DashTrash400
It's a dog's life
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 449
It's become abundantly clear to most of us that the current system for negotiating better contracts is utterly broken. Management can drag out negotiations for years on end and continuously stonewall the union, secure in knowing they face no real threat of a strike. Some pilots blame incompetence or lack of resolve on the union's part; others blame pro-management bias at the NMB & the Administration; many, myself included, believe the RLA itself is badly antiquated and needs to be rewritten or abandoned.
The thing is, changing these problems are long-term projects that will take a political environment that does not exist and political clout that takes time to build (and may be impossible to build given pilots' political divisions on non-labor issues). In the meantime, we need to stop the bleeding and find innovative solutions that force management back to the table and bargain in good faith.
Pilots at ASA are currently demonstrating one possible tactic: CHAOS or "flying safe," basically a non-strike work action. The advantage is that such a campaign yields near-immediate results that send a strong message to management and can potentially hurt their bottom line. The disadvantage is that it can be construed as an illegal work action under the RLA; this can result in huge fines (AA '98), criminal charges against union leadership, and disciplinary action against participating members. Also, passengers get hurt in these campaigns, with potential long-term financial implications (UA '00). For these reasons pilots are hesitant to participate in such campaigns and they usually happen only after exceptional management abuse (5 years of stonewalling at ASA).
I would like to propose another tactic to consider: the hiring moratorium. This has been used at Cathay Pacific, admittedly with mixed results for reasons specific to CX. It is not a perfect solution for all situations: it will not work when work is scarce (post-9/11) or at carriers with low attrition/hiring (Horizon). However, in the current regional airline environment of growth, high attrition, and applicant scarcity, I believe it could be a very effective tool that harnesses and amplifies the effects of the free market. Here's how I envision it working.
When management has stopped negotiating in good faith and the NMB is refusing to release the parties from mediation, the MEC (ExCo, etc) would propose a hiring moratorium to be voted on by the membership. If a majority approves, the MEC proclaims that a voluntary hiring moratorium is in place, and requests that all professional pilots help their brothers and sisters by not attending newhire class at that airline after a certain date, and that those who attend class after that date will be considered hostile to the pilot group and treated as the equivalent of a strikebreaker. As an incentive, those who can prove being hired by the airline but did not attend their assigned class would be eligible for a "non-signing bonus" from a union fund.
The reason I think this could work is that it attacks the worst regionals at their current weakest point. Those most in need of contract improvements are also the ones that have the most attrition and have the fewest qualified applicants. They're already having trouble keeping enough pilots to fly their current routes, much less fuel any expansion; this tactic would quickly result in massive cancellations and a very direct impact on the bottom line. The longer management stonewalls, the worse it gets. It's very sustainable over the long term, because the existing pilot group continues to collect their paychecks and likely some handsome premium pay as well. A few pro-management pilots can't do anything to make it go away, short of convincing buddies to apply & attend class. The best part is that this couldn't be considered an illegal work action because the only real action being taken is by pilots not yet on the property!
The key to making this all work is successfully convincing new pilots not to come to class. I think this could work; after all, UA pilots convinced many already-hired scabs to not come to work in 1985, and that was for work at a desirable major when few others were hiring. The key would be getting the word out; flightinfo would be one avenue, as would be sending representatives to major flight schools and aviation colleges, picketing interview and class sites, and sending teams to FlightSafety to stage direct interventions. The few that finished class would find life on the line very difficult (assuming they had a pro-management check airman that signed them off IOE). I would think that the small payoff of being a junior reserve pilot at a shortstaffed bottomfeeder regional where everyone hates you while tons of other airlines are hiring would keep most pilots honoring the moratorium.
Incidentally, the value of the "non-signing" bonus isn't really to keep pilots away from the airline; after all, management would quickly outspend the union with signing bonuses. Rather, the idea is to induce everybody to apply and interview at the airline with no intention of ever attending class! Many of these would be current regional pilots who figure they could make a quick $500 while helping their fellow pilots out. Instead of finding and hiring 40 willing pilots to fill a class, the airline would have to interview and hire many times that amount, never knowing which ones actually intended to come to class and which ones were doing it for their non-signing bonus.
Like I said, this isn't a perfect solution that'd work at all times or at all airlines, but I think it's a tool that can be used at the places that need the most help right now. Now, since this is Flightinfo I'm probably going out on a limb by supposing we can have a productive conversation, but I'd like to hear your opinion of my plan. What are it's strengths and weaknesses? How could we make it better or deploy it more effectively? Can the current generation of upcoming pilots be taught that moratorium-breaking as as unacceptable as the current generation holds strikebreaking to be? I'm hoping we can get some good discussion going. If you think this is a tool your airline could use, I'd suggest you forward the thread to your MEC/ExCo for their consideration.
The thing is, changing these problems are long-term projects that will take a political environment that does not exist and political clout that takes time to build (and may be impossible to build given pilots' political divisions on non-labor issues). In the meantime, we need to stop the bleeding and find innovative solutions that force management back to the table and bargain in good faith.
Pilots at ASA are currently demonstrating one possible tactic: CHAOS or "flying safe," basically a non-strike work action. The advantage is that such a campaign yields near-immediate results that send a strong message to management and can potentially hurt their bottom line. The disadvantage is that it can be construed as an illegal work action under the RLA; this can result in huge fines (AA '98), criminal charges against union leadership, and disciplinary action against participating members. Also, passengers get hurt in these campaigns, with potential long-term financial implications (UA '00). For these reasons pilots are hesitant to participate in such campaigns and they usually happen only after exceptional management abuse (5 years of stonewalling at ASA).
I would like to propose another tactic to consider: the hiring moratorium. This has been used at Cathay Pacific, admittedly with mixed results for reasons specific to CX. It is not a perfect solution for all situations: it will not work when work is scarce (post-9/11) or at carriers with low attrition/hiring (Horizon). However, in the current regional airline environment of growth, high attrition, and applicant scarcity, I believe it could be a very effective tool that harnesses and amplifies the effects of the free market. Here's how I envision it working.
When management has stopped negotiating in good faith and the NMB is refusing to release the parties from mediation, the MEC (ExCo, etc) would propose a hiring moratorium to be voted on by the membership. If a majority approves, the MEC proclaims that a voluntary hiring moratorium is in place, and requests that all professional pilots help their brothers and sisters by not attending newhire class at that airline after a certain date, and that those who attend class after that date will be considered hostile to the pilot group and treated as the equivalent of a strikebreaker. As an incentive, those who can prove being hired by the airline but did not attend their assigned class would be eligible for a "non-signing bonus" from a union fund.
The reason I think this could work is that it attacks the worst regionals at their current weakest point. Those most in need of contract improvements are also the ones that have the most attrition and have the fewest qualified applicants. They're already having trouble keeping enough pilots to fly their current routes, much less fuel any expansion; this tactic would quickly result in massive cancellations and a very direct impact on the bottom line. The longer management stonewalls, the worse it gets. It's very sustainable over the long term, because the existing pilot group continues to collect their paychecks and likely some handsome premium pay as well. A few pro-management pilots can't do anything to make it go away, short of convincing buddies to apply & attend class. The best part is that this couldn't be considered an illegal work action because the only real action being taken is by pilots not yet on the property!
The key to making this all work is successfully convincing new pilots not to come to class. I think this could work; after all, UA pilots convinced many already-hired scabs to not come to work in 1985, and that was for work at a desirable major when few others were hiring. The key would be getting the word out; flightinfo would be one avenue, as would be sending representatives to major flight schools and aviation colleges, picketing interview and class sites, and sending teams to FlightSafety to stage direct interventions. The few that finished class would find life on the line very difficult (assuming they had a pro-management check airman that signed them off IOE). I would think that the small payoff of being a junior reserve pilot at a shortstaffed bottomfeeder regional where everyone hates you while tons of other airlines are hiring would keep most pilots honoring the moratorium.
Incidentally, the value of the "non-signing" bonus isn't really to keep pilots away from the airline; after all, management would quickly outspend the union with signing bonuses. Rather, the idea is to induce everybody to apply and interview at the airline with no intention of ever attending class! Many of these would be current regional pilots who figure they could make a quick $500 while helping their fellow pilots out. Instead of finding and hiring 40 willing pilots to fill a class, the airline would have to interview and hire many times that amount, never knowing which ones actually intended to come to class and which ones were doing it for their non-signing bonus.
Like I said, this isn't a perfect solution that'd work at all times or at all airlines, but I think it's a tool that can be used at the places that need the most help right now. Now, since this is Flightinfo I'm probably going out on a limb by supposing we can have a productive conversation, but I'd like to hear your opinion of my plan. What are it's strengths and weaknesses? How could we make it better or deploy it more effectively? Can the current generation of upcoming pilots be taught that moratorium-breaking as as unacceptable as the current generation holds strikebreaking to be? I'm hoping we can get some good discussion going. If you think this is a tool your airline could use, I'd suggest you forward the thread to your MEC/ExCo for their consideration.