Contract Dispatching

[WalterSobchak]

SkyWest DX'ers is doing just fine and is a good place to work. I know, I spent 10 years there. Pay and conditions there are as good as or better than most union shops. Representation is neither needed or wanted. Tits on a bull!

I'm hearing otherwise, these days...sounds like things aren't quite as rosy as they once were in Mecca.

 

[Pull To Guns]

I'm hearing otherwise, these days...sounds like things aren't quite as rosy as they once were in Mecca.

Walt,
I have been away for awhile. I have heard the rumors. But I enjoyed my time there, mostly due to my my buds and co-workers. Good times while I was there. Cheers!

 

[aviator202]

It always amazes me how men and women who work for wages always jeer about unions....

Scope clauses aren't perfect....but they are infinitely better than nothing at all. Just ask anyone who formerly worked in IT support in the USA...most of those jobs are now overseas.

This is why you NEVER want to work at home in you skivvies. That work can then instantly go overseas ! Put on your pants and go in to work because you want the career geographically located in the USA.

And returning to unions...Yep, they haven't made any of us wealthy. That isn't the point in any case. If you didn't have unions at the regionals, dispatching would pay $11/hr or about 23K a year. If you didn't have unions at the legacys, dispatching would pay $22/hr or about 45K a year. Unions have greatly increased wages across the board as well as improving work rules.

And while managements MIGHT want to get rid of onsite dispatching, a great body of data has been showing ( for a long time, I might add ) that overseas outsourcing costs a lot more than it saves ( i.e. Boeing 787 ).

 

[Kohflot]

And while managements MIGHT want to get rid of onsite dispatching, a great body of data has been showing ( for a long time, I might add ) that overseas outsourcing costs a lot more than it saves ( i.e. Boeing 787 ).

It doesn't stop them from trying. I'd bet $5 Boeing's next plane will be built the same way as the 787. And final assembly will likely be in South Carolina or overseas, as they've managed to ever-so-gently disable their Washington state unions.

 

[aviator202]

Again, many, many working men and women constantly put down/demonize unions...I really don't understand why. This is the only organization/resource that can improve the life of the working man. Yet so many have a "management" viewpoint...why??? Management (to quote Dilbert )..."Management would kill you in your sleep and sell your organs if they were able".

Also, so many working folks have never had first hand experience with belonging to and contributing to a union...it seems all they know is what they read in the newspapers ( paper or online ).

As to newspapers, they all have a Business section...why not also a Labor section?....Many years ago, they used to have such a section.

Working for wages is honorable. Workers deserve a voice and a say in their working lives. For those who feel the world would be better off without unions, what is your solution? No theories please....A solution that has proven to work for workers over time.

 

[airbrush]

Having never worked a job where we had a union, I can't comment either way on that. It does seem to me that in these days of rising fuel costs and the public's expectation of low fares, that the unions have very little leverage in the effort to improve wages.
But back to the original issue, what is the timeline on this NPRM and what is the process after that? Is this something that Congress will be voting on in the near future, or a long-term wishlist of changes that could be years in the future? Does this represent an urgent threat to our profession, or one that we have time to organize a response?

 

[Kohflot]

There's a 60 day comment period, then there's likely nothing stopping the FAA from 'gettin r done'. Maybe sometime in the fall? This is the second time they've gone around on this one.. the unions commented, the ADF commented, it stinks, so there's not much new to say.

I imagine there's also pressure to wrap it up from some quarters, as it gives the politicians the ability to go home and say "we made flying safer" after the Colgan crash.

 

[airbrush]

Great...so now we can all be contracted out in the name of "enhancing safety". Not sure about the math on that one, but I'm sure some lobbyist can make it all look legit. Just like raisning the pilot retirement age to 65....drip, drip, drip, and one day it's law. I lost a lot of money on that one with my side business, and now they're coming after the rest. Is there a specific congressman we can write to? It seems weird that the same legsilation that is supposed to address the safety issues surrounding Colgan 3407 would include a provision that the traveling public might see as counterproductive...IF they knew about it, which of course they don't. It would be neat if some congressman looking to make some noise could be brought on board.

 

[S5Dispatch]

Lets all find our Senators and Congressional Reps and write them.
You can cut and paste the following email or write your own if you are interested in letting them know our position.

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Dear (Senator---/or Congressman ---)
​

• The NPRM Docket No. FAA-2008-067: Notice No. 08-07A is of enormous concern to me. It proposes to allow contract dispatching for part 121 air carriers. This would allow major airlines, like (*****) Airlines, to outsource Dispatcher jobs to flight planning mills like Jeppeson.

They tried this back in 2008, when the idea was defeated by safety advocates. Allowing the most safety critical aspects of operational control and flight planning to be outsourced to the lowest bidder would put America's public at risk.
Contract Dispatching would compromise safety, operational control, and mutual trust between the Captain and his/her FAR 121 Licensed Dispatcher and should never be allowed as an option with this NPRM.
I hope that you will urge the Congressional Aviation Sub-Committee to remove this language from the NPRM.
Aircraft Dispatchers work behind the scenes keeping you safe, monitoring weather conditions, tracking flights enroute, flight planning around turbulence and severe weather, while communicating with crews before, during and after their flights. The safety record we enjoy here in the U.S. has been attributed in part to the job Aircraft Dispatchers play every day in airline operations. In 1990 Avianca Flight 52 crashed at JFK, an accident attributed to their lack of Dispatcher operational control (Columbia and many foreign countries have no Dispatch operational control requirements). We have seen the safety consequences of allowing contract maintenance outside of the U.S., the consequences will be far more severe if contract dispatching is allowed.

Sincerely,


(Name)
Aircraft Dispatcher
(******) Airlines, City, State

​

(home address)​

 

[Kohflot]

It's Jeppesen.

And if you're curious to read their comments made back in 2009, look here:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2008-0677-0143.1

It's a PDF file.