neil777

Whatever we as frequent flyers think about United employees' travel benefits, the latest employee travel policy revision seems pretty unfair to United Retirees.

My dad worked for United for 25+ years, retired (and in the process lost his pension and many benefits in the bankruptcy and pension ending days). At least he had the good retiree travel benefits he was promised to look forward to, right?

Nope. About 3 weeks ago, Jeff Smisek announced a new travel policy. Whereas UA retirees used to board before active employees, now they will board last, even after an active employee who has only been there for 6 months. That's the Continental way.

They get 8 vacation passes but that's One way per person, which means with my mom, they get precisely 2 roundtrip tickets per year with a connection.

My Dad worked for all that time to have this? In practical purposes, it means he wont be able to fly much as flights are so full these days.

As you know, UDU means no more upgrades already for employees/retirees so that's not even the issue. UA employees and retirees almost always sit in back now (at least domestically). Since UDU's, my retired dad hasnt gotten F once. So they're not stealing our upgrades.

Check out this article in Crain's Chicago Business about it.

Also, my dad signed this petition that some group of United retirees started urging Jeff to rethink. 4,400 people have signed the petition to Jeff Smisek and the UA management! Check out the comments many have left -- it's actually pretty heartbreaking.

See the petition here:

I signed it too in solidarity and in no small part because I'd like for my dad to be able visit me and my son (his grandson) from time to time, which wont happen unless he pays for a ticket at this point.

If you agree, sign it - I bet a few of us FFs standing up for fair treatment for UA retirees might help change UA management's mind on this one.

UNITED959

Shouldn't this be in the Consolidated forum?

I do agree that UA's seniority approach to processing employees for standby was much more fair than what CO did (giving management priority and THEN letting the 'regular' people get a shot).

It's actually kind of ironic, given that CO is all egalitarian, i.e. everybody corrals on the blue carpet to board, only business and coach, military boards first, everybody's a co-worker, blah blah blah, etc.

That being said, UA is a business and the only reason a business exists is to make money. UA doesn't make money by flying people around for free. The issue here, for which I'm empathetic, is the change in how standbys are processed, not UDUG.

stallion114

I think any employee or ex employee should board after all customers, nor do I care anything about what retired airline employees are getting as far as free flights. I would be in favor of not giving any free flights to retirees or employees if it would save me some $ on a ticket.

aisleorwindow

Boy did you ever miss the point.

It's not about "boarding" order. It's about standby benefits for free flights. Did you even read the article? Clearly not.

This would have no impact on you or your ticket price. Employees only get a seat if there are open seats remaining after everyone else has boarded on the day of departure.

But don't let the facts stop you from spewing selfish nonsense.

JeffS

As someone who has an immediate family member working for UA I empathize with the OP, however the bottom line is that like any business UA can change, adjust or even eliminate benefits for retirees and active employees.

sbm12

Hard to fault the confusion when the OP states "Whereas UA retirees used to board before active employees, now they will board last, even after an active employee who has only been there for 6 months." (emphasis mine)

This sort of thing is what the union theoretically is negotiating for on behalf of its constituents, active and retired. As a customer my concern is that the union feels they've negotiated a fair contract for their members, which should translate to happy employees and decent service. If some retirees feel they've been screwed by their union then let 'em fight it out there.

vkng

Selfish nonsense?

Maybe it's because I'm from a younger generation, but I haven't really ever understood why there's such an entitlement mentality regarding retirement. Worked for a company for 25 years and expect something when you stop? Why? They were paying you for your time there, anything else is just a bonus, IMO. If you no longer work for a company, then, in my opinion, you should no longer be entitled to benefits and if you have some that get taken away just be glad you had any to begin with.

WineCountryUA

It appears either way there would have been an unhappy group. If UA approach had been adopted letting retirees have standby privileges over active employees then the CO employees would have been unhappy.

Labor relationship is always a difficult set of compromises and retirees (which I highly empathize with) do sometimes feel powerless versus active employees.

LilZeppelin

Isn't a stand-by seat allocation somewhat of a mute point if the planes need to be full for the company to do well and if indeed they are pretty full lately? It's just like your SWUs - you earn them but are unable to use them, bad for you, good for the company.

worldtrav

Leisure Pass travel is not contractual, it is a benefit to all employees and is not negotiated by the unions.

mahasamatman

Maybe because that was the contract you had with the employer? It's basically deferred compensation, so at some point, instead of getting a raise, this benefit was offered and agreed to by both parties.

BearX220

Oh, my God. Pay for a ticket? What an outrage.

In today's world it is absurd, and borderline offensive, to expect lifetime entitlements from a company you were with for a small percentage of your life. Things have changed. The primary mission of United Airlines can no longer be the care and transport of United Airlines employees and alumni. Especially alumni.

What is selfish is expecting to extract free stuff from a company years or decades after you've ceased to create value for that company. This mentality is what helped kill GM.

Right on. ^

ORD4R

To hell with the retirees, Jeff Smisek's job is to keep the customers, employees and stockholders of the new United happy. While it may feel unfair, there is no real downside at reducing retiree flying privileges as long as it benefits the current employees. The only reason to have any retire benefits is to make the current employees happy, once they retire they really are irrelevant to the business, you treat them well so your current employees believe they will get treated well in the future. Taking benefits from them and moving them to current employees is a very logical business decision and is the smart thing to do as long as the bulk of the current employees support it.

It is unfair but this is an unfair world. Employees should understand that they need to look out for their own retirement and that company benefits that aren't vested can be cut at anytime. No different than many retirees who lost company medical benefits or pensions when companies go bankrupt or liquidate. Unfair sure, sucks for retirees absolutely, a good business decision probably.

JeffS

I think this is a "Who ate my iceberg" or "Who moved my cheese" moment.

aisleorwindow

I'm not getting into an argument about the intricacies of retirement benefits. Save it for OMNI.

My "selfish nonsense" was in response to the poster who was somehow connecting his fares going up to retirees getting empty seats on a flight.

Look, I have no problem if United says "once you retire, you get squat." But that is not what they agreed to with these employees.
A deal's a deal.
If your agreement with your employer was for a certain benefit after retirement and then it was taken away, you'd be pissed off too!