Flight deck Safety Fee
10-06-2009, 11:45 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
I guess kind of funny but as I was reading this thread there is an advertisment for Alask airlines flying pdx to ord for $139. Thought it was funny to see that advertisement on this site, sorry that's funny as in odd.
10-06-2009, 11:53 AM
#12
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Wings Recentely Cut
Posts: 44
I know that, but what I'm trying to say is that, whatever extra penny they can get out of the pax, it will go to their pockets not ours. Remember, those juice bonuses to management are a necessity, otherwise how are we going to keep those airline gurus running our airlines?? I mean, it takes a brilliant mind to run one of the biggest airlines in the world through a constant downhill road to BK. (UAL comes to my mind)
10-09-2009, 07:55 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: EMB-175 Captain
Posts: 27
How 'bout Congress mandate a federal minumum wage for Part 121 captains and first officers. There's no need to make it more complicated than that. (After all, it is their job to regulate interstate commerce.)
It might even help out new-hires at some majors. . . . . . . next time they have new hires. The point is, it would cost a couple of bucks per passenger.
It might even help out new-hires at some majors. . . . . . . next time they have new hires. The point is, it would cost a couple of bucks per passenger.
Last edited by Proptrash; 10-09-2009 at 07:39 PM.
10-10-2009, 01:56 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Then they will want seperate fees just for flight atatendants, and seperate fees for ramp and station personnel, and seperate fees for baggage handlers... By the time they are done, the ticket price would be $5.00 which the company woudl keep and eveybody else is just another tacked on fee...
sounds like a godd idea, until you carry it on out to it's logical conclusion, then it's nothing more than a joke waste of time.
sounds like a godd idea, until you carry it on out to it's logical conclusion, then it's nothing more than a joke waste of time.
10-10-2009, 03:16 PM
#15
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Interesting idea, but how many regionals are operating under the fee-per-departure models? That is a rhetorical question, I've seen the aircraft livery in today's market 
Point being, if a network carrier is handling ticketing, marketing, and all the other production costs set against a fee-per-departure contract with a regional provider - what's the incentive to pass any new fee collected to the FPD provider? I admit it would be huge to see congress force modification of an existing FPD contract, but unlikely.
The trend of network carriers negotiating contracts that require a code share agreement (i.e. revenue share) rather than fee-for-departures is the next evolution of affiliate agreements. I think the revenue share model vs. the FPD model would present a greater likelihood of this happening.
Anyway, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I would love to see the surcharge. Hmm, 260 pax at $1 per hour for 10 hours
Also, what happens to the fee for a 16 hour flight with two complete crews?
Point being, if a network carrier is handling ticketing, marketing, and all the other production costs set against a fee-per-departure contract with a regional provider - what's the incentive to pass any new fee collected to the FPD provider? I admit it would be huge to see congress force modification of an existing FPD contract, but unlikely.
The trend of network carriers negotiating contracts that require a code share agreement (i.e. revenue share) rather than fee-for-departures is the next evolution of affiliate agreements. I think the revenue share model vs. the FPD model would present a greater likelihood of this happening.
Anyway, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I would love to see the surcharge. Hmm, 260 pax at $1 per hour for 10 hours
Also, what happens to the fee for a 16 hour flight with two complete crews?
Last edited by HSLD; 10-12-2009 at 08:22 PM.
10-10-2009, 03:24 PM
#16
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
That would almost put you back at 90's pre-concessionary wages adjusted for inflation.
Anyhow, a real boost to pay would once again attract the best and brightest to this field, lord knows we can use them to counter-act the junk we've hired that will be upgrading in a couple of years.
Anyhow, a real boost to pay would once again attract the best and brightest to this field, lord knows we can use them to counter-act the junk we've hired that will be upgrading in a couple of years.
10-11-2009, 10:04 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
Dude...a $2 "Safety fee?" Are you nuts? That's like a hotel charging a Clean Sheet Fee. That's something that's expected. Besides, the last thing you want is to highlight "safety"--or ANY, repeat ANY perception of a lack thereof.
Do they only have to pay $1.25/hr if the FO has busted checkride in the previous X months. What about a $1.95/hr if he Captain passed, but had to repeat a maneuver? Will NASA reports be public since passengers are being specifically charged for "safe pilots?" Don't they have the right to know that the company isn't fradulently charging the fee?
Don't open this can of worms...
Do they only have to pay $1.25/hr if the FO has busted checkride in the previous X months. What about a $1.95/hr if he Captain passed, but had to repeat a maneuver? Will NASA reports be public since passengers are being specifically charged for "safe pilots?" Don't they have the right to know that the company isn't fradulently charging the fee?
Don't open this can of worms...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
