If you can drive to TYS, you definitely want to do that vs commute to CLT. By the time you add in the time spent waiting on the plane to leave and allowing for a backup flight if you miss the first one (for contract commuter clause protection), and then probably getting to CLT way before your report time, it's going to take you a LOT longer to get to work In CLT than it would to get to TYS.

This doesn't even factor in the stress of always wondering if you'll get on the flight you want to get to work or wondering if you're going to make that last flight out to get home.

 

F*ck yeah we did. I love scarlet letters. Choke on it.

 

We don't care about you that's why. Quit posting over here you little whiner. You got out-maneuvered punk.

 

I have a couple of questions about the Commuter Clause. It says the following:

"Any crewmember commuting to an assignment under the terms of this program must be listed as a non-revenue passenger on at least two (2) flights with available seats no more than forty-eight (48) hours, but not less than twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the scheduled departure time of the flight that he / she expects to use to commute to work. Such non-revenue listing may be on-line in the US Airways System; or on Code Sharing partners; or off line with acceptable documentation.
Both the primary and back-up flights must be scheduled to arrive at the airport in advance of the show time where he/she is assigned to commence a trip."

1. My understanding is that listing on two flights between the same city pairs on the same date is prohibited under the US (and AA) travel rules. How are we expected to meet the requirement to list on two flights without violating the non-rev rules?

2. When it says that there must be seats available no more the 48 hours and no less than 24 hours out, how do we prove that there were seats available? Are they able to look back at the loads to verify?

Thanks for the insight.

 

Let's review some history and compare and contrast PSA and Envoy,....... one more time.

1(a) Parker offers PSA pilots new CRJ 900 jets in exchange for concessions. PSA Pilots say no, and those jets went to Mesa.
1(b) Parker offers Envoy pilots new E-170 jets in exchange for concessions. Envoy pilots say no, and those jets went to Compass.

2(a) Parker offers PSA pilots new jets in exchange for concessions. PSA pilots say no and Parker sent those jets to Republic.
2(b) Parker offers Envoy pilots new E-170's in exchange for concessions. Envoy pilots say no and Parker sent those jets to Republic.

3(a) Parker again offers new CRJ 900's to PSA pilots in exchange for concessions, with the caveat that the airline would be shut down if they said no again. PSA pilots took the deal.
3(b) Parker again offers new E-170's to Envoy pilots in exchange for concessions, with the caveat that the airline would be shut down if they said no again. Envoy pilots took the deal.

So as we can clearly see, it's ok for Envoy pilots to take a deal in order to save their jobs,....... but it's not ok for PSA pilots to take that same deal in order to save THEIR jobs.

 

Get a dictionary and look up the difference between a statement of "fact", and "whining"...




Payaso!

 

yea...that's be a douchebag thing to say, dude. Why make it personal?

 

P.S. Wise guy, you didn't out-manwuever me, you hosed every pilot in this industry!

But keep spouting off.

 

Wow. Incredibly ignorant.

 

I didn't realize SkyWest had voted in a union.....