Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AirTran Pays Worker Comp-Commuting Comair191 Pilot  
User currently offlinecitrusrsw From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 24 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12481 times:

I figured some of our crew members that commute to work via other carriers might find this interesting.

The Kentucky Supreme Court recently ruled that in some cases, injury's occurring during an employees commute, one in which benefits the employer, is covered by workers’ compensation.
In the Fortney v. AirTran Airways ruling, the AirTran pilot that lost his life commuting aboard Comair Flight 191 has a valid workers’ compensation claim against AirTran. This is true despite the fact the employee wasn't being paid or considered on duty until checked in at Atlanta.

http://blog.laborlawcenter.com/2010/...ion-may-include-commute/#more-7722

[Edited 2010-10-03 03:22:19]

106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12086 times:

They mean his family has a valid claim, surely ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11985 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 1):
They mean his family has a valid claim, surely ?

Yes that is what the ruling was, the pilot's widow will get the worker's comp benefits.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am glad to see that the court ruled for CW's family. He was my roommate when he flew with the regionals and was one hell of a guy. He is truly missed.


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineUSAirways787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11414 times:

Good for them. May he rest in peace.


"Pre departure walk around complete, all doors closed, ready for pushback"
User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2964 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11161 times:

Actually, I find this ruling to be pretty strange. Why is AirTran at fault that he got killed on a DL flight?
It is a very far stretch that this case is similar to the one described in the example of a driver driving materials.

I am pretty sure this will go before a Federal Appeals Court.



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4949 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11138 times:

This could lead to a change in some airlines commuting rules.


Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3931 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Too bad the article didn't explain in more details what "benefits" the employer receives from its employees being able to commute on another carrier. I am aware of the usual ones that would be mentioned, but I am wondering what the court held.

I can't imagine most pilot unions are pleased with this ruling either (not that they'd come out and say it publicly obviously) because if this ruling is allowed to stand (read: if there's no appeal possible to the federal courts), commuting rules will change. No airline is going to want to be responsible for other airline employees' choice of residence.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineORDflier From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10627 times:

Sounds like also if this ruling is allowed to stand then there is a potential for these benefits to be viewed as "fringe benefits" and possibly taxeable.


ORDflier
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10442 times:

Quoting Ushermittwoch (Reply 5):
I am pretty sure this will go before a Federal Appeals Court.

How would a worker's comp issue like this get in to federal court?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10370 times:

This ruling makes no since at all, and if this ruling stands, I bet we will see some changes to the commuting rules, and legal may even try to have waivers of liability signed.

[Edited 2010-10-03 11:57:34]


"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17346 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10154 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 7):
No airline is going to want to be responsible for other airline employees' choice of residence.

Where does one draw the line? Is the company liable for any type of transportation it arranges or subsidizes, such as pass privileges or buss passes? Seems odd.

" there is an exception when the commute provides benefit to the employer."

Doesn't every worker's commute "benefit" the employer?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemacsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 10):
and legal may even try to have waivers of liability signed.

Most jurisdictions will NOT let an employee waive Comp coverage. If they did, we'd all be signing waivers as no employer would be paying the premium for Comp coverage. Too much a competitive disadvantage.



Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
User currently offlinejamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9970 times:

Quoting Ushermittwoch (Reply 5):
Actually, I find this ruling to be pretty strange. Why is AirTran at fault that he got killed on a DL flight?
It is a very far stretch that this case is similar to the one described in the example of a driver driving materials.

I am pretty sure this will go before a Federal Appeals Court.

I completely agree. While I have the utmost sensitivity toward the commuting pilot's survivors, I just don't understand how his personal decision to not live in the area where the company had domiciled him, makes Air Tran liable for Workman's Comp Benefits. It seems like a rather flawed ruling to me.

The ruling could make sense if the pilot had been employed by a company like Netjets, in which their flight crews are commercialed by the company from their home city to an airport location where their flight assignment takes place. This is not the case here. The pilot was based in ATL, but made the lifestyle choice to reside in LEX and in so doing, took advantage of his industry jumpseat travel privileges to get to work.

Air Tran was not responsible for getting the pilot from his home in LEX to ATL. He was. Hence, the ruling seems quite flawed.



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9884 times:

Quoting jamake1 (Reply 13):
Air Tran was not responsible for getting the pilot from his home in LEX to ATL. He was. Hence, the ruling seems quite flawed.

In what other industry do such a high percentage of members of a workgroup live away from their workplace?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineisitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9843 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):
How would a worker's comp issue like this get in to federal court?

Agreed...this opens up a can of worms. As a business owner, I can tell you this ruling could be big.
I'm not talking about just the aviation industry. With the "right' law firm arguing future similar cases, this could change many company rules on commuting to work.
safe

[Edited 2010-10-03 12:54:14]


If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9772 times:

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 15):
I'm not talking about just the aviation industry. With the "right' law firm arguing future similar cases, this could change many company rules on commuting to work.

Because of the question I asked just above your post, I don't see it. Pilots are unique in that a lot of them commute great distances to work but the Company does not provide that transportation directly. In many industries with large contingents of long-distance commuters (e.g. oil and gas), the Company does the transporting.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9668 times:

Quoting Ushermittwoch (Reply 5):
Why is AirTran at fault that he got killed on a DL flight?

Nobody is saying that AirTran was at fault, they are stating that it's a valid case to request insurance benefits due the nature of the pilot's commute to reach work. Many of us commute daily and would not be entitled to workers compensation benefits if we encountered an accident en route. However, the court felt (appropriately in my opinion) that pilots are often required to commute via means which are out of their control to and from their duty stations.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlinejamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9650 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14):
In what other industry do such a high percentage of members of a workgroup live away from their workplace?

That is irrelevant. It is a personal lifestyle choice that is made by each individual, not by his/her employer. I can't imagine that Air Tran would not appeal the case. Airlines are not responsible for getting their employees to work when their employees make a lifestyle choice to live someplace other than where they are domiciled.

Air Tran did not deadhead this pilot to his trip assignment in ATL. He chose to reside in LEX and commute on his own means to ATL. He took advantage of his industry jumpseat privileges to grab a ride to work. Unfortunately he was killed in the process, however that shouldn't mean that Air Tran is held liable for this person's lifestyle choice to not live in the base in which he had been assigned to by Air Tran.



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9567 times:

Quoting jamake1 (Reply 18):
I can't imagine that Air Tran would not appeal the case.

To what court?

Quoting jamake1 (Reply 18):
Airlines are not responsible for getting their employees to work when their employees make a lifestyle choice to live someplace other than where they are domiciled.

Not directly, no. But FL and other airlines enable the lifestyle. If I want to live in Charlotte and work in Nashville, in my industry, I do that on my own dime. But if I'm a pilot, I effectively do it on my employer's dime.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 848 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9566 times:

Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 17):
that pilots are often required to commute via means which are out of their control to and from their duty stations.

Commute via means which are out of their control? It is very much in their control, when they choose to live away from the crew domicile. It is not a "right" it is a "privilege" to do so. I could see some issues down the road, on commuting, or requiring the employee to live in the same city as the crew domicile. This will surely be a mess, should it stand.

JD CRPXE



A line is evidence that other people exist.
User currently offlinejamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9481 times:

Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 17):
However, the court felt (appropriately in my opinion) that pilots are often required to commute via means which are out of their control to and from their duty stations.

No. Pilots are not required by their respective companies to commute via means which are out of their control. It comes down to the personal lifestyle choice made by the individual, not the employer. Air Tran did not require the pilot involved in this case to live in LEX.

Pilots can either chose to live in the area in which they are domiciled, or they can choose to live elsewhere, at which point the means by which to get to work is up to the individual, not the company.



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13039 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9481 times:

This was a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Kentucky, based on their state's laws. I suspect this will now go to a Federal District Court, or as from the top court of the State, it could go directly to the US Supreme Court although some Federal law would have to apply.

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9458 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 19):
Not directly, no. But FL and other airlines enable the lifestyle. If I want to live in Charlotte and work in Nashville, in my industry, I do that on my own dime. But if I'm a pilot, I effectively do it on my employer's dime.

True, but at the same time this is a benefit for the pilot, and not an agreement between the employee and the airline.** I can see your point, but to let a liability arise out of something that is a benefit to the employees seems like a bad thing.


**As far as I know anyways!

[Edited 2010-10-03 13:47:31]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineEMB170 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9407 times:

Quoting jamake1 (Reply 13):
I completely agree. While I have the utmost sensitivity toward the commuting pilot's survivors, I just don't understand how his personal decision to not live in the area where the company had domiciled him, makes Air Tran liable for Workman's Comp Benefits. It seems like a rather flawed ruling to me.
Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 20):
Commute via means which are out of their control? It is very much in their control, when they choose to live away from the crew domicile. It is not a "right" it is a "privilege" to do so. I could see some issues down the road, on commuting, or requiring the employee to live in the same city as the crew domicile. This will surely be a mess, should it stand.

Although it might not have been the case here, let's say FL had a LEX-ATL flight onto which the pilot in question could have deadheaded. What if the flight was sold out, overbooked, weight restricted, delayed, or canceled? What if he had been bumped off the flight (for any number of reasons) and luckily (or not) for him, DL/OH had a seat going to ATL available?

Also, what about pilots who live in cities where the majority of flights into the crew bases (if not all) are run by Express/Eagle/Connection carriers and must deadhead on these flights even if they are in network (Example: an AA pilot who lives in DAY and must commute on Eagle to ORD or DFW, or a DL pilot who lives in ABQ and must commute to SLC on OO)?



Can passenger jets fly as fast as my feet do? Let's find out...
25 Cubsrule : It's a hard line to draw for me. We can agree, I think, that if he were deadheading (online), then worker's comp would apply and should apply. From t
26 type-rated : But AirTran will probably benefit anyway from this pilots demise. A lot of companies carry life insurance on employees with the company as the benefic
27 Post contains links 71Zulu : Here is the Court's Ruling, http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inkyco20100617251
28 2175301 : An argument that I have not seen mentioned is that Airlines routinely hire people who live elsewhere with the expectation that the people will commute
29 stratosphere : I would agree with that because deadheading is different. He was commuting from his home and living in LEX was his choice not the company. I totally
30 PPVRA : I would agree with that 100%.
31 jamake1 : I don't think that whether a person chooses to commute online or offline is relevant here. A pilot is on company time the moment (s)he steps into the
32 mrskyguy : Sure, but the court felt that a pilot's duties and the nature of their commutes blurred the lines between how we might commute and how they commute.
33 Cubsrule : Again, I think the most sensible answer is that the airline pays for the commute, albeit indirectly. If I choose to live 25 miles from work rather th
34 Aesma : Are they ? I feel it's the other way around, pilots can do what almost nobody else can, live in one place and work in another. They're not forced to
35 jamake1 : At every airline I have ever worked for, each company made it abundantly clear during initial training that commuting was not recommended and that if
36 stratosphere : I don't see it that way. A lot of airline employees interview who live somewhere else they accept the job with the expectation that they will move to
37 Cubsrule : Whose dime is it on?
38 tguman : Do the airlines pay other airlines for this ability for crews to fly on available seats, or is it just an agreement? If Airtran paid for the seat on
39 Avconsultant : This is not good, every widow or widower will file a claim if a loved one is lost in an accident en-route to work. Then it will expand to suing Targe
40 jamake1 : No. Absolutely not. Pilots do not make a commute on their employer's dime. If they did, they would be deadheaded from their respective home cities. T
41 71Zulu : The plaintiff's argued that it costs the airlines money to maintain this free employee commuter network so in fact they are on the company's dime.
42 ha763 : This ruling opens up companies who subsidize employee's commutes on public transport to worker's comp claims. The ruling stated that: This means that
43 Cubsrule : Who pays for the fuel necessary to carry commuting pilots? Who pays for the can of soda the pilot gets on the flight? Not the pilot... I don't know.
44 Pyrex : Which they should. You would think so, yes. Well, let's see, oil and gas, logging, trucking, military...
45 Post contains images mrskyguy : I feel you are wrong. Are you a pilot? Can you speak from experience of what it's like to wake up in one place, commute to another and back, and stil
46 Cubsrule : And, again, in most or all of those industries, the company provides the transportation to work.
47 Pyrex : Because you cannot reasonably expect someone to live within commuting distance from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, or an oil rig 200 miles off-shore of New Orl
48 Cubsrule : Or can it? For an ATL-based regional pilot, I'd argue that it can be. Can a regional pilot who is in 3 or 4 bases in 2 years reasonably be expected t
49 stratosphere : I don't know but I will tell you this when NW closed the Florida and Atlanta maintenance bases a friend of mine was bumped all the way from ATL to LA
50 jamake1 : Bingo. You're exactly right. For those of you who think that this court decision is a good thing for pilots, it's not. This ruling sets a dangerous p
51 skyguyB727 : It is simply an agreement between the airlines. All jumpseat and pleasure pass travel is space available. There is never a guarantee or confirmed sea
52 jamake1 : Indeed.
53 mrskyguy : So that widow should be excluded from the benefits of her husband's employ simply because the ruling could cause a "dangerous precedent?" Doubtful. W
54 toneale : Ultimately AirTran will have a subrogation right to any recovery the widow receives from ComAir up to the WC death benefit. The bigger issues are thes
55 stratosphere : You may be right but like I said what if I was to take it a step further and say I am entitled to workmans comp because I got in a car wreck going in
56 mrskyguy : There's a tremendous difference. The nature of a pilot's job is far different in living and working conditions, which makes commute by air far closer
57 stratosphere : LIke a previous post said might be problematic with so many pilots that commute but congress has already looked it at after the Colgan BUF accident i
58 stratosphere : Let me tell you if I lived in Kentucky and that scenario happened to me driving into work I would try to use it and cite this case as an example...Mi
59 silentbob : You're going to have a hard time arguing that someone working as a pilot for FL couldn't afford to live in/near ATL. The nature of the job as it rela
60 stratosphere : I for the life of me cannot see how you see it that way. Quite a few pilots actually live at their base. A lot of DL pilots live in the ATL metro are
61 stratosphere : Actually in some cases it is a drawback to the company..A lot of pilots have called in sick because they could not make it in due to a cancellation o
62 usflyer msp : This is an absolutely horrible and poorly reasoned ruling by the KY Supreme Court. I hope FL appeals it to federal court (using the interstate commerc
63 stratosphere : I would think so too..But the accident did happen in KY so maybe that is the reason.
64 mrskyguy : I don't have to. The court did, and I fully support the court's decision based on the points I've illustrated above. The argument from others here is
65 stratosphere : I don't think you will see it go away. Too many do it. But there might be some changes that make commuting uncomfortable for pilots. But I think it w
66 stratosphere : Like I said at my company 80 percent commute because the domicile sucks. No argument there. Just saying it is a pilot choice where he lives thats all
67 mrskyguy : Choice is a subjective way to put it.. somewhat like choosing whether to eat or not. Sure, you have the choice but the options are limited and straig
68 stratosphere : Well most airline domiciles or home bases for the most part are not in very great places. Thats why most commute but I took an airline job knowing th
69 Mir : I'd say you'd be entitled. Unless your company offers the option of living at your workplace, some form of commute is a necessary part of a job. -Mir
70 Post contains images mrskyguy :
71 wjcandee : Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case in most states that if an injury is covered by Worker's Comp, then no claim lies against the emp
72 wjcandee : Actually, many laws in the US don't treat commuting as "part of" a job, any more than anything else you do to get ready for work. Notably, the IRS do
73 silentbob : Each case is supposed to be judged on its own merits, not based on a desire for a particular outcome or broad concept. Based on the information prese
74 BNEFlyer : Obviously the US is different to Australia, but here you're covered under Workers Comp from the moment you leave your front door until the moment you
75 Post contains links Quokka : Not necessarily true here in Western Australia. Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 Compensation Part III Injury: general Division
76 BNEFlyer : You're correct Quokka, I was referring to QLD, I forgot that WA, NSW/ACT & VIC allow non goverment Workers Comp insurances. The cover only applies
77 blueflyer : I'm not a lawyer, and I am not staying at Holiday Inn, but here are what I think the key issues that the KY Supreme Court took into consideration: a)
78 mrskyguy : Sure seems that way.. time will tell how this one fully plays out. And that's how it should be, in my opinion.
79 planespotting : Um - airlines benefit from commuting rules because they can basically change their crews' base as needed without having to pay for moving costs. If yo
80 mrskyguy : Besides the dastard trend of actually typing out an utterance that doesn't belong in the English language [read: Um], I agree. Other pilots are terri
81 Cubsrule : Also, they don't have to adjust salaries for cost of living. An attorney in Roanoke doing the same work as an attorney in New York probably makes qui
82 enilria : So if your employer offers subsidized mass transit tickets to reduce parking needs, for example, they would incur this same liability? Wow... I know
83 iairallie : So following the moronic reasoning of this decision my parents should be able to sue my brother's employer because he was killed bicycling to work. He
84 ABQopsHP : The flight will operate regardless of a jumpseat rider, or a non-rev being onboard. So the fuel consumption, is negligible if the seat is occupied or
85 Cubsrule : I'm not arguing that the costs are large. I'm arguing that they are greater than zero. And if that's the case, someone has to pay them.
86 blueflyer : Not as the state Supreme Court saw it. If you read between the line, their decision basically says that, if it weren't for commuting, AirTran might h
87 mrskyguy : This isn't a career-wide blanket you can throw on everyone's work circumstances. A pilot cannot commute to work from Dallas to Atlanta.
88 flyibaby : The transportation industry already falls under federal laws since it operates as interstate commerce. There won't be any problem sending this to fed
89 mrskyguy : Yes, actually I do know that. The pilot lived in LEX and was hired by AirTran with the understanding that he'd commute to ATL for his duty cycles. Th
90 Cubsrule : Can you show me a single comp case in federal court? What percentage of WalMart employees have to move to keep their jobs every year?
91 Post contains links usflyer msp : See: HORTON V. LIBERTY MUT. INS. http://supreme.justia.com/us/367/348/case.html Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude http://supreme.justia.com/us/
92 Cubsrule : I wasn't talking about FL - I was talking about regionals. No. Horton was BROUGHT in a federal DISTRICT court, and the Supreme Court said that was ac
93 milesrich : This is a horrible ruling. If the pilot killed had been a Delta pilot commuting, and Delta would have claimed that he could not sue Comair because he
94 jamake1 : At the end of the day, it comes down to individual choice and responsibility. An airline has a base in which they assign crewmembers to report for wor
95 Cubsrule : That's a laudible sentiment, but isn't the whole point of worker's compensation that we don't consider personal responsibility of either the employee
96 blueflyer : Actually, if you read the court's decision, the court holds as fact that AirTran knew where the pilot lived because the carrier was paying taxes to K
97 Aesma : No I'm not a commercial pilot. And I doubt France is a relevant country to compare to : here an injury while going to work, even on foot with just on
98 PPVRA : I don't know how this benefits the employer at all. According to some above, airlines don't even encourage this type of commuting. It's a benefit to
99 2175301 : The benefit is that Airtran would have to pay relocation expenses and/or higher wages to hire some of their pilots.
100 skyguyB727 : I do not know of any airline that pays relocation expenses to new hire, non-management staff. I once had an airline in another part of the country re
101 flyibaby : There doesn't have to be a prescendent set with a previous case. However after doing some research, I could see US Code: Title 45, 51 being brought u
102 Cubsrule : How (procedurally)? With a million employees, what is "a lot?" That was my question.
103 PPVRA : Aside from that, which could possibly vary between airlines, relocation expenses is a one-time type of thing.
104 flyibaby : On average, an entire management team only stays in a store for 1-2 years before being either sent to another location or region. If you figure an av
105 Cubsrule : But you can't just take whatever issue you want to federal court - that's the point. How would Airtran get this in to federal court? Let's double it
106 blueflyer : Not to narrow this down to a war over statistics, but what's an acceptable comparison then? I know a company where 50% of its workforce moves on thei
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...
China Govn't Law To Demand Comp If Pilot Quits posted Fri Jul 11 2008 07:27:46 by Hawaii12
Mr Airline Pilot Ad Offends AirTran posted Wed Oct 26 2005 00:27:40 by United737522
Alleged Drunk AirTran Pilot Won’t Face Charges posted Fri Apr 15 2005 17:23:29 by FlyingTexan
Drunk AirTran Pilot Arrested At LAS posted Fri Jan 14 2005 06:07:07 by Jmc1975
AirTran Hires 1000th Pilot posted Mon Dec 6 2004 20:36:13 by KarlB737
The Terms On Rejected AirTran Pilot Contract? posted Wed Mar 21 2001 13:26:11 by Lowfareair
Southwest-AirTran Crew/Employee Merger Issues posted Mon Sep 27 2010 13:09:35 by tugger
Southwest To Purchase AirTran: Part 2 posted Mon Sep 27 2010 12:36:28 by Airport
Future Of AirTran Hubs posted Mon Sep 27 2010 12:30:35 by blr380
Southwest To Purchase Airtran posted Mon Sep 27 2010 04:04:10 by vmcavmcg