No deal for ual

[fam62c]

These guys are not in the business of handing money out to employees and the way the NMB functions now means they have no incentive to do so There is zero risk of there ever being a strike at a carrier the size of UAL, the NMB won't allow it and the management team knows it. The UAL pilots will get a deal when they agree to take what management is willing to give them. That's the way it is, unions don't have any leverage anymore.

This isn't just UAL, it will be all the big airlines in future section 6 talks, the strike threat has been removed. The solution may be to create a non-profit, independent union with no assets and no officers run offshore with outside employees. Do a wildcat strike and there would be nobody to sue, let the government and the company scream but the airline would have to either come to an agreement or fold. For this to work the there would have to be a pilot shortage and you would need total solidarity, very tough to do. The NMB has stolen our leverage, we must find a way to get it back. There is too much government interference in the relationship between the airlines and their employee groups, this is private industry and the government should stay out of it. The government is controlling what should be a free market between labor and industry.

 

[waveflyer]

True fam, we've disenfranchised ourselves. Dems don't support us bc we aggressively do not support them. And republicans don't support us bc we ideologically represent what they despise: the highly paid union worker.
Either vote Dem, or convince republicans to support us- or the slide will always continue-
But don't let the delta contract fool you. I didn't like the scope issues long term, but it was a gain in the short, and delta knew it didn't have the NMB we had under Bush - we have a bit more leverage under Obama than your post claims-

 

[Roomwithaview]

wave

True fam, we've disenfranchised ourselves. Dems don't support us bc we aggressively do not support them. And republicans don't support us bc we ideologically represent what they despise: the highly paid union worker.
Either vote Dem, or convince republicans to support us- or the slide will always continue-
But don't let the delta contract fool you. I didn't like the scope issues long term, but it was a gain in the short, and delta knew it didn't have the NMB we had under Bush - we have a bit more leverage under Obama than your post claims-

Support either side. It's a guarantee that neither one will be there for us when we need them.

 

[waveflyer]

Nope. The truth is as I've explained. From those who know. (got to speak with Maria Cantwell for a few minutes doing business up in washington) Think what you will. It's why I started a business even though "airline pilot" tends to suit me fine. Pilots don't support their career politically, and to have success in this, you simply must. If you cannot support dems, then at least get in the game, take two minutes to google who Mr. John L Mica, and Mr Tom Petri are and write them to ask for support. Then do the same with your congressman. Republicans will back certain unions even if they won't publicly- As solidly as we tend to support republicans, its not out of the framework to get some support back. But we vote blindly. do work for them and earn their support- do not simply vote for people who do not support you. And god forbid, write Obama and ask for his support. If you plan on voting for Romney, call his camp and ask if he can support ALpA and CAPA.

Or vote to decertify. Just get on the same page and don't resign politically as we have.

 

[SIG600]

Wave makes good points.

Or you could vote Libertarian, and get gov't out of every aspect of your life & work the way it was intended. The US Gov't is the best money can buy.

 

[ultrarunner]

Wave and Fam make excellent points and what they are saying is something I think every airline employee, certainly pilots, already knows, but not all accept.

The consolidation we're seeing and will continue to see will insure none of these mega-carriers will every be allowed to strike. And while I don't imagine the NMB would ever release a group to self-help, if they did, the PEB would step in.

Looking from the outside, the relationship between Mgt and Union (is it really a union anymore) is strictly a political relationship with political maneuvering on both sides. Really...a 'strike vote'??? Give me a break. Votes of no-confidence, really???

In my opinion, that's just throwing fuel on the fire.....

I don't know what the solution is, but again, the relationships are really not about working together anymore. And it goes without saying that the "unions" will never have the power they once did....

Ultra....

 

[SWA Bubba]

True fam, we've disenfranchised ourselves. Dems don't support us bc we aggressively do not support them. And republicans don't support us bc we ideologically represent what they despise: the highly paid union worker.
Either vote Dem, or convince republicans to support us- or the slide will always continue-
But don't let the delta contract fool you. I didn't like the scope issues long term, but it was a gain in the short, and delta knew it didn't have the NMB we had under Bush - we have a bit more leverage under Obama than your post claims-

Not sure how we're into politics again, but as the highest paid airline workgroup, we're not really going to get any real support from either Remocrats OR Republicans. It's not that we don't "aggressively" support Democrats so they don't support us--it's that we make too much money for such a small group (as compared to the 'average' American worker) for them to care. Like professional athletes or actors, but on a smaller scale.

The difference is, nobody cares if professional athletes or actors go on stike (well, obviously, people care, but not enough for politicians to feel the need to step in). On the other hand, there is no way that the government is going to let a major US airline go on strike these days. Especially these days, with all the consolidations so that there's only a handful of mega-airlines carrying around the entire country. Even President Obama, who has to qualify as the most liberal president in generations (he was rated the most liberal out of the 100 senators before being elected prez), would never allow United or Delta or even Southwest to strike. Striking would financially hurt the company (as intended), but it would also hurt the rest of the country too much--especially with the economy as fragile as it is now.

Democrats might cluck their cheeks and say sympathetic things, but they won't actually do anything substantive for airline pilots because we already make "more than enough" money, and already have "easy enough" working conditions, even in their liberal eyes. That's the reality of it.

Bubba

 

[Andy]

Not sure how we're into politics again, but as the highest paid airline workgroup, we're not really going to get any real support from either Remocrats OR Republicans. It's not that we don't "aggressively" support Democrats so they don't support us--it's that we make too much money for such a small group (as compared to the 'average' American worker) for them to care. Like professional athletes or actors, but on a smaller scale.

The difference is, nobody cares if professional athletes or actors go on stike (well, obviously, people care, but not enough for politicians to feel the need to step in). On the other hand, there is no way that the government is going to let a major US airline go on strike these days. Especially these days, with all the consolidations so that there's only a handful of mega-airlines carrying around the entire country. Even President Obama, who has to qualify as the most liberal president in generations (he was rated the most liberal out of the 100 senators before being elected prez), would never allow United or Delta or even Southwest to strike. Striking would financially hurt the company (as intended), but it would also hurt the rest of the country too much--especially with the economy as fragile as it is now.

Democrats might cluck their cheeks and say sympathetic things, but they won't actually do anything substantive for airline pilots because we already make "more than enough" money, and already have "easy enough" working conditions, even in their liberal eyes. That's the reality of it.

Bubba

Spot on.

 

[waveflyer]

I would say bubba, that was said from the framework of being at swa the last decade. The bush NMB flat out said - no strikes in my admin. not this one. Where do you get that opinion? What facts back that up?
And even if they don't, there's been a lot more gains under this president than the last- why is that? If the NMB is just as willing to take leverage away from pilot groups?
And don't get me started on Bush's ATSB picking winners and losers.
And the FAA, how long as the NTSB been screaming for a more scientific approach to rest rules. How long have they been screaming about the lack of experience in regional flight decks?- think that that was a coincidence both have been addressed within a couple years.
There is a party that is much more pro-labor- its just most of us hate everything about labor unions except for ours.
As for most liberal president- that perception is based on fox and rush...funny how Obama's out of favor with most liberals bc he's NOT liberal enough- but hey- if fox news repeats it often and loud enough....

 

[Andy]

The bush NMB flat out said - no strikes in my admin. not this one.

I have to call BS on that statement. Prove it.


What was the last administration to stop a pilot strike, by invoking emergency powers? Hint: 1997.
The time before that where a president invoked emergency powers to stop an airline strike? 1966. (Actually, it was 5 airlines' machinists that struck).
Which party did both of those presidents belong to? Dems? Say it ain't so! How could Dems intervene in airline union strikes? Maybe, just maybe, Dems aren't as pro-union as they say they are.