exualmech

That's what you think, this policy is going down. You CO morons can keep your policy and we will keep ours. Now that's fair isn't it?

Lambourne

Okay obviously you are not reading the threads. Please tell me where I said the FA was deadheading? Were you the guy that was responsible for AD compliance on the 757's?

Just to ed-u-ma-cate you about the FA and being bumped on a her commute to work by a spouse of a retired employee. She lives in one of the former UA domiciles that was closed. If you believe a spouse of a retiree should travel AHEAD of a current working employee then you do suffer from delusions of grandeur.

What seems to be taking place here is that you joined this thread to seek sympathy for YOUR own cause. The majority in the thread have a similar opinion to the results of the survey (imagine that!) and now you are trying to deflect your angst. You believe that anyone that doesn't agree with you is either not a UA employee or a Lorenzoite. Like I said earlier, sorry this doesn't make YOU happy but the majority decided.

EWRflyr

I said I am a FORMER union representative. I was a rep. at my previous airline. That airline had pass travel very much like the CAL way and other airlines from my family: active employees before retirees. A union representatives job is to look out of the interests for the CURRENT employees, with some retirement issues mixed in as well.

Crooked? That is so funny. In my term in office, I never once filed an expense reimbursement form for anything. My time in office any expense related to union duties I paid for on my own and never asked for the money back. I also only ever got 2-days trip loss pay for an emergency MEC meeting called at the last minute. Every other meeting I attended was on my own time and days off because I bid around the meetings to make sure the union wasn't picking up the tab for my trips. Hardly sounds like a union crook to me.

SoCalGuy

Sweet, going Rogue.....or is it Rouge in French??

Eitherway, good luck on the crusade.

exualmech

Wow, don't need to explain, must be guilty, lol...

exualmech

In cases like that then yes the company should make it a business matter to board her before every standbys but not make it a general case where retirees board after every active employees, that is not right either. We are just saying board everybody, active and retirees, based on seniority when it comes to pleasure pass travel.

In cases like you mentioned above, the company should make it a positive space or highest boarding if flying standby for her going to work and going back home. If not, at least when going to work. I think we can make this work out if we really look at the issues.

exualmech

Look at my post above, the way it is proposed or changed to is not fair for the retirees. Like I said, we can work this out if we sit down and look at all the issues.

syd111

Did I read you right? You think people going to work should be positive space?

exualmech

Actually I was thinking about what I posted but all in all it depends on the circumstances. When the company closed the maintenance base in Indy, those folks didn't get any special treatment when it comes to flights going to work at their new station like SFO. What they got is free lodging for like a month to give them chance to look for a new place. I know some mechanics ended up quitting because the cost of living in SFO is a lot higher than Indianapolis.

iahflyr

Junior guys taking away my pass travel is about the worst thing they could have done. Total selfish move that is going to cost them.

I have no issues voting to allow 90 seat regionals at United. It would be selfish on our part (senior guys), but if this is how junior guys want to play, then I'm game.