Airlines and Unions

[Draginass]

In a large organization like a part 121 airline, there is no substitute for a seniority system. With the volumn of pilots performing the same job (and not under direct supervision) it would be impossible for management to distinguish between individual pilots. Most chief pilots know a few of their friends and old timers, but mostly couldn't place a face on a name if their life depended on it. Simply put, the pilot's supervisor may never even see or know them for a whole career. Usually the only ones they know are the few "problem children" . . . . . the 2% that cause 98% of the problems.

Any system other than seniority is not practical unless you are going to have a tremendous number of supervisors and have the organization split down military lines . . . . which is unnecessary and counterproductive.

It's obvious that Astra Guy has never worked for a large part 121 airline. If he did, he'd know that there's no practical substitute for seniority when you're trying to manage an 8000 pilot workforce................... and that there ARE unanounced monitors that ride along in the jumpseats .................. they're called check airman ................. and yes, they monitor safety, compliance, as well as offer suggestions for improved performance, if warranted.

 

[Astra Guy]

Draginass,

I did know of the check airmen and no I have never worked for an airline. My purpose for starting this thread was to get educated. Maybe some others have, as well.

I appreciate your input.

 

[enigma]

You seem to misunderstand my point about protecting pilots during lean times.

Up to this post, you hadn't really made any points about protecting pilots. You've written that seniority was bad, but I haven't seen you offer any solution to the problem.

I would not be motivated to whack pilots through some subjective method. I guess one of my points here is to not hire the optimum for peak times and then put a group on furlough during less good economic times.

Management dictates staffing levels. Unions try to negotiate minimum staffing levels, but we can't force the company to do anything. If they go below the minimum level, we can grieve it, but those grievences take years. Effectively, I say again, Management dictates staffing levels.

This would take more employee involvement in the decision making of running the company. If you are unionized then I would think the pilot group should press the union to pay furloughed pilots a base for whatever time they are offline. Get them to do something for the dues you are paying. If your dues won't cover it currently then dues should be increased to cover the costs.

We are a union, not a collective. We do try and help out the furloughees by paying for things like insurance, but there's no way that we could pay salaries. You sound like you think that all unionized pilots are making $200K a year. Well the dirty little secret is, we aren't.

As for the semi annual ride being a given what I meant there is that regardless of what side of the 91/121/135 fence you are on everyone has to pass those rides to be retained. Actually in my environment if we had someone who did not pass we would work with him/her to get up to speed, probably in a reasonable period of time. Day to day performance is ultimately the real deal. That can and should be evaluated as well, along the way.

As it should be. Day to day performance also counts in the airline world. A pilot with a good record will get more help than a trouble maker. On the checkride topic, I've taken my share of part91 checkrides and have never had one that was even half as tough as a typical 121 checkride. The FSI's of the world offer good training, but he who signs the checks, passes the checkride.

This "it's us vs them" mentality between management and employees and visa versa is really counter-productive and ultimately costly. I don't know...did you read that? I don't know how to fix that.

You don't know, yet you log on here and tell us that seniority is bad. You say that the "us vs them" mentality is counterproductive. OK, we agree on something. Now I have to ask why you imply that that attitude comes from the employees? Have you read any posts from General Lee? How about posts from: FDJ, FDJ2, Chase, Snoopy58, SWA/FO, CanyonBlue, JetBlue320, Skirt, etc.? Every one of those pilots is a cheerleader for their Company. I have been where you haven't, and I can tell you that pilots may fight with management like brothers fight, but we are mostly all proud team members.

I dare you to find ONE pilot who receives his first "welcome to the company" letter from an airline and doesn't call it the happiest day in his professional life. It's only after seeing CEO golden parachutes that pilots get the "us vs them" attitude.

But I do believe that companies that value more employee involvement have the best chance for steady growth albeit not pie in the sky type mentality. It all depends upon the corporate culture.

Man, we're just somehow on different frequencies. Are you blaming poor corporate culture for problems in companies, or are you blaming unions? I've already stated that I believe that culture comes from the top. I firmly believe that employees will respond to positive leadership. I strongly disagree that the union dictates "culture".

In our company everyone is encouraged to provide ideas on how to increase efficiency because we know that the more efficient we are as a company the more profitable we become and stability on the work side is enhanced. Most of the best ideas come from those working in the environment day in and day out.

Once again, you are pointing to management. It's not the union that decides to encourage all employees to provide ideas, IT'S MANAGEMENT. Sadly, most airline management doesn't want any pilot input. Ask most ex-Chief pilots, management doesn't even want to take input from them. They get tired of beating their head against a wall and return to line flying.

We have a difference of opinion of the value that the unions provide as well as the value of the seniority system being the end all savior for workers.

You don't really know what I think about the value of unions. You only know that I won't accept that unions are the problem and that I defend the seniority system.

I have admitted throughout our conversation that I don't know the 121 system but am interested in learning. My ignorance in your system is mirrored by yours in our system.

Sorry, but I have been in your world. You, self admittedly, have never trod in mine. I am not ignorant of your system. I may be ignorant of your specific company, but I do know "premier" corporate operators. I hope that you are one of those, but that doesn't make you an expert in labor relations.

At the end of the day this is all about keeping the safety bar high and reducing risks, both operationally and economically. We do, after all, share the same airspace.

I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next guy. I think that condescension during that discussion degenerates the point of the conversation to begin with.

Man you just keep piling it on. The condescention has come from your keyboard. You started a string about the worth of unions, although you appear to have ZERO experience with them, or airlines that have union contracts. Then you disparage pilots who happen to sit reserve, even though you later admit that you don't understand the system. I happen to sit reserve, I do so in a crashpad 1200 miles away from momma and the kids and my inbase presence is required by my company. If the company choses not to use me, they are in need of council. It's not the unions, my, or seniority's fault.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" comes to mind. The most important part of any exchange is what the receiver perceives one is saying. One thing for sure, the more viewpoints there are on a topic the better the result. If one is not willing to listen then they only have their mentality to go on and sometimes that is just not enough.

I wish you and your brethren good luck in your company and safe flying, always.

I can sympathize with your point about perception. That is exactly why I have take the time to quote you and respond to you paragraph by paragraph. Please know that I am not sitting here with flames going into my keyboard, I'm stitting here incredulous that you continue to attempt to have both sides of an issue.

regards,
enigma

 

[Publishers]

Enigma

Enigma always posts well thought out and well laid out posts.

He is also right that with size, things like seniority take over as much for just practicality as productivity.

On the other hand, it has always been in the union interest to establish the them versus us mentality. I do not think that the company looks at it that way nor is it productive for them to.

As I said earlier, in house unions tend to be successful because they stick to the issues of the company where often in an ALPA situation, you are expected to support someone else's problem.

 

[enigma]

Re: Enigma

Enigma always posts well thought out and well laid out posts.



As I said earlier, in house unions tend to be successful because they stick to the issues of the company where often in an ALPA situation, you are expected to support someone else's problem.

Thank you, I agree on the "someone elses problem" point. I don't support the PAC, etc. I have had members of my MEC tell me to my face that they can't acheive certain of our objectives because those objectives go against nationals goals.

Later,
enigma

 

[LAXSaabdude]

You guys crack me up! Actually I would terminate anyone for performing illegally. Below min approaches? Give me a break...automatic way to get put out the door. Navigating around tstms without radar? That's another way to get the boot!
Operating in icing conditions with inop anti/deice equipment? Ditto! 50 kt xwind, same result.

I don't know you and whether you are worth your salt or not. Conversely you surely don't know me and whether I am either. Your remarks are 180 out of the reality in my world,k for the record.

BTW thanks for assuming the worst and going on the attack...LOL

You are right, I don't really know you or how you run your operation, it sounds like you have a good ethic, but what about others? I am not assuming when I bring up the potential for abuse in a "merit" based system. I have been there, done that, won't do it again. The threat does exist, and I am not assuming it or making it up.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[Astra Guy]

Enigma,

Us vs them is not a one way street. I am sure that poor management has that mentality. If I led you to believe otherwise, then again I was wrong.

On pilot protection I thought there might be some ideas from your viewpoint on how to solve the problem.

I understand that mgt determines staffing levels. From my view I believe that employees should have more input, which maybe, just maybe, could be negotiated into contracts.

The solution to help furloughees doesn't seem to cut it. Your industry is the one most adversely affected by lean economic times vs other business aviation operators. It drives many out of the business altogether since they want more control and stability and understandably so. Again, I am simply trying to plant a seed of thought on how employees should have more control over this situation, IMHO.

FSI may have had that mentality in the past but not so much anymore. Training records are destroyed from year to year to avoid litigation. I haven't been on a 121 ride but our rides are ATP type rides every time in today's world.

I have read many of the posts from those you mention. They are positive representatives for their companies. And I am glad they are. The number of negative posts by others outnumber theirs by a wide margin. I have the utmost respect for everyone that points out the positives of their operation. Especially those like General Lee, who admit there are some problems and point out what they are doing to try to fix them. The CEO golden parachute thing is terrible. I can understand and empathize. The Legacy types have had this going on for a while, from my impression. Hopefully none of the LCCs will have such greedy types leading their companies.

It is true that corporate culture comes from the top. No doubt about it. What happens is when there is bad karma the employees get less focused on the paying customers and more focused on their internal problems. This can cause a spiral downward of their pax loyalty. In poorly managed companies there is little, if any, communication from the bottom to the top that is accepted.

I never claimed to be an expert in anything. I do know from personal experience in my own life and in our companies life how those unions have not furthered individuals' causes. I will admit that some of the unions in some airlines are more in touch with those they represent. And if the employees are happy with them then that is good. I have also known of unions who have not had their constituents best interests at heart. But they sure liked collecting those dues along the way. This whole mgt/employee relationship is extremely complex.

If you think I am out of line by asking questions and then posting my thoughts, then so be it.

As for having both sides of the issue I do believe both sides have a stake in the situation. Do I have to believe absolutely for one and against the other? Hardly.

I am sorry that you are going through this reserve thing and far away from home to boot. One of the reasons I didn't choose the same route was because I wasn't willing to start at the absolute bottom and live in a crashpad for years under the tiered system. But that was just me. Everyone makes their own choice and I wouldn't imply that yours is wrong for you.

We are all products of our environment, ecucation and personal life experiences. Mine have been different than yours. I believe that we should be able to respectfully disagree on some things and agree on others.

Hopefully someone besides myself has learned something from our conversation besides that "Astra Guy is a dumba$$."

 

[surplus1]

To Astra Guy - Part 1 of 2

Enigma,

Well, I understand your source for the title of Chief Pilot. Personally I don't care what my title is....it could be Joe Sheet the Ragman for all I care. As long as the title does not affect the authority/responsibility relationship and my compensation then I would be a happy camper. You are talking to a guy that while still in the service had goofy name tags made up for flight suits. One of which had wings, name, rank and "Just Average Pilot" included.

Astra Guy,

Well, I'm back. I had more or less decided that I'd said my piece but I've been listening from the side lines. You make some good points. While I do not agree with your anti-seniority stance, I've come to the conclusion that you actually believe what you espouse. Integrity is a very important quality to me and it motivates me to read again, in the effort to understand the writer. Right or wrong, I see you as an idealist (much like myself) but one who's lack of familiarity with the airline segment of the business allows the perfect view of how things ought to be, to become a less than perfect storm.

I'll risk disagreement from Enigma (who was very kind to me earlier) and agree that your title is not really germane to the debate, although I understand his "business card" quip.

In one of your earliest and indirect replies to something that I wrote re the military system of promotions, you responded with a stong defense of your experience in the service and disagreed with what I had said. As soon as I read your reply and recognized that you had been in Army aviation as a CWO, I understood. You were right. You hadn't experienced the politics, patronage, brown nosing, and etc., that is rampant in the military with relation to promotions above what we call "field grade" officers. You were a CWO, and therefore you didn't have to worry about those things, you could focus on doing a good job knowing that your efficiency reports would be based on your competence as aircraft operator and not your wife's most recent cocktail party, to which she "forgot" to invite General Snob's obnoxious partner.

You were fortunate enough to be in what is perhaps the best segement of military aviation (even if all those moving wings make your equipment dangerous ... pun intended). You see the rest of the world with the lenses that function in your world. While understandable, you are not getting a true picture. You don't have to deal with the Navy's "black shoe" vs "brown shoe" syndrome, there is no "Academy Ring" that you can wear, it doesn't matter whether you were assigned to fighters, or bombers, (you have neither), and chopper pilots are actually thought of as pilots. You aren't considered to be an "Officer and a Gentleman" (many with the rank are neither), you're just a "warrant" and as long as you do your primary job, there are no problems. Which university you once attended is irrelevant, as is your former fraternity affiliation.

Please don't take any of that as a personal slight. I don't mean it that way at all. In fact, I think the Army's method is superior to the other services in this respect. In the Air Force, and the Navy, the "jocks" are our young pilots that fly the fighters and fit the Tom Cruise image. The Air Boss, usually a Commander or Captain in the Navy is about as far as you get if you want to call yourself a pilot. It more or less equates to an Air Force wing commander, who seldom goes beyond the rank of Colonel. From a career perspective, who you are and how you climb the ladder is based on a much broader view of your skill set. Admirals don't fly airplanes for a living and neither do generals. It's a different ball game. Maybe you've done a stint in the hallowed halls of the Pentagon. If so, I think you know what I mean.

By the same token, your corporate world experience is substantialy removed from the world of airline flying. What you do in the airplane may be the same, but the environment in which you work is quite different, your "culture" as alien as the Vulcans or Klyngons (sp). I can see why that makes it hard for you to understand the need for a system like seniority.

Even as the leader of your group, you are dealing with a very small segment. How many airplanes to you have, one, two, three? How many pilots, ten? Compare that to managing and dealing with a group of one thousand or maybe 10,000. You may be able to evaluate the handful of people that you supervise on a personal basis. That isn't possible when the number is several thousand.

That brings us to who evaluates you? Who determines your merit and your ability to deliver the "performance" that you reference (as a pilot)? Is that person a pilot, or is it the bean counter that likes your department's cost numbers at the end of the year? Who decides if you did well on your check ride? Is it some retired military dude at Flight Safety who sees you as a "customer" more than a pilot? Aren't you the guy that decides if your Company uses his company for your training? Does he maybe, just maybe have a subjective interest in "keeping your business."

Again, I'm not questioning your personal abilities or those of your pilots, I accept unseen that both are outstanding. I'm just looking at your segment of the industry with a different color lense, and the color isn't Rose.

I know that safety is your prime concern, because you said it was and I believe you. I also know, from personal experience, that the positions you take (as expressed on this board) are not necessarily common in your segment of the industry. You may well run the ideal shop. So do many others. However, there are at least an equal number, who don't. There are "good" corporate flight departments, mediocre flight departments, and down right dangerous flight departments. When one of you makes a serious mistake, depending on who you happen to be carrying, it may make page two. When one of us makes a mistake, you can guarantee that it will be on the front page, and within an hour Fox News will know who to blame. The cause isn't news, the bame and if possible the cruicifixtion of the pilots is.

Just like you safety is our main concern, but I also know that the "exposure" of your very small company with airplanes that often don't fly as much in a year as one of ours flys in a month, has a very different set of problems to solve and a very small group for which to solve them. Our exposure to pilot pushing is not the same as yours. Without the protection of our union and our seniority system, it would become the proverbial bull in the china shop. Some airlines have outgrown that and do not ever have to worry about it. Others, particularly the smaller ones, still do. That is not the ideal world in which everyone wants to believe, it is the real world in which we labor from day to day.

You, as a good chief pilot, may have decided that you won't push your crews and that you do not want them to fly fatigued or sick. We, on the other side of the fence, are dealing with corporate structures that do not think there is a need for adequate rest and who believe that sick leave is a ruse to get paid for not working. That believe the FAR's are "too restrictive", that actively seek to extend the flight time and duty time limitations, that have no problem at all with enforcing the "legal to start, legal to finish" concept, even if it means the crew is on duty for 19 consecutive hours, and who, when faced with some annoying FAR, simple change the rules to Part 91 and press on. That lobby the Agency, for weaker rules at every opportunity, that have developed a system that allows them to escape punishment for violations by simply "reporting themselves", but burdens their airplane drivers with culpability, not only from internal sanction but potential loss of license because they "followed a mangement directive". That sue the union because the pilots write up too many discrepancies, none of which were bogus, and get a judge in a federal court, who knows nothing about flying, to issue an injunction prohibiting the pilot from doing what the FAA requires him to do. And all of that happens in the "good" operations. You can't even imagine what it's like in the also ran.

I appreciate your good intentions Astra, but I am also convinced that you just don't understand our segment of the industry. We do not just want our unions as a vehicle for miliking our companies for the last dollar. We NEED our unions, to protect us and the "innocent" people we carry. from the very people that you would like to give the power to determine our future's on the basis of an abstract idea that you call "merit". I'm sorry, but it just can't work in our system.

This relates to your idealistic views and allows you to see the problems that sometimes stem from seniority in a very different light than I do. This idealist is also a cynic. I see things as they are, not as they ought to be.

Please go to Part II

 

[wms]

I agree that the seniority system is not the best, but I don't know what we would replace it with. A national seniority list might help matters. It just isn't right that a 10,000 hour captain who gets furloughed and goes to another airline has to start over as an FO making poverty level wages.

It would be nice to lose a good job at a secure airline because you got displaced by a guy who worked at a poorly run airline and lost his job. Imagine getting furloughed at Southwest because USAir went out of business.

The seniority system is frustrating to work within, but it beats getting beat out by brown nosers. Maybe there are senior incompetents who slow movement, but at least you can look at the list and the rate of movement and see some light. This would not be the case other wise.

I would suggest unannounced monitors in the jump seat to do evaluations of crew coordination and complying with SOPs.

This happens routinely.

Frankly, most reserves are not "greedy and lazy." Reserve goes to junior pilots for a reason. We don't make much money because we don't get as much flying or perdiem. We don't have a regular schedule. I was working 14 hour days last week with only a minimal 9 hours off between. We get used and abused by schedulers within (and sometimes outside) the bounds of the contract. If you don't live at your base, you also have the added expense of paying for a crashpad or a hotel room from which to sit reserve.

Well said, reserve is a pathetic existence, that's why it's junior, not senior like some would say.

You guys crack me up! Actually I would terminate anyone for performing illegally.

You're obviously the boss and in touch with the people who work for you. At an airline it's different. the pres and even the CPs aren't in the trenches to see the way things are. The airline interacts with it's pilots vicariously through scheduling and flight control, and that is the problem. The union, like yourself, does not ask pilots to break the contract, do something wrong or even illegal but the company on occasion tries to coerce pilots to do all that. And when they do and you refuse, it's good to know you have an advocate.

 

[LAXSaabdude]

I surely wouldn't suggest that crews rat on each other. I would suggest unannounced monitors in the jump seat to do evaluations of crew coordination and complying with SOPs. This would not cause crews to distrust each other. It might help in keeping the performance level high. In most cases I would imagine the monitor/evaluator might be able to provide some tips during the debrief. It would not be a tool used to terminate anyone but ultimately keep the safety bar high.

As someone already stated, we do have line checks regularly. But as you stated, they are to evaluate adherence to SOP, not determine merit. If someone is not meeting standards, they will be retrained. If someone has consistent problems, they could possibly be terminated.

For the others, they are performing to standards. Now if everyone is performing to the same standards, how do you determine who is the best at doing the exact same job? In the cubicle world, people are trained to "think outside the box, get noticed, get promoted". At the airlines we are expected to do things the same way, every time. There is no reward for thinking outside the box or reinventing procedure. In fact, if someone constantly tries to reinvent the procedures they are at great risk of being terminated.

You still have not given any suggestions to what specific "merits" you would use as a criteria for promotion if seniority was done away with. Hours flown? Least days of work missed? Highest percentage of on-time departures/arrivals? I see almost unlimited potential for abuse in each of these areas. Give me a specific idea of what you are thinking and we'll discuss.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[surplus1]

To Astra Guy - Part 2 of 2

Shifting gears a little. You take issue with our compensation system and you've chosen to focus on "reserves". Previous responders have given you some ideas on how few airline pilots like to be "on reserve" so that they can get paid and do nothing (which is what your idea conveyed). As the previous writer told you, most airline pilots loathe "reserve", notwithstanding that you apparently known one feather merchant.

It is also true that some pilot groups have chosen different methods of compensation. For example, UPS pays all captains the same regardless of equipment. That's their (the pilots) choice and it works for them. At one time CAL did the same. Others have blended rates that group similar types of airplanes into a single category that pays the same. How to compensate is substantially different when you have one Astra, than it is when you operate 5 or six different types, each with a different function.

As you point out it is not unusual to find an "us vs them" attitude in the commercial airline business. I would argue that when that adversarial circumstance exists it is invariably the result of actions taken by management over many years. Pilots don't go into this business with a chip on their shoulder. On the contrary almost all of them begin with stars in their eyes and visions of the promised land. Most are former miliatary aviatiors who begin with an anti-union posture.

A few years in the trenches destroys that illusion and they wake up in the real world of broken contracts, bended rules, promises that aren't kept, obvious mismanagement of the company overall, exhorbitant pay for do nothing executives, furloughs resulting there from, and a culture that will ingnore or destroy any employee, in the interest of making more bucks. That's what causes the adversarial relationships, not the pilots.

Not too long ago my little company was on strike for 89 days. It's owners forced that strike to take place. They also wasted 700 million dollars of the shareholders money to save about 50 million that we wanted, streched over 5 years. Eventually they gave us a contract that I believe we would have accepted a day before the strike, just as we accepted it after 89 days of shutting down the airline. Why? Was it because we were unreasonable, or was it because their egos were bigger than the shareholders interests? How much "good will" do you think that management stance generated? How much loyalty should we feel to people that would do that. The answer is, regretably, NONE. We see them for what they are, a bunch of greedy self-serving SOB's, that don't care what happens to us.

Recently they requested that we give back what they said was $8 million dollars per annum, because our costs were not competitive. A week later, they themselves released information showing that our airline had the lowest costs among the top seven in its category. And then they put some icing on the cake, they voted themselves special pension benefits totaling $65 million dollars ... a million more than the concessions they asked us to make so that the company could save money. These are the people that you want to empower to determine our welfare on the basis of merit? I think you mean well, but you just don't know. You are living in a different world and your "scope" of understanding just isn't broad enough to comprehend the one that we live it.

Our union has its faults and is far from perfect, but without a union our lives and our workplace would become a disaster. Perhaps you don't know it, but the truth is that most of those safety rules that you read in your FAR book, came into existence due to the efforts of our union. They are there for our protection and the protection of the public because we wanted them there and our union got them there. They did not come from wisdom on the part of the government.

That we have achieved the right to be called "professionals" is thanks mainly to the efforts of our union. Otherwise we'd just be bus drivers.

Our ability to investigate accidents and determine the true probable cause, as opposed to the rubber stamp of pilot error, is not a gift from our government. It is the product of our fellow airmen and our union.

The advances in areomedicine as they are applied to the piloting profession are, once more, principally the result of the efforts of our union.

The ability to obtain due process and a fair hearing when we are accused of error, is the direct result of the efforts of our union.

If we have a few faults in our system of seniorty, which you allege and with which I disagree, they pale in the light of the benefits that our union has provided to this industry over three quarters of a century. Although you are not a member of our union, you benefit from our contributions every day that you fly, although you may not know it. We are not perfect Astra, but as someone said we are "way ahead of whom ever is in second place."

Like you, I'm not a novice or a spring chicken (by the way I'm not a x colonel either). I've been in the business longer than the 36 years you credited yourself. I've flown in the military, general aviation, the corporate world, and both freight an passenger airlines. I didn't read about the accomplishments of our union in a book somewhere, I've lived through most of it.

I wish you well and I respect your opinions, but I have a different perspective. As you yourself said, the best ideas come from those working in the industy day after day. Have you guessed who that might be? You got it ....... airline pilots, a band of brothers.

Fly Safe.

PS. My apologies for so many words. It's a by product of idealism.

 

[TonyC]

Reserve: Good or Bad?

I am sorry that you are going through this reserve thing and far away from home to boot. One of the reasons I didn't choose the same route was because I wasn't willing to start at the absolute bottom and live in a crashpad for years under the tiered system. But that was just me. Everyone makes their own choice and I wouldn't imply that yours is wrong for you.

I'm confused, Astra. First you condemn Reserve as a wasteful practice where ill-intentioned pilots gaming the system can get something for nothing. Then you cite the horrors and pitfalls of the Reserve system as a reason you overlooked the career path.

Which side of the mouth can we expect you to talk next?

I wonder if a management espousing the evils of Collective Bargaining has any influence over the "us versus them" mentality?

Although it can be argued that unions of years past certainly thrived by focusing on the evils of the employer, I can see a more mature approach being used in successful unions today. ALPA, for example, realizes the symbiotic relationship bewteen the Company and the pilots. The future of the pilots clearly rests on the viablity and success of the Company. Negotiations are simply a business matter, and pitting employee against employer simply doesn't serve to acheive the business goals of the Union, or the Employee. Now, I'm talking about the philosophy of ALPA as an organization. I'm sure you can point out individuals wearing ALPA pins that don't share the sentiment. I can also point to bad managers.

It is improper for you to base your judgment of a pilot union on what you have read about unions in the past. It's also not "business smart." If you stop trying to ride the fence and speak from both sides of every issue, if you really want to know what's best for your employees - - put on your honest hat and talk to them.

 

[Astra Guy]

Surplus1,

You have taken the time to write very detailed reasons for your union and seniority stand. I very much appreciate it. And I do respect your views. I admit I don't have the big picture but as a result of your post I have more than ever before.

Proudly, I say "I stand corrected!"

Fly Safely, as well!

 

[Timebuilder]

Originally posted by Mar
Timebuilder is obviously a man who takes in a tremendous amount of infomation but unfortunately he looses credibility when every post is colored with partisan politics.

I think if you look back, you will find that I wasn't the one who brought "partisan politics" into this discussion. I was answering the preposterous assertions that had been made regarding the President's involvement and his catering to the needs of "his friends." It is the poster to whom I was responding that had a problem with credibility. I hope I was able to explain my point adequately.

Originally posted by surplus1
I see you didn't get the point. It is not the "union" that ignores the regional pilots, it is other pilots who choose to call themselves major pilots and who believe that they have more "merit" that pilots who don't work for companies with large aircraft. People to things to other people. The union is an inanimate object and does only what the people that control it dictate. It's a perfect exmple of your touted "merit system" at work. Those with the power decide who has the "merit", and of course choose themselves and their friends.

I wasn't thinking of the union as some detached body being responsible. I was thinking exactly that it is the people who run and influence the union who are at fault. These "major" airline unions clearly circled the wagons instead of thinking ahead. By limiting their interest to the "major" pilot, they left their flank uncovered and are being decimated right now by loss of work to carriers and aircaft that they shunned. They had a clear opportunity to bring all of these smaller pilot groups into the big tent, where they could take part in the course being plotted by the competing companies and sub-companies.

Sure, I could be wrong about any number of points. That said, am I any less "correct" in my thinking than those who had constructed and prolonged the current system? The reason I used SAG as an example is because it is a well oiled machine that covers many thousands of actors. Like pilots, they start out on the lower rungs, and just like flight instructors, they endure hardship for what they really want to be doing later. Like pilots, they become qualified to join the union. They are chosen by producers based on their work and their audition. They can work for anyone who is a signed producer. With the airline union, you are locked into one carrier, and hope for the best.

Imagine if you were laid off by Delta, and you could work for another carrier. Imagine if all of the other things you do as a professional counted toward how you were regarded by the airline industry. Imagine if every professional level pilot had representation and a standard contract that all the carriers had to respect. Doesn't that have some appeal, compared to being furloughed or seeing increasing amounts of your airlines' work being flown by rj's?

I hope you're not trying to tell us that actors and actresses get their parts and chance at stardom based only on their talent? It's rather well known what most actors/actresses have to do before they get the chance to demonstrate their real talents, and it isn't membership in the SAG.

Sounds like being a flight instructor, to me at least.

When an American company, exports American technology to a foreign country and then outsources the work of Americans to foreginers, making a product that is not marketed to those foreigners, but is sold to Americans, that company is sacrificing the welfare of American workers in the name of greater profits. When an American company establishes a branch in a foreign country, so that it can exploit cheap labor in that country and avoid taxes on its profits, while selling to Americans and taking jobs from Americans, I think that's wrong.

Once again WE own those companies. The profit they make by that decision goes to US as investors. If we are not investors, then we miss out on the benefit. They key is to be taking part in the process. If Americans refuse to buy products that use outsourced labor, then the company loses the American market.

Producing overseas is almost hassle-free compared to producing here. We, as a country, have made it that way. Our plant managers are more concerned that the wrong employee spots a nudie calendar than the goods being produced because the calendar can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars being lost. In Taiwan, this isn't even close to being an issue.

In other words, we, in our seeking to make the workplace "better", have made it hostile to business.

I don't think that Bush is making these things happen, but I also know that he is doing nothing to prevent it from happening.

Seriously, under our system of governmnet, and our interest in selling our goods overseas, what could ANY president do???

Bush is dependent for his continued political success on the big money contributed by the very coporate moguls that are doing these things. Big business is his mentor, big business is his supporter, big business is his "friend". They take care of him and he takes care of them. It is not an evil plot, it is "just business" as you all say.

You can take out the name "Bush" and insert the name of ANY president. Every corporation donates to, and courts the attention of, BOTH of the major parties. Some court the independent parties, too, wishing to be seen as "evenhanded."

Business is the commerce hand ot the American People. It's US, not some evil enemy.

Shareholders, do not call the shots, and those that think they do are wanting for gray matter. Most of the stocks are in mutual funds, and it is no longer a secret how the people that run those funds manipulate and steal from the public.

The mutual fund problem has come to light and it is being fixed right now. As for lacking grey matter, you don't have to be a genius to figure out that we are talking about people here, and people have weaknesses and this has demonstrated a need for better oversight of the markets. It is still, without any doubt at all, the best system of its kind on the planet, and the place of choice to increase your portfolio value without the risk associated with the emerging markets.

In short, business does what it does because of the people who buy the shares. Some buy a lot, and some buy one block. Each and every one can go to the shareholders meeeting and elect boardmembers. Many choose not to do that, but once again, it is their choice. There is no better system yet found. If you have an improvement to suggest, there are many willing ears.

I just play on their roulette wheels, and just like in Vegas, the real owners of those wheels, seldom lose much.

That cynical view is not shared by many, myself included.

(regarding the oversight of energy) Boy, they really got you snookered. Tell you what, I think you'd be a good prospect for investing in a huge hen house, overseen by a fox.

My friend, you sound like a socialist. This isn't an adversarial relationship between energy and the consumer. It is a symbiotic one.

Energy is perhaps the most important single aspect of our world. Imagine executive leadership who did not understand the players, the investors, the impact on jobs and prices, the importance of exploration, the development of new energy ideas from the profits gained? Imagine an "environmentalist" president and cabinet. What would happen to energy prices? Where would your retirement money go? Would you still have a flying job, or would the typical millionaire be the only person who could afford to buy an airline ticket? How about auto production and sales? How about parts? How would other industries be affected who were not in and of themselves intesive energy users? Would they be backrupted in a crashing stock market?

In other words, you have to think of the Big Picture. We have the system we have because we are a free and creative country. We are constantly refining our oil and our approach to the free market. It's an ongoing process that is an interactive, symbiotic relationship of intersts. Energy powers the entire machine, both literally and figuratively.

I'm really going to enjoy this next part. Hang on!!

 

[Timebuilder]

Part two

My friend the fruitcake season is over. That rant is the biggest piece of so-called right wing crap that I've seen in a long time. "Hate Amerca first?" Where the he!! do you get the nerve to accuse fellow citizens that may disagree with your concepts of hating America? Where do you get this idea of "socialist reallocation of wealth?" Who told you that we who differ want our way of life deferred to the UN?

Who told me? How do I know? Oh, boy. I am SO glad you asked!!

First and foremost, these are the ideas of my old party, the democrats. They don't like a captialist America. They literally hate the idea. They want, just as I did when I was drinking the liberal cool-aid, to bring the UN to the forefront as the most important way to bypass the legislative system (other than activist judges) of America in order to push their agenda. It sounds very much like what you wrote. Big business: bad. Evil. A "roulette wheel." Exploiter of the weak. Oppressor of nations. A secret relationship that has the "rich" running everything.

These people, and I'll get to the names, want to see the sovereignty of the US deferred to the authority of the UN as the emerging "world government." These socialist people running the UN are not only their friends, but they are their models.

So, I don't accuse "fellow citizens" who "disagree" with me of hating America, I can see it in every word of the people who are the foremost proponents of liberal thought in America today.

Have you listened to Michael Moore? I'll bet you thought he was just a fringe figure, didn't you? Were you surprised seeing him welcomed onto the stump for a major democrat candidate? I wasn't. When I was a liberal dem, we LIVED for guys like Moore. He said everything we longed as democrats to say. All you have to do is to listen to the rhetoric of the candidates, Michael Moore, George Soros (the money behind "moveon.org") and the speeches all accross the globe from leading UN countries who characterize the US an an evil empire who deserved what it got on September 11th. That's the position of the left, and the aim of their work. None of that is made up, incorrect, or a right wing fantasy. If you doubt me, try to find an explanation of the Hillary Healthcare Plan, and tell me you don't get a real "1984" feeling as you discover how far reaching it would have been. Even some democrats were against it.

I was not lumping every dissenting voice together, as you characterized. What I am saying is that the leadership that many dissenting voices are identifying with are the same individuals who quite literally "hate America" in its current form, and want to change it into a socialist paradise. This paradise would follow their stated goals, to "eliminate the growing disparity between the rich and poor" to "ensure equality" (not equal opportunity here, but an equal result), which requires a redistribution of income via taxes. No one has ever taxed theselves into prosperity, my friend, and the failure of socialism when compared to the free enterprise system stands in testimony to this fact.

The misguided "we know what's best for you" philosophy of the right wing is perhaps the greatest danger that we face.

I capsulize the philosophy of the right, as you describe it (really the "middle" in American politics, but that's another discussion) as being "we as a country know what is right, and as we learn more about the constitution, the intent of the Founders, and the importance of the free enterprise system, we are coming to our senses."

The "we know what is best for you" stuff is the mother's milk of the left. It is the basis of every democrat policy. If you didn't fix breakfast for you student this morning, "we know what is best for you", a school breakfast program. Feeding your child is no longer your responsibility, it's the government's. That's just one example, and there are literally hundreds of others. Why make you read them all?

That sir is garbage, and if you don't know it you ought to. What skill sets do these people have, when the companies they manage lose billions and they continue to vote themselves extraordinary, bonuses, and perks. Those are the skillsets of a thief, not a good executive.

Actually, they sound more like the skills of a trial lawyer, as you characterize them. They chiefly support the democrats.

Here's how I explained it to a child recently. I'm not implying that you are one, so don't get your neck up. Runinng a company is like being a general in war. You don't always know what to expect, and you don't win every battle. You need to keep your officers on board just as much in bad times as in good times. Very often the bonuses are there for the purpose of retaining the talent you need for the next battle, or to simply help make the battle you are in less costly.

The skill sets they have include the management of costs, people, resources, and the relationships they have with other entities that are important to the survival of their business and the future prosperity of their business, their investors, and their employees.

Since bonuses are a part of every compensation package, you want to make sure your company's compensation results in the retention of valuable people who make important decisions. In this way, you get to continue to fight the war instead of being overrun by your competitors and "pillaged."

We do need a change. A return to the humble morality of the mainstream American, the worker that built this Republic, along with the visionary type of leader found among our forefathers. The current bunch of apirants for the highest office in our land, including the incumbent, don't seem to measure up. I hope I'm wrong.

I regard our incumbent president as being an extraordinarily moral man, who is not a skilled orator but still manages to communicate his vision of America to us, the goverened. His "friends" include many who also support democrats. As a moral man, I believe he will continue to strive to provide the best leadership he can for America. At this time, I see no other leader who could do a better job, or better reflect the intentions of the men who founded this nation.

And that is a very good thing, indeed.

 

[Astra Guy]

LAX,

My comment about thinking outside of the box has nothing to do with cockpit duties. SOPs and regimented performance is paramount to safe operations. Outside of the box thinking has nothing to do with personal rewards or brown nosing. What I was referring to or attempting to refer to was thinking outside of the box or status quo regarding the systems that are in place from a people management issue.

As Surplus1 so kindly put it I can't compare my personal department activities with a major airline's people management issue set. Believe me I have no dog in this race. I read alot and sometimes I read things on this board that lead me to believe there are problems in your industry. My whole thrust was simply to uncover some methods to help correct those problems.

If we could clone the best pilots in the world in each specific airplane and always put them in the front of the aircraft there would be fewer hurt or killed. SOPs, in lieu of that, help to bring the standards up to some level which results in increased safety.

I do have some ideas that could result in a merit system outside of the union run operations but they are moot. Those ideas wouldn't fit into the current system and that will obviously never change, atleast in my life time.

I do appreciate your and everyone else's input. I am more knowledgable and have more compassion for your plight.

Fly Safe!

 

[likeitis]

Astra, let me guess that your company's primary means of generating revenue isn't through your department. Airlines generate revenue through flying airplanes period. Do you think that there may be a completely different bias on the importance of keeping the airplanes flying. Because of this, airline managements have extreme pressure to meet completion goals. There are actually minimum completion goals that are req'd of airlines by the government.

Now I'm not saying pilot pushing in any terms is OK and because of this I'm extremely grateful each day for the Unions. ALPA aeromedical department is worth every penny of any ALPA members dues.

 

[Astra Guy]

LAX,

You asked me about conflicting ideas in my posts regarding reserve flying. I probably again, did not express myself well. Knowledge of atleast one person perpetuating his reserve duties led me to ask if this was doable in the scheme of things. The answer I got was yes. That is what I have a problem with, not with needing a reserve in the first place.

If you have people that are less than ambitious and are perfectly happy to live under the reserve umbrella perpetually then they are getting over, to a degree. I think that someone who is motivated to simply be on call and just take whatever flights come up for a career is strange and wrongful. It could prevent a normal flow through from being on reserve to holding a line. I guess one man's crap is another's sugar.

You may have a different view and if you do that is ok. Admittedly you know the ins and outs better than I. To me it just doesn't sit well.

 

[TonyC]

Is it possible PlaneHPN has graduated from High School?

 

[enigma]

Is it possible PlaneHPN has graduated from High School?

Now that was LOW!



enigma