throttleweenie

My take is that not giving retirees higher priority is BS, but everyone's going to have their own opinion. I see it from the view of a UAL 24½ year guy who has been told since the day I was hired that if I retire with 25+ years, I'll get what every other UAL retiree got after 25+ years. So I see it as getting the rug jerked out from under me.

But that's just me.

C/B

TW

jetjock257

I hope not.

I never did take a cotton to the UAL system where a guy with 25 years would retire, his buddy with 28 years would keep on workin', and the guy with 25 years would instantly jump ahead of him in line because he just retired. Huh?? Didn't strike me as fair at all. (Retired UAL folks with 25 years of service board in a super seniority class ahead of active employees.)

But to put them in a lower class? Well shoot, that aint right either!!

One thing's fer sure - management will find a way to keep themselves in a super class! No doubt about that if you ask me.

clambakejoe

I look at it this way, active employees only have so much time off (bid vacations, pref bid, etc..). Retiree's are retired, they can plan their travel more accordingly. They should be placed directly behind active employees with same classification with years of service, but with an R. Buddy passes, I give them to people I hate. They may make it there, they won't make it back.The sad thing is, with the heavy load factors, is nearly impossible to non-rev with the whole family. First class, forget it. When we travel, I buy full fare tickets.

It sucks

iahflyr

I would agree. The industry has already caused all of us enough pain and suffering based on factors we have no control over. Lets not cause a lot more pain and suffering to ourselves.

bearcat

This is a shac! I do exactly the same, and drive a lot.

fireman0174

So an active employee of 1-2 years should go ahead of a retired employee who gave the carrier 30-40 years of his life?

Baron50

That makes sense, but I recall the UAL-MEC was afraid to open up discussions on anything to do with pass policy. Partly, because the other unions did not agree with a longevity concept and the possibility of ending up with something worse.

The survey was designed to get a certain result, notice there is no reference as to who responded in a particular manner, such as, 10% retirees participated, 80% active, 5% over 25 years etc. A fact of life is that very few of us are truly altruistic. The retirees were underrepresented, they do not have the daily contact to even know about this survey.

Management will do what they want, there is no point debating the results of "their" survey. The unions should speak for their members on these issues. We don't let management survey the pilots as to pay or work rules, this is no different.

After losing their retirement, I would be surprised if the retirees lay down for another screw job, no doubt ERISA or a smart lawyer will have something to say, unless it is fair to everyone. My thought is that they will now propose a compromise of a first come first serve system like AMR. All of this survey nonsense is only to lead us to water.

One last thought, everyone will eventually retire, be careful what you wish for.

Lambourne

UA was the only carrier to put retirees first. I prefer they take a later flight, I am working they are retiring. Plus the over 60 crowd can buy tickets with the extra dough they are getting by hanging around.

Lambourne

A resounding YES! They should go behind an active employee.

Baron50

Lamb,

It's been awhile, but I see you have not changed.

So, a 22 year old ramp manager with six-months longevity, going to a skateboard contest, should ride ahead of an 38 year retired employee, who is now 80 years old, with arthritis, a PBGC pension, trying to get to Mayo clinic on a pass, because that is all that he can afford.

Your sensitivity is remarkable, life is really not about you. The other employees do not give a hoot about how age 60 affected you, get over it.

Your friend