Us Airways Says See Ya To Credit Union Employees

[Ch. 12]

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.

The funny thing is that there is NO COST associated. These people are NOT displacing revenue if done properly. Sure, they take a booking, but as I have said over and over...just overbook by one more when you see one of these PS's on the list.


This all boils down to something other than cost-savings. This boils down to the redundant tirade of "it's just not fair to us...we can't fly PS". Well...get over it b/c these PS passengers are not going to buy a seat on US just b/c they can't fly PS anymore...they will fly on somebody else (at no cost to the carrier as I can't seem to get through) and when their friends/family/company flies in the future on revenue tickets...it will not be on US.

These people are revenue generating people b/c they hold the keys to either big accounts or to reciprocal agreements that either generate revenue for US or lower costs. So quit feeling wronged and look for other areas to cut costs that are actually fruitful rather than detrimental. Don't base your assumptions on that other thread you linked in b/c those are baseless figures drawn out of the "it's not fair" arguement.

And while I agree that it is best diplomacy for management to look elsewhere (other than employees) for the cuts, the hard facts are that the country is in a recession and the airlines are in a depression. Despite these truths, wages...especially for senior employees...are way above what the market can handle right now and that is an unrealistic business model. Operating costs are up (JetA), revenues are down (LCCs and much less business travel), but wages are static and do not follow suit. That is why mgmt goes to labor first b/c it is the one area that is far out of line. I do have sympathy, though, and hope that they can be creative and find other avenues to cut costs and not go after the employees at all (they have been through enough). But will it ever be right to those employees that always feel wronged? Here is a case where mgmt has cut costs and we're here bashing them for doing it??

 

[JS]

I'm confused. How can positive space travel not bump a paying passenger (normally a volunteer, but bumping nonetheless)?

If you only board a PS because there is an empty seat on the aircraft, then the only difference between positive space and NRSA is the boarding priority, with positive space boarding first, followed by space available. Once the plane fills up, the low priority NRSA people wait for the next flight.

If this is true, it shouldn't be called positive space. It should be called NRSA with high boarding priority (S0 or whatever you call those codes).

I was always under the impression that positive space travel is the equivalent to buying a regular ticket but paying zero dollars.

 

[Ch. 12]

PS holds a seat out of availability. They are still not guaranteed a seat especially if the flight is way overbooked and everyone shows up. The issue is that many are VP's or other execs and the gate agents do not like to stand up to these execs (and I can't really blame them b/c they can complain better than any other) and they are given seats. Technically, though, the PS books a seat but does not guarantee boarding. Sometimes, though, it's the whiney call from the exec to their "friend" that gets them on and for that I agree that it is unjust that they displace revenue, but again...this is not the rule and even if they displace one passenger, they are usually bringing many others through corporate commitment or they are providing interairline agreements for baggage/pax.

Hence the non-issue.