AA toxic culture

[HalinTexas]

Thank God somebody finally went to that link!! Keep looking at it please. It's not super sexy, but it sure as hell has teeth. Could be a game changer. Please keep up the feedback.

Can't say that i'm all that excited about it or that it's something I'm interested in for my life. Possibly could be used for reforming SS altogether, but I'd like to have the option to go it alone. The biggest problem with SS is that it only invest in very secure, and low yield, securities, and relies on growth in the labor force in numbers and/or income. Neither is happening much right now, but it's not as bad as Europe. China will have it's reckoning in the not too distant future.

 

[Flopgut]

Can't say that i'm all that excited about it or that it's something I'm interested in for my life. Possibly could be used for reforming SS altogether, but I'd like to have the option to go it alone. The biggest problem with SS is that it only invest in very secure, and low yield, securities, and relies on growth in the labor force in numbers and/or income. Neither is happening much right now, but it's not as bad as Europe. China will have it's reckoning in the not too distant future.

Ok, that's kind of all over the place.

I'd like to "go it alone" as well. Fun to talk about, but meanwhile the govt is using our broken relationship with the RLA to turn us into the maritine industry. This is real; it already exists and we have a very real right to assert the position that we be included.

Bear in mind, this has not effect on a 401k, an A or B plan, or any other savings vehicle.

 

[HalinTexas]

I don't understand how it's "all over the place."

If hadn't started raiding my retirement last year, and little more lately, I'd be back where I was in '08, and I haven't contributed a dime since then. My point is that I don't know if I want to be included. I'd rather have the choice of where to invest MY money.

I don't believe the airline industry should be covered or restricted by the RLA. It's a non-sequitor. It was designed to protect the overall economy from labor strife, and I don't think we have to worry about that from the airlines. Probably not the railroads either, since we have better road to drive on since then.

The other vehicles you mention would most likely cease to exist as the increase in taxes and the lack of company matching would make them less attractive to the worker. The average worker now believes that SS will take care of them, and this is a slicked up version of SS.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't understand how it's "all over the place."

If hadn't started raiding my retirement last year, and little more lately, I'd be back where I was in '08, and I haven't contributed a dime since then. My point is that I don't know if I want to be included. I'd rather have the choice of where to invest MY money.

I don't believe the airline industry should be covered or restricted by the RLA. It's a non-sequitor. It was designed to protect the overall economy from labor strife, and I don't think we have to worry about that from the airlines. Probably not the railroads either, since we have better road to drive on since then.

The other vehicles you mention would most likely cease to exist as the increase in taxes and the lack of company matching would make them less attractive to the worker. The average worker now believes that SS will take care of them, and this is a slicked up version of SS.

You push people on here for answers, but you are having trouble understanding them when you read them.

Of course we should not be covered by the RLA. But we damn sure are!! It's killing the profession. The nearest answer we have to fix this is to leverage the arguement that we either get RRB, or this industry be removed from the RLA.

I couldn't understand from your post if you are retired or not. So I don't know if you are paying or collecting SS. Yeah, it would be great to decide where to put our own money. But that's much further from reality than pressing for a proper realtionship with the RLA. The RRB is a real thing. It predates SS [around a very long time]. Your assumption that 401k and other retirement vehicles cease to exist is not realistic. At all. That is very much not the case with actual railworkers who have had this thing for generations. Talk to a rail labor leader and they will not believe what we put up with care of the RLA. The RLA is meant to be a burden that includes certain benefits. Unfortunately, the airline business is completely excluded from the benefits.

 

[HA25]

I don't understand how it's "all over the place."

If hadn't started raiding my retirement last year, and little more lately, I'd be back where I was in '08, and I haven't contributed a dime since then. My point is that I don't know if I want to be included. I'd rather have the choice of where to invest MY money.

I don't believe the airline industry should be covered or restricted by the RLA. It's a non-sequitor. It was designed to protect the overall economy from labor strife, and I don't think we have to worry about that from the airlines. Probably not the railroads either, since we have better road to drive on since then.

The other vehicles you mention would most likely cease to exist as the increase in taxes and the lack of company matching would make them less attractive to the worker. The average worker now believes that SS will take care of them, and this is a slicked up version of SS.

something tells me you like to ask the questions, but you don't like to hear the answers..... peace man.

 

[livin'thesim]

Either there will be a new crop of pilots who will overthrow this insane seniority system and seniority-based pay; or there will have to be a total collapse of the US airline industry.

Any other way, and US pilots will continue to be some of the world's worst-paid pilots.

FD-

I have switched to the term longevity-based pay (I used to say sen.-based as well) because it is more descriptive. In a topped-out airline (USAir, I imagine???), the most junior CA made the same as the most senior. Because they had the same longevity.

Same with a brand-new airline. Everyone on the same rate, regardless of position on the list.

Again, eliminating the ability for new airlines to pay-undercut mature ones would help keep existing jobs more stable.

A new airline could always offer a lower TOTAL rate, but then the pilots would see that higher pay was not in the future there and decline to work there.

So an 4th-year LCC FO would still make less than a 4th-year legacy FO, BUT, but, but----

That pilot could jump ship to the higher pay of a legacy without as much sacrifice.


But the real magic would occur nearer the top of the seniority lists.

The 10-year CA at the LCC could afford to leave, and instead of knuckling under to management and getting scared into concessions, he can afford to bail.

This means that LCC pilots, even the high-longevity ones have increased bargaining power - and management would KNOW IT.

Hence, this is a way to achieve LCC pay rates that get closer to legacy (not all the way, but closer), and WITHOUT having to enforce top-down edicts by forcing a uniform pay rate either across many MECs or by legislation.

The process would be organic and more like a grass-roots effort.


Eliminating STEEPLY-SCALED longevity pay gives junior pilots a livable wage, and gives senior pilots an exit strategy.

And it moves a pilot's earning power up to the front of his career.

A dollar today is worth two dollars ten years from now.

Imagine paying off your mortgage sooner, or funding up your savings or 401K and letting it grow for more years.

Or having a huge cash cushion in the event of furlough. Or a school fund if you lost your medical.

Unionization is not the problem.

Seniority is not the problem.

Steep longevity pay scales are the problem.

 

[livin'thesim]

you can say I'm set in my ways!! Been around a long time, seen enough over the years to form my own opinion! Just expressing my opinion, that's still allowed isn't it?!?!

Yep. And I am allowed to refrain from expending energy arguing with someone who is not listening to what I am saying.

 

[HA25]

Steep longevity pay scales are the problem.

A truer statement on a pilot forum has not been made.

I mean really... how is a captain at the same airline worth more just because he got there first? I can see bidding a better schedule, but are you a better pilot? or taking on any more responsibility?

 

[livin'thesim]

you're wrong..

first off, if EVERYONE payed that scale, then how is anyone going to be at any competitive disadvantage?

Well because not all contracts have the same provisions.

One airline may pay more, but another has a higher min guarantee.
One airline may have an entirely different business model.
Trip protection may be different among different contracts.
Some contracts may have differering trip or duty reg provisions.

Now, if all contracts were identical, THOSE issues would be solved BUT ----

What if that one-size-fits-all contract causes pilots at one airline to have a horrible QOL because the contract and its provisions interface poorly with the route structure and type of flying?

What if the contracts work great when you have 300 pilots, but don't work for 3,000? Or the opposite.

It is critical to a properly functioning economy that businesses and labor groups have a certain amount of flexibility. Mandated pay rates will probably cause a loss of many pilot jobs.


YOU MAY BE RIGHT that this would work - but there is no way such a solution would ever be implemented because everyone has to be on the same page at all affected carriers.

Elimination of steep longevity scales can start to work its effect even if only a few pilot groups adopt it.

Besides, with industry-mandatory scales, that means that small airlines in less economically affluent areas would be priced out of existence, and airlines in expensive cities would be paying pilots a wage that was not commensurate with the higher living costs in those domiciles.

One-size-fits-all can have a certain appeal, but the reality is that it will be hard to implement, and there are lots of unintended consequences.

 

[HA25]

like we have discussed above... it's not black and white... there has to be some one-size-fits-all intermixed with reasonable adjustments for those issues.... but the idea that a 747 captain can make from 260/hr to 84/hr flying cargo depending on who he works for and how long he's been there is ludicrous.