Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Non-revving - Here To Stay?  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Before I say something silly and get flamed to death for it, I would like to start by saying that although I am aware of non-revving and the basic concept behind it, I know very little about it.

Airlines seem to be cutting back more, and more and more these days. This is not news to anyone. However, where does non-revving fit into this? Does it cost the airline anything? Or is it 'cost neutral'? Who gets to non-rev? Is there an industry-wide standard or does it partly depend on which airline you work for?

I find it hard to believe that it doesn't cost the airline. I understand that it is reciprocal, but in the new world of insane penny-pinching measures and cut-backs in the world of aviation, is non-revving likely to ever change or be done away with? Have there already been any changes?

Again, apologies if it comes across that I don't know what I'm talking about with non-revving, because the fact is, I don't. But I would like to know the ins and outs! How has it changed over the years?


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7973 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Does it cost the airline anything? Or is it 'cost neutral'?

There is a slight cost to the airline, but it's very slight. Remember, non-revs are space-available, which means that they get put on after the paying customers (and paying freight). The airline will not sacrifice any revenue for a non-rev, unless that non-rev is travelling on company business and needs to get someplace.

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Who gets to non-rev? Is there an industry-wide standard or does it partly depend on which airline you work for?

It does depend. Generally, employees of an airline get to travel on that airline. They may be extended non-rev privileges to some or all of that airline's partners, and they may also be eligible for ZED fares on other airlines. Generally, travel in Y is free (except for applicable taxes, which the airline does not cover). Travel in C or F may cost more depending on the airline.

The privileges are generally extended to one's immediate family (spouse, children) as well.

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
but in the new world of insane penny-pinching measures and cut-backs in the world of aviation, is non-revving likely to ever change or be done away with?

Not likely. It's one of the benefits of working for the airlines, and if it went away you'd start to see people asking for higher salaries to make up for it. Since non-rev travel costs the airline hardly anything, it'll be kept.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
There is a slight cost to the airline, but it's very slight

Right, but in these times of severe economic pressure, it seems that any cost, no matter how slight, is fair game for cost cutting.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
it went away you'd start to see people asking for higher salaries to make up for it

I see, but would the airlines really care? Seems they don't mind imposing pay cuts, redundancies etc. when it suits them, so how is this any different? Also, seems like an awful lot of people benefit from all this, if families are included too.

Thanks for your reply.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBlueWingWalker From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7909 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 2):
I see, but would the airlines really care? Seems they don't mind imposing pay cuts, redundancies etc. when it suits them, so how is this any different?

Many Flight Attendants and Pilots do not live where they are based, it's sort of an advantage to having this kind of job. I highly doubt airlines would stop letting them use a seat on an aircraft that isn't being used any way. In the long run, the airline would lose even more, by not having crews in place when they need them there. Also keep in mind that it costs thousands of dollars (and a month or more) to replace a FA, and even longer (and more money) to replace a pilot.



The recipe for perpetual ignorance is to be content with your knowledge and satisfied with your opinion.
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7876 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 2):
Right, but in these times of severe economic pressure, it seems that any cost, no matter how slight, is fair game for cost cutting.

It is a very very small cost. The cost of the drink, the bag of peanuts, and maybe the slightly higher fuel burn for the added weight. All pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm sure management would love to take away non-rev if they could, but there would be hell to pay from the employess. It wouldn't just be one labor group but all of them, and the employees would let management know exactly how they feel. A lot of slow downs and sick outs would happen and that alone would cost the airline a ton of money. I think it is a fight that management doesn't want.

Having happy employees should be an airline's number one priority. High morale translates into better customer service and more productivity, which translates into more money made for the shareholders. Airlines like WN are so succesful because of a happy and productive work force. They obviously have a good buisness plan, but with out the good front line employees to execute it then it is just a plan and not a reality. Taking away non-rev would cost more than it would save.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 2):
I see, but would the airlines really care? Seems they don't mind imposing pay cuts, redundancies etc. when it suits them, so how is this any different? Also, seems like an awful lot of people benefit from all this, if families are included too.

Non-rev flying is very hard to do now, especially during the summer and holiday travel season. Non-rev travel was the best during regulation when airlines flew 70% full (and made buckets of money) vs. now where they fly 80-90% full (and lose money).


User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7862 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
Airlines seem to be cutting back more, and more and more these days. This is not news to anyone. However, where does non-revving fit into this? Does it cost the airline anything? Or is it 'cost neutral'? Who gets to non-rev? Is there an industry-wide standard or does it partly depend on which airline you work for?

Staff travel fits into this as it is a employee benefit. Most of the travel is done on stnd-by so we the non revers don´t hurt anyone.  Smile It costs more in a monetary way but it is a motivation for a staff so it equals.  Smile

Basically airline staff and other employees authorised by the airline to travel are allowed to travel. In addition free tickts are sometimes given away to travel agents and so.

Major carriers have this standard.  Smile


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7795 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 2):
I see, but would the airlines really care? Seems they don't mind imposing pay cuts, redundancies etc. when it suits them, so how is this any different?

Cutting non-revs would be saving a little to spend a lot more on dealing with the fallout of that decison. It's smarter to maintain the status quo.

As has been said, fuller flights these days make it harder to non-rev. And if a flight gets cancelled due to weather, you're pretty much screwed.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7772 times:

It will always be a part of the airline business.... using it will be a whole other story.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineIliriBDL From Germany, joined May 2007, 1205 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

The majority of employees work in the airline business for this benefit alone. Then there is the love of flying (pilot, FA), as well as the love of being in the airport and around planes (ramp, CSA, gate agent, I fit here, I love working with people and being at airports and would do it for free  Wink), but in case the airlines were to take away the non-rev benefits, I would bet that the majority of employees would leave.


delta.com
User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7546 times:

It's also worth pointing out that non-revs do pay applicable taxes, such as the GBP80.00 tax for sitting in a premium cabin from the UK, and all US taxes and basically taxes for whatever country you're going to and from. Our employers don't pay that for us generally, even on a 'free' ticket, which isn't actually free.

User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10432 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7474 times:

The first CEO to suggest eliminating non-rev travel would be burned in effigy and it would be best if he left the country as his life wouldn't be worth spit. Better to leave this benefit alone just to save a few bucks.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineFLYjoe From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7443 times:

The way to reduce non-rev travel, at least for those that would like to travel somewhere different every other week would be to tax the trip as income. Don't think for a second that a government looking to squeeze every penny of tax money they can to come up with it. I know when I was an airline employee and going to Boston for lunch or to Florida for a day at the beach, that would have changed my non-rev habits.

User currently offlinePlaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7396 times:



Quoting FLYjoe (Reply 11):

This is what happens in higher education - if you get tuition waivers as an employee the value is considered taxable income - makes a big difference.



I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25352 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7330 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 4):
Non-rev travel was the best during regulation when airlines flew 70% full (and made buckets of money) vs. now where they fly 80-90% full (and lose money).

Typical average load factors before deregulation in the US and Canada were more like 55-60%. In those days 70% was a very high load factor. Standby employee travel was much easier in those days.


User currently offlineSaxman66 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7329 times:



Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 8):
I love working with people and being at airports and would do it for free  )

Hopefully you don't really mean that. I like my airline job too and airports and such. But I won't work for free or for subpar wages. That just brings down the entire profession for everyone.



Ride Amtrak!
User currently offlineChinook747 From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7247 times:



Quoting OHLHD (Reply 5):
In addition free tickts are sometimes given away to travel agents and so.

As a travel agent I have flown non-rev many times. Also on Fam trips tour operators obtain non-rev travel for the agents that they are hosting.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6637 times:

I don't think management hates giving the Flight Benefits either, as some in here would like to think.

In late 2007 when the airlines were beginning to again post larger profits under the (relatively) cheap fuel prices, the labor groups began to ask for bonuses and pay raises. At UA, they instead offered improved flight benefits. Coach that was once 10-15 dollar per segment became free, and international premium cabins became remarkably cheaper.

So, it's quite the powerful negotiating tool for both sides of the table. Think of AA immediately after 9/11 too, when all airlines were asking for pay and benefit reductions. AA wanted domestic coach to be charged, approx 5 to 15 dollars per segment. The employees collectively decided that free & unlimited domestic coach travel was more important to them than pay cuts, and instead took pay cuts over reductions in Flight Benefits.


To answer your question..... yes, it is here to stay, and for a very long time.

[Edited 2008-11-09 13:39:59]

User currently offlineJmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3279 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6557 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 10):
The first CEO to suggest eliminating non-rev travel would be burned in effigy and it would be best if he left the country as his life wouldn't be worth spit. Better to leave this benefit alone just to save a few bucks.

Didn't Glenn Tilton suggest this?



.......
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6502 times:

Airlines already pay substandard wages compared to other industries. One of the huge benefits of working for an airline is non revving. While pilots and flight attendants can only work for airlines (for the most part), others involved in the airline such as management, accounting, sales, engineering, customer service and more could earn more elsewhere. In order to retain quality people, benefits like nonrevving need to be offered.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

I can see where in the future there will be a debate in Congress and various state houses, to examine if non-rev travel should become a taxable benefit to employees.

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25352 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6390 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 19):
I can see where in the future there will be a debate in Congress and various state houses, to examine if non-rev travel should become a taxable benefit to employees.

That subject has already been discussed to death and I think most governments have far more important things to deal with. The big question is how do you put a value on an empty seat that would otherwise be worthless if the employee wasn't sitting in it. The marginal cost is almost nothing (and many if not most airlines do apply service charges for standby travel). The cost of trying to tax such things would probably be far more than the tax revenues they would collect. And, to be consistent, they would have to tax any other employee product/service discounts offered by most companies (car manufacturers, department stores, hotels etc etc.)

I believe a few governments do tax employee travel beneifts. Germany is one if not mistken (or it used to be).


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10432 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6390 times:



Quoting FLYjoe (Reply 11):
he way to reduce non-rev travel, at least for those that would like to travel somewhere different every other week would be to tax the trip as income. Don't think for a second that a government looking to squeeze every penny of tax money they can to come up with it. I know when I was an airline employee and going to Boston for lunch or to Florida for a day at the beach, that would have changed my non-rev habits.

In the early 80's, the IRS did indeed want to tax our flying benefits. I very vigorous letter writing campaign to our Senators and reps in the House took care of that little problem.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10432 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6375 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):
That subject has already been discussed to death and I think most governments have far more important things to deal with. The big question is how do you put a value on an empty seat that would otherwise be worthless if the employee wasn't sitting in it. The marginal cost is almost nothing (and many if not most airlines do apply service charges for standby travel). The cost of trying to tax such things would probably be far more than the tax revenues they would collect. And, to be consistent, they would have to tax any other employee product/service discounts offered by most companies (car manufacturers, department stores, hotels etc etc.)

These were some of our arguments against what the IRS wanted to do.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Non-Revs do make profit as an OAL non-revver unless they had a free local station pass, but the ZEDS do give in some profit to full empty seats, the meal is not worth more than the ZED fare, so it helps.

But for internal non-revs, it can add-up if they were placed in first class free (but keep in mind the food would have been wasted already for that no-show) (but the free alcohol can add some cost slightly) It starts to hit more if you non-rev for free on international routes internally. where the service level is more, but the meals are usually estimated for the actual load, not the non-rev loads.

Most things are BOB in coach now so you might get a bit of extra profit off a non-rev who flew free in Y class if they bought some stuff rather than that seat being lost as a perishable commodity.

Non-Reving on an OAL with ZED and ID tickets is a profit maker at the last minute to get some profit out of the lost seats.

Some airlines that use to allow 10 bags for internal non-revs free was not a good idea, now they limit them now to 3 free bags, now they are starting to charge off bags lately.



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5865 times:



Quoting Malaysia (Reply 23):
Some airlines that use to allow 10 bags for internal non-revs free was not a good idea, now they limit them now to 3 free bags, now they are starting to charge off bags lately.

UA used to allow up to 7 checked bags for free, but no longer. Now it's 2 free and you pay for the 3rd and any additional. Same charges apply for heavy weight and odd-sized.


NW, AA, and DL all allow nonrevs two free checked bags as well. Save at DL, there are a few performance-critical routes (AMM-JFK, TLV-JFK) in which nonrevs are limited to one bag and that is all.... you cannot even pay to check a 2nd bag as a nonrev on those routes.


25 Triple7man : I knew very little about non rev travel until I went to work for AA and it became a way of life for me. I never believed I would be doing such things
26 Crjflyer35 : Sometimes that's the only thing that keeps me working for US...My wife and I flew to CDG from PHL first class for the extra upgrade fee and taxes...My
27 Rwy04LGA : Free on Delta. I know some employees that don't travel at all. After safety, of course. As would I, and they know it! ROTFLMAO As long as I can fly a
28 IliriBDL : No I meant it in a way that I love being in this industry, to the point that its not so much about the money as it is about loving what I do, which a
29 DLRESAGNT : I know many people with whom I work are there for the travel benifits alone, these are generally good people, that would otherwise be somewhere else i
30 SK973 : Before I started working for SAS I never knew about non-reving but in the almost eight years I've been here I've used it a LOT to fly all over the wor
31 EXCOASA1982 : CO caters for listed non-revs.
32 Oswegobag : I would have to reiterate that non-reving is the only reason many good employees work in the airline industry. Any other indusrty would pay more and
33 Enilria : I can imagine a start-up carrier beginning from scratch with no free employee travel included as part of the deal, but non-rev travel is a feature of
34 NorCal : That airline would have a very hard time of getting and retaining quality employees. If that airline operated mainline aircraft I could see pilots go
35 Transpac787 : Most legacies do: NW, AA, and UA included. I'd imagine DL does too but I don't know for sure.
36 Malaysia : NW and CI didnt, I was listed weeks earlier, and they kindly gave me a refused meal and a crew meal.
37 EXCOASA1982 : Atleast the crew did that. you never know what kind of catering hiccups may have happened.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Singapore Girl Is Here To Stay posted Thu Mar 15 2007 19:48:36 by Jfr
A380 Here To Stay-Great Bargain For Airlines! posted Fri Nov 10 2006 02:02:49 by OU812
New Airline Restrictions May Be Here To Stay posted Fri Aug 11 2006 19:35:25 by TACAA320
DL's MD90s Are Apparently Here To Stay posted Thu Jul 13 2006 04:52:17 by WorldTraveler
Is Hooters Air Here To Stay? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 20:19:36 by Luv2fly
AirTran Airways Is Here To Stay? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 15:35:35 by Planefreak
Rex "Here To Stay" posted Fri May 7 2004 00:17:20 by Bd1959
AC//Cuba & Costa Rica Here To Stay posted Sat Feb 21 2004 22:36:06 by FLYACYYZ
AC Says Zip/Tango Here To Stay posted Fri Jul 25 2003 23:31:24 by AC320
Turboprops....Here To Stay? Part2 posted Sat Mar 15 2003 02:51:17 by DeltaASA16