Retiree travel

[Seatacus]

I’m sad to say that this attitude that the company has towards retirees shows a lack of character. Instead of choosing to do what is right and honorable they have chosen to do what is the easiest. The long term survival of a company like this I find questionable. If allowing retirees to board with actives has that much negative affect on this company then this company is on shakier ground than I thought.

And Buckeyefan.... I wonder what Woody Hayes would have said about the treatment of retirees?

 

[buckeyefan]

I’m sad to say that this attitude that the company has towards retirees shows a lack of character. Instead of choosing to do what is right and honorable they have chosen to do what is the easiest. The long term survival of a company like this I find questionable. If allowing retirees to board with actives has that much negative affect on this company then this company is on shakier ground than I thought.

And Buckeyefan.... I wonder what Woody Hayes would have said about the treatment of retirees?

I don't think Woody Hayes has anything to do with retiree travel but that was real slick of you to try to make it relate in some way.

 

[Seatacus]

that was real slick of you to try to make it relate in some way.

Just trying to have some fun. I am not an Ohio fan but I really admired Woody Hayes as a coach. He was a legend.

 

[buckeyefan]

Just trying to have some fun. I am not an Ohio fan but I really admired Woody Hayes as a coach. He was a legend.

No problem. Careful now, we'll get in trouble for going off topic. :unsure:

 

[flyguy121]

Some of todays retirees are not that way because they chose to be. Some jobs were eliminated, some chose not to relocate families after many years of service. Also many have different jobs and don,t have the flexibility to swap days off to extend their time off.

So this is not just an east west issue.

I,am now one of those retirees that would love to still be active but had no option but to retire last March 1st.

I put in 36 years with the company, before my retirement and of course I feel as if I should at least keep my boarding priority. But having not known any other way all the years I worked its hard to adjust to.

I also understand it's not the same industry as it was years ago, and many do not stay long enough to see retirement. So I can understand the way most people feel on this topic. But I would think that having your seniority for boarding when you retire would be a least an incenitive to stay for some people.

So there is bound to be alot of emotions on both sides.

This is a place for people to express their feelings on all subjects, and to look at both sides.

Yikes, this definitely is a "powder keg" of an issue, and as allegheny37 stated, there is going to be some strong feelings on both sides of this argument.

I was actually surprised to read that the policy has always been to give retired and active employees alike the same boarding priority based on Seniority whether active or not. I was honestly under the impression that active employees would logically be given top boarding priority (in Seniority Order of course) because they are the ones who are presently employed by the company.

Let me be the first to say I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Trailblazers that were here before and paved the way for the rest of us. You have given your heart and soul to an industry that has not always been kind to you. You have sacrificed your years, your time, your pay, your vacation, your pensions and years of your lives and watched as bad management piddled away everything you gave to watch your airline survive, and perhaps even thrive one day again. I don't think there is a soul among us that does not think you deserve to keep those flight benefits for the rest of your lives...

however,

times have changed, and as many other mistakes in US Airways checkered past, just because "it's always been that way" does not mean that it has always been the best or most fair way.

Culture is changing, Business is changing, our Customers are changing and WE are changing...hopefully for the better. I believe that many (myself included) have never been more encouraged with what we've seen so far and the direction we are headed under the new management regime at LCC. Of course, we are a long way from utopia and there are many bumps in the road to come, but so far...I like where we are going.

Remember what we are taught from Day 1: Seniority is everything. It sucks until you have some and it takes a LONG time to get there, but when you do, everything gets better a little at a time. Your base, your schedule, your vacation time, your block, and yes, your priority for Boarding for Non-Rev Travel.

I'm sorry and sincerely don't mean to offend anyone that doesn't agree, but I just don't believe that retired employees should be given the same boarding priority as an active employee. It takes several years to climb that Seniority Ladder with thousands of other active employees ahead of you, and when you hold the "Upper Seniority" as an active employee, you deserve everything you've earned for investing the time you have spent. I just don't think it is right or fair for thousands of other former employees to also take priority over an active employee for the sole reason of having been employed at any airline and having moved on in their lives.

 

[BoeingBoy]

times have changed, and as many other mistakes in US Airways checkered past, just because "it's always been that way" does not mean that it has always been the best or most fair way.

Culture is changing, Business is changing, our Customers are changing and WE are changing...

So just enjoy first come/first served when it comes to a flight near you.......

Jim

:blink: couldn't resist

 

[flyguy121]

So just enjoy first come/first served when it comes to a flight near you.......

Jim

:blink: couldn't resist

Boeing -

Since I hold a very low Seniority #, the first come/first served system could actually work to my own immediate personal benefit, more so than the traditional Boarding by Seniority system. However, I do not agree with this Boarding System simply because it is new to US East and currently used by HP and could work to my own advantage. No Sir...I do believe Seniority should continue to determine Boarding Priority, among those who are Actively Employed.

Try not to take small snippets of a post out of context, my point was that US Airways has long been a victim of the narrow-minded and growth-limiting "we've always done it that way" mentality. After your years of service, would you not agree? That is not to imply of course that an employee's Seniority should not continue to determine bases, schedules, vacation time, blocks, and priority for Boarding for Non-Rev Travel as it always has...provided that individual is Actively Employed.

 

[Barbell]

To all of the retirees who have made this airline the great survivor that it is so that I might one day work there, I say, "Thank you."

To all of the senior employees who continue to pour their heart and soul into this great airline so that there will be a highly successful enterprise where I might one day work, I say, "Thank you."

I don't think there is a soul among us that does not think you deserve to keep those flight benefits for the rest of your lives...

Amen!

Remember what we are taught from Day 1: Seniority is everything. It sucks until you have some and it takes a LONG time to get there, but when you do, everything gets better a little at a time. Your base, your schedule, your vacation time, your block, and yes, your priority for Boarding for Non-Rev Travel.

And this brings up an interesting point. There are many great aviation professionals that do the day-to-day running of the airline, from flying around big planes, to keeping us all safe and comfortable in the cabin, to getting planes in the gate and baggage on the carousel, to processing all those complex tickets. The list goes on and on. As you stated, a lot of situations improve for these people as they gain more and more seniority. I think we can all agree that's fair.

Now consider the changing environment for a moment. There are literally thousands upon thousands of things that keep this airline running that do not in any way, shape, or form, depend on seniority. NOTE: I did not say thousands of people - that's what happend in CCY. There are far fewer people running the combined airline than all the minions in the Crystal Palace in her darkest days. Asking those of us who plan routes, analyze and set fares, market the product, get the planes out on time, destroy DM, set ticketing policy, make InFlight policy, buy new computers for the ATO, integrate IT systems, or pay the bills to take a benefit that bridges the gap in pay to our real world counterparts and push it into a Union defined contract is unfair. This benefit is one that affects all of us, and is impossible to manage across multiple work groups if all the rules are different. It's not like healthcare or sick days or anything else.

Our lives are neither defined, nor affected, by seniority. However, some of our work lives are. Work lives should be defined by seniority. Benefit lives should not be. I chose to work in a non-seniority environment, some of us chose to work in a seniority based environment. Benefits are a whole other ball of wax. The fact that you can fly practically anywhere in the world for free isn't enough? Other airlines that board by seniority also charge for the benefit. Maybe we should do that, too...

"it's always been that way"

And on an unrelated note, if I hear this from one of my colleagues one more time, I swear to all that's holy that I'm going to throw someone out a window.

Thanks for your thoughts, flyguy121.

 

[US1YFARE]

destroy DM,

based on what I've seen, the new US has certainly done that, particularly for the US1's....this new crap with the first up upgrades is ridiculous--and from what I hear, more changes are a coming that are not too sweet...and it's the poor f/a's who are going to feel the brunt of it.

 

[Seatacus]

you deserve everything you've earned for investing the time you have spent.

Yeah right....until you retire.

 

[Hope777]

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.....

 

[BoeingBoy]

my point was that US Airways has long been a victim of the narrow-minded and growth-limiting "we've always done it that way" mentality. After your years of service, would you not agree?

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

That is not to imply of course that an employee's Seniority should not continue to determine bases, schedules, vacation time, blocks, and priority for Boarding for Non-Rev Travel as it always has...provided that individual is Actively Employed.

"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 there is only one fair way, as long as if doesn't apply to this or that group.

Jim

 

[buckeyefan]

To all of the retirees who have made this airline the great survivor that it is so that I might one day work there, I say, "Thank you."

To all of the senior employees who continue to pour their heart and soul into this great airline so that there will be a highly successful enterprise where I might one day work, I say, "Thank you."
Amen!
And this brings up an interesting point. There are many great aviation professionals that do the day-to-day running of the airline, from flying around big planes, to keeping us all safe and comfortable in the cabin, to getting planes in the gate and baggage on the carousel, to processing all those complex tickets. The list goes on and on. As you stated, a lot of situations improve for these people as they gain more and more seniority. I think we can all agree that's fair.

Now consider the changing environment for a moment. There are literally thousands upon thousands of things that keep this airline running that do not in any way, shape, or form, depend on seniority. NOTE: I did not say thousands of people - that's what happend in CCY. There are far fewer people running the combined airline than all the minions in the Crystal Palace in her darkest days. Asking those of us who plan routes, analyze and set fares, market the product, get the planes out on time, destroy DM, set ticketing policy, make InFlight policy, buy new computers for the ATO, integrate IT systems, or pay the bills to take a benefit that bridges the gap in pay to our real world counterparts and push it into a Union defined contract is unfair. This benefit is one that affects all of us, and is impossible to manage across multiple work groups if all the rules are different. It's not like healthcare or sick days or anything else.

Our lives are neither defined, nor affected, by seniority. However, some of our work lives are. Work lives should be defined by seniority. Benefit lives should not be. I chose to work in a non-seniority environment, some of us chose to work in a seniority based environment. Benefits are a whole other ball of wax. The fact that you can fly practically anywhere in the world for free isn't enough? Other airlines that board by seniority also charge for the benefit. Maybe we should do that, too...
And on an unrelated note, if I hear this from one of my colleagues one more time, I swear to all that's holy that I'm going to throw someone out a window.

Thanks for your thoughts, flyguy121.

Well said!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm also getting really tired of the "that's the way we've always done it and now we're getting screwed" mentality.

That's not how it was done on the west side, so it hasn't always been done that way, but I guess it's okay to not honor what the HP employees were told when they retired. Many of those retirees helped start a brand new airline and built it to the proud position it holds in the industry today. But because their airline hasn't been around 25 years they get to travel after the 25 + retirees of US Air!!! They weren't told there were would be differences in boarding priority for retirees when they retired. And the funny thing is that I've never heard retirees on the west complaining that they have to board after active employees.

 

[fmc]

At US it was : if an emp got hired 01/01/96 and retired 01/01/01 they boarded before an active employee hired after 01/02/96 because of hire date it did not matter that the newer employee has more time devoted to the company, which is why the company is looking at these different ways to board

 

[BoeingBoy]

At US it was : if an emp got hired 01/01/96 and retired 01/01/01 they boarded before an active employee hired after 01/02/96 because of hire date it did not matter that the newer employee has more time devoted to the company, which is why the company is looking at these different ways to board

Actually, not right. Retiree's with less than 20 years service have been behind active & retired with over 20 years for some years now. (I think the deviding line was 20 years, it may have been 25)

Jim