I can't understand the low pay

[metrodriver]

txcap, I think you live in another world. Unions are not only for setting pay standards. They also offer employees protection against employers. Yes, the unions came up with the seniority idea. And I think it's a fair one. I interviewed with a carrier 2 years ago that had furloughed everybody when they went form 15 planes to 5 and immediately recalled the ones they liked (read: the ones that did not complain about low wages, 20+hr duty days and if the captain had a hot date waiting the day could be quite a lot longer, no lavatories on the planes, no food or drinks for the entire day). Of course there was no union.
A lot of pilots and flight attendants have been spared from being fired because of botched drug tests because they had a union behind them.
Alpa for years had their sights mostly on the major carriers with high salaries (that brings most money in the bank for Alpa), and small carriers or the ones with low pay could not join. Those had to go somewhere else like a railroad union or the teamsters in a few cases. Now the regional carriers are slowly being welcomed by alpa.
If there is a problem between a pilot and management the pilot is very easy to replace, until there is a union. And yes txcap, maybe someday in the future you might need that protection. Hopefully you will think back on that message you wrote above and say that was the stupidest thing you ever wrote on this board.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Wifeofapilot
This is how I see your question:


You walk into a hospital, and ask a surgeon why they are not able to prevent some patients from dying. After all, you reason, a bunch of intelligent, educated surgeons surely must be able to prevent such a tragedy.

Well ma'am he says, some diseases and injuries are too severe for medical science to overcome.

(In a huff): Well! With an attitude like that, no wonder your survival rate is in the toilet!


Lets look at it logically:

Exhibit #1) You concede that pilots are highly skilled and educated

Exhibit #2) You acknowledge that pilots would like to earn more than they do at the regional FO level

Exhibit #3) You say that you do not understand why this cannot change

It stands to reason we have thought of this long before you brought it up.

#3 is the key here - You are the one who is not aware of the real supply and demand forces. Blaming the pilots' "poor attitudes" is getting us nowhere.


Repeat after me:
Supply and demand=price
Supply and demand=price
Supply and demand=price
Supply and demand=price

YOU don't like it. I do not like it.
I also don't like it that people are sometimes liars and creeps.
It ain't going to stop it, though.

Since you think it is so easy, why don't you just write up a little instruction sheet on how to fix it.

We will then cite multiple examples where that strategy has been tried and failed. It's all been done. If you are not able to give a workable solution, then how do you justify criticizing the position of others.

Sorry this is harsh, but your post really rubbed me the wrong way.

Best of luck to your furloughed husband.

 

[bobbysamd]

Recommended listening

Wifeofpilot, the long and short of your discussion is how pilot wages are undercut by those pilots who will work for low pay. Accordingly, I suggest that you listen to Part 4 of NPR's series on Wal-Mart. Scroll down the page until you find the link. The piece turns on how Wal-Mart wages have undercut pay for similar jobs in that industry. I submit that aviation is similar.

Also, although I'm not all that familiar with the new Mesa contract, and in no way do I intend to slam Mesa pilots, who, I know, have endured and continue to endure plenty of BS, that contract appears to have the same effect. I repeat that I am not slamming Mesa pilots. I worked for that company briefly ten years ago and I understand their company situation completely.

 

[CFI'er]

Low pilot pay starts at the CFI level. Until the current CFI's demand more pay scale increases, we will always have lower living standards. This is where the low pay starts. CFI's need to band together and demand more. Unfortunately in this day and age, there are those that "give it away" just for the log hours. You know who the "whores are". Supply and demand dictates the low wages.

How about starting at the flight school level and have an investigation into why the school charges $30 for dual flight hours but they pay the CFI for only $12-$15 for dual hoursl. I say bull crap to this practice. Some have said the difference paid for dual is for administrative costs, but this is not true. Look at what they charge for aircraft rental solo and what they charge for dual. The cost for the aircraft rental is the same, only the dual cost is high. It is just a form of hidden profits.

 

[Whirlwind]

How about starting at the flight school level and have an investigation into why the school charges $30 for dual flight hours but they pay the CFI for only $12-$15 for dual hoursl. I say bull crap to this practice. Some have said the difference paid for dual is for administrative costs, but this is not true. Look at what they charge for aircraft rental solo and what they charge for dual. The cost for the aircraft rental is the same, only the dual cost is high. It is just a form of hidden profits.

Actually, I'll have to interject here...

First, lets clear up one thing... "Profit" is not a dirty word, it is the flight schools job to make as much of it as possible.

Ok, with that out of the way...

There are costs to having an employee beyond what you pay them. If the student pays with a credit card, you have to give the bank something. You have to provide facilities for the CFIs and students. You have to cover administrative costs of having those employees. The aircraft pay for themselves and the CFIs pay for themselves.

You might be able to pay the CFI $20/hr if you're taking in $30/hr or maybe $35/hr, but that's about it. Most employees will cost a business about 20% more than their base pay, some a bit more and some a bit less.

If you pay the CFI $20/hr, then they probably will cost you about $24/hr. If you charge the student $30-35/hr, then you can make between $6 and $11/hr profit.

Jason

 

[jarhead]

CFI'er

I get the impression from your post (rightly or wrongly), that you interprate "Supply and Demand" that the "demand" part of that rule of ecconomics applies to what you, as a group, "demand" for pay. May I respectfully submit, that the "demand" part of that rule, has to do with the demand for your service from a paying customer. I would in fact, wish it were true that wages in all areas of the ecconomy could be what people wanted. Unfortunately, that is just not reality. When their is an over supply of people wanting to work at a given occupation, wages will be pushed down. When there is a shortage of supply for that occupation, wages will be pulled up. That is the long and the short of it.

You also seem to imply that their is a "hidden" profit in the rental structure at an FBO. I really doubt that it is "hidden", as if it were a conspiracy to keep pay down. No privately owned business is required to disclose its balance sheets. Your post has a conotation to it that "profit" is a dirty word. No one has a business, with all the risk and work involved, just to break even.
To raise payscales, typically would require the FBO to raise its rates to prospective and current customers. That can have the effect of keeping customers away, and spending their $$$ elsewhere. One cannot just "demand" more money, and expect to get what they "want". If pay is so low, that qualified instructors do not go to work at an FBO, the owners have to make the decision as to whether they can increase pay to attract those employees or not. They may make the determination, that to do so, would cause the business to start losing money, and put the enterprise at risk of going out of business. Or, they may determine that yes, they should raise the pay to attract and keep qualified people.

 

[Whirlwind]

CFI'er

I get the impression from your post (rightly or wrongly), that you interprate "Supply and Demand" that the "demand" part of that rule of ecconomics applies to what you, as a group, "demand" for pay. May I respectfully submit, that the "demand" part of that rule, has to do with the demand for your service from a paying customer.

I would respectfully submit that at least half the population simply doesn't understand how the economy actually works, or how business works.

You're right, supply and demand ultimaly drive it... Sometimes market forces get out of phase with reality, but they are usually self-correcting in short order.

That is part of the beauty of a free-market system.

One of the downsides is that it isn't always kind to the people who exist within it.

When their is an over supply of people wanting to work at a given occupation, wages will be pushed down. When there is a shortage of supply for that occupation, wages will be pulled up. That is the long and the short of it.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

You also seem to imply that their is a "hidden" profit in the rental structure at an FBO. I really doubt that it is "hidden", as if it were a conspiracy to keep pay down. No privately owned business is required to disclose its balance sheets. Your post has a conotation to it that "profit" is a dirty word. No one has a business, with all the risk and work involved, just to break even.

Exactly, the people who start businesses put a lot of time, money, effort, and sweat into them...

They are not doing it to provide you with a job, they are doing it to provide themselves with something, either in the form of freedom, money, whatever...

Shoot, the balance sheets of most FBOs isn't even a secret. It is not hard to figure out what it might be making, just based on the level of transparancy.

Anyone can find out in two seconds what the split is for the CFIs on the pay scale, another two seconds gets you the split for the aircraft owners.

Anyone can figure up the cost of rent, utilities, basic overhead.

There are really no real secrets in this business, too much transparancy for that...

Jason

 

[KickSave]

The spread in CFI wages vs the rates they charge at flight schools can be summed up by one word - insurance! Flight schools have expenses like any other business, and have a right to make a profit like any other business, but whenever a student, anywhere across the whole dern country, bangs up a prop or bends some landing gear, insurance prices go up for the whole industry. Insurance rate increases have far exceeded the COLA or Inflation in recent years.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Reply to Freight Dog

It's interesting that if you are indeed in that line of work you don't seem to recognize airline managements as being a far bigger problem than pilot unions. I don't need to point out record losses, pay cuts forced on unions in order to 'save their airline' when instead the pay cuts go to pay for bonuses for management.

1) So if an airline is failing to make money and it is the management's fault, are you saying that every single pilot has done everything possible to make the airline run as efficiently as possible? Come one. How many times have I readon this board when pilots exhort their union brothers to do something to make it hard on management. Sure, Wilbur.
2) As for records losses, when the economy turns down ALL INDUSTRIES take losses. I will agree that some airlines are using an outdated business model, but some airlines have managed to continue making money in spite of the economy of the last three years - and some have never laid off a pilot.
3) On forcing wage cuts, I will concede to you that the most recent example at American Airlines was pretty slimy but I don't think that it is appropriate to say that its the rule.

Have you seen any success stories of pilot unions? I think ALPA has done many things to improve safety that are now an industry standard. ALPA's role goes way beyond your traditional union role of simply negotiating contracts and collect dues. What do you think of B777?

Overall the unions have done more harm than good. I can see how they begin, but once they exist they exist for the benefit of the already arrived and the most senior. I guess SWA's outstanding safety record is due to ALPA? Oh... wait a minute... ALPA doesn't represent them.... nevermind.
The businesses, the FAA, and passengers mandates will increase safety. My point is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that increases in safety have been due to unions and nothing else - thousands of things have lead to an increase in safety that run the gammut from regulatory to the insistance of the paying customers.

Fail in what way? Pay? Work rules? It's the perception. Personally, I think ALPA dropped the ball when they allowed any new jets on regional property that weren't grandfathered, hence the current problem. It can be fixed, but it takes people/union members to make a stand. You say that pilot unions fail, and I say that pilot population fails when they are willing to sell their mother for the position to sit in the right seat of a jet which brings me to the topic of this thread.

1) Pilot unions prevent you from being able to leave one job and walk into another based on qualification. Why? Because that may displace someone who has already been given a protected status that has nothing to do with their ability to fly an airplane, but instead has everything to do with "I was here first". I love the quote from Fate is the Hunter - this is close to verbatum: Seniority protects the weak, who are everywhere, and in the greatest numbers. If I had a copy of it at my desk I would give you the quote exactly.
2) Why should an airline not be allowed to choose the equipment that it puts on a certain route? If it makes money and satisfies the customers, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Do you see that your question proves my point??????? If a company sees benefit in using certain equipment, and its more profitable and satisfies the paying customers, what the hell is a union doing trying to dictate something else? You are proving my point that unions dictate terms to airlines (and for that matter all companies which are unionized) that are necessarily less profitable than other alternatives.

You mention seniority as a problem in your previous post... look at it from this perspective, we have a vested interest in well-being of our airlines. If managements had the same system in place, you wouldn't see the rape and pillage of major airlines that took place. Look at UAL for example. Think their current situation is their pilots' fault because of their pre-9/11 payscales? How about Hawaiian Airlines and Boeing successfully suing to remove their CEO? How about the outcry about AMR execs lining themselves up for multimillion dollar bonuses while asking all its employee groups to take paycuts?

To say that having seniority gives you a vested interest in the company flies (forgive the pun) in the face of reality. I am personally not in a union job, and am employed at will by my company. If, some day, they decide to fire me it is their perogative to do so. Now... do you suppose that makes me produce in a way that insures that I will not ever find myself in that position? Of course it does. The union job is extremely protected and lends itslef to the opposite effect.

Then you go on to say that if managements had a seniority system there would be no rape and pillage of major airlines..... you have completely lost me here. If management had a seniorty sytstem then Carty would have had a UNION CONTRACT that prevented the company from being able to fire him.

So what in the world are you talking about here? You've lost me. Maybe I don't have enough hours after all.....


I have thought about reading Flying the Line but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Back to you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Re: Reply to Freight Dog

Overall the unions have done more harm than good. I can see how they begin, but once they exist they exist for the benefit of the already arrived and the most senior. I guess SWA's outstanding safety record is due to ALPA? Oh... wait a minute... ALPA doesn't represent them.... nevermind.

Yet they operate under the same rules, using the same safety measures and equipment that ALPA helped secure.


The businesses, the FAA, and passengers mandates will increase safety. My point is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that increases in safety have been due to unions and nothing else - thousands of things have lead to an increase in safety that run the gammut from regulatory to the insistance of the paying customers.

None have been so insistant, consistant, and sucessful as ALPA.


1) Pilot unions prevent you from being able to leave one job and walk into another based on qualification. Why? Because that may displace someone who has already been given a protected status that has nothing to do with their ability to fly an airplane, but instead has everything to do with "I was here first". I love the quote from Fate is the Hunter - this is close to verbatum: Seniority protects the weak, who are everywhere, and in the greatest numbers. If I had a copy of it at my desk I would give you the quote exactly.

Do you suggest that every pilot negotiate his own salary, work rules, etc? How would you implement such a system?


2) Why should an airline not be allowed to choose the equipment that it puts on a certain route? If it makes money and satisfies the customers, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Do you see that your question proves my point??????? If a company sees benefit in using certain equipment, and its more profitable and satisfies the paying customers, what the hell is a union doing trying to dictate something else? You are proving my point that unions dictate terms to airlines (and for that matter all companies which are unionized) that are necessarily less profitable than other alternatives.


Please give me an example when a union prevented an airline from choosing what equipment it flew on what route. I can think of none. My airline, for example, is free to operate as many airplanes as they want on whatever route they want. There are no restrictions on what equipment they may purchase or operate.



I have thought about reading Flying the Line but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Back to you.

Perhaps you should. It might be illuminating.

You are entitled to your opinion on unions, and I don't really care to change it. The only reason that I posted was to ensure you had the facts. Good luck with whatever career you choose, union or not.

(for the record, I recognize that unions, like everything else, have pros and cons. I would not, however, make such a blanket statement that ALPA has done more harm than good. I believe the opposite to be true)

 

[Freight Dog]

Re: Reply to Freight Dog

1) So if an airline is failing to make money and it is the management's fault, are you saying that every single pilot has done everything possible to make the airline run as efficiently as possible? Come one. How many times have I readon this board when pilots exhort their union brothers to do something to make it hard on management. Sure, Wilbur.

You bet it is management's fault. Who runs the company? Who makes the decisions to fly that type of aircraft between that pair of cities? Who makes investment decisions in the company?

Bear in mind that the company HAS to agree to a contract before it becomes binding. What you see on pilot forums is rantings and ravings, and if you ever get to ride in the cockpit jumpseat of an airline, you'll hear the same thing. Bear in mind that most major airline pilots are either former military pilots or former regional airline pilots. We are not your uneducated crowd, although we can act like a bunch of crybabies, but we're not out to strangle the goose by demanding unreasonable.

2) As for records losses, when the economy turns down ALL INDUSTRIES take losses. I will agree that some airlines are using an outdated business model, but some airlines have managed to continue making money in spite of the economy of the last three years - and some have never laid off a pilot.

Yes, they do. With the statement that "some airlines are using an outdated business model" you just countered your own argument. Whose fault is that? Sure, SWA has continued to make money because of THEIR MANAGEMENT who designed their business model, and their employees who are unionized none the same. Let's hope they pay their employees what they're worth as well. Their flight attendants are way below industry standard and even if SWA paid them the industry standard, they would still continue to be profitable.

3) On forcing wage cuts, I will concede to you that the most recent example at American Airlines was pretty slimy but I don't think that it is appropriate to say that its the rule.

It's not a rule, it's criminal. On top of that, it wasn't only at American. Look at NWA, Delta, UAL, USAirways, Hawaiian... do some research, you'll be surprised at what you find out.

Overall the unions have done more harm than good. I can see how they begin, but once they exist they exist for the benefit of the already arrived and the most senior. I guess SWA's outstanding safety record is due to ALPA? Oh... wait a minute... ALPA doesn't represent them.... nevermind.

You're a pilot, right? Do you like how the taxiway and runway signs are laid out? What do you think about the latest improvements to LAHSO operations which will ultimately reduce airspace congestion? How about TCAS requirements for passenger airliners? Ahh... nevermind, those were some things that ALPA made happen that are enjoyed industry-wide. By the way, SWA pilots have an in-house union SWAPA which works closely with other pilot unions. Your arguments and lack of knowledge about ALPA, pilot unions, improvements in the national airspace system clearly shows your inexperience.


The businesses, the FAA, and passengers mandates will increase safety. My point is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that increases in safety have been due to unions and nothing else - thousands of things have lead to an increase in safety that run the gammut from regulatory to the insistance of the paying customers.

Do you know what people care about? I'm sure you do... you love those $99 fares, dontcha? Well guess what... you get a $99 product. Your average Joe has no clue what TCAS is, nor does he know the ergonomics of current aircraft designs, nor does he care to know what LAHSO means, nor does he care about airspace congestions, nor does he care about separation requirements and little things like that. On the other hand, the management wants to make $$$$. Obviously, you've never worked as a pilot, and you don't know how many operators without unions push their people to break regs in order to turn a buck. Ask some Part 135 pilots, ask some non-union freight dogs flying B727's about passengers and customers demanding safety. They don't give a rat's about any of that, they just want to get from point A to point B.

1) Pilot unions prevent you from being able to leave one job and walk into another based on qualification. Why? Because that may displace someone who has already been given a protected status that has nothing to do with their ability to fly an airplane, but instead has everything to do with "I was here first". I love the quote from Fate is the Hunter - this is close to verbatum: Seniority protects the weak, who are everywhere, and in the greatest numbers. If I had a copy of it at my desk I would give you the quote exactly.

Based on qualifications huh? How's this one strike you? You are a paying passenger, and your flight is captained by one of the girls on B190Captain's avatars with 1500 hours and bare legal minimums in the operations simply because she showed some skin to the chief pilot. Oh, and she's only been here for a month. The FO on the flight is this 6 year veteran flying that same equipment for the same company. Once again, shows your inexperience in how our industry works - from time building days to major airline cockpits.

2) Why should an airline not be allowed to choose the equipment that it puts on a certain route? If it makes money and satisfies the customers, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Do you see that your question proves my point??????? If a company sees benefit in using certain equipment, and its more profitable and satisfies the paying customers, what the hell is a union doing trying to dictate something else? You are proving my point that unions dictate terms to airlines (and for that matter all companies which are unionized) that are necessarily less profitable than other alternatives.

The airlines ARE the ones who decide what equipment is flown on certain routes. I presume you are talking about RJDC argument here, and let's hope the thread doesn't get hijacked, BUT... there is absolutely nothing preventing management on what kind of aircraft gets put on a route. The only restriction is WHO FLIES that aircraft. In Delta's case, 57 70-seaters can be flown by Connection pilots, if Delta wants to replace their entire narrowbody fleet with 70 seat CRJ's, that's their prerogative, but they'll have to be flown by Delta mainline pilots. It's called JOB PROTECTION.


To say that having seniority gives you a vested interest in the company flies (forgive the pun) in the face of reality. I am personally not in a union job, and am employed at will by my company. If, some day, they decide to fire me it is their perogative to do so. Now... do you suppose that makes me produce in a way that insures that I will not ever find myself in that position? Of course it does. The union job is extremely protected and lends itslef to the opposite effect.

Yes, you have a vested interest in the well-being of your airline. Unlike the management and their golden parachutes once they destroy an airline, we are "stuck" with our airline due to seniority. You make it sound that unionized employees are out to destroy the airline that employs them. Yet, you don't seem to understand the concept of seniority and how it correlates at employees' interests in the well-being of their airline. Once again, shows inexperience on your part...

Then you go on to say that if managements had a seniority system there would be no rape and pillage of major airlines..... you have completely lost me here. If management had a seniorty sytstem then Carty would have had a UNION CONTRACT that prevented the company from being able to fire him.

So what in the world are you talking about here? You've lost me. Maybe I don't have enough hours after all.....


I have thought about reading Flying the Line but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Back to you.

You seem to think that it is impossible to fire a unionized worker. Boy, are you wrong... once again, shows how little you know about the unions and how they work.

I simply implied that if management had something similar to seniority system, they would have the same interest in well-being of their airline as employees do. After all, they can punch out with nice golden parachute, yet we can't.

Required reading my friend.... Flying the Line I and II.

 

[jarhead]

FlyDeltaJets

"Please give me an example when a union prevented an airline from choosing what equipment it flew on what route. I can think of none. My airline, for example, is free to operate as many airplanes as they want on whatever route they want. There are no restrictions on what equipment they may purchase or operate."

How about the Delta MEC's opposition to Comair flying greater than 57 70 seat RJ's, or any 90 seat RJ's whatsoever? Would that be a union attempt to restrict an airline from flying specific equipment?

Just curious.

 

[bobbysamd]

Profit structure

You also seem to imply that their is a "hidden" profit in the rental structure at an FBO.

This is an interesting part of the discussion. Which part of the profit is hidden?

I do not doubt for a minute that many organizations that employ flight instructors do anything and everything to hold down instructors' pay. Having said that, consider that every enterprise at an FBO is designed to generate revenue. Flight instruction is designed to generate revenue. Renting airplanes is designed to generate revenue. Selling fuel is designed to generate revenue. Et cetera. All of these are profit centers. Each must stand on its own feet to be successful.

E.g., an FBO might charge $35/hour for flight instruction, but the CFI only gets $15/per hour and wonders where in the he!! the rest of that goes. The answer is simple. It is spread among the non-billers, e.g., the receptionist, the boss' secretary, the cleaning service. And to insurance, workers' comp, space rental, airport use taxes. And finally to the boss.

Consider law offices. Attorneys and paralegals in many offices bill hourly for their time. In my last office I was billed out at $95 per hour (which was absurd; paralegals in other offices in the same speciality in which I worked and with the same experience were billed at $65 - $75, but I digress). I was on salary and my cut of that worked out to $14 per hour. The boss always told us that we billers were supporting the "staff," i.e. the receptionist and secretaries, who were depending on us for their livelihoods. That was melodramatic, but our boss was melodramatic. But you see the point. Paralegals in our office were profit centers big time.

I do not believe that there is an overt conspiracy to hold down instructors' pay. To wit: there are a number of instructor jobs that pay good salaries and offer good benies. You just have to understand where the rest of the $35 per hour lands.

 

[jarhead]

an anecdote to Bobbysamd

Good point.

At the end of June, I will be hauling a boat with a very large gas tank in it, up to a resort on a large lake, for a week of fishing and relaxation. It will be my 7th consecutive year at this resort. I am aware, due to experience, that the price the resort charges on its 87 octane gasoline, is about 75 cents a gallon higher than what the local Amaco station charges me. Knowing this, I always fill up as I am on the highway, pulling my boat up there. Its saves me a lot of $$$, and the tank usually comes close to lasting me for a week of fishing (it's a 40 gallon tank) Should I start running low, I do not fill it up at the marina at the resort.....I just add a few gallons to last me for the last day or two. I understand the the resort has gas as one of its profit centers. I also know, that the same gas on the highway, becomes in a perverted sort of way, a profit center for me! The resort counts on people running out of gas, and counts on people buying fuel at an inflated price, vs the inconvenience of pulling the boat out of the water, and trailering it into town 10 miles away to gas up. This is the free market at work. If the resort starts to charge too much for 87 octane, they will lose business at that pump (they already lost mine) The same rules apply in most free markets, be they a CFI, a hamburger, or gas at a marina.

 

[Whirlwind]

Exactly...

And if the CFI wants to keep all that $35/hr for themselves, they are welcome to do so...

All they have to do is find their own students, provide for their own training materials, facilities, etc. They need insurance, a phone, etc.

It is doable and you can make more doing that than working for an FBO, but there is at least some additional work beyond what most FBOs require of their CFIs.

Most independant CFIs that I know have been doing this for at least two years, enjoy it, and have their own base of students and refered students from past students. Many can charge more than the FBO does and they keep it all, because they have built up a reputation as being good at what they do.

Jason

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Re: FlyDeltaJets

"Please give me an example when a union prevented an airline from choosing what equipment it flew on what route. I can think of none. My airline, for example, is free to operate as many airplanes as they want on whatever route they want. There are no restrictions on what equipment they may purchase or operate."

How about the Delta MEC's opposition to Comair flying greater than 57 70 seat RJ's, or any 90 seat RJ's whatsoever? Would that be a union attempt to restrict an airline from flying specific equipment?

Just curious.

Jar,

Delta (who owns cmr) is free to operate as many rjs as they want. The fact that they are restricted from transferring them to lower paid pilots is not a prevention of thier use. For more info, please refer to the numerous rjdc threads. The only reason I mentioned it on this thread was to correct a common misconception.

 

[jarhead]

FlyDeltaJets

I have read for over a year, the debate on the RJDC. That is an unending conundrum of opposing viewpoints, to which only history will be the final arbitrator as to what the "truth" is about that topic. I suspect a lot of it has to do with ideology.

That said, I would like to return to the point of my question, to wit your quote; "Please give me an example when a union prevented an airline from choosing what equipment it flew on what route. I can think of none. My airline, for example, is free to operate as many airplanes as they want on whatever route they want. There are no restrictions on what equipment they may purchase or operate."

Question number one: Is Comair an airline?

I know Delta is an airline, and that airline bought Comair outright a few years ago. Yet the two entities (CMR & DAL) have separate pilot union MEC's, and separate contracts with their pilot groups, and separate Presidents, ramp agents, csd, et al. That said, If the Parent (DAL) wants to put specific RJ's in service to generate revenue, is it not the Union representing DAL pilots not restricting the Company, from placing those aircraft in service at another airline (which it owns), to its betterment of generating revenue. I am not debating the right or wrong of it, only the veracity of your quote where you state that a union does not restrict what equipment an airline may fly on any particular route.

The RJDC situation will be resolved in the courts, not on these boards, one way or another. That is internal politics between two warring MEC's (IMHO)

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Yes. cmr is an airline.

Yes, our mec is preventing Delta from operating rjs at other airlines. Please do not interpret that to mean we are preventing Delta from operating rjs. We are not. Delta is free to buy and operate as many as they like. If they wanted 10,000 rjs, they are perfectly free to get them. They are not, however, free to transfer all of our flying to lower paid pilots in the process.

Delta, however, if free to fly C-152's, A-380's, and everything in between. We have never attempted to negotiated language which would prevent them from buying and operating anything they wanted in an attempt to maximize revenue.

So, the short answer to your question is that the parent (Delta) is 100% free to operate any type of rj they want for the betterment of generating revenue.

Are they free to outsource all of our flying? No. Nor should they be.

It is important to recognize that there is a difference.

 

[SquirrelDog]

One Question?

Has anyone ever done a poll on how many of these threads end up with 121 guys arguing about MEC, ALPA, RJs, IMHOs, my planes bigger than yours and etc...Come on, you've tainted the regional forum already lets not currupt this one too.

see ya
Squirreldog

 

[jarhead]

To FDJ

Thank you for your answer to the original question I posed in response to your post.

To SquirrelDog:

I agree with you! This thread was started by wifeofpilot on the subject of pilot pay. Lets not let it degenerate into yet another RJDC thread and debate. Also, let's not let it degenerate into yet another poll [tic]