ASA Damage/Solution

[atrdriver]

If you had an asset used by contractor "A" which could be used by contractor "B" at a lower cost (and thus higher profit), what would you do as a company manager - particularly with the company owners (shareholders) scrutinizing daily how you manage the company for them? Its not personal, its just sound business decisions should they occur.

So tell me oh wise one, using your example, why hasn't Skywest transferred every one of it's 50 seat airplanes to us? We operate them cheaper than their pilots do, so there would be more profit for the company. After all, it's not personal, it's just business.

And regardless of what you think, there is nothing that anyone, including a court of law, could do if a ton of pilots all decided to quit within a short time frame. A sickout is not the same as quitting. I am not advocating it, just saying that it is not the same thing. There is no law saying that a person can't quit their job whenever they want. There is a law regulating job actions. If you quit, you no longer have a job, so by definition it is not a job action. Now go back to your cubbyhole in the GO.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

WOW! FireHoser. The most No Sh.......t for real post I have ever read on these boards!

 

[Firehoser]

<<And regardless of what you think, there is nothing that anyone, including a court of law, could do if a ton of pilots all decided to quit within a short time frame. >>.

Recent bumper sticker I saw: "The Supreme Court - Making it up as they go."

What constitutes a job action is what the courts think a job action is. If you have any doubt about this, see past decisions ruling that nude dancing for hire constitutes free "speech". See the history of the courts ruling on religion on government property: The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exericse thereof."

Pretty straightforward isn't it? Apparently the courts reason that its not Congress making the law -its them so its ok if THEY restrict the free exercise of religion even though that power is does not reside in the judicial branch per the Constitution. Logic, reason, the law, precedent, and the Constitution don't seem to matter anymore in today's courts.

See the classic "100% Safey Programs" conducted by pilots at many airlines during negotiations: The writing up of any excuse for a maintenance discrepancy. Courts in the past have ruled for the company after the company has shown that the frequency of write-ups far exceeded the norm - even in absence of any evidence the union sponsored or supported the action. Same goes for sickouts, same goes for mass resignations. You personally may not get nailed but our union sure will - you tend to forget that YOU are the union and if enough of YOUs engage in such action, the court sees it the same as if the union condoned and encouraged it. Actually, however I encourage any of you who participate in these job actions to mass resign - the average level of professionalism will increase in your absence and ASA will be a much more pleasant place to work at in the absence of malcontents for whom ANY salary and benefit level is not good enough. As one Captain asked me the other day when I was arguing about mgmt's failure to truly negotiate: "When is a contract good enough?" Answer; for the malcontents among us - never!

Speaking of 100% Safety programs and the refusal of crews to participate in cost savings initiatives, consider this. If the company is arguing they cannot afford to pay you the salary you want, increasing the operational costs to the company through these actions actually increases the validity of the company's claims. No doubt the Captains involved in these types of actions intend to "show the company they mean business". All you end up showing the company is your lack of professionalism and your stupidity via a lack of logical thinking prowess, making management even less inclined to meet you halfway.

If you really wanted to gain leverage in negotiations, you would do everything you could to increase the profitability of the company. The more profitable the company is, the less valid is their argument they can't meet your demands.

While we are on this subject, to illustrate the schizophrenia of some pilots, they argue that the company is more than profitable enough to afford their demands and then they engage in job actions that reduce the profitability of the company. In the process they validate the company's claims and undermine their own argument - go figure.

 

[Firehoser]

<<A valiant try, and right on cue. But if I fall for that I'm as stupid as you.>>

A wonderful statement of the value you put on taking repsonsibilty for your actions.

Like so many interest groups today say "Its not my responsibility - its the government's!" Translation: No matter what choices I make, no matter what actions I take, no matter what the consequences, its not MY fault - its YOUR fault and your responsibility to fork over any resources I demand in compensation.

As I type this I can hear my children interacting with my wife: My five year old son: "I didn't do that - SHE did it!" My 6 year old daughter: "No I didn't - its not MY fault!" My wife: "One of you spilled catsup on the carpet - one of you must take responsibility for your actions - WHO WAS IT?" Children: "Its not my fault - I didn't put the catsup bottle on the bed -punish him!" "Na-uh! I didn't leave the top uncapped - its YOUR fault!" Klamath's rant is just a chronologically older version of the mentality of my children at this age.

It's why among professionals, we will never be considered a professional until we take responsibility for our choices and our actions. And until we do so, we will never deserve professional level pay and benefits.

 

[Firehoser]

<<So tell me oh wise one, using your example, why hasn't Skywest transferred every one of it's 50 seat airplanes to us? We operate them cheaper than their pilots do, so there would be more profit for the company. >>

The contract hasn't been signed yet - there is still "hope" for a competitive pay rate if that is really what the company is looking for. I wouldn't doubt that the company might hold a hard line on 70 seat pay precisely for that reason. If they do and the 70s go to Skywest and we get a lot of their 50s, the company will have played us like a violin.

 

[601Pilot]

<<And regardless of what you think, there is nothing that anyone, including a court of law, could do if a ton of pilots all decided to quit within a short time frame. >>.

Speaking of 100% Safety programs and the refusal of crews to participate in cost savings initiatives, consider this. If the company is arguing they cannot afford to pay you the salary you want, increasing the operational costs to the company through these actions actually increases the validity of the company's claims. No doubt the Captains involved in these types of actions intend to "show the company they mean business". All you end up showing the company is your lack of professionalism and your stupidity via a lack of logical thinking prowess, making management even less inclined to meet you halfway.

If you really wanted to gain leverage in negotiations, you would do everything you could to increase the profitability of the company. The more profitable the company is, the less valid is their argument they can't meet your demands.

While we are on this subject, to illustrate the schizophrenia of some pilots, they argue that the company is more than profitable enough to afford their demands and then they engage in job actions that reduce the profitability of the company. In the process they validate the company's claims and undermine their own argument - go figure.

We do it because it makes us feel better, regardlesss of the consequences. With this new change in attitude on the line, I doubt we will see much of a profit from the ASA side anywhere in the new future. Just look at the performance numbers the last few weeks; what do you think?