Nope. I’m comparing a JUNIOR active employee going home with a SENIOR active employee and dependent going home. On an airplane with open jump seats you could utilize and get us all on.

Sorry, but you getting home is not more important to me than me and my family getting home.

 

TO work, I’m inclined to agree. With stipulation utilize jumpseat if available and needed.

FROM work? Nope. Then it’s time to put on your big boy pants and decide it by seniority.

 

​​​​
I get your point, but I just disagree.

I don’t care about your family coming home from vacation more than I care about fellow employees getting home after a grueling rotation. I think employee travel for work purposes should always outrank leisure travel.

Same how active employees always outrank retirees; I’m sure you don’t find any problem with that…

 

Can we just jump to the part where pilots claim they should outrank other employees for nonrev travel because we are more important to the operation?

 

Pilots, FAs, Dispatchers, Maintenance, Instructors

All of the above, if is for/from work, yes. Btw, why does an instructor and LCA can get the Js before other pilots?

 

because they’re better than you.

 

Ok, let's put Positive Space aside for a moment. Between the jumpseat and a few open seats on my commuter flight, I can find my way to work. However, after my 8 flights a day commute became 5 a day post covid, the requirement for a backup flight has become untenable. I'm showing up 5 hours before sign in. Can we at least all get behind a Single flight policy that shows up some reasonable time before sign in. There are other airlines that have that and I don't see how it would affect any other pilots and their non revving potential

 

Barring the fact someone forced you to sign the contract, you signed a contract with terrible medical coverage. Kind of goofy to be upset I have parts of the contract I don’t care about.

How is it any different. You want better medical go find a different job. Same crap sandwich wrapped differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I’m comparing a crap medical coverage I don’t care if the company improves with a QoL factor which I do care about.

Sorry just because you don’t have good medical coverage doesn’t mean I should care about it getting better.

See how terrible that sounds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Couple points:
It does sound terrible. But somehow some folks aren’t getting the message I’m trying to convey.
It’s not a question of not caring about those who commute in this example. It’s a question of providing a benefit for those who choose to commute(improved QOL) at the expense (reduced QOL) for those who don’t but would like to retain their non rev benefits as originally designed.

To use your healthcare example as a hypothetical, it would be analogous to providing a health plan where FOs have to pay higher deductibles than captains because reasons.

I don’t use Delta for my family’s healthcare. But I still want/expect improvements to the coverage available.

If there was a way to design a PSC policy that provides a benefit to commuters WITHOUT negatively impacting those who don’t want or need the benefit then I am 100% onboard and I would definitely support it. FWIW, I think there are ways to get there, some of which have been touched on in previous posts.

Lastly, the worst thing about PSC, in my opinion, is that it seems to have sown division in the ranks. Despite having disagreements, I think it’s important in the larger sense that this group continue to show that we are unified in wanting the company to stop the obfuscation and lies and negotiate in good faith.