No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[Quiet Flight]

You're stoned if you accept PBS in ANY form. But do what you wish.

 

[aircombat]

I guess we see it differently.

I do not see this PBS as lowering the bar, when compared to every other system and contract out there.

As far as a merger, it's not worth losing the union. If we could make it happen and keep the union, I'm all for it.

And I do feel for the furloughs, but any action which forces an overstaffed situation simply will not work. Now, if Skywest hires one pilot while we have folks on the street, that is a different animal which we should do something about.

I believe PBS will make us more competitive without being a concession. On that we clearly disagree.

I don’t know why we would have to “lose the union”. Maybe we would have to revote as a combined list. Yes there would be some risk involved for the union. I don’t think we will lose it though. For one thing if we try to force a merger I can only image that if the Skywest pilots have even a peanut sized brain they would immediately seek representation. I guess it wouldn’t have to be ALPA but it probably would be. Unfortunately that would be bad for us, in the sense of losing leverage, however the alternative is worse.

 

[Poppa Hodax]

....but they already have the ability to build the lines in such a manner, but they never have, so what makes you think PBS will inspire them to do so?

A very relevant point. The Company and Union claim that PBS is the only way to get the lines built in an efficient way. Why not just buy the software, run the program with a set of bid preferences according to the contract or whatever settings get the efficiencies desired, and offer the results up as the bid package? Why get the pilots involved at all?
Single engine taxi was "forbidden" in Atlanta until the Company figured out they were wasting a boatload of gas, and concomitantly money. Suddenly, single engine taxi is okay. Nothing matters to the Company except financial issues. If PBS were truly the only way to achieve the construction of efficient lines, they would have implemented the program already.

You rather look at someone building lines on a monthly basis for you rather than you picking which days off or cities you want to go, or not go to, and filtering the type trips or number of legs etc..?

Frankly, yes. The status quo favors the senior, a fine system with years of tradition to commend it. I understand that seniority is everything. So why replace a system that favors the senior with a system that further favors the senior? Why let the senior guys cherry pick the good stuff out?
The Company (theoretically) builds the most efficient lines they can, while honoring the FARs and the contract. They don't have a notion of what a good line is, or a bad line. It is just a line. Each line in the bid package is a Halloween grab bag: some good, and some bad. Why let the senior guys root through all the grab bags picking out all the Twix, leaving nothing but seven year old candied hearts knockoffs with lewd messages manufactured in an eastern European country that doesn't even exist anymore for the junior guys? When the Company builds the lines, at least junior guys have the hope of something tasty in the middle of the line 405 crapwich. Further, I'm not sure how PBS will help the folks stranded on reserve for the foreseeable future.

You're stoned if you accept PBS in ANY form.

I have heard this advice from many, many pilots who loathe PBS. You just can't polish a turd.
[waiting for the But We Got The Best PBS System chorus to begin its din]

 

[OCP]

Poppa Hodax,

What is the bad of having PBS? What will change for the worst for you personally if we got it?

 

[aircombat]

Poppa Hodax,

What is the bad of having PBS? What will change for the worst for you personally if we got it?

Just because you may personally benefit from PBS doesn’t necessarily make it right. Just because you didn’t have to deal with PBS when you were junior doesn’t mean you should step on your pears now that you have something to gain from it. PBS requires less pilots. That is bad for the profession as long as the rule of supply and demand still applies. Your children won’t appreciate you making it harder for them to get a job.

 

[OCP]

Just because you may personally benefit from PBS doesn’t necessarily make it right. Just because you didn’t have to deal with PBS when you were junior doesn’t mean you should step on your pears now that you have something to gain from it. PBS requires less pilots. That is bad for the profession as long as the rule of supply and demand still applies. Your children won’t appreciate you making it harder for them to get a job.

Right but to see all sides I am wanting to see what people bring up as the bad points so I can then investigate my self and see if they are accurate with what is being proposed at ASA.

 

[Tarzan]

Just because you may personally benefit from PBS doesn’t necessarily make it right. Just because you didn’t have to deal with PBS when you were junior doesn’t mean you should step on your pears now that you have something to gain from it. PBS requires less pilots. That is bad for the profession as long as the rule of supply and demand still applies. Your children won’t appreciate you making it harder for them to get a job.

Your type has been around for a long time. I wonder what you'd have been saying when the cotton gin was introduced. Point is, business looks for new ways to do thing efficiently. The union, as much as you believe otherwise, is incapable of stopping business models from changing. You either adapt and do the best you can with the cards you have or you go to the house. PBS is just another manifestation of the changing model.

I think you're being selfish because it will benefit me and you are committed to voting No. Just thinking of yourself because you think ALPA can magically get you everything you want. I do what I can but there is only so much I am willing to risk. Right now, ASA leads the contract carriers in what our contract currently has. Don't bother nit picking either. Some have things that are better but overall when measuring one to another, ours is the top. How the F*** should we squezze more blood from turnip?

Rather silly argument isn't it?

However, let's go with your argument for a second on the "children" comment. How do you propose this company keeps itself a viable option as a contract provider if they don't compete? I think my children would rather have me working now than laid off because the company was downsized dramatically.

 

[aircombat]

How do you propose this company keeps itself a viable option as a contract provider if they don't compete? I think my children would rather have me working now than laid off because the company was downsized dramatically.

There isn't that much money in this gig for the company. Some guys seem to think there will be tens of millions saved. Sorry but it ain't happening.

I’m starting to get confused here. How do you think this is going to make us more competitive if it really isn’t going to save the company that much money? And you still haven’t answered how this is going to make us cheaper than Skywest? Don’t you worry the downsizing is a coming. PBS will just provide a vessel to accelerate it.

 

[aircombat]

Your type has been around for a long time. I wonder what you'd have been saying when the cotton gin was introduced. Point is, business looks for new ways to do thing efficiently. The union, as much as you believe otherwise, is incapable of stopping business models from changing. You either adapt and do the best you can with the cards you have or you go to the house. PBS is just another manifestation of the changing model.

I do understand your argument and it is a valid one however, don't you think that comparing PBS to the industrial revolution is a slight stretch. Remember you yourself said this isn’t going to save the company that much money.

 

[buscap]

The cotton gin lead to an explosion in the slave trade, which at the time was on it's way to dying a slow death.

Very much beside the point, but the analogy was terrible and needed rebuked!!

That said, I believe PBS will make us more competitive when and if more flying becomes available. And the company's claim that it will not save money here and now is hogwash. That't them blowing smoke so we don't try to strong-arm more out of them.

I have nothing against ASA making money.

I simply do not think this LOA is a total slam on the junior pilots, who by the way will not be junior forever. As for the furloughs, the better the company does, the faster they get back. It's that simple.

Anything we do to needlessly cripple our competitiveness simply keeps them on the street longer. There are many measures which could get them all back tomorrow including across the board voluntary 40% paycuts.

Any takers?

Helloooooo?

Bueller?...Bueller?

The question is whether or not this PBS LOA is a good deal for the pilots while helping the company compete?

So far it looks like it is, but I am still waiting on a roadshow.

There are many reasons to vote no, but I really don't think the furloughs and "slamming" the junior pilots are valid points, as this won't screw the furloughs any more than the screwing they are already taking and the junior pilots are helped by it more than they ae harmed, just like the rest of the pilot group.

 

[Poppa Hodax]

What will change for the worst for you personally if we got it?

I can't say. I haven't seen the language yet. That being said, I don't expect the Reserves had their needs addressed in any great detail. PBS is for the line holders, and the Union is primarily concerned with line holders.

What is the bad of having PBS?

Again, I must wait to see the actual language of the LOA before I can look for the bad or good. However, I am, with no other information, inclined against PBS because:

• Every person I have talked to employed by a carrier with PBS advised me, typically using rather strong language seasoned with profanity, that PBS is not good for the pilot group. Others have had different experiences. Your mileage may vary.
• The contractual language associated with PBS is just as important (if not more so) than the software used. I don't have confidence that the Union will get tight enough language to prevent the Company from meddling with the system. Largely, we can't pin too much hope on the Union because negotiating contracts and agreements aren't their core strengths. Flying airplanes is.
• To reiterate: I don't see the point of replacing a system that inherently favors the senior folks with a system that further favors the senior folks. Being junior sucks, so why make it suck more when there is forecast to be so little movement for a long while?
• The Company wants PBS really, really, really, really badly. The aims and values of Labor and Management are more or less diametrically opposed, so something that is apparently so very good for the Company is likely not very good for the pilots.
• Scheduling software is a commodity. Why bother with the pilots? Why not just buy the software, and deliver efficient lines for the pilots to choose from? This facet just makes me suspicious. Getting pilot buy in doesn't make sense, unless there is some hidden cost to the pilot group, or some hidden benefit to the Company. Why bother with pilots at all, if possible to avoid it? Have you ever dealt with those people? They just complain all the time.
• Finally, I am irked that the Company and the Union seem to assume that PBS passing a vote is a done deal. Both would be well served to bear in mind that PBS isn't a fact of life at ASA until the votes are counted. I admit that this tenet is petty, but I am annoyed that The Company has already migrated back to Flica on the assumption that PBS will pass. I was particularly vexed by the Union shills I overheard on the bus, deeply engaged in a mutual admiration autoerotic love fest on the matter of how awesome it will be when PBS gets here. It isn't voted on yet, fellas. Maybe the Union should spend a little less time patting themselves on the back, and a little more time selling it to the people who pay them with their Union dues.

I ultimately don't have confidence in the Union to get the language tight enough. I don't think that the Company is waiting until the ink is on the paper to begin Phase 2 of their nefarious plan. They aren't evil. I understand that both sides read and interpret the language of any agreement to their own ends. With that in mind, I don't have faith that the Union will get tight enough language to make the system work as it was intended, resulting in a system that works as the Company wants it to work.
One follow on thought to this whole PBS thing: what does it really cost the pilot group? This is about more than scheduling, and senior guys getting more awesome lines and junior ones getting the offal. Before you vote, take a really hard look at what else is in the agreement. Do the Company and Union expect to delay negotiations? What else do we get for helping the Company be more efficient? I've heard of a 1% raise. Do the junior folk consider giving up the ability to turn one week of vacation into three worth a fifty cent an hour raise? Did we finally get holiday pay? I sincerely hope that the voting members actually read the whole package, and not the spiffy color email from the Union. Be aware that nothing in this world is free. What we are giving up to accept PBS is just as important as what we are getting with PBS. If PBS does pass, I hope we don't sell ourselves too cheaply.

 

[buscap]

Well said Poppa.

 

[OCP]

I completely agree that we need to read the actual language to look for the loopholes in it. However everything that is feared as "bad" the company already right now has the leverage to do to us. So far in this LOA I've seen a lot of that cleaned up. Yes the company could just do it for us and buy the software to run a schedule, but that isn't how the world works. Remember how we all loved them moving from Flica to the in house software? That was great. There is nothing in the contract as it stands from them just moving to an even worse version of that.
As far as what people you talk to say... I've talked to a lot of people as well. Skywest doesn't seem to like theirs, Continental doesn't either. However I haven't talked to a Delta guy who didn't like theirs. Also, not that they are around, but ex TWA guys I've talked to liked theirs. TWA had a LARGE input from their union every month with their system, like we are supposed to. So not EVERYONE has bad things to say about PBS. Just the ones where the company is unwilling to work with the union to address problems.

 

[Tarzan]

I do understand your argument and it is a valid one however, don't you think that comparing PBS to the industrial revolution is a slight stretch. Remember you yourself said this isn’t going to save the company that much money.

Either way, each one created less need for personnel. When profit margins are razor thing, a few million here and there can make the difference between black and red for a quarter. Most pilot seem to believe there are tens of millions to be svaed here thus making it big deal. All I am saying there isn't as much as pilot seem to believe.

 

[www.]

Well I have been saying that since page 15. The furloughs are really the only logical answer. How else would they be able to secure what they say is the best deal for us outside of section 6. If the company thought they could force a poor PBS system, and not have to recall furloughs after section 6 talks were done, they would not give us a better system now. I don’t agree but a union member said our only leverage is to strike and I don’t see us threatening a strike for PBS. Our leverage is coming from the company not wanting to recall furloughs. Just connect the dots and that is the only solution. The provided reason of the company wanting growth will not be entertained until you convince me how we are going to become cheaper than Skywest.

You mean like your Buddy Obama did on 12/25/2009? That worked GRRRRRREAT!