Senior Management To Implement New Travel NON-Rev Policy

[PITbull]

Latest MEC E-line sent to Labor from ALPA and AFA.

Keep in mind, Management CAN NOT CHANGE the contractual pass policies for Retirees, 25/45, and VFLR. However, they can change term pass policies for active employees even borarding priority non-rev policies.

Its about to get ugly!


April 28, 2006

Mr. Doug Parker
CEO and Chairman
US Airways, Inc.
111 West Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, Arizona 85281

Dear Mr. Parker,

As the leaders of the US Airways Labor Unions, we represent all of the organized employees of US Airways. We are writing this joint letter to call to your attention to an issue that we feel requires your direct consideration. We are writing about an issue of great importance to your employees, many of which rely on US Airways for travel to fulfill their obligation to their employer.

With this merger, America West Airlines has merged with a mature and diverse US Airways, an airline that is geographically distributed across the United States and particularly the Eastern United States. Because of the inherently unstable nature of this industry, many employees will not continuously relocate their families as their job moves from city to city. Consequently, many employees rely on a measure of stability and predictability in non-revenue travel so that these employees can deliver both excellence in the workplace as well as a sense of stability to their family at home (wherever that may be). Stability, in the eyes of these employees, is provided by a non-revenue travel policy that recognizes years of service to our airline.

Recent communications from the US Airways offices in Tempe have indicated that this stability and relative predictability of non-revenue travel may be in jeopardy, displaced by a different travel policy that affords employees no predictability whatsoever. Further, this alternative (America West) travel policy provides no recognition for the devoted service provided by employees who have spent their working years building this airline.

For the reasons mentioned above, we are asking you to make a choice. We are asking you to choose a company-wide non-revenue travel policy that affords stability and relative predictability to all of your employees. We are asking that length of service be respected and recognized as the method of establishing boarding priority for non-revenue travel.

We look forward to discussing this with you at the forthcoming meeting between the Labor leaders and the Labor Committee of the Board of Directors.

Sincerely,


Jack Stephan, Chairman
US Airways ALPA MEC

Mike Flores, President
US Airways MEC AFA-CWA

 

[700UW]

Very well said, someone should contact the IAM they will go along with it.

 

[ClueByFour]

That's an interesting way of saying the "seniority for non-rev" should continue. Did this fight not start about a year ago?

 

[Elevation]

Latest MEC E-line sent to Labor from ALPA and AFA.

Deleted remainder of lengthy post. Please do not quote a long post to add 1 line. Thanks.

:down:

US East needs to ween themselves off their mental entitlements, the airlines are changing for better or worse adjust or be bitter.

 

[fr8tmastr]

I am very junior, and I agree we should keep/adopt travel via seniority. It does add a token of stability to your travel (especially to work). Also I dont like the idea of employees competing against each other to see who can get to the gate first. It just adds another level of stress to an already stressful situation. that is of course unless your buddy is the gate agent and he/she will take care of you, which will then add contempt and anger to the situation. Seniority rules will keep the peace and is fair.

 

[rjh]

I am very junior, and I agree we should keep/adopt travel via seniority. It does add a token of stability to your travel (especially to work). Also I dont like the idea of employees competing against each other to see who can get to the gate first. It just adds another level of stress to an already stressful situation. that is of course unless your buddy is the gate agent and he/she will take care of you, which will then add contempt and anger to the situation. Seniority rules will keep the peace and is fair.

I dont' see how using seniority adds ANY stability whatsoever. When listing for a flight, you have no idea of what the seniority is of the other employees on that flight. With FCFS, you KNOW how many other employees are listed on a flight. From the very day you start to plan your flights, you see how many employees are listed. If it is tight, you make sure to check in (on the WEB--you do not need to "get to the gate first"--many people are forgetting that).

Checking in 12 hours ahead of time should be plenty of time for most (note: I said MOST not ALL) commuters to check in before their trip ends. And yes, I know you can't check in online for East flights yet--but if FCFS is used as the final method, I'm sure you will be able to do that.

The only person that is guaranteed a seat using seniority is the # 1 senior person. How does that add stability? You could easily be a very senior person, and see only junior people listed on the flight. Then 1 hour before departure--a more senior person could wander up to the gate and bump you off the flight!

With FCFS--if you are the first employee checked in for a flight--you know that you will ALWAYS be the first person checked in for that flight!

With seniority, you never know where you stand until you show up at the airport. With FCFS, you know where you stand from the time you start "checking' flights, all the way until you check in for the flight. And yes--that is to the disadvantage of commuters as well.

 

[PITbull]

I don't believe the issue is about non-reving for vacationing purposes, or non-reving outside of getting to work.

The West managment does not encompass in their mentality that USAirways is a multi-base airline with not 11,000 employees, but 35,000. There is probably currently 70% commuters just out of PHL alone. PIT, probably soon to be 80%. LGA probably 99.9%. The company is still emerging and there will probably be transferring and displacmeents occuring for the next 3 years. There may also be base closures adding to the anxiety and decision making process on where to live and settle. What mergers do in the airline business is create major commuting employees. U has merged 5 times. AWA employees haver never merged with anyone before U.

The investors bought a stake in a merger and needs the Westie management to "grow up" and get with the program. AWA has merged with a legacy, its not all about the desert, and sunny weather...

The operation is not even merged yet. If DP doesn't adjust to being BIG, he will LOSE even BIGGER.

If the company makes it difficult for folks to commute in this current/changing environment, as they grow PHX and LAS, you will have transfers actually moving into the base to lessen a commute. And we are talking SENIOR.

Folks on the west need to be careful what they wish for, and there is no negotiated fence around PHX. If folks need to be in base and live where they work because a commute is impossibe (we aren't talking non-rev for vaction) with even a couple base closures on the East, will impact the remaining bases with added population. F/as, pilots and all of labor will have to decide from which base they need to live in.

 

[ClueByFour]

I believe, just for the sake of argument that AA is the largest airline in the world and they somehow manage to get by with first-come, first-served.

I believe that Southwest is the biggest domestic airline, and they too manage with first-come, first-served.

I'll say this: it's virtually impossible to poke a fairness hole in first-come, first-served (assuming that it's implemented in such a way that a gate agent buddy cannot check a friend in). You can poke all kinds of holes in the seniority line of thinking.

My bet is that this one goes the "west" way, if for no other reason that it's highly likely that the pilots and F/As in "west" are the ones most likely to have their career expectations pretty much wasted by the merger--might as well give them a bone.

But here is what I don't get--it stands to reason that a zillion HP folks won't be commuting ex-PHX to CLT, PIT, LGA, BOS, and DCA. It further stands to reason (save some PSA folks) that East F/As are not going to flock into PHX in droves (or, these are the lines that the east AFA has been firing off in an attempt to justify the windfall that is the AFA merger policy). With that said, it sounds a whole lot like this is not so much about east vs west, so much as it is "top of the list versus bottom of the list" within East.

 

[rjh]

I'll say this: it's virtually impossible to poke a fairness hole in first-come, first-served (assuming that it's implemented in such a way that a gate agent buddy cannot check a friend in). You can poke all kinds of holes in the seniority line of thinking.

I agree with you: I hope it goes FCFS. However, those in favor of seniority think it's "the only fair way". Fairness means different things to different people. I do have one big argument against the seniority argument though: the idea that some people think they are more entitled to the use of the flight beneifts than junior people.

Flying is a BENEFIT. Senior people already get better pay, more vacation, and in most cases better schedules. But do they get better premiums on health insurance? No. Also, a good point was made in one of the emails to Row23Middle. Does a more senior person get to cut in line at the credit union? No.

I do take issue with another comment made to Row23Middle. Someone said it should be like what we are taught as kids: instead of "respect your elders", this person argued that it should be "respect those more senior". Since when does working more years entitle a person to more respect? Respect is EARNED--not by time, but by actions.

 

[PITbull]

Clue,

I can only give a perspective from experience and being intimately involved with the f/a group on issues of commuting. Basically, pre 9/11, there were issues with base closures with respect to the fall-out from mergers and folks turning into commuters. However, the process was insedious. When U bought PSA, base closures did not occur for about 8 years, and with Piedmont, it took many years again. There was also many flights being added on in this process of expansion and Wolf's idea of being the Global airline. Folks could afford commuting and overnighting in hotel rooms before their trip began. With major pay cuts (our pay is much lower than LUV employees and AA). If U was more stable, folks would be better prepared to make a permanent move and not commute.

U is not stable.

In my view, the issue for FCFS (if implemented) should be for employees who are not working or trying to get to work. The landscape has changed drastically since the downsizing of the East coast operation since 9/11. Just with f/a elimination is approx 6,500 on the East out of 11,000. That has created displacement to fill the holes in the bases. U has always been muti-based and we have commuting langauge. Since Siegel and gang, the co. has been making policies to basically terminate f/as who are either out of base, or miss a commute, the other issue is do you uproot and move your family to a base that a) may close, or b)or the co. may furlough again and you will be displaced again? The issue of commuting became more of a problem with more folks needing to non-rev as the co. continued to downsize the past 4 years. Now with the merger and possible base closure, folks don't really know where to go. Its not like they have money to keep selling their houses and making these moves with their families.

The real issue here is not with non-rev vacationing or leisure time. Its about getting to work. And until the co. shows signs of stabilty, folks will not trust the co. and move into where a base is located.

If the co. does not make some kind of provision for employees to get to work without being disciplined to termination, then you will see a workforce who turned into commuters a few years ago begin to get terminated again. On that premise, the union has an obligation to protect all employees. Commuting is a reality and needs addressed. I have to reiterate, this is not a question of which method to use to get to work, it is find a method that allows an employee who commutes to be able to get to work without discipline.

Dialogue is needed on these issues, and FCFS is not as simple a remedy as one may think for commuters.

I believe that vacationing and getting to work should be treated completely separately when negotiating non-rev co. policies.

Keep in mind the senior management commute. Jerry lives in Virginia and commutes to PHX, and many others like Cindi Simone. I see her at the airport catching a flight. I am sure she has no worries as she is space positive.

 

[barbeetantrums]

My bet is that this one goes the "west" way, if for no other reason that it's highly likely that the pilots and F/As in "west" are the ones most likely to have their career expectations pretty much wasted by the merger--might as well give them a bone.

West will get a bone, alright. Just not the bone you're talking about. Seniority will be the chosen method to placate whining from the East. I guaran-f'in-tee it.

 

[rjh]

Clue,

I can only give a perspective from experience and being intimately involved with the f/a group on issues of commuting. Basically, pre 9/11, there were issues with base closures with respect to the fall-out from mergers and folks turning into commuters. However, the process was insedious. When U bought PSA, base closures did not occur for about 8 years, and with Piedmont, it took many years again. There was also many flights being added on in this process of expansion and Wolf's idea of being the Global airline. Folks could afford commuting and overnighting in hotel rooms before their trip began. With major pay cuts (our pay is much lower than LUV employees and AA). If U was more stable, folks would be better prepared to make a permanent move and not commute.

U is not stable.

In my view, the issue for FCFS (if implemented) should be for employees who are not working or trying to get to work. The landscape has changed drastically since the downsizing of the East coast operation since 9/11. Just with f/a elimination is approx 6,500 on the East out of 11,000. That has created displacement to fill the holes in the bases. U has always been muti-based and we have commuting langauge. Since Siegel and gang, the co. has been making policies to basically terminate f/as who are either out of base, or miss a commute, the other issue is do you uproot and move your family to a base that a) may close, or b)or the co. may furlough again and you will be displaced again? The issue of commuting became more of a problem with more folks needing to non-rev as the co. continued to downsize the past 4 years. Now with the merger and possible base closure, folks don't really know where to go. Its not like they have money to keep selling their houses and making these moves with their families.

The real issue here is not with non-rev vacationing or leisure time. Its about getting to work. And until the co. shows signs of stabilty, folks will not trust the co. and move into where a base is located.

If the co. does not make some kind of provision for employees to get to work without being disciplined if its impossible, then you will see a workforce who turned into commuters a few years ago begin to get terminated again.

Dialogue is needed on these issues, and FCFS is not as simple a remedy as one may think for commuters.

Commuting seems to be a tricky issue. While it's not the employee's fault they were diplaced, it's also not the company's fault (nor the customer's, who really suffer when flights are not staffed), that the employee doesn't make it to work on time from commuting.

There could be some room for compromise on this issue. At first glance, I wouldn't have a problem with TRUE commuters getting a higher priority, but there would have to be LOTS of controls to prevent abuse--and we ALL know that there are those that would try to abuse such a policy. The commuter would have to be listed in the DRS as a commuter, AND they would have to show proof that they are in fact commuting on that particular flight. IN addition, if there are other options available, they shouldn't get the higher priority.

Or, if commuters don't get a higher priority, there should be more leniency when they can't make it to work on time--within reason! If the same people consistently show up late--that is a definite problem. They should prove WHY they weren't able to get to work on time--and lack of availability alone doesn't always cut it. Did the flight fill up at the last minute because of a cancellation? Or was it it booked the last 2 weeks? Were there other options before the flight they tried to get on that were available?

Again, there may be room for compromise, but to be fair to everyone a system would need to have controls to prevent abuse. Many commuters did not choose to get displaced, but they ALL chose to live away from their base. It's probably more of an issue on the East due to involuntary dispalcements, but I dont' think that's the case at all on the West. But again--all commuters CHOOSE to live away from their base. In addition, most commuters are crew members, so they have an option that most other employees do not have: the jumpseat.

 

[Elevation]

I dont' see how using seniority adds ANY stability whatsoever. When listing for a flight, you have no idea of what the seniority is of the other employees on that flight. With FCFS, you KNOW how many other employees are listed on a flight. From the very day you start to plan your flights, you see how many employees are listed. If it is tight, you make sure to check in (on the WEB--you do not need to "get to the gate first"--many people are forgetting that).

Checking in 12 hours ahead of time should be plenty of time for most (note: I said MOST not ALL) commuters to check in before their trip ends. And yes, I know you can't check in online for East flights yet--but if FCFS is used as the final method, I'm sure you will be able to do that.

The only person that is guaranteed a seat using seniority is the # 1 senior person. How does that add stability? You could easily be a very senior person, and see only junior people listed on the flight. Then 1 hour before departure--a more senior person could wander up to the gate and bump you off the flight!

With FCFS--if you are the first employee checked in for a flight--you know that you will ALWAYS be the first person checked in for that flight!

With seniority, you never know where you stand until you show up at the airport. With FCFS, you know where you stand from the time you start "checking' flights, all the way until you check in for the flight. And yes--that is to the disadvantage of commuters as well.

Stop making sense!! This is how we have always done it and thats that.

 

[PITbull]

rjh,

Now that perspective and view we can agree. B)

 

[N903AW]

I believe, just for the sake of argument that AA is the largest airline in the world and they somehow manage to get by with first-come, first-served.

I believe that Southwest is the biggest domestic airline, and they too manage with first-come, first-served.

Hmmm, East won't touch that one with a ten foot pole. But then again, I suppose NOBODY commutes to base at these airlines. Nor does anyone acknowledge that we have tons of commuters at HP as well....and I am not referring to commuting from Mesa to Sky Harbor either. The only two major airlines I have worked for have been AA and HP, so I have only known FCFS boarding priorities and it has always been a fair system.

AA, btw, has more bases than US, crosses over more time zones than US, has more employees (of all seniority levels) than US, etc. They seem to manage. So can US East.