Originally Posted by
Ripinpeace
The majority are commuters. This is a job first - not a leisure activity group. Non-rev concerns are bottom barrel. Living in base is not a requirement, otherwise it would’ve been in the job description. “Commuting is an option” argument is also invalid.
The company has been winning for decades by not having permanent PSC language to get to/from one’s base. Just like many work rules that have been polished and refined over the years - our commuting language is barbaric/criminal and needs to be completely overhauled to meet average QOL standards. Above average would be first class to/from PSC tickets.
PSC to/from work is the bare minimum; not some prize to be won. Again, living in base is not a requirement therefore not an expectation.
I agree that the non-rev angle is invalid, the company loves to tout that as a great benefit, which it may be to some, but not so much for others. It also has nothing to do with our contract and shouldn't have any consideration wrt to getting other contractual gains
..we can all afford to buy tickets. That said "commuting is an option" is 100% valid. Commuting is an option just like living in base is an option. It may be the least crappy option, but it's still an option.
Better language for commuters is a great objective but no way is PSC the bare minimum. Whether we like it or not, the company will value it based on likely having to give it to the FAs. Look no further than when they have up some PS for a pay raise, then lost their minds when our PS was way more than them. They raised a stink and quickly got PS back AND kept their pay raise. 100% in agreement that we should support other groups getting a union.
I'm all for more cash to buy tickets, coupled and better commuter policy language. It would be great if we could get a FCFL program with rates closer to UALs program.