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

Union mindset

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

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
It seems to me that our unions (I am a card carrying ALPA member) want to bargain for wages as if the airline industry was still a regulated business environment. Any thoughts? Comments?

regards
 
I think you're right.
 
I think enigma's point is that the unions operate on the assumption that the revenue generated from ticket sales (which pays all employee wages) is somehow static. In reality that flow of cash is the result of millions of individual flyers' purchase decisions. Each individual purchase decision is driven by a multitude of factors. Union wage negotiations are based on the assumption that cash flow is affected very little by the individual flyers' choices and decisions.

I apologize enigma, if I have misinterpreted your post. The following is my own analysis.

I believe your observation is at the center of the unions' wildly errant claim that 9/11 does not qualify as force majeure but is instead an economic event. In reality, when the public observed the very real danger that commercial aircraft could be turned into kamikaze guided cruise missiles, a great many travelers made the rational decision not to travel by air. The unions refuse to acknowlege this.
 
Last edited:
I think you're right.
 
Normal???

One problem here is that many are treating this as the normal downtrend were layoffs are the result of a decline in economic factors....
There was nothing normal about these events at all.

The contract provisions that deal with scope, that deal with flow back, that deal with shrinkage, never contemplated the events of Spetember 12th and the instant decline in business. To then try and apply the contract provisions that deal with these things as if they are normal events is ludicrous.

That mentality is leading to the sale of subsideraries, renogotiation of labor contracts, and changes in the lifes of many/

If you want to talk about this subject, call me on www.Avcareer.tv Monday at 2pm est 954-472-6684 Ext 304 or email me at [email protected]
 
Contracts

Hey, I like "force majeure." Pretty spiffy-sounding.

I believe that Publisher and I finally agree on something. I cannot see how any airline union contract could anticipate the 911 events. However, the public's reaction to 911 gave impetus to events that were already in progress for months, if not for a year, i.e. the recession. Many of the things we've seen were destined to happen, but 911 undoubtedly escalated and magnified their impact and aftereffects.

On the other hand, no matter how good a contract the unions negotiate, somehow management always finds a way to chisel around it. I don't claim to be an expert on this by any means, but some of this outsourcing that some mainlines are using seems to be an example. Mainlines agree to code-share and/or use their regional subsidiaries, but somehow they've found a loophole to use non-owned regionals to feed them, at less cost. In the meantime, crews employed by the owned subsidiaries are furloughed and, as Publisher observed, the subsidiaries are up for sale. All, apparently, for lack of revenue. Now, at this point in time we could say we're in an economic event. Clearly, the unions need to find a way to address this situation from the standpoint of finding flying for their furloughed members.

In a way this is like a lockout. The furloughees want to work but the company is sending the work they normally would have elsewhere.

Just my .02 on what is really a very complex issue.
 
Ya'll are not really going where I thought you would, but I didn't post this with a specific situation in mind. I had not actually related my thinking with the current 9/11 driven events, but I didn't make the post because I had a clear vision of what is happening. I wrote this to stimulate discussion and to enrich my knowledge of how we enteract with management and the economy. I can't quite put to words what I think exactly, when I can I will. In the mean time, keep up the input. This beats the heck out of the RJDC discussion.

regards
8N
 
Management interaction

Thank you. That helps. Lemme take another run at it.

Remember our last discussion about unions? Let's revisit it briefly. I will speak in generalities for ease of discussion. Of course, there may be specific instances which may void these generalities.

By the late '70s, unions had served their members well. They worked for good wages and better working conditions. However, the country was in recession and had double-digit inflation. The country was in a bad way, yet unions were wanting more. Somehow, I'm flashing on the U.A.W. The quality of American cars sucked big time and sales weren't the best, but the unions wanted more.

Then, Ronald Reagan is elected President and the country's mood changes. Now, management is demanding givebacks from the unions, claiming business is down and it needs the givebacks to ensure jobs for the rank-and-file. So, the unions give back. Once you give back, it's hard to get it back.

My point is management will scream "bad economy" when unions demand higher wages. Moreover, once again, I return to the Frank Lorenzo, Carl Icahn and mid-80s United "A" and "B" scale examples. The theme of those years into the late '80s and early '90s was do more with less. Lorenzo and Icahn counted their beans. United started its "B" scale; I heard from someone only lately that the bad feeling about that is still around. Companies did more with less, the economy turned around, and companies prospered. Still, management tries to demand rollbacks of gains obtained in the past, under color of "economy."

What I said above still applies. Low revenues, i.e. bad economy, therefore, modest raises, if any, and maybe givebacks.

Is this what you're after, Enigma? At least that's how I see it.

BTW, I, too, am trying to follow the RJDC discussion, unsuccessfully.
 
Last edited:
Union wage negotiations are based on the assumption that cash flow is affected very little by the individual flyers' choices and decisions.

Incomprehensible as written. Please provide specific examples of "individual flyers' choices and decisions" that significantly affect cash flow to the point of being fundamental in negotiations.

I believe your observation is at the center of the unions' wildly errant claim that 9/11 does not qualify as force majeure but is instead an economic event. In reality, when the public observed the very real danger that commercial aircraft could be turned into kamikaze guided cruise missiles, a great many travelers made the rational decision not to travel by air. The unions refuse to acknowlege this.

Don't understand this either. If travelers decide not to travel by air, for whatever reason, then it's a defacto economic problem. The simple fact is, the airlines have used force majuere provisions to mitigate management and business fall-off from early last year, not just 9/11. While business is rapidly approaching pre-9/11 levels, there are no indications that the airlines will cancel their force majuere declarations. I'll bet they won't until forced to by lawsuits and the courts. If not challenged, it would stand ad infinitum to selectively disregard agreed to contract provisions at will. There might as well not even be a labor contract. I suppose the writer would suggest that labor be on a strict profit-sharing scheme only, with labor taking the risk for management foibles. Also, other fixed costs like aircraft leasors should be legally forced to take lease price cuts when the airline has a biz turndown? Should the airlines be legally allowed to unilaterally reduce the price of fuel from their suppliers during force majuere declaration?
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top