Usairways Non Rev Travel

[Long-Gonner]

Its true that contract carriers ie Mesa Chq Colgan TSA and SA will have to pay $20 per segment on any USAirways code flight except if the aircraft belongs to the respective contract carrier. We pay you to fly under our code, now USAirways will finally get some of that money back. Honestly, where do you contract employees think your paycheck comes from? None of you work for USAirways Group, nor are you checks issued by USAirways. A fee is paid to your respective companys, which in turn pays your salary. After reading what I wrote it sounds like flame bait, but its just the sad truth. USAirways needs to save every cent it can, so why give free rides to people that are not really employed by USAirways Group when it can charge you for it?

 

[tindriver72]

It is true. All non wholy-owned carriers will be paying a service fee to ride on a wholy owned. 20 bucks a leg.

My question to you is where do you get off saying that this is fair? Just because YOU work for US Airways Group? There are a lot of people out here busting our humps to feed US Airways Group so that US Airways Group can make money. You have to realize, we have flight attendants that make less than 18000 per year. If you have 4 trips a month, commuting in and out each time, that turnes into 160 bucks a month, just to get to work.

Now the hard (to swollow) math: 18000 - 1920 = $16080, before taxes!!!!
"Would you like to supersize your order?" "No, I have to nonrev home!!"

It's not much better for the first officers.

And if this is fair, should you, a US Airways Group employee, have to pay us 20 bucks to ride on us?? Fair is Fair, right??

I urge all of the NON US Airways Group employee's to pull together and urge our managements to enact reciprocal aggrements with each other to make this a little more bearable. (I know that our management is already working on this).

P.S. If you really think that stealing 20 bucks a leg from a poor saab 340 worker is going to make money, than you have your head up your *#&*()))).

 

[LearLove]

Being a WO guy I think its stupid.

Mainline, contract, or WO everybody contributes to the system (except maybe the mainline guys, who just tend to bleed the $$).

As a non commuter and someone who uses their nonrev privleges maybe 4 times per year at most (I still have 4 of my 6 upgrades) I wouldn't want to be charged to fly on the contract carriers. Once again, just stupid, everyday I find myself wanting to get further and further from the US AIR system.

Anybody affected/effected by this is welcome to JS on my plane.

Good Luck to all the commuters out there.

 

[LearLove]

But then again, if U ever posts a profit and its porportional to the amount brought in by the nonrev charges then maybe they should give you guys a profit sharring check.

 

[pipejockey]

USAirways needs to save every cent it can, so why give free rides to people that are not really employed by USAirways Group when it can charge you for it?

True US needs to SAVE every cent, not resort to what I feel is a new low that has been reached in the industry...to charge a pilot for jumping in an empty seat. How much more fuel is really going to be burned by that jumpseater? Other than that what is it costing US? Oh, the coke and 5 Hanover pretzels. The industry reaches new lows every day Will it ever end?

 

[tindriver72]

I wonder if USAG told the Mainline pilots what they are doing to us? I wonder if they'd even care?

 

[PadFull'oTrim]

Gee Airways is trying to find ways to make some kind of revenue any way possible. whats next from them a seperate service fee for wear and tear everytime you click on and off the seatbelt??

 

[tindriver72]

actually, I heard they are imposing a Gate Fee.

$0.26 door opening surcharge will be automatically billed to our credit card every time a gate agent scans the door to let us out to the aircraft.

 

[psw757]

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!

 

[exagony]

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.;

 

[exagony]

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.;

 

[saab340]

Yes it is true

 

[BendOverAgain?]

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?

 

[exagony]

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.

 

[GateGirl]

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