PD still allowed?
 

I've looked at the GMA letter regarding freighter PX and nowhere is the issue of PD vs. PT addressed. I've heard that PD requests are being turned down though, although it really has nothing to do with freighter PX.

So I've been issued the standard "Y" class PT to a place I don't want to go, base instead of preferred port at the end of a trip. Can I still purchase my own tickets to home and request PD and be reimbursed up to the value of the company PT tickets? Does anybody have experience with this in July?

Thanks in advance.

Email the Oygen Thief and ask her

I was offered PD by the phone drone in CC for a July flight but I have yet to try to cash in the ticket, so only half an answer here.

Just changed to a PD last night. So far no problems.

Strong rumors about a change here, all to do with tax/legislation/base issues..

711,

That sounds like a very lame excuse. Companies the world over reimburse their staff for alternate travel plans when Plan A goes to pot. Sounds like a quote from an administrator who has no idea why not ...... just cannot!!

Totally agree 744dr!! There is a way to manage the whole basing issue,
but the lack of willpower and/or expertise on the 3rd floor is in the way unfortunately.

Netjets has a working strategy since years for this!

There has been no change to the PD policy. CC is happy to change your PT ticket to PD and save money on the ticket / get rid of credit hours.

This was a rumour that GTC58 started in the Freighter PXing Thread

It is false. Likewise, I am pretty sure the Dhaka Hanoi part of his post (crewing w/ 1 CN, 2 FO and 1 SO) is also false.

LongTimeInCX,
If that is so, it would be reasonable for CX to charge each individual for any tax incurred. Much better than a NO which would cost CX money as well.:confused:

I don't think there is any tax involved going back to your official base it would apply only if you changed your ticket to a destination other than your base.

busyB
 

I'm not shooting the messenger, however would you agree that it is unfair/wrong to apply FBT to the differential between the price of an ID90 and a full fare ticket, thereby treating that differential as taxable income?

The reason it is wrong/ unfair is that, as we all know, an ID90 is not the same as a full fare. They are completely different products, in terms of bookability, priority and customer service. Perhaps, the only differential that could be taxable is the difference between an ID90 and a standby fare.

Liam,

I think we're talking at cross purposes. What I understand is that if CX gives you a PT ticket to your base it is not taxable. However, if you change it to another destination and claim back the lesser cost of your ticket that is taxable because it is a benefit and is not going to your employment base.

Busyb
 

Yes, sorry I am a bit "off message".

I suppose I was commenting on LongtimeinCX's first sentence of post 9 of this thread, which appears to be opening the door to taxing leisure iD travel as well. I find the whole FBT issue can get very fuzzy, very quickly, and starts off as a tax fairness issue, but very rapidly descends into a pathetic envy issue. It becomes more about votes and soundbites and less about fair tax collection. (oops.. Computer shows syntax error, the phrase "fair" and " tax collection" in the same sentence).

Thanks for the responses guys. I definitely won't be saving the company money or credit hours. A ticket from ANC to the East Coast is 400 or 500 USD more than the company PT ticket to LAX. I've seen overtime maybe three times in eight years on the base, which is why they build these PTs or PXs to begin with. So I won't be losing any OT.

Nope, not PXing on the freighter will cost me an average of 500 dollars out of pocket per occurrence and the better part of a day off at home lost. Hopefully some sort of agreement will be reached soon.

Waterskier- I'm pretty sure Dhaka Hanoi IS being run with four crew for the whole flight, I just don't know what the composition is.

What? $500 per occurrence? How?

A ZED fare from LAX to NYC is just about the cheapest deal going anywhere: Long, 1-sector, no customs fees/taxes, virtually no user fees/tax collections at US airports (at least compared to the rest of the world).

$500 is a full fare 1-way ticket, which is also the cheapest 6-hour flight in the world, last minute and 1-way. I've done that for $150 by booking a confirmed ticket well in advance, also the cheapest 6-hour flight ever, but still not much more than a ZED standby ticket.

The extra days off and extra credit you should gain from not agreeing to work for nothing should more than make up for any time and money used to take any of the hourly flights between LAX and JFK, no?

Iron Skillet-

I'm looking at PD out of ANC instead of the company PD to LAX, so ANC to the Southeast. I don't know if ZED fares can be reimbursed, my understanding has always been that we need confirmed tickets in lieu of the company travel to be reimbursed.

That being said, I'm looking at full fare because I actually want to get home. I spent 2007-2011 commuting to LA, until I took the MIA preferred port. I always bought confirmed fares outbound, and I gave up trying to use ZED fares to get home in 2008. That was when the US carriers really started to shrink domestic capacity. I was buying full fare tickets in the gate area, no matter the day of the week, because I couldn't get on. I can think of very few flights that weren't chock-a-block full during the period I was buying tickets and doing that commute. The routine announcement "Ladies and gentlemen, this flight is completely full, so please stow only one bag in the overhead...blah, blah, blah." Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday...didn't matter. So I'd be mad to try to ride home from either ANC or LAX on a pass, and this is a Sunday coming up.

I am looking at advance fares, which is why I posted this right after the roster came out. Then I have to consider non-refundable or not. I've paid my fare share of 150 dollar change fees due to roster changes and delays. It used to be the company tickets were well in excess of my PD travel (so I could buy refundable), but the ANC-LAX isn't worth much and US fares have been steadily increasing. But there isn't anything close to 150 dollars at any rate. There may well be to JFK, but not to Florida.

In regard to extra credit and extra days off, I compared my last typical roster prior to July to August. I had leave May, June, and July, so I had to look at April.

April- Two trips, all in and out of MIA. One seven days in length, one six days in length. One PX sector from ANC to MIA on one of the trips. One "A" day. 80.42 hours credit.

August- Two trips, both start in MIA, one finishes in MIA, the other in my LAX base. One five days in length, one six days in length. One block of four "A" days. One PT sector from ANC to LAX. Credit hours 80.59.

Nothing has changed. The PX sector to MIA has been replaced by a PT to LA to keep me below guarantee, which is pretty much how its always been. It hasn't resulted in me operating that last sector or getting paid any more. There is one less day off in August with "A" days considered. From the other East coast based guys I flew with in July this is pretty much what they have done to most people. Where people had that one PX sector home per month its been replaced by a Y class PT with a hub stop. I predicted this would be the pattern in another thread. What I didn't anticipate was that they would pull the Alaska Airlines first class agreement to make sure we got Y class everywhere. Touche.

IF this eventually results in getting full credit for freighter PX that will be a benefit, but in the short term its a significant hardship for many.

8driver,

Just sign the darn PX letter then and waive your contractual rights. I've heard a couple of you east coasters based on the west coast whinge about this now. I don't think one or two more letter signers will make a bit of difference. Do you? I have no doubt the AOA is doing everything it can to resolve the freighter px issue, but it takes two to sit down across the table and the company is unwilling. Vent your frustrations at them, not us...

CXorcist

CXorcist:

The point isn't so much to vent as to correct the misconceptions that not signing the letter will automatically result in an immediate improvement in conditions. For a lot of people it did, and for some of us it things are considerably worse. As you can see, people assume credit hours are up, scheduling is more efficient, operating instead of PXing, etc. Nope, the company simply replaced PX with PT. And they made every effort to make sure the PT was as bad as it could be. In many cases that's a much longer and more uncomfortable way to get home. Being based on the wrong coast is a complication, but its no improvement for a guy that lives in NY and is based at JFK. Now he has a Y class PT through a hub for at least eight hours instead of staying on a non-stop freighter. I think the only base its better for is LA if you live there, and don't have an LA freighter operating that day.

At some point the financial cost will force me to consider signing.

Why are you not being given PT to your preferred port.

8-Driver,

I'm glad you let the company know that you are at some point ready to sign the letter. ;)