieze the high ground here. If they took that list and thinned it out measurably it would go a long way for "goodwill" towards the employees. That's what's missing here. They have a golden opportunity to take some cost out of the operation and not affect the employees and while they did part of that with the CU employees they didn't bother to take out their "buddies" on the "Golden List of Free Flight". I think it's great they're looking at ways to cut costs without taking out of the hide of the employees but in this case they didn't look far enough and imo missed the forest amoungst the trees.