I can understand the employee's desire to fly First Class, as I'm a former employee and I was the one *wanting* and *praying* for First Class.

yet on the other hand, I'm a Premier Executive flyer and prefer F cabin due to the fact it's sheltered off from the rest of the cabin and is quieter and easier for me to rest or work on the flight versus Economy Plus.

While some airlines won't let their leisure-traveling employees fly up front, I think that the system in place is what we have to work with.

I do agree with the statements made that if an NRSA is *cleared* for F, or even a POSITIVE space passenger is cleared for First and a FF wants to upgrade and has the means to do it, then that NRSA should be bumped.... but cut off of 10 mins prior to door shutting...

is that fair??

-nate

QuietLion, I so appreciate your perspective about passengers being treated as problems to be dealt with on the way to earning perks. I guess I wonder how employees "deserve" first class, but paying customers do not. I'm a 1K and PassPlus and I'm virtually always up front. And, I've really tried to examine my attitude toward so many crew flying in First, because there's a piece of it that feels classist--like the "help" eats in the kitchen, not at the table with the family they serve. It also just sends a message that coach is for lowlife and that employees would not be caught dead there.

Now, I realize this is part of their contract and if I were crew, boy, you bet I'd negotiate for that too, because in theory, it costs the airline nothing. Well, things have changed from the days when at least half of First flew empty. There is much more competition for those seats now, and the policy is outdated.

It certainly makes me boil to see this, particularly when I (a million mile flier) have been denied an upgrade. Pilots have 1st class in their contracts, FLIGHT ATTENDANTS do not. Any suggestions for a cure??

Sure - - Here's a cure: Increase employees pay by 20 to 25%, and hike fares by 15 to 20%. I'd be happy to fly free in coach (and for the record - - I usually DO fly in coach) on all my trips if I were making more money. I took a 25% pay cut to leave my job in oil and gas, just so I could go to work for an airline and fly free (and sometimes fly in FIRST for free).
I also take pride in offering unsurpassed customer service. In 2 years, I have accumulated 26 letters in my personnel file from passengers complimenting my service skills. I want to accumulate MORE letters. I want to please MORE customers. I am only valuable to my company when I please customers. BUT - - I also don't put up with unreasonable jerks (usually once-a-year flyers) who think they can scream and belly-ache their way to FREEBIES.

Sure, American Airlines.



------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

I'm sorry for sounding like an ... here, but why should your decision to leave one job for a lesser-paying one translate into a 15% fare hike for me?



------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

Spiffypoo-

I think the point of Nonrevs "hike the fares" comment was to point out that the reason many of us work in the industry is for the benefits...one of them being to fly in FC when there is space available and if they are going dissallow that particular perk then wages..and in turn fares are going to have to go way up in order to retain quality employees.

Those who begrudge the airline employee's occasional opportunity to sit up front should spend the day getting "passed over" for a seat with me sometime. Thats another one of the perks of employee travel




------------------
Get treated like the Goddess that you are

I'm still extremely offended that the airlines set up frequentflyer systems, they promote them, people use them, but the airline personnel still view upgrades that come via that program as "freebies".

There is nothing free about spending thousands of miles on an upgrade just to get a seat fit for a human. There is nothing free about deserving an upgrade due to the large number of flown miles per the airlines own program.

If there are 2 seats in first and 10 passengers who want them, well that's the definition of "limited availability" that we're all prepared to buy into. If there are 2 seats in first and 2 passengers who want them, but they do not get them because they "arrived late" (waiting on a 1 hour security line because the airline refuses to open more screening points), or because someone gave them to an employee - that's not limited abailiility, that's just wrong.

Employees should be able to use open 1st class seats, but only after every eligible passenger has been accounted for - and the aircraft door is closed.

Perhaps, the employees who hate having to fly in coach might assist us passengers in getting the airlines to make the seats a more reasonable width and pitch.

Missydoll,

I certainly don't begrudge airline employees a free, open FC seat after all eligible upgrading passengers have been accommodated. I just didn't understand how Nonrev's logic path flowed, i.e. "I quit a better paying job therefore the traveling public should be subjected to a 15% fare hike to accommodate my voluntary lifestyle change."

I'd be delighted to spend the day with you getting passed over for seats. I'm sure the airport bars and lounges would love the sudden surge in business!



------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

Spiff - I think you are misquoting NonRev99 regarding the pay increase/new job.


The point, I believe, was that wages are inadequate so fares have to be increased to compensate for higher wages if you take away first class travel. I believe that Nonrev99 was saying that flying first class under certain conditions is part of the wage package and used leaving a higher "paying" job for one that has flight benefits, including first class, as an example of why this industry attracts other employees from higher paying jobs.

If you and others want to take this benefit away, it should be compensated elsewhere in the wage package.

NonRev99: Sorry if my explanation is not accurate to your intention but that is my reading.

IMO: 98% of airline employees deserve everything they are getting and in most cases should be getting more. Like all occupations, it's difficult to appreciate it until you've worked it.

I have no desire to remove this perq. However, I'm more inclined to side with NJDavid as to when employees are eligible for this perq: "Employees should be able to use open 1st class seats, but only after every eligible passenger has been accounted for"

As for misquoting, I apologize if I took Nonrev's comments out of context, but it really seemed to me that she/he expects to fly in F ahead of eligible pax sometimes unless there is a fare hike. I don't believe positive-space F was guaranteed upon employment and to expect some kind of wage increase in lieu of this non-guaranteed perq doesn't seem right to me.

And I'm also with UAPremierExec: "I do agree with the statements made that if an NRSA is *cleared* for F, or even a POSITIVE space passenger is cleared for First and a FF wants to upgrade and has the means to do it, then that NRSA should be bumped...."

Beyond that, I have no problems at all with employees flying F or C. They should get those seats ahead of operational upgrades but after eligible upgrading pax.



------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

"Making your paycheck less possible since April, 1996"

The attitude and sense of entitlement of employees like NonRev99 is exactly why I stopped flying United. It's shocking to me to see his/her sort of thinking put in print. UA has lost a couple hundred thousand dollars of business from me over the last 6 years because of this kind of attitude.

I fly CO, which aggressively pursued my business and then treated me like gold for the first four years I flew them when they were moving "from worst to first." Unfortunately, success appears to have gone to their heads and they are starting to show signs of arrogance, although so far not as bad as what I encountered towards the end of 15 years of flying with UA, mostly as a Premier Executive. If they continue to slide, I'll start looking elsewhere again, but they really did have a remarkably good product in the late 90's.

I'm really glad this thread came up, because I was thinking of giving UA another try, seeing as how I live in a UA hub and it would be ever so convenient, but this is a very good reminder of why I stopped flying with them in the first place.

BTW, CO non revs, including pilots, almost always sit in the back.

[This message has been edited by dgolds (edited 11-21-2001).]

I'm not at all surprised that we're hearing from FA and other recipients of this perq and that they are loathe to give up this part of their negotiated package. But, I think management might get some insight into United's troubles by following this thread. They're created a monster that has a negative effect on customer service and is driving high-mileage customers to other airlines, even when it's less convenient. If only they looked at things from the customer's point of view.

Are we getting away from the original poster's point??

If I'm reading correctly, IowaSun thinks that employees should be in the back of the bus even when there are open seats, so that he or she can "spread out" rather than sit next to a nonrev.

I don't think it was ever suggested that nonrevs should have seats that could be filled with eligible revenue passengers who have the certs or the miles to pay for it.

That was his third point, which I disagree with. I'd much rather see a non rev get a FC seat than have it go empty.

But I do a gree with his first two points.