Usairways Non Rev Travel

[I.P. Freley]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But pilots who work for companies that have more than one code share are restricted to the non-rev bennies for the company that they individually fly the code-share with. I don't know this for a fact, but I have friends with TransStates and CHQ, for instance, who only fly the planes and code shares with American and USAirways, respectively... They wear those uniforms and don't cross over to the other code-shares. As I understand it, they are restricted to unlimited non-rev on those specific systems that they individually fly.

Now... How about the pilots that work for single-code companies? Never mind the pilots, how about EVERYONE who works for these companies? You know that this is going to lead to a staggering outflow of personnel at all levels. I can only imagine the percentage of FA's we're going to suffer losing in the next couple of weeks. I know of four for CERTAIN, and I'm sure that for every one I know of there's another three or more who I haven't spoken to personally. We stand to lose a third of our FA's in the space of the next three weeks... And probably a dispatcher or two, some people in HQ who don't live there, MX personnel, you name it.

This loss of good people will inevitably hurt our performance (and this applies to every contract carrier, not just mine). Now... This helps Airways HOW? Why couldn't they make this new charge apply to spouses/chillun/partners/etc. and not the employees themselves? Surely they know a large number of people commute.

 

[cws]

Hey Zekes,

With your job, I assume you have the ability to get info on how much money this could make for Airways. As a contract carrier pilot who commutes on another contract carrier I don't see how this charge will make a major difference to the bottom line at the end of each quarter. Can you find out and post it here.

Secondly, do you really think this is a good way to generate income for your airline on the backs of those who have little to give and who say, "Welcome aboard U.S. Airways Express Flight ####".

 

[Capn Lucky]

I have no problem paying a fee if I am traveling for fun or for my family. I just wish they'd keep a program in place for commuters. As we have heard, it sounds like the new program will only create alot of work for the gate agents, and they need to serve the paying customers. At best, this program would be revenue neutral or even a loss because of the heavy lifting involved. I don't want to see an ill conceived program cause more problems for USAirways or its employees at the gate.

 

[aroundtheblock]

Just another thought.... An affiliated carrier is just that, someone who is not part of the company but is affiliated with them. Where should US Airways draw the line with free travel? Should the catering company who provides the onboard snacks get free travel? the FBO fueler who comes out to fuel the airplane? The printing company who prints the tickets? I'm not trying to piss you affiliates off but there is a difference, whether you like it or not, between mainline/WO and affiliates.

 

[zekes]

Hey Zekes,

With your job, I assume you have the ability to get info on how much money this could make for Airways. As a contract carrier pilot who commutes on another contract carrier I don't see how this charge will make a major difference to the bottom line at the end of each quarter. Can you find out and post it here.

Secondly, do you really think this is a good way to generate income for your airline on the backs of those who have little to give and who say, "Welcome aboard U.S. Airways Express Flight ####".

Well this wasn't my call, nor did I even know about it until you guys starting talking about it on this post. After doing some research with the people in finance (these guys are as interesting to talk to as watching paint dry), its not a matter of revenue generating. It is on the other hand a matter of cost cutting because active employees are excempt from paying certain taxes by the IRS. "Internal Revenue Code Section 132 provides an exclusion from taxing flight privileges for active employees and their qualifying family members." What I think U is trying to do is not consider employees of the affiliates an active employee of their company, thus paying the service charge will account for the taxes that they have been absorbing, thus lowering costs. If they save a million dollars a quarter (just using this as an example cuz I have no idea how much they would actually save), then thats a cost savings of 4 million dollars per year. Last I checked we were losing $1 million per day, the corporate officers are trying to identify any cost savings that they might have overlooked during our trip through bankrupcy. If they fail to be profitable in the near future, it is going to end up in more furloughs, layoffs, and paycuts. Nobody wants more of them. So I don't think anybody knows for sure how much it will save, but it will help in cutting our costs.

 

[GateGirl]

So they're blaming the IRS??

 

[BollaBolla]

Okay, I think some US Airways CEOs need to go and travel their own system for a few days as a normal paying passanger sitting in coach and travelling a couple connections with a few express carriers thrown in the mix and see the reality of themselves.

They decide to get RJs because jets make people happy. Has anyone here ever travelled to Maine on Colgan's Beech?? Because the 5 or 6 passangers they have wouldn't work in a jet. It would cost you more money to operate than your making. Yea thats a good plan... we'll loose money, but hey the passangers will be happy.

I don't know who came up with this idea, but it was surely genius. I like to think it went something like this...

"I know!!! If we charge the contract carriers to fly on us it will be great! We'll make money and we'll piss off all the employees! We'll force them to pay, and then when they get upset and quit we can hire new people who make less!! We'll need that extra money so we can get rid of the little carriers... Then we can fly jets on the routes!! Lets all celebrate by signing a really stupid codeshare!!!!! And you know what else?? When we sign this new codeshare lets not give the contract carriers benefits on them!! It will be so much fun!!! Like taxation without representation!!!! Maybe we'll throw a tea party in the hubs!! You think they'll notice the irony??"

 

[zekes]

what, no sny comments from IP freely... i'm shocked... jk! this topic is getting boring all of a sudden. Have you all accepted the inevitability? Was that a rip off from the Matrix?

 

[whiskytangofoxt]

Service Charge

Is it all contractors or just the Wexford ones? probably just anouther way to gouge the flight crew, Glad im gone

 

[I.P. Freley]

Welllll.... I'm not sure what a "sny" comment is, but yes, the topic has become boring. As for accepting the inevitability of it all, sure, had to accept that the moment the memo was in my hands. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, now, does it?

And no, WTF, it's ALL the contract carriers. We might be able to work out some sort of reciprocity agreement to be able to commute on the prop contract carriers, but not definitely. Guess we'll see.