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

Anti union pilots.....I don't get it.

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
Either get a national list- or get out of the way and become a guild/PAC- and let every professional here go whatever direction they want.

Just added Shrugged to my wish list...

The national Sen list. is fine... but there are plenty of implementation problems and cooperation from management that will be costly...

How do we intend to address these issues?
 
pilots also

Just added Shrugged to my wish list...

The national Sen list. is fine... but there are plenty of implementation problems and cooperation from management that will be costly...

How do we intend to address these issues?
And there would not be any problems with senior pilots at an airline who found themselves junior on the national list, and upgrade positions at their airline would be filled from the national list and not the company list?
 
I guess no one here understands that managements job is to be able to make the company turn a profit. No profit, no company, no job for the pilot (or anyone else for that matter).
That right there is a HUGE portion of the problem, Art. The focus has gone from Quality to Quantity (of money, for the shareholders.) It's all a numbers game. If you can't return a 20% year over year profit for the shareholder, your company is a failure. That philosophy is contributing to the downfall of the industry (and US Economy) in terms of quality.
 
I am a Share holder

That right there is a HUGE portion of the problem, Art. The focus has gone from Quality to Quantity (of money, for the shareholders.) It's all a numbers game. If you can't return a 20% year over year profit for the shareholder, your company is a failure. That philosophy is contributing to the downfall of the industry (and US Economy) in terms of quality.
I am a sharholder in about 5,000 companies as far as I can guess. My funds managers buy and sell for me, it is an important part of my retirement since all of my airlines have gone out of business and I have no pension. 20% please, the airlines are happy with 2% or 3% on gross revenue. BTW in the end the consumer determines what an airline's profits will be, quality does not sell, cheap seats do.
 
Last edited:
I am a sharholder in about 5,000 companies as far as I can guess. My funds managers buy and sell for me, it is an important part of my retirement since all of my airlines have gone out of business and I have no pension. 20% please, the airlines are happy with 2% or 3% on gross revenue.
It's not an easy position to take, but I'd take long term stability with a company over Dot Com Booms followed by Dot Com Busts.

BTW in the end the consumer determines what an airline's profits will be, quality does not sell, cheap seats do.
But what is the real cost? On the whole, the airline sector makes a small portion of the pie. On the Macrolevel, it's the consumer that ultimately pays for their own greed in the form of lower wages.
 
Adam Smith rules

It's not an easy position to take, but I'd take long term stability with a company over Dot Com Booms followed by Dot Com Busts.

But what is the real cost? On the whole, the airline sector makes a small portion of the pie. On the Macrolevel, it's the consumer that ultimately pays for their own greed in the form of lower wages.
Written over 200 yrs ago, still applies today. Rule #1 everyone will look out for thier onw best interest in any economic exchange.
 
You're starting with a false premise. For some reason, you assume that the employees getting a fair share means that the companies won't be able to be profitable. That's patently absurd. Neither ALPA, nor any other union for that matter, wants to see the companies fail. ALPA's goal is to receive a fair share of the pie. Instead, management runs the business by the motto "the more we let you have, the less that I can keep for me." It's an issue of greed. Management refuses to allow the "little people" to have anything, because that means that there will be less for them and the shareholders. If it were up to management, every employee outside of management would make minimum wage and receive no benefits. Unions are there to provide balance and to make sure that that can't happen.

I'm not sure what you're point is here.

You're starting from a false premise as well: that you as an employee are entitled to a share of the pie. Why should you be? You've been compensated for your labors in the creation of "the pie." Why do you also think that you're entitled to a piece of it?
 
You're starting from a false premise as well: that you as an employee are entitled to a share of the pie. Why should you be? You've been compensated for your labors in the creation of "the pie." Why do you also think that you're entitled to a piece of it?
I created the pie. The pie doesn't exist without my labor.
 
more than one to bake a pie

I created the pie. The pie doesn't exist without my labor.
So what role does management have in pie making, the pan? the ingredients?, the oven?, the serving spoons. Your labour would be unneeded and unproductive without the rest of the ingredients. BTW how about the ALPA brothers doing it to each other in the proposed NWA/DAL merger, NWA pilots in DTW sounded mighty unhappy about being stapled at 1 to 4 ratio by the follow ALPA DAL buddies.
 
Last edited:
yip, I've never suggested that management didn't deserve their share of the pie. But management continually tries to steal my piece before I can even take a bite.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top