hummingbear

Very few things outside of pay rates benefit everyone equally. We negotiate things all the time that affect subsets of our group- otherwise we’d never address RSV rules, int’l override, augmented crew concerns, etc. In general, a contract that doesn’t have anything you don’t benefit directly from is an unfair contract, so I think our expectation from a contract should be “something for everyone” rather than “everything for me”.

With that in mind, I’m not against PS commuting, per se, but it does feel like a very big solution to target one specific area. I think there are other ways to address the issue of commuting- many being discussed here- that are either lower cost, or less targeted at a specific group. (If we can fix it in a way that benefits more people, that’s usually preferable.)

A one flight commute rule is essentially free & there’s no reason not to make that change. In the vast majority of cases, calling in after 1 missed commute still gives the company plenty of time to find a solution. I think bigger employee discounts on ticket purchases &/or some amount of airline miles are also more global ways to address the issue, & more likely to have wider support from the pilots.

DwightSchrute

This is an incredibly well thought-out and unemotional way to look at the commute vs non-commute choice. Well put.

BlueScholar

Just give each pilot X many positive space tickets and a increased discount on purchased tickets. Commuters get a win by getting easier rides to work if they chose to commute, in base folks get a win because they can use their tickets however they'd like, and the company gets a small win because many of those seats would have been empty or nonrev passengers anyways.

Andy

Here's the rub with your argument - the times that there are empty seats, commuting isn't a problem. It's only when the flights are full when commuting becomes a headache and requires additional planning.
When I was commuting, the only time I bought tickets was when the commute was dicey, and I imagine that almost all other commuters do the same.

Chuck D

I believe I saw in the update that we’ll have 2 jump seats required in every aircraft going forward. That itself is a commute assist that helps all of our pilots and doesn’t squander negotiating capital by removing sellable seats. PS will come out of our pockets in another area and it seems less than worth it. If you’re gonna commute it takes some time and effort to give yourself a plan a/b/c and we have a commuter clause worst case

LJ Driver

Do any of our new-order airplane types have less than 2 jump seats? I mean it’s nice to have in the UPA but I’m pretty sure that is happening now.

DarkSideMoon

Nope, the maxes all have a second one and so the the Airbii. Although I think there is nothing preventing them from yanking the second one out on the NB’s if they really decide they want to save the 15lbs.

Chuck D

Agree it’s not an issue with new deliveries currently. But if it’s in black and white in the contract then it can’t be used against us as a carrot/stick action down the road.

Race Bannon

Pretty balanced thoughts. Most of the posts were based on, "You're taking part of the pie that could be mine." I don't call it greed, it's just human nature to want the best(most) for you and your family

Agree totally that very few things outside of pay rates affect everyone equally. There-in lies the rub.

Maybe a case could be made(at least try) that a more friendly commute policy will decrease "sick calls" and actually improve operational integrity. (Of course some will say "I love pilots that are having a difficult time commuting, cause I live in base and might get a PPU)

DarkSideMoon

I think the key is creativity.

positive space commuting solely benefits commuters. Dumping a bunch of miles into everyone’s account at the beginning of the year or giving x number of round trips PS a year is a perk for everyone. The pie is going to get broken out unevenly and that’s fine but I appreciate efforts to make things a win for as many groups as possible.