Flying Blind: Deregulation reconsidered

[CopilotDoug]

Our only hope is for airline management to continue screwing up badly enough to get Congress, Senate, and the President to have to re-regulate the industry.

Two things. First, Reregulation doesn't guarantee a payraise. Job stability? Probably...but a pay raise? We provide and essential service, and we need to have cheap ticket prices to make sure everyone has access to air travel.

And two, as long as there are 15 carriers offering flights between between A and B, does the in-fighting and poor management really matter to Congress? A service is still being provided in their eyes. Remember, we're trying to place the interests of 54,000 pilots at the head of the line in a country of 300 million. There are bigger, more important demographics for politicians to be whoring themselves out to.

I think there's a chance for Government to get involved and provide oversight...but nothing like what regulation was.

 

[pilotyip]

Why is there such a blindness to reality?

 

[Lear70]

Two things. First, Reregulation doesn't guarantee a payraise. Job stability? Probably...but a pay raise? We provide and essential service, and we need to have cheap ticket prices to make sure everyone has access to air travel.

You haven't seen the recent GS payscales for government flying jobs lately, have you? Instructors are making upwards of 6 figures... WITH government benefits and retirement.

The downside? It would probably lock the incomes of the highest 10% of the seniority lists who are already making upwards of $150k or so. The 2nd downside? It would probably result in the loss of 20-30% of all airline jobs, primarily by increasing ticket prices so fewer would fly (which needs to happen anyway).

The upsides:

It would bring stability to the profession.
It would bring the regional wages WAY up, probably near double what they are now, for an equivalent GS payscale.
It would, arguably, drive out the junior RJ drivers as the downsizing (the most junior pilots get furloughed first, but are also recalled first).
It could possibly fix the retirement issue: if a government wage is mandated, quite possibly they would mandate an equivalent retirement fund or a heavily-matched 401(k).

And two, as long as there are 15 carriers offering flights between between A and B, does the in-fighting and poor management really matter to Congress?

Yes. Repeated airline bankruptcies cost the Federal Government and, by default, the American Taxpayer BILLIONS!! Trust me, they care about Federal Bailout funds these days...

A service is still being provided in their eyes. Remember, we're trying to place the interests of 54,000 pilots at the head of the line in a country of 300 million. There are bigger, more important demographics for politicians to be whoring themselves out to.

True, but those voting Americans are also watching the bailouts and corporate shielding going on and don't like it. The politicians have a lot to answer for these days...

I think there's a chance for Government to get involved and provide oversight...but nothing like what regulation was.

I think it will be worse... and better... Worse than it was under regulation, but 100% better than it is now. Certainly many of us (more than likely myself since I'm not currently 121 affiliated and likely won't be for another 18-24 months) will be hurt by it. But that's the cost to fix the problem.

NO fix is going to come without personal sacrifice. We can all suffer for the rest of our careers or a smaller percentage of us can suffer for the 5-7 years it takes to fix the system.

Conversely, what's YOUR fix for the system? I don't mind having a discussion, but if someone is going to point out the flaws in my argument, they need to have a counter-proposal or it's just defeatism.

 

[pilotyip]

Fine Proposal

The upsides:

It would bring stability to the profession.
It would bring the regional wages WAY up, probably near double what they are now, for an equivalent GS payscale.
It would, arguably, drive out the junior RJ drivers as the downsizing (the most junior pilots get furloughed first, but are also recalled first).
It could possibly fix the retirement issue: if a government wage is mandated, quite possibly they would mandate an equivalent retirement fund or a heavily-matched 401(k).
NO fix is going to come without personal sacrifice.

Nice touch of reality that recognizes the down side of the fix. That is all I wanted to see from the people who have the fixes. Most will not admit to the down side. Now who makes the sacrifice so others may benefit? And as someone else posted, is congress going to benefit 54,000 pilots to the detriment of 300,000,000 passengers?

 

[Flopgut]

www.pilotpensionnow.com

Nice touch of reality that recognizes the down side of the fix. That is all I wanted to see from the people who have the fixes. Most will not admit to the down side. Now who makes the sacrifice so others may benefit? And as someone else posted, is congress going to benefit 54,000 pilots to the detriment of 300,000,000 passengers?

We're past worrying about passengers and the total number of jobs. Enhancing regulation [re-reg] will not turn back the clock to a time of too few airline jobs to a point of any consequence. Airline travel has been turned into a commodity; Airports are teaming with customers and airplanes are packed full even in a remarkably bad economy. We need to bring about a change in how we are treated by the Railway Labor Act.

Pursuing a Railroad Retirement Board benefit would move pilots out of Social Security. Instead incomes of all RLA covered pilot employees would be taxed on a two tier level that goes up to 108k/yr. No employer get's to opt out of it! No pilot would end up competeing for a job based on this portion of retirement. Your base retirement monies would be removed from the competitive equation and would be held by a solvent third party. That portion of our retirement get's billed straight to the customer across the board.

That is no more than the RLA should provide for us. We have a standard of necessity to the country and economy that now surpasses what was detrermined sufficient to create the Act in the first place. However, because we're pilots (and this country/economy does not appreciate pilots) we'll have to leverage the argument for the RRB with being released from the RLA. With me up to this point? Because here is where it get's interesting. If we can get released from the RLA and our contracts actually expire, airline labor economics will change overnight. Every few months a pilot contract would be expiring. There aren't enough pilots to fill in the gaps in that scenario. We win.

 

[pilotyip]

A solution

That is no more than the RLA should provide for us. We have a standard of necessity to the country and economy that now surpasses what was detrermined sufficient to create the Act in the first place. However, because we're pilots (and this country/economy does not appreciate pilots) we'll have to leverage the argument for the RRB with being released from the RLA. With me up to this point? Because here is where it get's interesting. If we can get released from the RLA and our contracts actually expire, airline labor economics will change overnight. Every few months a pilot contract would be expiring. There aren't enough pilots to fill in the gaps in that scenario. We win.

Again this may be a solution, but if it makes you make more money, it adds cost to the airline. More costs=higher fares=fewer pax=fewer pilots. So for every upside, there is a downside. It will good for some, and not so good for some. Who determines who it will not be good for?

 

[Flopgut]

Again this may be a solution, but if it makes you make more money, it adds cost to the airline. More costs=higher fares=fewer pax=fewer pilots. So for every upside, there is a downside. It will good for some, and not so good for some. Who determines who it will not be good for?

Well, you can examine about 70 years of history on the RRB and compare it with what our reality is and I challenge you to find a downside. The monies are so close to what we already have with Social Security the change is incredibly small. If anything, this would level off sporadic changes the net effect would be a benefit for all.

Do the homework, it's a win/win for everybody.

 

[pilotyip]

How about a snap shot

Well, you can examine about 70 years of history on the RRB and compare it with what our reality is and I challenge you to find a downside. The monies are so close to what we already have with Social Security the change is incredibly small. If anything, this would level off sporadic changes the net effect would be a benefit for all.

Do the homework, it's a win/win for everybody.

Guess I don't understand the RRB, you you do a Reader's Digest of it?

 

[Flopgut]

Guess I don't understand the RRB, you you do a Reader's Digest of it?

www.pilotpensionnow.com

Will link you to the RRB. The RRB exists because rail was determined to be important to the economy and vulnerable as a entity. Oversight felt it was wrong that rail workers lost their retirement plans in the Great Depression while working under the special burden the RLA placed on them, so they got the RRB. Somehow, we as air transportation workers have been through no less than the same and oversight could care less.

Time this crap ends.

 

[pilotyip]

more info

www.pilotpensionnow.com

Will link you to the RRB.
Time this crap ends.

So this lets you out of the soc sec ponzi scheme? How does pay out compare to SSN? What about the rehiring rights? In the end the Rail Roads became gov't operations.