Latest MEC update sounds promising
07-07-2023, 04:10 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 190
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not sure I equated "more friendly commute policy" with your, "positive space commuting" . If your "key to creativity" encompasses this then I agree.
07-07-2023, 04:25 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,954
Definitely. I’m just piggy backing off of the general sentiment of your post vs the specifics. Most things will benefit one group over another, but it’s awesome when that group is as large as possible.
07-07-2023, 06:31 PM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: 18%er but I’ll enforce UPA23 to the last period.
Posts: 460
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.
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.
07-07-2023, 07:28 PM
#125
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 27
So many to answer. I'll give it the ol college try.
1. It's a forum. It's what we do... convince you that I'm right. Pop a pepto and dig in.
2. Early SCs on day 2 is not a problem, although the Tumi architechs wanted to gaslight you into thinking so. Getting to work day 1 is the issue, Rsv or LH.
3. PS taking revenue out is not 100%. If there is 1 empty seat at the end of boarding, any PSers were free. We are adding a few hundred planes; thats thousands of seats. There could even be a scheme where if the jumpseat is free, that a commuter has to take it for Rev standby, etc.
1. The company already does PS for its convenience. See the latest CCS for EWR/LGA. The company has already stated PS helps them. Also, notice PS commuting is not in the UPA. It's not a negotiated item, but rather a tool the company uses to ensure their flights take off on time. The real cost to weigh is how many revenue seats are taken out vs the cost of delays and cancels. I should ask an AI tool that question.
See above. PS is not in the UPA. It's a Crew Desk tool. But if they did give it, I expect more people to commute because it just got easier.
1. If they enable PS, any pilot can commute. So it can apply to all.
2. If I had the magic wand, I'd enable PS with 1 flight option. If offline, maybe keep 2 flights.
3. I think PS would reduce reserve requirements too because more pilots would reliably get to work, thus allowing more pilots to be LHs.
Good chat everyone. In conclusion, PS isn't a cost the UPA should bear. It's a company tool and they use it to their convenience all the time. We should advocate for it outside UPA negotiations and use logic and reasoning to gain its use.
So nauseating with the PP pitch. It doesn't increase any PP opportunities when they have enough reserves for each day. They'll build early SCs for those that are not on their first day of reserve. Positive space is never going to happen. It takes too many revenue seats out of the picture and last i heard, our salaries are based on RSM. Commuting is a choice to live wherever you want. Pay the in-base guys an additional 3K/month and it might start being fair, but that's never going to happen, ever. So enough with the nonsense.
2. Early SCs on day 2 is not a problem, although the Tumi architechs wanted to gaslight you into thinking so. Getting to work day 1 is the issue, Rsv or LH.
3. PS taking revenue out is not 100%. If there is 1 empty seat at the end of boarding, any PSers were free. We are adding a few hundred planes; thats thousands of seats. There could even be a scheme where if the jumpseat is free, that a commuter has to take it for Rev standby, etc.
Flights are full with revenue passengers. For the company to give up significant revenue to provide positive space commuting or a number of positive space passes for all would require large concessions in other areas of the contract from our side of the table. I decided long ago that the cost and hassle of commuting was better than being unhappy living near any airline hub. The company won’t, and the pilot group shouldn’t finance my decision to live outside of a base. Sometimes it’s easy, other times I buy tickets or take a pay hit with the commuter policy, but that is the price for my decision to commute. The company will never pay for that decision, and I’ll never ask the pilot group to either.
Positive space commuting is a terrible idea. And it in no way benefits people who live in base. An incredibly small percent of pilots live in a base and commute to another, unless they are extremely junior and don’t have an option. Fighting for PS commuting takes money out of other parts of the contract. Incredibly selfish.
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.
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.
2. If I had the magic wand, I'd enable PS with 1 flight option. If offline, maybe keep 2 flights.
3. I think PS would reduce reserve requirements too because more pilots would reliably get to work, thus allowing more pilots to be LHs.
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.
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.
07-08-2023, 03:07 AM
#127
Abused Spouse of PBS
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 439
Are there any tax experts out there that can comment on whether or not PS tickets for commuters will trigger any imputed income taxes? Is it a possible unintended consequence to be hit with a pretty big tax liability?
07-08-2023, 03:12 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,860
I don’t think it would be any different than the LCA’s getting positive space travel to training events now, no tax implications there.
07-08-2023, 04:31 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,351
Any pilot can commute now. You’re assuming they don’t do it because of the stress or inconvenience, but for many it’s a simple function of time- PS or no.
Again, not all policies benefit everyone & that doesn’t necessarily make them bad. I’m not so obtuse as to think everything in a contract has to be tailored around my experience. So if you want it, great- just don’t pretend it’s for everybody, is all I’m saying.
Again, not all policies benefit everyone & that doesn’t necessarily make them bad. I’m not so obtuse as to think everything in a contract has to be tailored around my experience. So if you want it, great- just don’t pretend it’s for everybody, is all I’m saying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
