tindriver72
Tryin to win the Lottery
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 55
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Usairways Non Rev Travel
- Thread starter saab340
- Start date
- Watchers 26
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
PadFull'oTrim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 92
tindriver72
Tryin to win the Lottery
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 55
i certainly hope this is not true. It could get ugly for all the commuters. The contract carriers may even turn around and charge more tha a $25 dollar fee for mainline and wo employees and can possibly lead to pilots getting denied the jumpseat. I think this new policy will bad for all parties involved since we all have many commuters. something should be done about this!
i certainly hope this is not true. It could get ugly for all the commuters. The contract carriers may even turn around and charge more tha a $25 dollar fee for mainline and wo employees and can possibly lead to pilots getting denied the jumpseat. I think this new policy will bad for all parties involved since we all have many commuters. something should be done about this!
While I agree that its a pretty crummy idea what recourse do the contract carriers have? The routes they fly are U Group's routes - not the contract carrier routes. So I can see where U can say " You are a contractor of U - not an employee and therefore don't enjoy the same benes as an U employee". U owns the routes not the contract carriers. So if the contract carriers tried to say "ML and WO employees have to pay to fly on their routes" U could say "screw you - you are contracted by us not the other way around and if you don't like it see ya!" U will just say WE make the rules pertaining to OUR routes and if you don't like it tough. I guess its a risk you take when you vote on contracts that do nothing but undercut the EMPLOYEES of U. You reap what you sow - I do wish you the best of luck though.;
While I agree that its a pretty crummy idea what recourse do the contract carriers have? The routes they fly are U Group's routes - not the contract carrier routes. So I can see where U can say " You are a contractor of U - not an employee and therefore don't enjoy the same benes as an U employee". U owns the routes not the contract carriers. So if the contract carriers tried to say "ML and WO employees have to pay to fly on their routes" U could say "screw you - you are contracted by us not the other way around and if you don't like it see ya!" U will just say WE make the rules pertaining to OUR routes and if you don't like it tough. I guess its a risk you take when you vote on contracts that do nothing but undercut the EMPLOYEES of U. You reap what you sow - I do wish you the best of luck though.;
i certainly hope this is not true. It could get ugly for all the commuters. The contract carriers may even turn around and charge more tha a $25 dollar fee for mainline and wo employees and can possibly lead to pilots getting denied the jumpseat. I think this new policy will bad for all parties involved since we all have many commuters. something should be done about this!
While I agree that its a pretty crummy idea what recourse do the contract carriers have? The routes they fly are U Group's routes - not the contract carrier routes. So I can see where U can say " You are a contractor for U - not an employee and therefore don't enjoy the same benes as an U employee". U owns the routes not the contract carriers. So if the contract carriers tried to say "ML and WO employees have to pay to fly on their routes" U could say "screw you - you are contracted by us not the other way around and if you don't like it see ya!" U will just say WE make the rules pertaining to OUR routes and if you don't like it tough. I guess its a risk you take when you vote on contracts that do nothing but undercut the EMPLOYEES of U. You reap what you sow - I do wish you the best of luck though.;
While I agree that its a pretty crummy idea what recourse do the contract carriers have? The routes they fly are U Group's routes - not the contract carrier routes. So I can see where U can say " You are a contractor for U - not an employee and therefore don't enjoy the same benes as an U employee". U owns the routes not the contract carriers. So if the contract carriers tried to say "ML and WO employees have to pay to fly on their routes" U could say "screw you - you are contracted by us not the other way around and if you don't like it see ya!" U will just say WE make the rules pertaining to OUR routes and if you don't like it tough. I guess its a risk you take when you vote on contracts that do nothing but undercut the EMPLOYEES of U. You reap what you sow - I do wish you the best of luck though.;
BendOverAgain?
No Staple, Equal Merger
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Posts
- 35
POINT BLANK,
I'll stop Non-Reving (as will others). And if charged or refused the jumpseat, I will reciprocate. By that I will push for my company to charge as well and I WILL REFUSE THE JUMPSEAT. And as stated:
"While I agree that its a pretty crummy idea what recourse do the contract carriers have? The routes they fly are U Group's routes - not the contract carrier routes. So I can see where U can say " You are a contractor for U - not an employee and therefore don't enjoy the same benes as an U employee". U owns the routes not the contract carriers. So if the contract carriers tried to say "ML and WO employees have to pay to fly on their routes" U could say "screw you - you are contracted by us not the other way around and if you don't like it see ya!" U will just say WE make the rules pertaining to OUR routes and if you don't like it tough. I guess its a risk you take when you vote on contracts that do nothing but undercut the EMPLOYEES of U. You reap what you sow"
It may be a "U" route but it is "OUR aircraft and just the same as a "U" non-rev will and has been bump for an "OUR" non-rev on OUR A/C.
THIS IS GOING TO GET UGLY QUICK AND COST "U" MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.
Contract companies are "U" employees, (what uniform do you see on our backs?) and our check comes from "U" goes through our management for the "Managements cut/bonuses/vacation et. and then what's left is filtered to the ones that do all the work.
Commuters are just that, and if "U" makes it a financial hardship for the commuters to commute to work, look for more delays cancelled flights, commuting agreements between "U" and "Them" falling apart. Which in turn are the flights that carry over 80% of the passengers (most of which are not owned by "U") that at one point or another have to ride to get to and from a hub or a large outstation.
Hummm, plane seeming a little light?
I'll stop Non-Reving (as will others). And if charged or refused the jumpseat, I will reciprocate. By that I will push for my company to charge as well and I WILL REFUSE THE JUMPSEAT. And as stated:
"While I agree that its a pretty crummy idea what recourse do the contract carriers have? The routes they fly are U Group's routes - not the contract carrier routes. So I can see where U can say " You are a contractor for U - not an employee and therefore don't enjoy the same benes as an U employee". U owns the routes not the contract carriers. So if the contract carriers tried to say "ML and WO employees have to pay to fly on their routes" U could say "screw you - you are contracted by us not the other way around and if you don't like it see ya!" U will just say WE make the rules pertaining to OUR routes and if you don't like it tough. I guess its a risk you take when you vote on contracts that do nothing but undercut the EMPLOYEES of U. You reap what you sow"
It may be a "U" route but it is "OUR aircraft and just the same as a "U" non-rev will and has been bump for an "OUR" non-rev on OUR A/C.
THIS IS GOING TO GET UGLY QUICK AND COST "U" MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.
Contract companies are "U" employees, (what uniform do you see on our backs?) and our check comes from "U" goes through our management for the "Managements cut/bonuses/vacation et. and then what's left is filtered to the ones that do all the work.
Commuters are just that, and if "U" makes it a financial hardship for the commuters to commute to work, look for more delays cancelled flights, commuting agreements between "U" and "Them" falling apart. Which in turn are the flights that carry over 80% of the passengers (most of which are not owned by "U") that at one point or another have to ride to get to and from a hub or a large outstation.
Hummm, plane seeming a little light?
Contract companies are "U" employees, (what uniform do you see on our backs?) and our check comes from "U" goes through our management for the "Managements cut/bonuses/vacation et. and then what's left is filtered to the ones that do all the work.
1. Not to start a war but contract carriers are NOT employees of U. If I recall correctly CHQ has Chatuqua on their hat emblems and I couldn't find a Mesa pilot correctly wearing an uniform to see what's on theirs. (Not flaming just stating I haven't been around Mesa pilots alot) Contract carriers are "contracted" by U to fly routes for them. Its just like a home builder contracting electrical work out to electricians. Just because you are contracted out to wire a house for a home contractor doesn't mean you work for the home contractor's bx and that you have all the rights and benes of that home contractor. The home owner pays the home contractor whom in turns pays out other contactors ie electricians to do the work.
It may be a "U" route but it is "OUR aircraft and just the same as a "U" non-rev will and has been bump for an "OUR" non-rev on OUR A/C.
2. You are correct that they are your aircraft. But they are on contract to fly for U on the routes and by the procedures that U desires. If U wishes to implement this it is their right whether you or I like it. If U's policy states that non U Group non revs must pay X dollars - it sucks - but your company signed a contract with U to abide by U's policies on flights that you provide service for. As for not allowing/bumping U Group employees on a route you fly, I'm sure that word will get to mecca (CCY) and serious financial reprecussions could occur. U has the whip in this fight and the contract carriers are finally feeling the plight that the WO's have felt for years - THE RED HEADED STREPCHILD SYNDROME. And if your company decides to part with U then Mesa will be sure to step in. If you work for Mesa I'm sure your pilot group will take even more concessions and lead the way to the bottom to make sure you can get more flying.
Anyways best of luck - as I said before I think this is a crummy situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see this at other carriers in the future if U is sucessful. Maybe you contract pilots will remember this next contract so you can make enough to pay for the seats.
1. Not to start a war but contract carriers are NOT employees of U. If I recall correctly CHQ has Chatuqua on their hat emblems and I couldn't find a Mesa pilot correctly wearing an uniform to see what's on theirs. (Not flaming just stating I haven't been around Mesa pilots alot) Contract carriers are "contracted" by U to fly routes for them. Its just like a home builder contracting electrical work out to electricians. Just because you are contracted out to wire a house for a home contractor doesn't mean you work for the home contractor's bx and that you have all the rights and benes of that home contractor. The home owner pays the home contractor whom in turns pays out other contactors ie electricians to do the work.
It may be a "U" route but it is "OUR aircraft and just the same as a "U" non-rev will and has been bump for an "OUR" non-rev on OUR A/C.
2. You are correct that they are your aircraft. But they are on contract to fly for U on the routes and by the procedures that U desires. If U wishes to implement this it is their right whether you or I like it. If U's policy states that non U Group non revs must pay X dollars - it sucks - but your company signed a contract with U to abide by U's policies on flights that you provide service for. As for not allowing/bumping U Group employees on a route you fly, I'm sure that word will get to mecca (CCY) and serious financial reprecussions could occur. U has the whip in this fight and the contract carriers are finally feeling the plight that the WO's have felt for years - THE RED HEADED STREPCHILD SYNDROME. And if your company decides to part with U then Mesa will be sure to step in. If you work for Mesa I'm sure your pilot group will take even more concessions and lead the way to the bottom to make sure you can get more flying.
Anyways best of luck - as I said before I think this is a crummy situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see this at other carriers in the future if U is sucessful. Maybe you contract pilots will remember this next contract so you can make enough to pay for the seats.
Ive checked and re-checked the travel manuals and it doesnt say anywhere on there that we are going to get a service charge. but then again who knows....
As far as me not being a US Airways employee. I seem to recall it says on my uniform US Airways (I remember the Colgan uniforms when we were just Colgan and they didnt look a darn thing like what I wear now!!!!) I may work for Colgan, but I follow the rules of a US Airways carrier. If Im not going to get treated like a US Airways employee why should I follow the rules they set forth? Our aircraft is painted blue like any other US Airways plane (well except for a few rogue planes) I happen to like the colgan colors better than the Airways colors (okay, your those of you who dont remember colgan like 7 years ago when we were just colgan and not CO or Airways and our planes were shiney white with the blue and red stripe not an off white with pink and grey it was a pretty nice looking aircraft... whole lot better than when they were red look !)Well, anyway those of us at Colgan have bigger fish to fry than a $25 SC
As far as me not being a US Airways employee. I seem to recall it says on my uniform US Airways (I remember the Colgan uniforms when we were just Colgan and they didnt look a darn thing like what I wear now!!!!) I may work for Colgan, but I follow the rules of a US Airways carrier. If Im not going to get treated like a US Airways employee why should I follow the rules they set forth? Our aircraft is painted blue like any other US Airways plane (well except for a few rogue planes) I happen to like the colgan colors better than the Airways colors (okay, your those of you who dont remember colgan like 7 years ago when we were just colgan and not CO or Airways and our planes were shiney white with the blue and red stripe not an off white with pink and grey it was a pretty nice looking aircraft... whole lot better than when they were red look !)Well, anyway those of us at Colgan have bigger fish to fry than a $25 SC
All you guys really have to stop bitching... US Airways will not be charging active employees of the affiliates a service charge fee; this only applies to retirees who have worked for the company for less than 25 years. All of the affiliates will still have the option to purchase term passes in 2004 for a fee; around $50. If you don't believe me, contact the employee travel department in Crystal City. All you 9L people are wankers anyways! Oh and for you pilots out there, don't worry, you'd have to get a real cold-hearted gate agent if they wouldn't let you jump seat. Jump seats are a universtal perk that pilots get, and there are no plans to take that away. Whoever started that rumor is a Dumbass!
I started this thread any way you need to get the facts staight our CEO of our company inform all of us yesterday that Airways was doing away with the term pass he told us in a memo so I guess he made the whole thing up. I see reading other post other contract companys got the same word.
Last edited:
tindriver72
Tryin to win the Lottery
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 55
It shouldn't matter if we're contracted or not. There really is no difference between us and the WO's. PSA, Piedmont, and Allegheny all get paid the same way we do. US Airways pays them based on what they fly, either FFD or Percentage. Same as us. Then the WO's pay their employees under there own conctracts, etc etc. They pay there own bills, electric, leases, fuel, de-icing, just like any contract carrier. If you WO honestly think you are U employee's, then where are you covered under U's pilot contract? Are you getting the nice paycheck enjoyed by U's pilots?
U just owns you. That's it. If you don't make a profit, then you will go bankrupt, and U will find a new hauler.
And if you WO think your any safer than a contract carrier, then why don't you ask a former Potomic pilot about their job security under U. Or for that matter, Allegheny?
This shouldn't even be a pissing match about who is owned by U or not. I stopped throwing sand in the sandbox a long time ago. We all do the same thing. We all want the mothership to succeed.
U just owns you. That's it. If you don't make a profit, then you will go bankrupt, and U will find a new hauler.
And if you WO think your any safer than a contract carrier, then why don't you ask a former Potomic pilot about their job security under U. Or for that matter, Allegheny?
This shouldn't even be a pissing match about who is owned by U or not. I stopped throwing sand in the sandbox a long time ago. We all do the same thing. We all want the mothership to succeed.
All right all right, quit your whining. Crew Sched says its true. I wouldnt be surprised if it is true. But just to let you all know, Airways tried this in the 90's and it didnt fly, so hopefully it wont work again. Whichever way it goes as a pilot you have the opportunity to jumpseat on another carrier. So do it. Im not saying I dont think its unfair. Its definately not cool, but the fact of the matter is Airways is always trying to find new ways to screw us contracters over and if this is it, then this is it for the moment. Hopefully it wont work like the last time they tried it, and we can all go back to non-reving like we used to. Otherwise you can jumpseat on Airways if you are an airways employee. Just because you have benefits on the airline doesnt mean you have to use them. Remember flight benefits are a privilege. All we can do is hope that Airways sees the error in their ways.
Hasnt CO always had a fee like that???
Hasnt CO always had a fee like that???
Here's another thing that just popped into my head...
What about the mainline J4J guys working for Mesa and whoever esle contract carriers? Will they have to pay? That will be a new industry low, charge your furloughed guys to non-rev while they work for a contract carrier.....I hate this place more and more everyday.
What about the mainline J4J guys working for Mesa and whoever esle contract carriers? Will they have to pay? That will be a new industry low, charge your furloughed guys to non-rev while they work for a contract carrier.....I hate this place more and more everyday.
Learlove,
The J4J guys at the contract carriers kind of have it two ways.
(From what I understand...) They have the option of traveling on their contract carrier term pass (with contact carrier DOH), or traveling on their furloughed status term pass. The difference is that although the furloughed pass has a seniority date from long ago, it is at a lower priority for boarding. I don't recall but I think it's the difference between S3 and S4.
However if the furloughed pilot is working a J4J job at a WO (currently only PSA) then they get the normal priority boarding AND their mainline DOH for travel.
The J4J guys at the contract carriers kind of have it two ways.
(From what I understand...) They have the option of traveling on their contract carrier term pass (with contact carrier DOH), or traveling on their furloughed status term pass. The difference is that although the furloughed pass has a seniority date from long ago, it is at a lower priority for boarding. I don't recall but I think it's the difference between S3 and S4.
However if the furloughed pilot is working a J4J job at a WO (currently only PSA) then they get the normal priority boarding AND their mainline DOH for travel.
tindriver72
Tryin to win the Lottery
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 55
GateGirl said:
I'm not sure of CO, but Northwest's travel has always been similar, yet not this bad.
They travel round trip for 20 bucks on a write your own pass. Each pass costs 20, but it'll get you there and back, even if it takes you 20 legs to do it.
I don't think that there is any airline that is as bad as this new deal, even to it's contract carriers.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
