AA Keep Payroll Deduction for NON-REV Travel
Contact the author of the petition
Guest#1 Jun 09, 2015, 18:34
Keep it payroll deducted!!!
Guest#2 Jun 09, 2015, 18:47
Please keep the payroll deduct as an option! I am still waiting for an $85 refund from USAir for an upgrade for international travel! They have my money and I did not use it, had it been AA, it would not have been an issue.
Guest#3 Jun 09, 2015, 19:00
It's dumb to pay ahead of time as you never know if you will get FC or not so paying after the fact makes so much more efficient sense!!
Guest#4 Jun 09, 2015, 19:16
I tried to travel on U.S. air from Barcelona to jfk. My daughter and I were bumped but my card was still charged and it took a while for it to be refunded. I also had to purchase upgrade vouchers which took even longer to be refunded. Makes so much more sense for payroll deduction and have never had a problem with it in 23 years. Why change what isn't broken....doesn't seem fair to make an employee wait for reimbursement when they didn't even get on the flight.
Guest#5 Jun 09, 2015, 19:24
We have always had this and it works. Quit changing the system that works. You've taken so much already Mr. PARKER
Guest#6 Jun 09, 2015, 19:26
Absolutely not!!!
Guest#7 Jun 09, 2015, 19:46
Why change what works ???
Guest#8 Jun 09, 2015, 20:08
Payroll deduction makes sense. I couldn't afford it any other way! !!!!!!!!!
Guest#9 Jun 09, 2015, 20:19
KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS !!!!!!!!!!!! IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT TRY AND FIX IT!!!! REALLY HERE WE GO ANOTHER ANTIQUAITED MOVE.
Guest#10 Jun 09, 2015, 20:24
Should we move to buying those tickets we are charged and "await a refund"
If unused .... And pay a service fee for the refund. Currently we are only payroll deducted if our guest gets in the flight. There is NO REASON that is positive to make the proposed change.
If unused .... And pay a service fee for the refund. Currently we are only payroll deducted if our guest gets in the flight. There is NO REASON that is positive to make the proposed change.
Guest#11 Jun 09, 2015, 20:24
It's only the fair way to charge for non- revenue travel! It's been one of our few amenities left in the job.
Guest#12 Jun 09, 2015, 20:47
I think paying ahead of time is silly and unnecessary. The current system of paying as you go has worked just fine for the 35+ years that I've used it, why change it?
Guest#13 Jun 09, 2015, 20:54
Stop messing around with what is working for us at AA..
Guest#14 Jun 09, 2015, 21:01
It has been efficient way of handling and processing charges fir years.Why must we change a system that works?
Guest#15 Jun 09, 2015, 21:04
AA we all need to do this. Please sign if we ignore it what would be next.???
Guest#16 Jun 09, 2015, 21:08
As a commuter w need to keep it non rev travel payroll deduct!
Guest#18 Jun 09, 2015, 21:21
Keep payroll deduction!!! It makes the most sense!!!
Guest#19 Jun 09, 2015, 21:33
We need to keep the payroll deduct because American will
Keep our charges for weeks if we do not get on if they want to play it their way then figure a way for an immediate
Way for reimbursement. They just want use of hundreds of dollars for a month and get the interest from it
Keep our charges for weeks if we do not get on if they want to play it their way then figure a way for an immediate
Way for reimbursement. They just want use of hundreds of dollars for a month and get the interest from it
Guest#20 Jun 09, 2015, 21:48
Payroll deduct much easier in case a trip in question is not taken or changed last minute due to loads or irop
Guest#21 Jun 09, 2015, 22:12
I wanted to.
Guest#22 Jun 09, 2015, 22:26
It's more convenient for me to take it out of my paycheck, please do not change!
Guest#23 Jun 09, 2015, 23:07
Too often you list for one flight but end up rerouting through different cities..pay for first, stuck with coach--now what??
Guest#24 Jun 09, 2015, 23:22
because its necessary!
Guest#25 Jun 09, 2015, 23:44
Don't like that they have our money ahead of time. Since Flights are always full we nener know when & what flight we get on.....
Too much red tape....
Too much red tape....
| This discussion has been closed. |