Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

No deal for ual

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
T

tie1on

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Posts
186
The management team of UAL has decided the pilots are not worthy of a pay raise rot industry standards. I guess the highest p[aid management team is all about themselves.
 
mamba20 said:
Jeffrey's having fun and being cool. Wheres the problem? Such complete BS!
Click to expand...

Saw his little CNBC? sit down interview where he stated "he's having the time of his life running United" while insinuating that Delta has made a huge mistake by buying a refinery. He surely wasn't worried about any labor problems at UCH.
 
Full of LUV said:
Saw his little CNBC? sit down interview where he stated "he's having the time of his life running United" while insinuating that Delta has made a huge mistake by buying a refinery. He surely wasn't worried about any labor problems at UCH.
Click to expand...

Could you please post the link for the interview. I googled for it and searched on CNBC's webiste but couldn't find it.

Thanks!
 
The way this company is being run, there's no worry for a contract, cause there will be no jobs due to outsourcing and chasing off passengers!!!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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-
 
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-
Click to expand...

Support either side. It's a guarantee that neither one will be there for us when we need them.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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....
 
waveflyer said:
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-
Click to expand...

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
 
SWA Bubba said:
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
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
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....
 
waveflyer said:
The bush NMB flat out said - no strikes in my admin. not this one.
Click to expand...

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.
 
waveflyer said:
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?

This is not a conservative vs. liberal argument, Wave. It's stepping back and looking at reality. As Andy pointed out, it was Democratic presidents that used their powers to stop the last two attempted major airline strikes. And since then, with consolidation (USAir, United/Continental, Delta/Northwest), we're down to just a few majors controlling so much more each. A major airline strike would be exponentially more devestating to the economy and the nation in general. That's BEFORE you even consider the current fragile state of our economy. Do you really think President Obama would allow one, Wave? Really? That's a real question for you.


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?

I'm not saying take leverage away from pilot groups... I'm saying they don't especially CARE about 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.

No, I don't think it was a coincidence. I think it happened only because of a specific crash (Colgan), not because of who was the president. As in a lot of tragedies, a lot of "fixes" are knee-jerk reactions. The way the majors handle crew rest had nothing to do with that particular crash. That accident happened essentially because the Captain was an incompetent idiot who had successfully managed to hide his incompetence, and the FO was too afraid to do anything about it. Revamping crew rest rules was politicians showing that they "were fixing the problem." After all, they'd look bad if they didn't do anything. As far as experience goes (part of the FO's problem), I agree that has some validity. But I maintain it has little to do with the flavor of the current administration. I think you're giving President Obama way too much credit. He just happened to be in charge when it happened, just like he was in charge when bin Laden was finally found. You're not really going to argue (as some have) that Obama worked harder, or wanted more, than Bush did to get bin Laden, are you?

There is a party that is much more pro-labor- its just most of us hate everything about labor unions except for ours.

Certainly I agree that the Democrats are more pro-labor. That's not the point. And while I can't speak for every other pilot, I'd say that -I- don't "hate everything about unions except for ours." I don't hate unions at all; I think they perform a vital function. However, there IS a balance, and it's not right to give unions too much power any more than it is to give management too much power.


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....

Here this is not based on Fox or Rush. It's based on a non-partisan ranking, based on things he said and did, and causes and positions he espoused as a senator. Just because a lot of liberals now think "he's not liberal enough," that is just the reality of the situation. As the President, he can't just snap his fingers and make the US as he sees fit, anymore than if a conservative president got elected, he could snap his fingers and outlaw abortion (or anything else he believed in). It takes a lot of time to get stuff done here, and it's never fast enough for the "true believers." This is especially true for a first-termer. I'd bet you anthing that if President Obama gets re-elected this year, you'll see him push considerably harder for liberal causes, especially for what non-Democrats believe are radical liberal changes.
Click to expand...

That's the way -I- see it.

Bubba
 
The fact is that nobody likes airline strikes, not democrats, not republicans, not the customers, not the communities and not politicians. The federal government can stop strikes from happening (or even pending) at large carriers and they have done this through the NMB. Prior to the largest carriers becoming as large as they are now PEB's were becoming the norm after being very rare previously.

Like it or not this is the way it is until we find a way around the RLA/NMB. The time will come where the pilot supply will be tight enough that there will be ways to have leverage. Maybe you can't go on strike but the law can't stop 12K pilots at a big airline from all resigning on the same day with two weeks warning. In a tight labor market the large carrier would be out of business quickly if everyone bailed out. There are ways to have leverage but you need 100% solidarity and no scabs.......a tall order in this industry. As it stands now the NMB and the bankruptcy process has essentially become a wage control mechanism in the airline industry, in essence a form of regulation.
 
nwaf16dude said:
Not provable, but it's likely that Clinton would not have stopped the AA strike if APA was AFL-CIO affiliated.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Bubba- It won't matter and I never try to convince anyone- but it's my opinion that your philos on the matter is more influenced by culture than reality of the situation.
Believe me- I get frustrated with dems- I don't apologize for their faults -
 
waveflyer said:
Agreed.

Bubba- It won't matter and I never try to convince anyone- but it's my opinion that your philos on the matter is more influenced by culture than reality of the situation.
Believe me- I get frustrated with dems- I don't apologize for their faults -
Click to expand...

Actually, my philosophy in general is influenced by my upbringing, and what I see happening around me (I guess you could call that culture), but my thoughts on the likelihood of President Obama allowing United/Continental to strike, are based on the totality of recent history and what logically seems to be the danger to the economy of a transportation mega-carrier work stoppage. I must say that I'm a little surprised that you think the President would allow such an action.

As far as President Clinton and the AA work action goes, I'm also a little surprised on this topic with you and NWAF16Dude. Are you really saying that President Clinton, considered a reliable and consistent (if not moderate) Democrat, only stopped the AA strike because a union that may have "bought him" (AFL-CIO) wasn't the sponsor? He only supported unions that give him money, and to hell with the rest of the unions? That seems not only unlikely, but I'm sure he would take it as an insult to his legacy, and probably also as an accusation of impropriety. It seems more likely to me that that line of thinking is merely a rationalization to explain why a Democrat would stop an action by organized labor: "he would have allowed it by a REAL union." Sorry; I'm not buying that.

Glad you admit that you get frustrated with Democrats--I get frustrated with ALL politicians. In my opinion, if there was one thing that could be done to improve our country's political system, it would be term limits. If you can't limit virtually unlimited political contributions by special interest groups, then cut their influence by brining in new blood every few years. The Republicans tried that with their 'Contract With America' a few years back, but they obviously didn't try very hard.

However, I still stand by my belief that even the staunchest Democrat in Washington couldn't give a rat's azz about airline pilots' unions. Hell, Wave, consider this: Every single Captain (and a good few of the FOs) at Southwest Airlines falls into President Obama's publically-stated definition of "millionaires and billionaires" (Single making over $200k and married making over $250k). You remember--the ones who aren't paying "their fair share." You really think he gives a crap about us? Other than to take more tax revenue?

This is probably why a good deal of airline pilots tend to vote for non-Democrats (what follows is my opinion). Whether they think about it or not, they reason that whatever possible "harm" to unionism could be caused by a right-wing guy in the White House is greatly outweighed by the near certainty of higher income taxes when a left-wing guy is in the office. Oh yeah, even if there IS a left-wing guy in the office, he doesn't give a crap about MY union or its politics, because we make so much more money than Joe Average American.

Finally, and on a lighter note, I find it amusingly ironic that you said "I never try to convince anyone." I'd bet that every Delta pilot on this board would disagree with that particular statement! :laugh:

Bubba
 
Last edited:
The bush NMB flat out said - no strikes in my admin.
Click to expand...

Yep glad he prevented that Comair strike with a PEB in 2001.
 
Look no further than the Walker recall in Wisconsin to decide if Obama would back pilots. He was SILENT on a huge attack on the teachers union in Wisconsin.
 
bpapaDC8 said:
http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Unions/Unions/Bush-Issues-Orders-to-Prevent-Airline-Strikes/

" According to the Times, Bush is the first president to issue a blanket statement that he would try to prevent strikes at all airlines. "

Surprised you forgot about this Andy. As for Clinton issuing the PEB for AA, there was way more involved than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

I'm even more surprised that you forgot that Northwest Airlines mechanics went on strike for more than a year - Aug 2005 to Nov 2006. How could any airline worker forget the longest (and unsuccessful) airline strike in the last three decades?

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/08/22_newsroom_nwaflash/

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/11/06/nwamechanics/
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

SS at RC.PNG
Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom