Is this profession in peril?

[Flopgut]

You want to have a huge voter turnout? Pose this question to the membership: Do you think ALPA will eat it's own? I'll bet a grand more than 80% participate and 99% of them will say yes. Easy question with an obvious answer. That, however, is not what we're doing; we're asking hard questions in most cases. And to not vote might ought to be considered a vote, of sorts?

Three votes on retirement age, all headed toward the same, consistent result. That's unified! That is unity!

When you completely ignore a unified result, and can't manage expectations as to why, you've ceased to be a leader and the organization is screwed.

 

[PCL_128]

You want to have a huge voter turnout? Pose this question to the membership: Do you think ALPA will eat it's own? I'll bet a grand more than 80% participate and 99% of them will say yes.

I bet you'd get 25% participation at most with a split decision. Similar to the Age 60 polls, in other words.

And to not vote might ought to be considered a vote, of sorts?

No, not voting should just be considered not voting. It's lazy and irresponsible. We should expect more of our membership.

 

[waveflyer]

If we've always been apathetic- but haven't always had bottom barrell wages- what's different now?

 

[CitationUltra]

There is no conflict of interest. The interests of regional and mainline pilots coincide.Regional pilots can't provide enough revenue to support their own union structure. As it stands right now, the larger carriers within ALPA have to help support them. To be self-sufficient, a regional union would require dues somewhere along the lines of 4-5%, plus some extremely large initial assessments that no regional pilots could possibly afford. Basically, a "RALPA" organization is unworkable.

First in re the economics, you are probably right that regional pilots, with their low pay, could not support a "RALPA" structured and organized the way ALPA is.

As to the conflict of interest, the regional airline model is in significant ways, diametrically opposed to the objectives of ALPA's network airline constituents, and vice versa, major airline pilots are and will always be opposed to flying being outsourced to regional operations, corporate resources being allocated to regional operations, etc., etc.

Not recognizing these conflicts has been at the root of the failure of ALPA to represent the interests of regional airline pilots.

 

[BOOZENEWS]

There is a major difference, in any case. Doctors and lawyers are essentially self-employed professionals. Pilots, on the other hand, are employees. IN that regard, they are not much different than any other employee.

That doesn't say a whole lot. Pro athletes are employees too and in the labor catagory.

 

[CitationUltra]

That doesn't say a whole lot. Pro athletes are employees too and in the labor catagory.

Well, not really. They are independent professional contractors. They are not labor. They individually negotiate their contract fee with the athletic club.

Pilots, on the other hand, are collectively and individually subject to the arbitrary pay scale established by the companies, or, in the event of their being represented by a collective bargaining unit, they are thereby subject to the more-or-less arbitrary pay scale established by the company and agreed to by their bargaining unit.

 

[PCL_128]

If we've always been apathetic- but haven't always had bottom barrell wages- what's different now?

Well, for one thing, deregulation. Deregulation began three decades of wage slashing and work rule destruction. Another thing is the rabidly anti-labor government that Bush has installed. The NMB is as anti-labor as it's ever been, and the courts are littered with far-right, anti-labor judges. These things have created an environment that has virtually destroyed our leverage. The damage can be minimized with a strong union, but the repairs can really only happen when we get a more labor-friendly government. Pilots refuse to accept this reality and instead blame the national Association for their troubles.

 

[Lear70]

If we've always been apathetic- but haven't always had bottom barrell wages- what's different now?

We haven't *always* been apathetic. PCL is painting a broader picture than was really applicable in the first decade post-deregulation.

There are several good examples of large-scale major airline strikes at that time, more than one of which resulted in the wholesale closure of an airline,,, but,,, reduced capacity allowed higher ticket prices, thus holding up the professional bottom line for pilots (and other labor) for longer than it otherwise might have.

PCL is right in that regard: deregulation has been the biggest contributor to the demise of our pay and QOL, it's just taken a (relatively) long time for the effect to be realized.

Additionally, pilots have, by and large, become a casualty of their own successes or, rather, the successes of our predecessors. Our founding fathers post-deregulation obtained work rules, duty limits, minimum rest periods, hotel standards, etc, that made the next generation of pilots expect more without having to struggle to obtain those gains.

Then the management folk came in and, instead of managing the money for the long term, started raiding the kitty to take money and run (corporate raiders). The managers who came in AFTER the coffers were empty then came to the biggest single expense they had at the time, pilot labor (fuel wasn't nearly as high on the list at the time), and found a pilot group who didn't know what it was to have fought for those hard gains.

They took advantage, and it all snowballed downhill from there, as each subsequent generation of pilot complains loudly, but doesn't have the cajones to risk their career and airline to get what they want.

Indeed, ask any ex-Eastern pilot who struck, didn't return, and ended up without a job if they would do it again, or take the cuts and keep their job... I bet you'd get a lot who'd have given up the cuts to not have a career of uncertainty.

It's a lot to ask, but nothing good comes without risk. Pilots understand this, and would rather keep a halfway-good thing than risk starting over again or, possibly, having a GREAT career.

I never said it was a terrible job, I love my work, I just know an airline career will NEVER again be what it once was. Too many people not willing to make the hard sacrifices.

 

[BOOZENEWS]

Well, for one thing, deregulation. Deregulation began three decades of wage slashing and work rule destruction. Another thing is the rabidly anti-labor government that Bush has installed. The NMB is as anti-labor as it's ever been, and the courts are littered with far-right, anti-labor judges. These things have created an environment that has virtually destroyed our leverage. The damage can be minimized with a strong union, but the repairs can really only happen when we get a more labor-friendly government. Pilots refuse to accept this reality and instead blame the national Association for their troubles.

All of this is absolutely true. However, even with the anti labor administration, there are effective ways to put enormous pressure on management during negotiations. Refusing to fly more than your line plus flying very safely seem to do wonders. This is how UAL got what they wanted in 2000.


Even though we all like to think a strike is the ultimate weapon, remember that when we all fly safe that we are still getting paid 100%. In terms of bang for the buck I'd have to believe that all pilots flying very safe is best way, overall, to put pressure on mgmt since they still having to pay us the normal rate.

A strike can only accomplish one of these.

 

[PCL_128]

We haven't *always* been apathetic. PCL is painting a broader picture than was really applicable in the first decade post-deregulation.

In terms of participation, we have always been this apathetic. ALPA's records going back to the early days show that voting and meeting attendance participation has held at steady levels throughout ALPA's history. After the ALPA pioneers got things started, the very next generation of pilots got too comfortable and started taking things for granted. It's continued to the present day. Pilots get pissed off about pay and working conditions, but not enough to actually participate and do anything about it. They'd rather spend their days golfing and fishing rather than taking just one day to attend a meeting, or go to a rally in DC, or volunteer for a committee, etc...

 

[PCL_128]

All of this is absolutely true. However, even with the anti labor administration, there are effective ways to put enormous pressure on management during negotiations. Refusing to fly more than your line plus flying very safely seem to do wonders. This is how UAL got what they wanted in 2000.


Even though we all like to think a strike is the ultimate weapon, remember that when we all fly safe that we are still getting paid 100%. In terms of bang for the buck I'd have to believe that all pilots flying very safe is best way, overall, to put pressure on mgmt since they still having to pay us the normal rate.

A strike can only accomplish one of these.

All of that is true, but all of it is also illegal. Because of that, the union isn't able to officially advocate it. It has to start with grass roots movements. Again, this requires the involvement of the rank-and-file. The UAL pilots did it in 2000. The ASA pilots just did it last year. And none of it required leadership from the big wigs in Herndon. It all comes down to participation and involvement from the membership.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It most certainly does. The overwhelming majority of Pinnacle pilots desire to work for a major airline. They don't want to work at Pinnacle. They have to work at Pinnacle just to be able to move on to a career carrier at some point. With stronger scope at NWA, these pilots move on quicker to that job that they really want.ALPA doesn't push for looser scope restrictions at Pinnacle. PCL ALPA has no negotiations whatsoever with NWA over scope or anything else. The PCL MEC negotiates only with Pinnacle management.

....so the conflict of interest is with those pilots who choose to make a career out of their regional jobs....many of whom are/were the ones who brought ALPA onto these regional properties in the first place....Way to reward loyalty.....For those who want to make the regionals a career....there is a huge conflict of interest....

 

[JoeMerchant]

In terms of participation, we have always been this apathetic. ALPA's records going back to the early days show that voting and meeting attendance participation has held at steady levels throughout ALPA's history. After the ALPA pioneers got things started, the very next generation of pilots got too comfortable and started taking things for granted. It's continued to the present day. Pilots get pissed off about pay and working conditions, but not enough to actually participate and do anything about it. They'd rather spend their days golfing and fishing rather than taking just one day to attend a meeting, or go to a rally in DC, or volunteer for a committee, etc...

Yet according to you and Rez....this is the root of ALPA's problem....a problem that ALPA has always had....

 

[pilotyip]

Did wonders

The UAL pilots did it in 2000. The ASA pilots just did it last year. And none of it required leadership from the big wigs in Herndon. It all comes down to participation and involvement from the membership.

And all the UAL pilots are better off now than before the 2000 action, because the union made everything better.

 

[PCL_128]

....so the conflict of interest is with those pilots who choose to make a career out of their regional jobs....many of whom are/were the ones who brought ALPA onto these regional properties in the first place....Way to reward loyalty.....For those who want to make the regionals a career....there is a huge conflict of interest....

No there isn't. You have made a decision to stay at the regionals. That means that you've accepted the fact that you'll always be flying smaller airplanes. Nothing wrong with that. It's your choice. If you want to fly bigger planes, then you always have the choice of moving on to an airline that flies bigger planes. But there's no conflict of interest in any of this. The only conflict of interest would be if ALPA attempted to scope you out of flying that you're already doing. That isn't happening, so there's no conflict.