Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

A Modest Proposal

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

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.
 
Sounds great in theory. Key would be getting the word out and having pilots who actually care about the rest. But an excellent suggestion. Now, one possible concern could be a kind of "black list" created by various airline management that tags the people who drop out of classes like this and hurts their future careers. Could this be a problem?
 
Skynation!

Just ask skynation-he is a total ALPA-hater, and I'm sure he only wants to raise the bar for everyone......

Oh, wait-I was just thinking of someone else-Skynation is a complete self-absobed azz who serves only himself....

I'll bet in the spirit of consistency, ol' Skynation would never apply to any bigger airline which has a union, now would he? Oh, no, no, can't have a union-better hope that Skywest holds out for another few decades... They treat him great! He's making 80K on reserve and the company even buys him hookers! Get back to me on how that's working out in a few years, there chief!

I do like the idea-but there are far too many self-serving b-words in aviation-they will still line up to work at pretty much any place that will hire them....

-As for Skynation-he can suck it dry-just go ahead and screw everyone else in aviation! What goes around comes around-champ! You will be eating your words in a few years....

-Hugs!
 
I agree, this is an intriguing idea. The biggest problem would be educating and convincing interviewees about the significance of the program. Most new guys are totally uninformed about union matters until they see how bad things are, and then it's too late.

We already have peer pressure, of a sort, against people who choose to work for bottomfeeders (you know who you are), but that doesn't stop the clueless and shortsighted from applying in significant numbers just for a quick upgrade. Maybe with a formal plan like this, it might have a little more impact. I've always believed that the biggest unused tool of unions is peer pressure.
 
A good idea in principal, but on the face of it, it appears to be an illegal job action. You would have to run it by ALPA Legal to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that this would not be acceptable under the RLA. The reason that the ASA pilots can get away with the "slowdown" is that it is not in any way endorsed by the Association. If an MEC were to actually call for an official "moratorium" on hiring, then the Association would be implicated in what would probably be considered an illegal self-help action.

It never hurts to take the idea to Legal to make sure, though.
 
The mgmt black lists mentioned earlier could be a problem new hires would not want to deal with down the road. We all know aviation mgmt moves from airline to airline, and you never know who you will run into down the road who you crossed paths with years earlier. Also, $500 may be a little much for not showing up. $100-150 would be sufficient enough for going out of my way to interview and turn down a job. Many union pilots, like myself, may be annoyed funds are going towards such a program even though the long term rseults will be beneficial. Heck, even pilots that already have a job they don't want to leave, could earn a few extra bucks interviewing with no intentions to accept. Could the union paying pilots not to show be construed as illegal in some way?

Even with my above criticism, this plan is the best I have heard yet. It could use a few tweaks, but has high potential for success. Convincing pilots not to come to X airline, may make mgmt realize they need to settle on contract negotiations. Informational rallies at interview sites would spread the word. It would take only a few pilots at each event to talk with each prospective candidate who did not get the word from online resources prior to interview date.

Downsides could be a situation like at PDT where we have a lack of crews and just start parking airplanes, reducing lines, leaving fewer choices in schedules. They upside is that mgmt would know as soon as a fair contract is agreed upon, pilots would act in the opposite manner and help recruit pilots to make QOL as great as possible. This would be a high incentive to mgmt. I applaud you for thinking this out so far. How long have you been thinking about this?
 
Last edited:
A good idea in principal, but on the face of it, it appears to be an illegal job action. You would have to run it by ALPA Legal to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that this would not be acceptable under the RLA. The reason that the ASA pilots can get away with the "slowdown" is that it is not in any way endorsed by the Association. If an MEC were to actually call for an official "moratorium" on hiring, then the Association would be implicated in what would probably be considered an illegal self-help action.

It never hurts to take the idea to Legal to make sure, though.

What if there was no official union stance including moratorium or incentive pay, but just a group of "pissed off pilots" that educated prospective interviewees about current company attitudes and goals? Could that be considered illegal since there is no official organization but a group of pilots coincidently standing around interview sites?
 
Sounds great in theory. Key would be getting the word out and having pilots who actually care about the rest. But an excellent suggestion. Now, one possible concern could be a kind of "black list" created by various airline management that tags the people who drop out of classes like this and hurts their future careers. Could this be a problem?

Pilots needn't care about others to make this work so long as they can be made to see it's not in their best interest to break a moratorium.

Excellent point about the blacklist. Wouldn't even need to be a formal blacklist, just a question on an application: "Have you ever interviewed with any other Part 121 carrier? When?" I'd personally risk it but many would not. That's perhaps okay as it's not essential to the plan - it'd be a nice touch, though, and a way for the pilots who do care to show solidarity.
 
I agree, this is an intriguing idea. The biggest problem would be educating and convincing interviewees about the significance of the program. Most new guys are totally uninformed about union matters until they see how bad things are, and then it's too late.

We already have peer pressure, of a sort, against people who choose to work for bottomfeeders (you know who you are), but that doesn't stop the clueless and shortsighted from applying in significant numbers just for a quick upgrade. Maybe with a formal plan like this, it might have a little more impact. I've always believed that the biggest unused tool of unions is peer pressure.

Good point about peer pressure. That's one of the things that saved the UA guys in '85: the sim instructors educated the potential scabs and convinced them that UA pilots would reward their loyalty if they refused to scab. Many of those pilots saw the light, and the UA pilots were true to their word. They were also true to their word to those who did scab. It was an excellent example of both positive and negative peer pressure.

Regarding those who go to bottomfeeders now, it's easy to do because you know that it's primarily pilots at other carriers who look down on you. Who cares if Eagle guys don't like you 'cause you took a job at Mesa, right? It's a whole different story when the disdain comes from people you have to work with everyday. Just like with a strikebreaker, that DOH is gonna follow you around.
 
A good idea in principal, but on the face of it, it appears to be an illegal job action. You would have to run it by ALPA Legal to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that this would not be acceptable under the RLA. The reason that the ASA pilots can get away with the "slowdown" is that it is not in any way endorsed by the Association. If an MEC were to actually call for an official "moratorium" on hiring, then the Association would be implicated in what would probably be considered an illegal self-help action.

It never hurts to take the idea to Legal to make sure, though.

Perhaps I was a bit quick to say it "couldn't" be considered an illegal work action. In this political environment, I'm sure there's a judge who'd be willing to side with management. I don't think it'd stand up under appeal, though, because there are some stark differences between this and existing examples of illegal work actions.

Let's assume that this IS officially sanctioned by the MEC and coordinated by ALPA, MEL'ed's comment notwithstanding. What are they essentially doing? Educating others as to what issues they are facing and urging them to make decisions accordingly. This is protected action right now in the form of informational picketing. The audience would simply be prospective pilots instead of the flying public. The union wouldn't be encouraging their own pilots to do a dang thing - heck, they could tell them to pick up all the open time they like as it won't make a difference (and will result in a nice Christmas surprise for mgmt :D). There are really only two things that the union would be doing:

First, asking for all professional pilots' help and request that they not hire on at XYZ Airlines and then educating them as to why it's in their best interest to do so, all of which is protected free speech rather than action. Speech wouldn't be protected action if it encouraged members to partake in illegal actions - but it's really encouraging non-members to, well, take no action.

Second, distributing a non-signing bonus to those who are hired but don't come to class. This is a lot dicier than the first action, but I'd still tend to think it's protected because it's still not intended to cause an illegal work action among current members. I'd consider it the equivalent of spending money to buy the signs for informational picketing. Maybe a better analogy is contributing money to the campaign of a politician who has the pull to help you out in negotiations. That's very protected action under the RLA. Here, we're just spreading the money a lot wider among a lot of people with the pull to help us out in negotiations.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and am not intimately familiar with case law surrounding illegal self help under the RLA. I think we do need someone at Legal to take a look at it. I'd be concerned about them looking at it in the proper context, though: this is a tool that could potentially help us out of our current situation a lot. Is there a reasonable probability we would prevail in a court over it? Lawyerly ass-covering has it's place but we're talking about some pretty huge positive consequences here if it works, not just negative consequences if it doesn't.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top