What will they gain charging us to travel? All we do is fill an empty seat. I can see charging for the meal. McDonalds is better in most cases. I would not eat or bring a sandwich. After they get the concessions they want from us nobody will be able to afford to pay the service charges anyway. I feel like a punching bag. They just keep swinging at me.
SERVICE CHARGES ! ! ? PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!
- Thread starter gatemech
- Start date
ual747mech
Senior
- Nov 26, 2002
- 279
- 0
LOL...
USAirUnited
Advanced
- Dec 17, 2002
- 235
- 0
I assume you are speaking of your travel pass. Over at US Air they used the pass a tool in concessions. We give and they give. Example: now parents can stay active on a term pass past the 90 day limit for those that have been furloughed. [BR][BR]
synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/22/2002 7:51:30 PM gatemech wrote:
What will they gain charging us to travel? All we do is fill an empty seat. I can see charging for the meal. McDonalds is better in most cases. I would not eat or bring a sandwich. After they get the concessions they want from us nobody will be able to afford to pay the service charges anyway. I feel like a punching bag. They just keep swinging at me.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
FWIW, if UAL were to start charging substantial service charges for eligible travel, that would pretty much kill off any reason for my wife to try to remain at UAL. Even if she manages to keep her job, the low pay and "charming" UAL work environment leave little incentive to stay on. If the service charges reach the level of companion passes (which are already comparable to low end coach fares in many cases) or exceed those rates, then what's the use?
Taking away the flight bene's makes little sense. They're standby seats anyway, the only "cost" is in the additional fuel used to cart the extra weight and the meals they serve us (and yeah, I'm willing to go without food. Even the meals in first class aren't that great, although at least they're edible, unlike much of the coach food, and I don't drink much booze on those rare occasions I get a seat in first). It's one of those things where the "cost" to the company is slight, but the benefit (in attracting and maintaining personnel) can be large. It's a way to "pay" employees a considerable amount for very little. You'd think they'd want to hold on to that.
Ah, well, we'll see how this works out. I've been thinking of travelling to New Zealand during thie holiday season (fly while I still can); this just adds to the urgency.
-synchronicity
----------------
On 12/22/2002 7:51:30 PM gatemech wrote:
What will they gain charging us to travel? All we do is fill an empty seat. I can see charging for the meal. McDonalds is better in most cases. I would not eat or bring a sandwich. After they get the concessions they want from us nobody will be able to afford to pay the service charges anyway. I feel like a punching bag. They just keep swinging at me.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
FWIW, if UAL were to start charging substantial service charges for eligible travel, that would pretty much kill off any reason for my wife to try to remain at UAL. Even if she manages to keep her job, the low pay and "charming" UAL work environment leave little incentive to stay on. If the service charges reach the level of companion passes (which are already comparable to low end coach fares in many cases) or exceed those rates, then what's the use?
Taking away the flight bene's makes little sense. They're standby seats anyway, the only "cost" is in the additional fuel used to cart the extra weight and the meals they serve us (and yeah, I'm willing to go without food. Even the meals in first class aren't that great, although at least they're edible, unlike much of the coach food, and I don't drink much booze on those rare occasions I get a seat in first). It's one of those things where the "cost" to the company is slight, but the benefit (in attracting and maintaining personnel) can be large. It's a way to "pay" employees a considerable amount for very little. You'd think they'd want to hold on to that.
Ah, well, we'll see how this works out. I've been thinking of travelling to New Zealand during thie holiday season (fly while I still can); this just adds to the urgency.
-synchronicity
Oliver Stone''s Apprentice
Veteran
- Aug 19, 2002
- 786
- 0
Who pays for the programming required in Apollo to support checking in nonrevs, or the programming required to support companion pass ticketing.
Think all that is free? Hardly.
Think all that is free? Hardly.
synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 12:49:44 AM synchronicity wrote:
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Never mind, just saw the blurb on Newsreal. It's a return to the old service charges for pleasure pass travel. That's understandable; probably just covers the incidental costs associated with any passenger, and IIRC this cost regime was in place until just a few years ago. From Gatemech's reaction, I was afraid they'd jacked up the service charges far above the old rates.
-synchronicity
----------------
On 12/23/2002 12:49:44 AM synchronicity wrote:
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Never mind, just saw the blurb on Newsreal. It's a return to the old service charges for pleasure pass travel. That's understandable; probably just covers the incidental costs associated with any passenger, and IIRC this cost regime was in place until just a few years ago. From Gatemech's reaction, I was afraid they'd jacked up the service charges far above the old rates.
-synchronicity
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 9:44:06 AM synchronicity wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 12:49:44 AM synchronicity wrote:
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Never mind, just saw the blurb on Newsreal. It's a return to the old service charges for pleasure pass travel. That's understandable; probably just covers the incidental costs associated with any passenger, and IIRC this cost regime was in place until just a few years ago. From Gatemech's reaction, I was afraid they'd jacked up the service charges far above the old rates.
-synchronicity
----------------
[/blockquote]
You need to read the article more closely. It returns the old fee schedule PLUS adds many additional charges.
----------------
On 12/23/2002 9:44:06 AM synchronicity wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 12:49:44 AM synchronicity wrote:
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Never mind, just saw the blurb on Newsreal. It's a return to the old service charges for pleasure pass travel. That's understandable; probably just covers the incidental costs associated with any passenger, and IIRC this cost regime was in place until just a few years ago. From Gatemech's reaction, I was afraid they'd jacked up the service charges far above the old rates.
-synchronicity
----------------
[/blockquote]
You need to read the article more closely. It returns the old fee schedule PLUS adds many additional charges.
synchronicity
Advanced
- Nov 27, 2002
- 144
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 9:56:54 AM Busdrvr wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 9:44:06 AM synchronicity wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 12:49:44 AM synchronicity wrote:
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Never mind, just saw the blurb on Newsreal. It's a return to the old service charges for pleasure pass travel. That's understandable; probably just covers the incidental costs associated with any passenger, and IIRC this cost regime was in place until just a few years ago. From Gatemech's reaction, I was afraid they'd jacked up the service charges far above the old rates.
-synchronicity
----------------
[/blockquote]
You need to read the article more closely. It returns the old fee schedule PLUS adds many additional charges.
----------------
[/blockquote]
The 'additional charges" are the taxes. Even downloaded the excel spreadsheet to calc the charges. Again, I understand this. Sure, I wish that travel charges weren't coming back, but look at the circumstances.
And as I said earlier, this is just more information to consider in the thought process of "if my wife is fortunate enough to keep her job at United, should she still voluntarily choose to leave and go elsewhere". We look at the salary and bene's at United ("bene's" have included cheap health insurance, flexible work schedule, and the flight benefits, disadvanatges include a less than stellar work environment and some other items) and compare those with other opportunities as she keeps looking. Obviously, reducing pay, increasing health benefit costs, and increasing the cost of flight travel (along with relatively low costs for "non-employees" in travel) makes United look less attractive relative to other employers. Or in one sentence: "an extra X thousand dollars per year can buy a LOT of plane tickets"
-synchronicity
----------------
On 12/23/2002 9:56:54 AM Busdrvr wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 9:44:06 AM synchronicity wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 12:49:44 AM synchronicity wrote:
Where can I find the details about possible service charges for 'eligibles" travel? Would this be a return to the old charges, or is this a new, higher charge. I don't see any details about such a proposal on Skynet. Can somebody post the info here or PM me?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Never mind, just saw the blurb on Newsreal. It's a return to the old service charges for pleasure pass travel. That's understandable; probably just covers the incidental costs associated with any passenger, and IIRC this cost regime was in place until just a few years ago. From Gatemech's reaction, I was afraid they'd jacked up the service charges far above the old rates.
-synchronicity
----------------
[/blockquote]
You need to read the article more closely. It returns the old fee schedule PLUS adds many additional charges.
----------------
[/blockquote]
The 'additional charges" are the taxes. Even downloaded the excel spreadsheet to calc the charges. Again, I understand this. Sure, I wish that travel charges weren't coming back, but look at the circumstances.
And as I said earlier, this is just more information to consider in the thought process of "if my wife is fortunate enough to keep her job at United, should she still voluntarily choose to leave and go elsewhere". We look at the salary and bene's at United ("bene's" have included cheap health insurance, flexible work schedule, and the flight benefits, disadvanatges include a less than stellar work environment and some other items) and compare those with other opportunities as she keeps looking. Obviously, reducing pay, increasing health benefit costs, and increasing the cost of flight travel (along with relatively low costs for "non-employees" in travel) makes United look less attractive relative to other employers. Or in one sentence: "an extra X thousand dollars per year can buy a LOT of plane tickets"
-synchronicity
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #12
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/22/2002 11:07:12 PM ual06 wrote:
Passes? You guys worry about passes? Get real. Wake up. Please give me a break!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hey I don't fly enough to worry about it. I have heard lots of rumors about the pass travel. The old service charges were not that bad. I can live with that. It's just that they keep going after the employees for more everyday. Those high paid execs fly NRPS 1st class. I wonder how the mileage plus customer would feel when they are told that 1st class is full. Those execs know very well that they are taking a seat that a paying customer should have.
----------------
On 12/22/2002 11:07:12 PM ual06 wrote:
Passes? You guys worry about passes? Get real. Wake up. Please give me a break!
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hey I don't fly enough to worry about it. I have heard lots of rumors about the pass travel. The old service charges were not that bad. I can live with that. It's just that they keep going after the employees for more everyday. Those high paid execs fly NRPS 1st class. I wonder how the mileage plus customer would feel when they are told that 1st class is full. Those execs know very well that they are taking a seat that a paying customer should have.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,367
- 1,431
[STRONG]I wonder how the mileage plus customer would feel when they are told that 1st class is full. Those execs know very well that they are taking a seat that a paying customer should have.[/STRONG][BR][BR]I suppose the next question is did the mileage plus customer inquire about first class seats for a first class price, or were they just looking to upgrade an advance purchase coach ticket?? The caste system of "preferred" customers seems to be draining your full F class cabin of full F class seats.
grndproxwarning
Member
- Oct 14, 2002
- 85
- 0
Maybe it is their way of rallying the troops!
Next they will be asking you to do the Wal-Mart Cheer
when you get to work in the morning.
Next they will be asking you to do the Wal-Mart Cheer
when you get to work in the morning.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Come on now, people.
We have so much more important things to worry about. How long did we go with pass surcharges? It wasn't until recently that the charges were eliminated. So now they are going back to the way they were, plus taxes and security fees. Big Friggin' Deal! Supporting the non-rev system doesn't come free to the company.
What's wrong with the company recovering a nominal fee to cover the expense?
I just received an e-note from the chief pilot asking us not to use the toll free number when calling the crew desk from a cell phone. Makes sense to me. Cell companies charge you for minutes whether it's a toll free call or not. Why have the company pay for the call also? These things just make sense, and every little bit helps right now.
And while we're at it, how about easing up on the ACARS messages? Why do some dispatchers need to send a message every time there's a pirep of light chop at 12,000 feet over Albany when I'm at FL330 over Denver?
And APU burn! There's another one. Look, it's not sweltering summer time. There's no need to run the packs non stop. There are still plenty of captains cranking the APU as we exit the runway. I don't know how many times I call to confirm a gate, relay the "negative APU" to the boss, only to see it up and running already.
And since I'm venting, why do some guys insist on turning channel 9 off? Are we getting that paranoid to think there is some reporter recording our every word just waiting for us to screw up? CH 9 is something no other company has. We should be using it and promoting it on every flt. Even if it pleases only one customer.
A little common sense must prevail here folks!
Gosh I feel better!
We have so much more important things to worry about. How long did we go with pass surcharges? It wasn't until recently that the charges were eliminated. So now they are going back to the way they were, plus taxes and security fees. Big Friggin' Deal! Supporting the non-rev system doesn't come free to the company.
What's wrong with the company recovering a nominal fee to cover the expense?
I just received an e-note from the chief pilot asking us not to use the toll free number when calling the crew desk from a cell phone. Makes sense to me. Cell companies charge you for minutes whether it's a toll free call or not. Why have the company pay for the call also? These things just make sense, and every little bit helps right now.
And while we're at it, how about easing up on the ACARS messages? Why do some dispatchers need to send a message every time there's a pirep of light chop at 12,000 feet over Albany when I'm at FL330 over Denver?
And APU burn! There's another one. Look, it's not sweltering summer time. There's no need to run the packs non stop. There are still plenty of captains cranking the APU as we exit the runway. I don't know how many times I call to confirm a gate, relay the "negative APU" to the boss, only to see it up and running already.
And since I'm venting, why do some guys insist on turning channel 9 off? Are we getting that paranoid to think there is some reporter recording our every word just waiting for us to screw up? CH 9 is something no other company has. We should be using it and promoting it on every flt. Even if it pleases only one customer.
A little common sense must prevail here folks!
Gosh I feel better!
