UAX to charge regional employees to non-rev?
04-06-2013, 08:39 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,750
Originally Posted by wrxpilot
Of course, I completely understand. But this is one more reason against it, with plenty more to come I'm sure.
The funny thing about threads like this are how negative they are. Then you go to the threads where people talk about the jobs they're interviewing for and how happy and excited they are are and how much the interviewers seem to actually want them on board and how nice the HR experience is, etc. Irony at its finest!
We fight so hard for these jobs and then end up seeing them for what they are - love/hate relationships.
04-06-2013, 08:43 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by NERD
Actually you fly a plane that 100% of the inventory has been purchased by whichever mainline your company has contracted with. You do not provide anymore special service to the mainline employees than the fueler does. You are just doing your job which is to fly from A to B, and his is to fuel the plane to the amount required. Both are outsourced, formerly done in house jobs.
04-06-2013, 10:31 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,568
Ok...so maybe your airline can do the same to the mainline non revs on its "at risk" flying. On the outsourced flying to whichever mainline your company will go along with that companies pass rules unless they negotiate something different. Do you have a percentage of "at risk" vs subcontracted whole?
Originally Posted by AviHaters
Actually, my airline does x% of the flying "at-risk".. So we pay for fuel among other things. Adding non-revs will be a cost for the express carrier, not mainline.
04-06-2013, 11:41 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by JungleBus
they've already slashed DCI nonrev bennies a few times with virtually no pushback except by SkyWest (who was smart enough to put it in their contract).
04-06-2013, 04:22 PM
#26
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: FBO Recliner PIC
Posts: 30
If this is true, let UA know I will me taxiing on one and two and flying with the APU on. You hurt my commute, I'll hurt your bottom line. The extra fuel burned over the year by thousands of disgruntled express pilots will be way more than 7 mil in losses you are seeing now for non-rev listings.
04-06-2013, 04:25 PM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by KAT3
If this is true, let UA know I will me taxiing on one and two and flying with the APU on. You hurt my commute, I'll hurt your bottom line. The extra fuel burned over the year by thousands of disgruntled express pilots will be way more than 7 mil in losses you are seeing now for non-rev listings.
04-06-2013, 06:06 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,568
And if you and your coworkers do that enough, you'll be Comaired.
Originally Posted by KAT3
If this is true, let UA know I will me taxiing on one and two and flying with the APU on. You hurt my commute, I'll hurt your bottom line. The extra fuel burned over the year by thousands of disgruntled express pilots will be way more than 7 mil in losses you are seeing now for non-rev listings.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EngineOut
Regional
153
05-10-2017 10:12 AM
