jaguar

Just read a news article in the Cincinnati Enquirer that employees will now be charged $50 to fly instead of it being free.

kapitman

I am surprised it did not take longer for this. I am in the hotel business, and our employees have been paying for rooms at other branded hotels forever. It is a great discount, but still paying a bit over what it costs us to rent the room. I don't think Delta employees should complain too much. Flying anywhere in the world for $50 bucks is a great deal. Now, I would say, if they are paying for the ride, it should be a guaranteed ride and not a standby.

acysb87

Serious???For $50.00 guaranteed?

3Cforme

Delta will now start charging employees $50 to fly their airline

One might say that employees will be charged $50 to fly the shareholders' airline...

martin33

the difference is, airline cash take-home wages (pilots excepted) are pretty low--- even a decent looking hourly rate for a flight attendant isn't so much when considering they only collect that rate for a limited number of hours.

flight benefits are a big component of compensation that makes up for that, and in a win-win way, given that the benefit is so cheap to provide-- standby travel in seats that would otherwise go empty.

a policy like this will:
1. cause some employee trips not to be taken (saving the company nothing)
2. smack of an olde-fashioned "company store", so the company just reels back in wages as they're paid.
3. cost a lot in spoilt morale that won't get measured properly against any "new" revenue.

bachmicp7

Quote:Just read a news article in the Cincinnati Enquirer that employees will now be charged $50 to fly instead of it being free.

Link anywhere?

Berto

Its in an AJC Article also: http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...3bizdelta.html

Berto

Its in an AJC Article also: http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...3bizdelta.html
I think it is a smart idea to charge the employees only $50 a year to keep their flight benefits. They can collect on some cash, which wont do much to help off set the debt, but then every penny counts. If I were a Delta employee I wouldnt be complaining, because $50 a year isnt that bad of a deal to be able to fly on Delta anywhere.

MM/PM widget

So now we know the rest of the story. $50 a year is a small price to pay for this benefit. I am allowed to use my company car for personal use but I pay $70 a month for the privlidge. A very small cost indeed for the privledge of a car, w/gas and repairs included, to use whenever I like.

BamaVol

I don't think it's a bad idea. I don't imagine, however, that it will stay $50. I predict it will increase to $250 within 5 years time. I hope I am still here to see if I am correct.

hfly

$50 a year? Big deal.

J-M

Ahh, $50 a year, not $50 a flight. Big difference!

GUWonder

$50/year from a company that could probably walk away from a good many of its obligations and other previous arrangements as part of its restructuring is a very good deal. I wonder if they get hit with fuel surcharges? If not, they should be counting their lucky stars.

Evan!

I agree that free travel is a big part of the compensation for a flight attendant. In fact, in the early days it was the MAIN attraction to the job. In the very very early part of commercial travel flight attendants had to be:

1. female
2. single
3. 25 or under
4. a nurse

If any of these factors changed then the woman was no longer a flight attendant.

Later in the history the above rules were eased. Partly due to chaning social attitudes and partially because of the growth of the industry. Age restricitions and gender requirements were changed more to fill the job positions than to be socially correct.

However, the free travel continued into the seventies as the primary attraction to the job. Back then international routes included several day stayovers, sometimes even a week or more, in some very exotic places. Being a flight attendant did not make you rich but you could see some of the world while working and see more of it during off time.

A friend of mine who worked for PanAm back in the 70s told me that he was told up front that he would not make any money in the first year. He had to have other forms of support or income. His uniforms (very pricey) and training were all his expense. However, PanAm gave him the greatest opportunites for travel and that is what he wanted.

At some time the role of FA became a carreer and not a job. The work got worse and even a drudgery. Free travel does not pay the mortgage or put a kid through college. Thus the lure of free travel becomes less of a valued perk.

I have a former neighbor that recently went to work for an unnamed LCC as a flight attendant. She told me that they told her up front that she should consider this a 5-year job max. The recruiter told her that she would not be retiring in 20 years with a second home and college fund for 3 kids with money earned while flying. She wants the free travel and took the job because she lived with her spouse and had no kids. She tells me she could never support herself and any others on her salary.

I think the $50 per year is reasonable. However if the perk goes away entirely then I see the airlines finding it very difficult to recruit FAs. The labor laws are such a joke when it comes to the airline industry. Can you imagine a factory worker in the US being told that they MUST report to work 3 hours before actually clocking in and getting paid. Or imagine a school teacher who makes a salary that is below the cut-off for point for welfare consideration or food stamps being told that they could not apply for welfare or food stamps. These two scenerios have happened in the airline industry as a standard for years.

I say, let them have their free flights.

LemonThrower

any DL employees that object should just remember that this is

SIMPLY GOOD BUSINESS.

LOL!