Why should retired employees board prior to active employees
- Thread starter bulldog
- Start date
OP
- Jul 6, 2005
- 73
- 0
- Thread Starter
- #17
First of all I was not trying to do away with the benifits retired employees have As stated flight benifits are a perk. As for the service provided to the company over the last few decades, Thank you now you have flight priveledges with a boarding priority lower than active employees. That is not a disrespectful statement. What is unfair however is that an active employee 0 to 25 yrs may get bumped by a retired employee or family.
This is also unfair to those from the WEST as we do not have any 25 yr employees. By the logic of those people on this post it is ok to treat west as a second class group ?
My 2 cents is as follows
active employees check in time SA2P
Retired / family " " " SA3P
all others " " " SA4P
This is also unfair to those from the WEST as we do not have any 25 yr employees. By the logic of those people on this post it is ok to treat west as a second class group ?
My 2 cents is as follows
active employees check in time SA2P
Retired / family " " " SA3P
all others " " " SA4P
Seatacus
Veteran
I don't get what is so unfair. All these years of work and being told you would get nonrev privileges with DOH boarding. If it is not going to be this way maybe someone should have clued everybody in many years ago. Why do you have it in for the retirees anyway? What did they do to you besides being older and getting hired earlier. Man.....you've got to quit thinking of yourself so much and care a little more about others.
I think the retired people should hold boarding priority with the seniority they left with. If they left with 35 years, they should board before anyone with less then 35 years. But if they retired with only ten years, anyone with more than ten years should board first.
How do you know they have time to wait?
Ueast has never had a problem with retirees boarding status. The DOH system is all we have ever known, and we have learned to respect that. I personally feel, they have earned at least that considering they have had their pensions taken away, their insurance benefits. Boarding priority costs the company nothing to give them, don't take that away from them too.
BullDog and some of you others that are against retirees boarding prior to active employees. For 35 years people like myself working outside and in the north east looked forward to a pension and medical benefits.
Just in the last years, the pensions got lowered and the medical benefits got axed. My wife and I fly non-rev about once every 2 years. Gee- don't put a "thorn" in that also. But I guess this me-me attitude will never change. Please give us a break. After all these years working, we got stabbed in the back and now you want to twist the knife?
Hope you never grow old! There is no such thing as the "golden years". Believe me ! You will see.
Just in the last years, the pensions got lowered and the medical benefits got axed. My wife and I fly non-rev about once every 2 years. Gee- don't put a "thorn" in that also. But I guess this me-me attitude will never change. Please give us a break. After all these years working, we got stabbed in the back and now you want to twist the knife?
Hope you never grow old! There is no such thing as the "golden years". Believe me ! You will see.
I agree phil! keep it simple, DOH. But you do have to differentiate between emergency/business/vacation. It's that easy!DOH....active or retired......
I agree with FLY about the seniority issue. If a retiree has 32 years like me then I should have boarding priority over anyone with less than that time and if someone has more time than me then I get bump.Like some, I've not used the privilege of flying since I retired 5 years ago. Call me old fashion, but now I like to drive to various places and see what I've missed when flying at 35000 feet. Life has gone by to quickly and it's my goal to enjoy the time I've got left. Taking away this one privilege that the company has left me to use when I need it and who knows if I'll ever use it, but in my opinion is not fair to me or any other retired person who has put time, sweat, effort to achieve a better life when they reach the golden age to take it away.
When I started with the company, the same thing was being said then about the Senior employees and Retirees. Then as the years progressed and through a merger between PI/US, I began to reap the benefits of seniority and the promises of retirement.
I want everyone to understand one thing and then I'll zip up. Seniority will always be a hot subject in the airline business, but I have a friend in the legal profession that has always said that "what's given can always be taken away", just ask any of the retired employees who lived on promises of receiving retirement benefits from the company and I refers to everything. I can be done. So we can all B---h and moan. But if its going to happen it will. We have a lot more to worry about.
I think active employees should have first non-rev priority when travelling in the direction of their work city. This might mean a whole separate category of travel, but it would allow those attempting to get to work the best opportunity to do so.
Dependents would not be included in this category, only the employee.
Dependents would not be included in this category, only the employee.
Seatacus
Veteran
To create a special category for commuters for whom the vast majority of which have chosen to not live where they work is just absurd.
It's not necessarily a concession to commuters who "choose" (as you so mistakenly put it) not to live where they work. Most have been living where they worked, but the company just can't seem to make up it's mind to keep the jobs at those cities. Who would have ever thought Pittsburgh would not be a place to live and not commute. How about GSO/INT where a former company HQ sat? Ot SYR, for that matter? How about BWI which at one time had international service?
And these shifts don't just happen to flight crews, either. When these large cities are downsized, many agents find themselves forced to commute to keep their children settled at home with a mom who might have a job which is needed to cover the loss in income by daddy's airline job. Even then, let's say 10 years ago the family decided to uproot and move from GSO to PIT. Now what? Another move?
If the company actually had a plan, maybe the employees wouldn't need to play musical houses. And maybe the employees wouldn't need to commute to keep their financial heads above water.
Speaking of heads, why not pull yours out of whatever it happens to be stuck in and see the reality of the situation. Let workers get to work.
CyaInAz
Member
- Sep 19, 2005
- 29
- 0
no special boarding for commuters... that is their choice...........
and as far as retired employee's... they have the whole rest of their life off... active employee's only have the days off that they can hold, bid, or trade away...... sorry, but retired employee's NEED to stay a priority below active... come on now.... think about it.. it isn't old against young....
and as far as retired employee's... they have the whole rest of their life off... active employee's only have the days off that they can hold, bid, or trade away...... sorry, but retired employee's NEED to stay a priority below active... come on now.... think about it.. it isn't old against young....
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
Gee, its nice reading what a bunch of whiney snot-nosed Gen-X'ers think of a group that paid their dues and earned (yes earned) the priviledge to fly on a pass. Most of these people were the ones that made aviation a good job; can't say the present group has done that. Hey, you too can put a couple of decades in and have your chance. Still, you guys don't get it and will surely whine when it's your retirement time about "what you don't get." Grow up! Get over yourselves!
