Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 12
It would not affect employee morale very much if furloughees were given passes lower than D2 status.
Why Won't Aa Extend Furlough Passes?
- Thread starter TWskyliner
- Start date
TWskyliner
Senior
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 48
Former ModerAAtor said:
That wasn't necessary.
Is it possible to maybe be less arrogant and openminded enough to consider steps that other airlines/companies take (that dont cost anything) to improve relationships with employee's? Oh I forget, that takes humility.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
TWskyliner said:
Oh, I've got plenty of humility, and I can be open minded. But there's a lot more to the US travel story than was posted here. US only recently extended the cutoff date for travel to employees on furlough, and that's mainly because there's little to no chance of most US furloughees being recalled between now and 2009, which is when travel gets cut off.
I'll also argue LY's point that it doesn't cost anything. When we're taking potable water off the aircraft just to save fuel, there's certainly an argument that can be made against increasing the nonrev population by X%.
There's also a cost associated with collecting the surcharges in advance, which you have to do with people not on payroll. That in itself costs us money thru increased agent transactions, refunds/adjustments, etc. 99% of the work for that is automated for employees on payroll.
Would it be a nice thing to do? Sure. But don't try to convince me that it's a no-cost proposition.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
It isn't done that way anymore. Furloughed employees are billed once a month, and if you don't pay up within a certain time, your pass priveleges are revoked.Former ModerAAtor said:
MK
Former ModerAAtor,Jul 5 2005, 10:43 PM]
Oh, I've got plenty of humility, and I can be open minded. But there's a lot more to the US travel story than was posted here. US only recently extended the cutoff date for travel to employees on furlough, and that's mainly because there's little to no chance of most US furloughees being recalled between now and 2009, which is when travel gets cut off.
If there is little to no chance of them ever coming back then why extend the benifit at all, why not jusat cut things off completely now?
I'll also argue LY's point that it doesn't cost anything. When we're taking potable water off the aircraft just to save fuel, there's certainly an argument that can be made against increasing the nonrev population by X%.
The potable water is PR, "look at what we are doing to save money", like when they pulled the olives out of the salad, yet they still stick all those magazines in the back of the seat pockets, dont clean the airplanes as often and change tires needlessly. At JFK they have the new terminal all lit up 7 nights a week even though nobody is there, in one week it probably costs more to light up that terminal than they save by dumping excess water out of the planes.
There's also a cost associated with collecting the surcharges in advance, which you have to do with people not on payroll. That in itself costs us money thru increased agent transactions, refunds/adjustments, etc. 99% of the work for that is automated for employees on payroll.
Well does water even pay a surcharge? So in other words non rev is simply low rev. Water is truly non-rev. By getting something from that full seat, as opposed to a full water tank, isnt the airline better off?
Would it be a nice thing to do? Sure. But don't try to convince me that it's a no-cost proposition.
With load factors so high who needs it? Spend all your time siting in an airport like a beggar hoping to get on a flight, who needs it? Give me back some money and you can keep your flight benifits. Collecting miles on your credit card is a better deal anyway, positive space. My kids have not flown in at least two years, maybe more, anyway. The last time I recall that we flew, on the way back to the airport for the third time, my youngest proposed that we just stay home.
Oh, I've got plenty of humility, and I can be open minded. But there's a lot more to the US travel story than was posted here. US only recently extended the cutoff date for travel to employees on furlough, and that's mainly because there's little to no chance of most US furloughees being recalled between now and 2009, which is when travel gets cut off.
If there is little to no chance of them ever coming back then why extend the benifit at all, why not jusat cut things off completely now?
I'll also argue LY's point that it doesn't cost anything. When we're taking potable water off the aircraft just to save fuel, there's certainly an argument that can be made against increasing the nonrev population by X%.
The potable water is PR, "look at what we are doing to save money", like when they pulled the olives out of the salad, yet they still stick all those magazines in the back of the seat pockets, dont clean the airplanes as often and change tires needlessly. At JFK they have the new terminal all lit up 7 nights a week even though nobody is there, in one week it probably costs more to light up that terminal than they save by dumping excess water out of the planes.
There's also a cost associated with collecting the surcharges in advance, which you have to do with people not on payroll. That in itself costs us money thru increased agent transactions, refunds/adjustments, etc. 99% of the work for that is automated for employees on payroll.
Well does water even pay a surcharge? So in other words non rev is simply low rev. Water is truly non-rev. By getting something from that full seat, as opposed to a full water tank, isnt the airline better off?
Would it be a nice thing to do? Sure. But don't try to convince me that it's a no-cost proposition.
With load factors so high who needs it? Spend all your time siting in an airport like a beggar hoping to get on a flight, who needs it? Give me back some money and you can keep your flight benifits. Collecting miles on your credit card is a better deal anyway, positive space. My kids have not flown in at least two years, maybe more, anyway. The last time I recall that we flew, on the way back to the airport for the third time, my youngest proposed that we just stay home.
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 12
Former ModerAAtor said:
Anybody got any figures on how much it costs per mile for an extra pound?
Awhile back, some information was circulating on flight crews receiving enemas before every flight, but I believe the figures cited were specious.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Wretched Wrench said:
Depends on the fleet type...
IncrementalPayload * 0.1196 = IncrFuel on a MD80
IncrementalPayload * 0.25 = IncrFuel on a 777
If I'm reading the formula correctly, 200# of payload (average pax + carryon bag weight) equates to about 23# of fuel on a two hour MD80 flight, or 50# on a 8 hour flight with the 777.
With fuel @ $1.65/gal and 6.7# per gal, that works out to about $5 in fuel on a MD80 or $12 on the 777 flight.
Doesn't sound like a lot at the micro level, but aggregate that up to a flat $5 for every flight operated over the course of a year, and we're talking about $1.46M in added fuel alone....
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 12
Former ModerAAtor said:
Does that * mean "divided by"?
Perhaps we should have a fuel surcharge on our passes.
Light Years
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,878
- Reaction score
- 0
ModerAA....
You have not an idea what you're on about.
US Airways HAS NO surcharges for thier employees. It's free. Literally. No charge, no nothing, with the exception of taxes on transatlantic, and upgrades to first ($20) or Envoy ($100), which is revenue, pure profit to the company. Coach is absolutely free. Anything else is pretty much fixed cost already.
Your blathering about 2009 and such must be something you either made up or that to some vendor or affiliate employees. If you are furloughed, you are furloughed, not gone. You retain recall and travel forever, even if you take other aviation employment in the F/As case. There is no time where you turn into a pumpkin and lose your recall.
At least they are fair in that respect.
I bet you are just as nasty to your co-workers as you are to others on here. I hope you let that go.
You have not an idea what you're on about.
US Airways HAS NO surcharges for thier employees. It's free. Literally. No charge, no nothing, with the exception of taxes on transatlantic, and upgrades to first ($20) or Envoy ($100), which is revenue, pure profit to the company. Coach is absolutely free. Anything else is pretty much fixed cost already.
Your blathering about 2009 and such must be something you either made up or that to some vendor or affiliate employees. If you are furloughed, you are furloughed, not gone. You retain recall and travel forever, even if you take other aviation employment in the F/As case. There is no time where you turn into a pumpkin and lose your recall.
At least they are fair in that respect.
I bet you are just as nasty to your co-workers as you are to others on here. I hope you let that go.
