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
PNCL management propaganda
- Thread starter Blue Moon
- Start date
- Watchers 23
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
For anyone that thinks that management is being honest about ALPA wanting to hurt the company, the other employees, etc..., you might want to read the following article. It clearly demonstrates that this is just management propaganda that has been used time and time again to fool gullible pilots that don't know any better. This article was originally published by the FDX MEC if I remember correctly, but we republished it in our MEC newsletter at PCL when I was on the MEC. Have a read:
Learning from History, Nov./Dec. 05, p. 30
'Whiners and Crybabies'
In January 1960—41 days before I was born—Bob Prescott, the president of the Flying Tiger Line, sent a letter about strikes to Flying Tiger pilots. The letter shows how, over the course of four-and-a-half decades, issues between workers and employers, particularly pilots, have been quite consistent. It shows that management is unwilling to negotiate in areas that truly matter to pilots and that the struggle to maintain a decent lifestyle while flying for a living is not new.
Prescott, in his opening paragraph, politely informs readers that he wants to educate them about strike ramifications. This may not seem like an important tactic, but it gives readers the subtle impression that they have not been told enough, and maybe not the truth, by union leaders. It initiates his portrayal of himself as the savior of the uninformed who will lead the masses to the truth.
After the opener, Prescott launches the first main point of the letter—the (character) assassination of the pilot negotiators. The next three paragraphs detail the “arrogant” stance of the pilots’ Negotiating Committee and the union’s leaders. These paragraphs also paint the pilots’ positions as being too zealous and dangerous through three main themes:
1. The Negotiating Committee has been difficult, unprofessional, overreaching, and lacking the necessary savvy to know what can be expected in the industry.
2. Management has been magnanimous in its cooperation, doing everything within its power to accommodate this Committee, despite the Committee members’ arrogance.
3. The president is even taking time out of his busy schedule to personally rescue the company from the union’s Negotiating Committee.
Prescott drives these points home through insinuation and embedded threats, using statements like “an unusually difficult time with your negotiating committee” and “an agreement we could live with and still keep the company alive.” Companies in the 1960s knew the value of employing good union-busting wordsmiths the same way that modern companies do, and the best ones do their work without overtly stating the intent, but through cumulative impression.
After painting the union leaders as obstructionists, the next step in the letter is to attack the union’s negotiating position. As is traditional, Prescott uses impressive-looking numbers that mean nothing to characterize the union’s position. The letter states that Flying Tigers has agreed to 110 out of the 155 items being negotiated. Anyone giving a smell test to that statement should be able to quickly discern that the items agreed to were no doubt of little, if any, monetary consequence. This is especially evident when these numbers are followed in the letter by a list of the difficult issues, which boil down to three main items—pay, retirement, and trip rig.
All three of these main items are crucial issues in all modern airline contract negotiations. Modern airline work rules incorporate the first and third issues, and retirement stands out as one of the key issues then as it is for pilots now. In spite of the fact that the current labor environment is such that corporate interests are heavily favored (and management can whittle away the benefits and pay of employees rather easily), the struggle over benefits is by no means unfamiliar territory to long-term labor observers.
The middle third of the letter seeks to demoralize and marginalize the concerns of the pilots and gives reasons why pilots are not worthy of improvements in their working conditions. These five paragraphs can be summarized in five paraphrased statements (many of which you may recognize):
1. You make so much money now!
2. No matter what the profits of the corporation might appear, we can’t afford what you demand!
3. Work rules changes will have no effect on your life!
4. If you were not so demanding, a contract would not take so long to negotiate!
5. Look at the state of the rest of the industry!
After these “classics” come a few paragraphs of strike “information.” The first major paragraph on strikes incorporates two big weapons: it posits a not-so-thinly veiled threat that any strike will be an all-out war, and it intimates that the union leaders are naive in their drastic underestimation of how big a fight a strike is.
The strike “information” paragraph combines two of the most effective, time-honored tactics in negotiations. The threat of job loss is one of the most devastating threats that management has. The paragraph states something that was wrong in 1960 and is purely wrong in today’s legal structure. It says, “Now, when you strike, you quit your job.” You do not quit your job when you go on strike—you remain an employee with numerous rights. Misinformation like this is one of the strongest weapons against the uneducated, and examples abound of companies willing to lie to their employees, hoping that they are too naive to know better.
The second tactic: “I would think you would be a little more cautious about handing over your strike vote, so that a small group can put your future in such jeopardy.” Prescott suggests that just a small group of radicals is endangering the welfare of the larger workforce. The marginalization of the leaders is a main undercurrent throughout the letter. These tactics are all used to set readers up for the knockout.
The lead punch is in the third to last paragraph, in which the Flying Tigers president vows that he will bow down to nobody and says that thousands of good pilots are ready to take Flying Tigers jobs. He presses the nuclear button and is hoping that the crew force implodes. He makes no mention of the incredible cost of training replacements, or the lost income for the company when its customers go elsewhere because no pilots are available to fly the airplanes.
After that body shot, the next paragraph is the right hook, the second half of the combination—the excuse, “we’re getting a much bigger airplane, so you’re going to make much more money without a raise.” The letter states that “the pay for a CL-44 nine year Captain under the last contract offer would allow him to earn as much as $27,000 annually. So think twice before you ruin it.” All you have to do is replace “CL-44” with “A380,” and you have the modern version of this line.
The closing paragraph, as is typical, tries one final time to separate the union’s leaders from its members. It begins with an allusion to “a few whiners and crybabies.” I don’t expect to see the words “whiners” and “crybabies” in a modern version of one of these letters, but over the years more politically correct messages have been crafted with the same intent.
These tactics are time-honored, and this fight is ages old, much like the labor issues that continue to plague us after four-and-a-half decades. Don’t forget, company managements have so many ways now to deliver these messages—letters, DVDs, blogs, newspaper ads, streaming video, internal corporate media, and even the Goodyear blimp. Your nose should be getting educated enough by now to sniff out the content and the intent of communications like these, whatever their form. As Capt. Woerth often says, “Same circus, different clowns.” —Capt. Brad Mahoney (FedEx), MEC Communications Chairman
Continued.....
Learning from History, Nov./Dec. 05, p. 30
'Whiners and Crybabies'
In January 1960—41 days before I was born—Bob Prescott, the president of the Flying Tiger Line, sent a letter about strikes to Flying Tiger pilots. The letter shows how, over the course of four-and-a-half decades, issues between workers and employers, particularly pilots, have been quite consistent. It shows that management is unwilling to negotiate in areas that truly matter to pilots and that the struggle to maintain a decent lifestyle while flying for a living is not new.
Prescott, in his opening paragraph, politely informs readers that he wants to educate them about strike ramifications. This may not seem like an important tactic, but it gives readers the subtle impression that they have not been told enough, and maybe not the truth, by union leaders. It initiates his portrayal of himself as the savior of the uninformed who will lead the masses to the truth.
After the opener, Prescott launches the first main point of the letter—the (character) assassination of the pilot negotiators. The next three paragraphs detail the “arrogant” stance of the pilots’ Negotiating Committee and the union’s leaders. These paragraphs also paint the pilots’ positions as being too zealous and dangerous through three main themes:
1. The Negotiating Committee has been difficult, unprofessional, overreaching, and lacking the necessary savvy to know what can be expected in the industry.
2. Management has been magnanimous in its cooperation, doing everything within its power to accommodate this Committee, despite the Committee members’ arrogance.
3. The president is even taking time out of his busy schedule to personally rescue the company from the union’s Negotiating Committee.
Prescott drives these points home through insinuation and embedded threats, using statements like “an unusually difficult time with your negotiating committee” and “an agreement we could live with and still keep the company alive.” Companies in the 1960s knew the value of employing good union-busting wordsmiths the same way that modern companies do, and the best ones do their work without overtly stating the intent, but through cumulative impression.
After painting the union leaders as obstructionists, the next step in the letter is to attack the union’s negotiating position. As is traditional, Prescott uses impressive-looking numbers that mean nothing to characterize the union’s position. The letter states that Flying Tigers has agreed to 110 out of the 155 items being negotiated. Anyone giving a smell test to that statement should be able to quickly discern that the items agreed to were no doubt of little, if any, monetary consequence. This is especially evident when these numbers are followed in the letter by a list of the difficult issues, which boil down to three main items—pay, retirement, and trip rig.
All three of these main items are crucial issues in all modern airline contract negotiations. Modern airline work rules incorporate the first and third issues, and retirement stands out as one of the key issues then as it is for pilots now. In spite of the fact that the current labor environment is such that corporate interests are heavily favored (and management can whittle away the benefits and pay of employees rather easily), the struggle over benefits is by no means unfamiliar territory to long-term labor observers.
The middle third of the letter seeks to demoralize and marginalize the concerns of the pilots and gives reasons why pilots are not worthy of improvements in their working conditions. These five paragraphs can be summarized in five paraphrased statements (many of which you may recognize):
1. You make so much money now!
2. No matter what the profits of the corporation might appear, we can’t afford what you demand!
3. Work rules changes will have no effect on your life!
4. If you were not so demanding, a contract would not take so long to negotiate!
5. Look at the state of the rest of the industry!
After these “classics” come a few paragraphs of strike “information.” The first major paragraph on strikes incorporates two big weapons: it posits a not-so-thinly veiled threat that any strike will be an all-out war, and it intimates that the union leaders are naive in their drastic underestimation of how big a fight a strike is.
The strike “information” paragraph combines two of the most effective, time-honored tactics in negotiations. The threat of job loss is one of the most devastating threats that management has. The paragraph states something that was wrong in 1960 and is purely wrong in today’s legal structure. It says, “Now, when you strike, you quit your job.” You do not quit your job when you go on strike—you remain an employee with numerous rights. Misinformation like this is one of the strongest weapons against the uneducated, and examples abound of companies willing to lie to their employees, hoping that they are too naive to know better.
The second tactic: “I would think you would be a little more cautious about handing over your strike vote, so that a small group can put your future in such jeopardy.” Prescott suggests that just a small group of radicals is endangering the welfare of the larger workforce. The marginalization of the leaders is a main undercurrent throughout the letter. These tactics are all used to set readers up for the knockout.
The lead punch is in the third to last paragraph, in which the Flying Tigers president vows that he will bow down to nobody and says that thousands of good pilots are ready to take Flying Tigers jobs. He presses the nuclear button and is hoping that the crew force implodes. He makes no mention of the incredible cost of training replacements, or the lost income for the company when its customers go elsewhere because no pilots are available to fly the airplanes.
After that body shot, the next paragraph is the right hook, the second half of the combination—the excuse, “we’re getting a much bigger airplane, so you’re going to make much more money without a raise.” The letter states that “the pay for a CL-44 nine year Captain under the last contract offer would allow him to earn as much as $27,000 annually. So think twice before you ruin it.” All you have to do is replace “CL-44” with “A380,” and you have the modern version of this line.
The closing paragraph, as is typical, tries one final time to separate the union’s leaders from its members. It begins with an allusion to “a few whiners and crybabies.” I don’t expect to see the words “whiners” and “crybabies” in a modern version of one of these letters, but over the years more politically correct messages have been crafted with the same intent.
These tactics are time-honored, and this fight is ages old, much like the labor issues that continue to plague us after four-and-a-half decades. Don’t forget, company managements have so many ways now to deliver these messages—letters, DVDs, blogs, newspaper ads, streaming video, internal corporate media, and even the Goodyear blimp. Your nose should be getting educated enough by now to sniff out the content and the intent of communications like these, whatever their form. As Capt. Woerth often says, “Same circus, different clowns.” —Capt. Brad Mahoney (FedEx), MEC Communications Chairman
Continued.....
continued...
The Flying Tiger Line Inc.
Office of the President
January 19, 1960
TO: ALL FLYING TIGER LINE PILOTS:
I thought perhaps it might be a good idea to explain to you what has been going on from our side of the picture and also impart to you some facts of life about strikes that you might not be fully cognizant of.
We have had an unusually difficult time with your negotiating committee on this contract. They came in last July with a proposal that contained demands for some 155 changes in the contract, many of them completely ridiculous. As you know, our executives spent many months with them trying to hammer out an agreement that we could live with and still keep the company alive. Your negotiators appeared to be in the mood to make no concessions. Their attitude seemed to be, “This is what we want and we want it and we could care less what your problems are.” This attitude makes bargaining almost impossible.
When things reached an impasse in November, 1959, they asked you for a strike vote and apparently got it. They set the first strike date on January 4th and we learned of it by reading it in the newspapers. They didn’t even have the courtesy of notifying us directly, another example of the arrogance we have had to put up with over the past few months.
I got into the act shortly after the first of the year because I knew this company and its pilots had no business getting into a strike situation.
Of the 155 items on their demand list we had conceded on something like 110 of them. The issues finally boiled down to three main items:
1. Flight pay and allowances.
2. A retirement plan.
3. The so-called 1 for 4 plan where the pilot is paid for one hour of flying for each four hours he is away from home, whether he flies or not.
On the pay item, as we’ve told you, we gave an increase of about $175 per month for Captains and $98 a month for Co-pilots. This works out to where a senior Captain can earn almost $23,000 per year, and a Co-pilot about $15,000.
On the retirement plan I felt the company was not ready. Regardless of which you might think, we are still on a hand-to-mouth existence and will be until we get the CL-44 in operation. However, we stretched a point and offered to install a plan on July 1, 1960 that would be largely patterned after that one which was instituted in 1952 by Western Airlines. Your negotiators demanded past service benefits. The estimated cost of this on a company wide basis would be around $2,500,000 which we simply cannot afford at this time, so we had to turn it down.
The 1 for 4 issue we could not cope with. We estimated it would increase our flight crew expense by about 25% without adding anything to our crews’ income. Further, it would completely eliminate us from competition in a large segment of our business. We had to turn it down.
One remaining issue was the retroactive pay. They wanted it back to August 1, 1959. We did not feel that all the delay in getting a contract was our fault. We therefore offered retroactivity to November 1, 1959.
These concessions were not enough for your negotiators and I began to get the feeling that it would be impossible to work out any reasonable contract with them. The pay offer was considerably higher than those with whom we have to compete, such as Slick, Seaboard and Western, Overseas National, and none of these companies has a retirement plan of any kind.
So, we had had so much of this strike talk, we finally rebelled and decided to let them have at it.
Now, let me give you a few words on strikes. Strikes are very much like wars. One side tries to inflict sufficient damage or the threat of damage to the other side until somebody surrenders. Your negotiators spoke of a “peaceful strike.” I found what they wanted was for us to lay down and play dead. I’m sorry that I could not concede to this one final demand. It just goes against my idea of a fight. If we in management should lay down and play dead every time somebody says “boo” to us you wouldn’t have a job to argue about because there wouldn’t be a company. I don’t need to point out to you what has happened to some of our erstwhile competitors.
Now, when you strike you quit your job. You refuse to report for work. Then, if you want to operate an airline, which we do, we have to hire a pilot take your place. When that happens you no longer have a job. That job now belongs to the new pilot and we could not take it away from him and give it back to you even if we wanted to. I’m not sure that all of you realize that. If you do, I would think you would be a little more cautious about handing over your strike vote, so that a small group can put your future in such jeopardy.
And, I must tell you this. This company is not bowing down to anybody. If you don’t want to fly for it there are thousands of good pilots who do want to and who could care less for what ALPA thinks or does.
I think that if you will look around you, you will find that The Flying Tiger Line Inc. has done pretty well by you, considering the conditions under which it has had to grow. Your future is brighter as you look forward to the CL-44 and is more secure than that of an employee of any other post-war airline like ours. Incidentally, the pay for a CL-44 nine year Captain under the last contract offer would allow him to earn as much as $27,000 annually. So think twice before you ruin it.
You are a great bunch of pilots with the exception of a few whiners and crybabies, and I am proud of you. It is my hope that we can settle this thing and get back to fighting our real competition instead of each other.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Prescott,
President
The Flying Tiger Line Inc.
Office of the President
January 19, 1960
TO: ALL FLYING TIGER LINE PILOTS:
I thought perhaps it might be a good idea to explain to you what has been going on from our side of the picture and also impart to you some facts of life about strikes that you might not be fully cognizant of.
We have had an unusually difficult time with your negotiating committee on this contract. They came in last July with a proposal that contained demands for some 155 changes in the contract, many of them completely ridiculous. As you know, our executives spent many months with them trying to hammer out an agreement that we could live with and still keep the company alive. Your negotiators appeared to be in the mood to make no concessions. Their attitude seemed to be, “This is what we want and we want it and we could care less what your problems are.” This attitude makes bargaining almost impossible.
When things reached an impasse in November, 1959, they asked you for a strike vote and apparently got it. They set the first strike date on January 4th and we learned of it by reading it in the newspapers. They didn’t even have the courtesy of notifying us directly, another example of the arrogance we have had to put up with over the past few months.
I got into the act shortly after the first of the year because I knew this company and its pilots had no business getting into a strike situation.
Of the 155 items on their demand list we had conceded on something like 110 of them. The issues finally boiled down to three main items:
1. Flight pay and allowances.
2. A retirement plan.
3. The so-called 1 for 4 plan where the pilot is paid for one hour of flying for each four hours he is away from home, whether he flies or not.
On the pay item, as we’ve told you, we gave an increase of about $175 per month for Captains and $98 a month for Co-pilots. This works out to where a senior Captain can earn almost $23,000 per year, and a Co-pilot about $15,000.
On the retirement plan I felt the company was not ready. Regardless of which you might think, we are still on a hand-to-mouth existence and will be until we get the CL-44 in operation. However, we stretched a point and offered to install a plan on July 1, 1960 that would be largely patterned after that one which was instituted in 1952 by Western Airlines. Your negotiators demanded past service benefits. The estimated cost of this on a company wide basis would be around $2,500,000 which we simply cannot afford at this time, so we had to turn it down.
The 1 for 4 issue we could not cope with. We estimated it would increase our flight crew expense by about 25% without adding anything to our crews’ income. Further, it would completely eliminate us from competition in a large segment of our business. We had to turn it down.
One remaining issue was the retroactive pay. They wanted it back to August 1, 1959. We did not feel that all the delay in getting a contract was our fault. We therefore offered retroactivity to November 1, 1959.
These concessions were not enough for your negotiators and I began to get the feeling that it would be impossible to work out any reasonable contract with them. The pay offer was considerably higher than those with whom we have to compete, such as Slick, Seaboard and Western, Overseas National, and none of these companies has a retirement plan of any kind.
So, we had had so much of this strike talk, we finally rebelled and decided to let them have at it.
Now, let me give you a few words on strikes. Strikes are very much like wars. One side tries to inflict sufficient damage or the threat of damage to the other side until somebody surrenders. Your negotiators spoke of a “peaceful strike.” I found what they wanted was for us to lay down and play dead. I’m sorry that I could not concede to this one final demand. It just goes against my idea of a fight. If we in management should lay down and play dead every time somebody says “boo” to us you wouldn’t have a job to argue about because there wouldn’t be a company. I don’t need to point out to you what has happened to some of our erstwhile competitors.
Now, when you strike you quit your job. You refuse to report for work. Then, if you want to operate an airline, which we do, we have to hire a pilot take your place. When that happens you no longer have a job. That job now belongs to the new pilot and we could not take it away from him and give it back to you even if we wanted to. I’m not sure that all of you realize that. If you do, I would think you would be a little more cautious about handing over your strike vote, so that a small group can put your future in such jeopardy.
And, I must tell you this. This company is not bowing down to anybody. If you don’t want to fly for it there are thousands of good pilots who do want to and who could care less for what ALPA thinks or does.
I think that if you will look around you, you will find that The Flying Tiger Line Inc. has done pretty well by you, considering the conditions under which it has had to grow. Your future is brighter as you look forward to the CL-44 and is more secure than that of an employee of any other post-war airline like ours. Incidentally, the pay for a CL-44 nine year Captain under the last contract offer would allow him to earn as much as $27,000 annually. So think twice before you ruin it.
You are a great bunch of pilots with the exception of a few whiners and crybabies, and I am proud of you. It is my hope that we can settle this thing and get back to fighting our real competition instead of each other.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Prescott,
President
Quack
Reg Dunlop
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Posts
- 394
CS is a hypocrite! How can he sit there and write a letter like that to a group of pilots, who he knows damn well have been beaten down like a bunch of red headed step children at the salvation army soup line. christ he was one the highest paid pilots in the industry over at fed ex and his son of all people is a pncl pilot. i'd love to hear what their conversations are like
CS: How was your day son?
Son: Well after 6 legs, no breaks and a SCHEDULED reduced rest overnight, i got extended. How was yours?
CS: Well i'm trying to undercut your negoiations and figure out a way that i can pull your ballz over the top of your head...
Son: %^($ You dad
Give em hell guys
CS: How was your day son?
Son: Well after 6 legs, no breaks and a SCHEDULED reduced rest overnight, i got extended. How was yours?
CS: Well i'm trying to undercut your negoiations and figure out a way that i can pull your ballz over the top of your head...
Son: %^($ You dad
Give em hell guys
Lazy8
Registered Parrot Head
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Posts
- 789
Tell your classmates that they better get real comfy working here because it will be the last place they'll ever get a job if they cross a line. Crossing the line is the surest and quickest way to ruin an Airline Pilot career. Wait no, I take that back. They could probably find work at Skybus.
This is a professional industry with a professional association. There is no place for "I just want to fly shiny jets and feed my family on $20,000/year". For one thing, they're not shiny and I can't even feed my dog on the pay.
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry about scabs at Pinnacle. For one, if it comes to a strike, I am confident that anyone considering such a foolhardy move would get the message about the repercussions of such an action. And in any case, there would never be enough for Pinnacle to fly even a small number of flights.
Turbo
Turbo
DoinTime
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 2,523
If they really need the money then they should get a job that pays more than minimum wage. Scabs have extremely limited career expectations. A scab at Pinnacle would likely never get a good airline job again.
arthompson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Posts
- 540
BoilerUP
Citation style...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Posts
- 5,311
I'd say a good return to work LOA would address that.
If UAL ALPA could get the 570 back after their strike (even though a lawsuit was involved) PNCL ALPA should be able to get probies back after a strike.
Inconceivable
huh
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Posts
- 578
The PCL MEC would never accept a new contract without an agreement that included the return of all probies. However, I doubt the MEC will even ask probies to honor the lines.
With the current attrition over there, aren't something like 10% of their CAs and over 50% of their FOs probies?
arthompson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Posts
- 540
I wanted to! One guy was a teamsters (some truck driving job he had), and he mentioned how he hated unions. He said he wasn't going to lean towards the company, nor towards ALPA.
The other guy, the WORST one, said he'd fly even if there was a strike. To feed his kids. I told him with how little we make, it's useless to have that money thing as an excuse. If you want to feed your family, you can do ANYTHING else and make more than a 1st yr Pinnacle F/O. He still said, no, I don't want to get fired by management (since he'd be a probationary pilot), and that he needs to feed his family and let the paycheck continue. I asked him if he seriously understood the consequences of crossing the picket line. "I don't care" was his response.
They didn't realize that. To them, it meant nothing. One guy actually pondered: "Do I strike with the pilots and get fired due to being on probation and striking, or do I cross the picket line and fly to keep my job?" I told him to go with the first option, and support the union and its strike actions. They apparently don't understand that their career opportunities will be severely limited if they cross the picket line.
And about that "worst" guy, he's an arrogant pr*ck. A CRJ bridge program graduate who actually tried on multiple occasions to correct instructors in class hahaha. Loser. He had NO common sense whatsoever! He wrecked his first plane with just 10 hours total time (solo flight/alone).
I can only pray that whoever he flies with, that Captain can take over and save the day, or otherwise this pr*ck is gonna get himself killed and take 50 people with him. I will be checking what flights he flies, and I will not be letting my family on those flights.
Maybe it's time for a Clive the clown avatar?
Hmm, I think it is! I'll see what I can come up with.
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Robert Buck, who recently passed away, and is more of an Air Line Pilot than any of us.. and who any new hire FO at Pinnacle would be lucky, yet probably to ignorant to realize, to sit on the LAV seat of any aircraft Capt. Buck operated, if at all possible.. had this to say in his book North Star Over My Shoulder p. 286.
To the new hire FO that said you'd cross a line to feed your family.... We all have families. What do you think we are doing here? If you want to continue to feed your family at the trough go right ahead.. But the rest of us are working on getting four chairs and a table... if you cross a picket line you will be eating at the trough for the rest of your career.
Regardless, as professional men and women we will be sitting at the table of pride, courage and self respect with our shoulders back and our heads high...
Regardless, as professional men and women we will be sitting at the table of pride, courage and self respect with our shoulders back and our heads high...
To me it is almost more disturbing how little these dumb-ass "pilots" know about their career than the fact that they think they would cross.
Back to work agreements bring back the hostages.
Then there are the idiots that say "why don't we go on strike", right after the MEC puts out the 200th article on the RLA.
This profession's biggest problem might not be mgmt, it might be pilots.
Turbo
Back to work agreements bring back the hostages.
Then there are the idiots that say "why don't we go on strike", right after the MEC puts out the 200th article on the RLA.
This profession's biggest problem might not be mgmt, it might be pilots.
Turbo
arthompson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Posts
- 540
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
You know, I am fully aware of the bindings of the RLA - but there are times when I ask, "why not?"
I surely don't remember times of old where pilots had such a terrible time getting to the point where they could walk the line. And besides, if the union remains united - the company and/or gov't couldn't prosecute everyone.
Someone please convince me once and for all why following the RLA to the letter is beneficial.
One more thing- early union and strike coordinators surely didn't ask permission before they walked. The response was always 'it's illegal. Go back to work." They did it anyway - and here we are, beneficiaries of their courage.
We could use some of that courage again.
I surely don't remember times of old where pilots had such a terrible time getting to the point where they could walk the line. And besides, if the union remains united - the company and/or gov't couldn't prosecute everyone.
Someone please convince me once and for all why following the RLA to the letter is beneficial.
One more thing- early union and strike coordinators surely didn't ask permission before they walked. The response was always 'it's illegal. Go back to work." They did it anyway - and here we are, beneficiaries of their courage.
We could use some of that courage again.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
