JBLU cuts 5 Yr. Pilots, Fact or Fiction?

[TonyC]

Given time to reflect on the subject, I realize that I have been remiss in not taking the opportunity to expound on the advantages of an effective Collective Bargaining Agreement when it comes to sleep disruption and natural body rhythms. Although our current contract is far from perfect, and in many areas quite ineffective, we do have mechanisms and workrules in place that are specifically devoted to protecting the lives of the pilots. Line pilots review pairings, and participate in line construction every bid period. Trips that violate rules of construction are disputed, removed from published lines, sometimes revised to comly with rules of construction, and, if necessary, grieved. The grievance process is guaranteed by Federal labor law - - it cannot be discontinued at the whim of the employer.


Much has been said about night flying, but there are other schedules that have just as deliterious effects on the body. One of my least favorite is an International type schedule that involves an 8-hr flight, 24-hr rest, 8-hr flight, 24-hr rest, etc., etc., etc. 24 hour rests are too short to sleep twice, and too long to only sleep once. Do that several days in a row, and your body is mush. The schedule is very productive, so the company loves it. Care to guess how those trips would be scheduled if we didn't have a contractually-protected process of pilot review?

I am certain that there are others who can more eloquently articulate the points I'm trying to convey, but I think you might get the gist of it. I'm glad I have a voice, through my union, in the process.

 

[JimNtexas]

I am in no way qualified to speak to airline pilot contract issues for any airline. but I have two thoughts on the issue:

1) It seems to me that unions can't cause an airline to pay wages way higher than average over the long run. Airline seats are a pretty much a commodity product.

2) It seems to me that where a union really might pay off is in the job security area. There are lots of management types in all fields who want their butts kissed and will fire useful employees for purely personal reasons. I think a union can make a company more profitable by giving employees a recourse against the arbitrary whims of individual managers.

One unchecked middle manager trying to be a little king is a cancer in any organization. The bigger an organization gets, the more possible that becomes.

 

[dlredline]

. .

2) It seems to me that where a union really might pay off is in the job security area. . . .QUOTE]

Not necessarily true. There are 1879 pilots (and their families) from USAirways that had "no-furlough" protection (paid for through concessions) under an ALPA contract that no longer have jobs there. While the ALPA safety organization is a true benefit to the industry, the political side of ALPA will always have a "feed them your young to save the most senior" mentality.

I speaketh from experience.

Red

 

[TonyC]

. .

2) It seems to me that where a union really might pay off is in the job security area. . . .QUOTE]

Not necessarily true. There are 1879 pilots (and their families) from USAirways that had "no-furlough" protection (paid for through concessions) under an ALPA contract that no longer have jobs there. While the ALPA safety organization is a true benefit to the industry, the political side of ALPA will always have a "feed them your young to save the most senior" mentality.

I speaketh from experience.

Red

While you'll most likely find an exception to every rule, the fact is a Collective Bargaining Agreement provides protections that At-Will employment does not.

For example, there are quite a few Delta pilots collecting paychecks today because DALPA was able to effectively enforce (to a degree, anyway) the no furlough provisions of their contract.

It's not ALPA's fault that 9/11 occurred, that airlines are poorly managed, or that pilots' jobs are lost. Blaming ALPA, and particularly ALPA National, is easy, and perhaps makes one feel better, but it usually misplaced anger.

 

[dlredline]

While you'll most likely find an exception to every rule, the fact is a Collective Bargaining Agreement provides protections that At-Will employment does not.

For example, there are quite a few Delta pilots collecting paychecks today because DALPA was able to effectively enforce (to a degree, anyway) the no furlough provisions of their contract.

It's not ALPA's fault that 9/11 occurred, that airlines are poorly managed, or that pilots' jobs are lost. Blaming ALPA, and particularly ALPA National, is easy, and perhaps makes one feel better, but it usually misplaced anger.

Tony,

You mistake my opinion for anger. The post I provided was based upon 20 years of personal experience in ALPA and now out, so there's nothing "misplaced" here. CBA's simply aren't worth what they were in the past, with Ch. 11 and the industry the way it is today. And I still caution anyone from a lulling into a false sense of perceived security because they feel a union (any union) is there to watch out for their personal interests.

You may find 1879 pilots and their families at one single carrier "an exception to" the rule. I would argue it is a telling indictment against this particular "union".

And no, it does not make me feel better stating it. Just very sad.

Red

 

[TonyC]

Tony,

You mistake my opinion for anger. The post I provided was based upon 20 years of personal experience in ALPA and now out, so there's nothing "misplaced" here. CBA's simply aren't worth what they were in the past, with Ch. 11 and the industry the way it is today. And I still caution anyone from a lulling into a false sense of perceived security because they feel a union (any union) is there to watch out for their personal interests.

You may find 1879 pilots and their families at one single carrier "an exception to" the rule. I would argue it is a telling indictment against this particular "union".

And no, it does not make me feel better stating it. Just very sad.

Red

OK, so you're not angry. Call it misplacing blame, then.

I never claimed that a Union would prevent a downturn in the economy, a terrorist attack, or the bankruptcy of a carrier. I also would never advise that a Union is EVER there to "watch out for personal interests." The union's charter is to protect the COLLECTIVE interests of the membership. What's best for the membership is not always what's best, at the moment, for each and every particular individual. In the long run, though, protecting the group protects the individuals.

As to the 1879... do you think they would have those jobs today had ALPA NOT been there? Do you think the union cost those jobs? Do you think At-Will employees would have been treated better?