US Airways Dividend Miles (Pre-FlightFund Merger) - Retirees Pay for Flights Now?

Forgive me if this has already been debated in this forum, but I've been out of town recently so didn't post this when I first heard about it a couple of weeks ago.

Friend of mine who worked for US Airways corporate for over 20 years, and is now retired, got a letter in the mail from Siegel recently saying he would now be required to pay $20 per flight segment when non-reving.

As you can imagine, he and his wife were very upset by this news given that many folks stick it out that long at an airline to ensure they get the free flights once they retire.

First the concessions, then the maintenence contracts in Alabama and now this...Siegel really isn't doing much to improve an already depleted employee morale, huh?

Anyone else hear of this happening or of any followup at CCY? I can't imagine that this news is going over too well.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by flyorama:
Forgive me if this has already been debated in this forum, but I've been out of town recently so didn't post this when I first heard about it a couple of weeks ago.

Friend of mine who worked for US Airways corporate for over 20 years, and is now retired, got a letter in the mail from Siegel recently saying he would now be required to pay $20 per flight segment when non-reving.

As you can imagine, he and his wife were very upset by this news given that many folks stick it out that long at an airline to ensure they get the free flights once they retire.

First the concessions, then the maintenence contracts in Alabama and now this...Siegel really isn't doing much to improve an already depleted employee morale, huh?

Anyone else hear of this happening or of any followup at CCY? I can't imagine that this news is going over too well.</font>

Good for Dave. The sooner the airlines eliminate the concept of "flight privileges" the better.

It's long past time when executives, employees, retirees, friends, relations and pets of airline people gained some experience with paying for travel. $20 is a long ways from a dose of reality but it's a start.

I can understand being PO'd about it. If nothing else finding out that those flight privileges that you traded away this that or the other concession in order to keep are really only worth $20/segment must hurt.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TomBascom:
Good for Dave. The sooner the airlines eliminate the concept of "flight privileges" the better.

It's long past time when executives, employees, retirees, friends, relations and pets of airline people gained some experience with paying for travel. $20 is a long ways from a dose of reality but it's a start.

I can understand being PO'd about it. If nothing else finding out that those flight privileges that you traded away this that or the other concession in order to keep are really only worth $20/segment must hurt.</font>

Spot on!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TomBascom:
Good for Dave. The sooner the airlines eliminate the concept of "flight privileges" the better.

It's long past time when executives, employees, retirees, friends, relations and pets of airline people gained some experience with paying for travel. $20 is a long ways from a dose of reality but it's a start.

I can understand being PO'd about it. If nothing else finding out that those flight privileges that you traded away this that or the other concession in order to keep are really only worth $20/segment must hurt.</font>

I don't agree. Many folks in the airline industry (esp. in corporate) work for significantly less pay than their counterparts in other industries for the flight benefits. As you pointed out yourself, this person probably gave up a lot for these flight privileges. Plus, he travels space available, so only when a seat hasn't been sold would he ever get on the flight. Just because an employee works for an airline doesn't mean that they are out of touch with paying for travel.

[This message has been edited by uschpr (edited Dec 09, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by uschpr:
I don't agree. Many folks in the airline industry (esp. in corporate) work for significantly less pay than their counterparts in other industries for the flight benefits. As you pointed out yourself, this person probably gave up a lot for these flight privileges. Plus, he travels space available, so only when a seat hasn't been sold would he ever get on the flight. Just because an employee works for an airline doesn't mean that they are out of touch with paying for travel.

[This message has been edited by uschpr (edited Dec 09, 2003).]</font>

Part of my point is that they get screwed every time they give something up in exchange for flight privileges. The practice should be stopped on that basis alone. The truth is that at $20/segment to carry less than stand-by passengers the airline will make a profit. I'm sorry that they were snookered into believing that that it was "worth" giving up pay and tangible benefits for that but I don't think that constitutes a reason to perpetuate the practice or continue to lead employees to believe that it is a worthwhile trade.

You're right of course -- "just because" doesn't mean that they're automatically out of touch. But a frightening number of them are seriously out of touch regarding the customer experience, the value of travel and the real costs of traveling. This particular distortion excaberates the problem. It cannot go away soon enough.

Well if the retirees are upset about having to pay $20 for a service that is typically worth several hundred dollars..... Imagine how pissed they would be if the airline goes under and they have no benifit at all!! I can't feel sorry for these people.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by uschpr:
I don't agree. Many folks in the airline industry (esp. in corporate) work for significantly less pay than their counterparts in other industries for the flight benefits (edited Dec 09, 2003).]</font>

Then don't work in the airline industry.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by flyorama:
. . . he would now be required to pay $20 per flight segment when non-reving . . .
he and his wife were very upset by this news given that many folks stick it out that long at an airline to ensure they get the free flights once they retire.</font>

I'm sympathetic flyo, but I disagree with the idea that paying $20 per segment is being disloyal to ex-employees or an economic burden to them. It's just like a co-pay for health insurance. People have insatiable wants and desires, but the market has fixed resources -- it's economics 101 plain and simple.

Market competition and changing economics are hitting all of us in all of our respective professions. Costs go up and companies must compete and individuals have to adjust along the way. One can't keep to all promises or intentions made decades before, the market forces change.

The real question here is whether US Air is trying to uphold the basis of a promise made to employees long ago, and it appears to me as if the answer is yes.

Barry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LikeItUpFront:
Well if the retirees are upset about having to pay $20 for a service that is typically worth several hundred dollars..... Imagine how pissed they would be if the airline goes under and they have no benifit at all!! I can't feel sorry for these people.</font>

Exactly! Ask all those TWA retirees how they're enjoying their free flight benefits...

I hear ya. All of you. This one just hit pretty close to home since it happened to good friends. Thanks for weighing in.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jerseyfinn:
I'm sympathetic flyo, but I disagree with the idea that paying $20 per segment is being disloyal to ex-employees or an economic burden to them. It's just like a co-pay for health insurance. People have insatiable wants and desires, but the market has fixed resources -- it's economics 101 plain and simple.

Market competition and changing economics are hitting all of us in all of our respective professions. Costs go up and companies must compete and individuals have to adjust along the way. One can't keep to all promises or intentions made decades before, the market forces change.

The real question here is whether US Air is trying to uphold the basis of a promise made to employees long ago, and it appears to me as if the answer is yes.
</font>

You cant even compare this with co-pays. With co-pays, you know in advance that this is going to happen and can decide whether to go or not.

If you work for a company for 40 years, with a presumption of a certain benefit level, and then retire, they should not be able to change the rules because they need the money. Would you say the same thing if the company tried to reduce pension levels by a certain amount? Just because they need the money?

The 'basis' of said agreement was free flight privileges, not flight privileges. Everyone in the frikkin world has flight privileges on USAirways - most of them are smart enough not to use them.

(Note to self: I am starting to sound like Christopher Elliott).

This whole plan is a crock. This whole airline is a crock run by a crook.

Some of you know why this hits so close to home.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by uschpr:
I don't agree. Many folks in the airline industry (esp. in corporate) work for significantly less pay than their counterparts in other industries for the flight benefits. As you pointed out yourself, this person probably gave up a lot for these flight privileges. Plus, he travels space available, so only when a seat hasn't been sold would he ever get on the flight. Just because an employee works for an airline doesn't mean that they are out of touch with paying for travel.

[This message has been edited by uschpr (edited Dec 09, 2003).]</font>

I agree with you with this issue. Although I think the $20 fee in not such a bad deal given the situation the Airlines are in now, I do agreee that the Flight Benefits are why most people work for the airlines even though they get paid quite low wages. (with the exception of the pilots and maybe the mechanics.).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fried:
Then don't work in the airline industry.</font>

Well, I can say the same with the multitude of jobs out there. You work the job that has the benefits that you desire.

You want flight benefits and don't care about the low pay?

Then work for the airline.

You want higher pay and don't care about flight benefits?

Work some other job.


Just in case you don't know this yet, most of the airline employees chose to work there for the flight benefits....not because of the uniforms! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
SFnFlaGuy

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by hscottm:

If you work for a company for 40 years, with a presumption of a certain benefit level, and then retire, they should not be able to change the rules because they need the money. Would you say the same thing if the company tried to reduce pension levels by a certain amount? Just because they need the money?</font>

ERISA doesn't cover flight benefits. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
"Press two and the star button now" -- AA automated information by telephone, 1996
"Press two" -- AA automated information by telephone, 2003

Seeing as they now have to "pay" for their flights, will they have to pay the $10 9/11 security fee??????

Boom!
The bomb has dropped!
Will the FA's at US ever realize that it is the folks in FC(yeah upgrades) that keep them in bizness?!!!!!!

US has retirees by the cojones. It's not like they can take their "business" elsewhere.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by hscottm:
You cant even compare this with co-pays. With co-pays, you know in advance that this is going to happen and can decide whether to go or not.

If you work for a company for 40 years, with a presumption of a certain benefit level, and then retire, they should not be able to change the rules because they need the money. Would you say the same thing if the company tried to reduce pension levels by a certain amount? Just because they need the money?

The 'basis' of said agreement was free flight privileges, not flight privileges. Everyone in the frikkin world has flight privileges on USAirways - most of them are smart enough not to use them.
</font>

Sorry, hscottm, bankruptcy changes everything. If there ever was a requirement from a contractual agreement to provide free carriage to retirees, it disappeared when Chapter 11 was filed.

Djlawman

[This message has been edited by Djlawman (edited Dec 11, 2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Djlawman:
Sorry, hscottm, bankruptcy changes everything. If there ever was a requirement from a contractual agreement to provide free carriage to retirees, it disappeared when Chapter 11 was filed.
[This message has been edited by Djlawman (edited Dec 11, 2003).]</font>

Obviously..

but youre missing my point. They are screwing with people they made commitments to for no overly good reason. Are they going to be profitable by charging retirees $20?

Besides - if they wanted to do this as a bankruptcy excuse, they should have done it right after they cancelled the PIT leases.

All of our discussions are moot since they have already apparently done this, but it still stinks.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by hscottm:

Are they going to be profitable by charging retirees $20?
</font>

Good point. US retirees should get an ID50 instead. That would be profitable.

------------------
"Press two and the star button now" -- AA automated information by telephone, 1996
"Press two" -- AA automated information by telephone, 2003

Hello everyone! I just re-cked my letter from Dave and wanted to clear something up. These things have not changed: active employees and eligable family travel free, retirees with 25 yrs or more and family travel free. The new $20 policy applies to retirees with less than 25 yrs. They pay $20 per one way trip reguardless of distance. That's really a pretty good deal. This is basically a bookkeeping fee and has nothing to do with cost of travel except each time an E tkt is generated it does cost US something. For a long time in the industry without 25 yrs you got zero travel benefits so this is an improvment.