Way to go Avantair Pilots!

[glasspilot]

So you don't like the PAC?

3 posts and you unload like that? Ummm. Agenda much?

 

[Praetorian]

So you don't like the PAC?

3 posts and you unload like that? Ummm. Agenda much?

Buddy of mine told me two PAC members recently got forced off for union organizing. :erm: He said one of your pilots outed them to mangt.

 

[jonjuan]

Management constantly makes empty promises, the PAC buys into their BS and makes the same empty promises and empty headed idiots like you lap it up like warm milk.

No empty promises here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/110719/aair.ob8-k.html
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/S...bn=77240&tid=60&mid=61&tof=1&rt=2&frt=1&off=1
Annual base salary of $375,000, subject to annual review by the Board or the Company's Compensation Committee;

� 30,000 shares of restricted stock granted, subject to a three (3) year vesting period, with one-third of the shares vesting upon each of the first three anniversaries of the date of the Employment Agreement, subject to Mr. Wagman's continued employment with the Company on each vesting date;

� 425,000 stock options granted, exercisable at $2.25 per share, subject to a three (3) year vesting period,

 

[corpflunkie]

Buddy of mine told me two PAC members recently got forced off for union organizing. :erm: He said one of your pilots outed them to mangt.

Something like that

 

[NJAowner]

OK -- Fisch and Glass -- you are both "sort of" right. Safety is not paramount --- above all else --regardless of cost. Any organization, including NJA, for example, tries to balance the actual cost to do a maintenance procedure against the cost if the procedure is not done imediately. The question is where the balancing point is for an organization.

There are certain corrective maintenance issues, which are done in time, not immediately grounding the fleet, if the chance is very remote that there will be a problem. Sometimes they are accomplished in weeks. If the mantra really was "safety -regardless of cost" why isn't the entire fleet immediately grounded and no passengers legs flown until the maintenbance procedure is completed. If the odds of there being a problem are just 1 in 100,000,000 the plane may fly for another few days.

 

[AftCG182]

You are a f***ing idiot. Awesome! This marks the first time, in ALL of my posting here, that someone has thrown a personal insult in my direction. It's about time!

Your PAC, as has been proven time and time again, is nothing more than a management inspired pacifier that fools like you suck on, when not on your knees sucking on some part of a management flunky's anatomy. I'm not interested in your sexual fantasizing. You'll have to have homosexual fantasies about someone else.

The PAC not has NOT done a great job in the past. The record reflect it has done NO job in the past. They are a joke. That has been amply proven over and over again. Thus, the reason we've elected a new PAC. They've got a full agenda and they'll be held accountable. If they don't deliver, they'll be voted out, and we'll give a new group a try. My point is that they (the PAC) don't put a choke hold on Management the way that a union does. They make suggestions that we expect Management to listen to and act upon. Management had been generally good to us in the past. And, remember, we're a publicly traded company with a Board of Directors. Nobody's above the law around here.

Management constantly makes empty promises, the PAC buys into their BS and makes the same empty promises and empty headed idiots like you lap it up like warm milk. One of the things that the new PAC will be held accountable for is making sure that management follows through on some of the fantastic promises that were laid out before us over the last several months. I'm going to be patient and see how it plays out.

Me thinks you are too stupid to converse with. Then please don't feel obligated to write back. You do get credit for the second personal attack on me at flightinfo as well. Bravo!

Bye for now.

I'd accuse this poster of being another reincarnation of BTDI, but even he wasn't this hostile. Whatever.

 

[AftCG182]

Something like that

And the one person that I wanted on the PAC...

How's the weight-training program comin' along?

 

[realityman]

Aft, I really have no idea what things are like for you folks at Avantair. And no idea if a union would truly benefit you nor not. I'm not suggesting one here. But bear with me for a moment.

In your last couple posts, you've talked about holding the PAC responsible for a lack of progress in representing the pilot's interests (did I understand your general points correctly?). While I believe that's an important element in getting at least so e of what the pilots want (the same principle applies to union leadership too), I believe that you're holding the wrong people responsible.

You said the new PAC will be held responsible for making sure management follows through on their promises. I ask, in all seriousness because I have no idea how your PAC works, without a contract how, exactly, can they accomplish those things? I don't know what promises are being made, but hypothetically speaking suppose your management says "Guys, if things keep going the way they're going, you're all getting a 10% raise this time next year.". Suppose a year later, things have been going even better, and management comes back and gives you a 2% raise instead, and makes you work more days for it. I'm sure you'll tell me they wouldn't do that. That's fine, but let's just stick with the hypothetical for the moment. In this scenario, what could your PAC do to make management follow through with their original promise? If management had intended to keep their promise, they would have. Without a contract, it's just words.

It seems you're wanting to hold the wrong people accountable. If management isn't keeping their promises, it's not because your PAC is ineffective. It's because management isn't being held accountable, and your PAC doesn't have the right tools to hold them accountable. No matter how many new people you elect to the PAC, without the right tools, they will all fall short.

If you're electing new people to your PAC, can I surmise that it's because management isn't keeping their promises and you feel the PAC members who are voted out aren't doing a good job of making them keep their promises? What I'm getting at is that maybe the REAL problem isn't the PAC. Maybe it's that management isn't keeping their word. And if they aren't keeping their word, it's because they don't have to. How will new people on the PAC change that? Will they have different tools available to make sure management keeps their word? If not, odds are your results won't change.

Again, I don't know if a union is right for you folks. Not pushing that agenda. But having worked for union and non-union carriers, I can tell you that the ONLY way to insure management does what they say they are going to do is to have it in a written and legally-binding contract.

Good luck to you folks!

 

[realityman]

Let me take a stab at it. Unions make a company less competitive by raising the cost of labor. Or, you could look at it as unions insure a job provides professional compensation for a group of people who, without the union, would have little to no power to provide a professional wage individually.Unions also protect the worst pilots, thereby debauching the pilot pool. Actually, they protect ALL the pilots equally, as is their legal mandate. I agree that there are always a few tools in the chest who probably deserve less protection, but accepting a few bad apples is a far better option, in my opinion, than having no protection at all. Consider this: suppose you, through absolutely no fault of your own, blow a tire on landing and the plane drifts off the side of the runway. No one is injured, and the plane is relatively unscathed. But the owners were scared silly. They jump up and down and scream at management saying it was your fault, you nearly killed him and his family, and he's leaving the program if you're still working their in the morning. Are you suggesting your firing would be just? Are you saying you see absolutely no benefit in having a union in this case? Do you think my example is too far fetched? Because if you do, you haven't been paying attention. Why don't you contact some of our stewards and find out about a lot of attempted discipline against the pilots. I think it would be an eye-opener for you. You seem to be so focused on the negatives of the union, that you're missing the tons of good stuff of having a union!Also, Union pilots call in sick a lot more, cancel trips more, and are generally more sullen and less productive. Maybe it's because we have more protections which allow us to make better decisions. At my last company, we were repeatedly told to do things we KNEW were pushing the boundaries of safety because "We have a stack of resumes 50ft high and if you won't do it we're sure there are lots of others who will, and do it for less money". I think you'd agree this is a bad thing, and yet when you find yourself in a scenario (such as ours) where those kinds of threats hold no traction because of our union-negotiated protections, you cry foul and "loss of productivity". You missed your calling. You should have been in management. And sullen pilots? You need to get off the message boards. Almost everyone I fly with is happy and fun to travel with. Never once seen anyone abuse the fatigue or sick policies (I know it occurs, but don't think it's so prevalent that you can say it's representative of the entire pilot group's attitudes about those policies).Eventually, Unions eat their most company in many cases, Most? So, in your extensive research on this topic, what is the percentage of unionized companies that went out of business strictly because of a union? rendering unemployed the very pilots the Unions were supposed to be helping. I belong to a Union, and I see what the dynamics are. With all due respect to Union fans everywhere.

no, you're only seeing what you want to see. You are predisposed to view a union in a negative light, so negative things are all that you see. I'm very happy that the former NJI pilots were treated so well without the need for a union. That's truly wonderful. But coming from the NJA side, I have a much easier time seeing all the good the union has done for this pilot group, and how it's NEEDED. By the way, after our last two contracts (the '05 CBA and the IBB in '07) when the NJI pilot "coincidentally" got raises immediately after those agreements were signed, I didn't see any NJi pilots rushing to give the money back because it would help destroy the company. Hmmmmmmmm........

 

[AftCG182]

Aft, I really have no idea what things are like for you folks at Avantair. And no idea if a union would truly benefit you nor not. I'm not suggesting one here. But bear with me for a moment.

In your last couple posts, you've talked about holding the PAC responsible for a lack of progress in representing the pilot's interests (did I understand your general points correctly?). While I believe that's an important element in getting at least so e of what the pilots want (the same principle applies to union leadership too), I believe that you're holding the wrong people responsible.

You said the new PAC will be held responsible for making sure management follows through on their promises. I ask, in all seriousness because I have no idea how your PAC works, without a contract how, exactly, can they accomplish those things? I don't know what promises are being made, but hypothetically speaking suppose your management says "Guys, if things keep going the way they're going, you're all getting a 10% raise this time next year.". Suppose a year later, things have been going even better, and management comes back and gives you a 2% raise instead, and makes you work more days for it. I'm sure you'll tell me they wouldn't do that. That's fine, but let's just stick with the hypothetical for the moment. In this scenario, what could your PAC do to make management follow through with their original promise? If management had intended to keep their promise, they would have. Without a contract, it's just words.

I wrote about holding the PAC accountable (not responsible) for making sure that Management follows through on their promises. Not trying to split hairs here, but since we have a "trust based system" over here makes it unnecessary to hold anyone responsible for anything. The trust that this system is built upon is the performance of our management in the past, which has been better that anything else that I've experienced in my carreer in aviation. I'm sure that last sentence has caused more than one head to spin around in a complete 360, but it's true.

In the interest of being completely forthright, there was one fly in the ointment, the forced schedule shift to an 8/6 while we beefed-up our financials in response to the faltering economy which kicked us (and everyone else) in a very sensitive place: our bottom line. As promised, it was only temporary; we now have a selection of three schedules that we were able to bid from.

It seems you're wanting to hold the wrong people accountable. If management isn't keeping their promises, it's not because your PAC is ineffective. It's because management isn't being held accountable, and your PAC doesn't have the right tools to hold them accountable. No matter how many new people you elect to the PAC, without the right tools, they will all fall short.

I beleive that the one tool that we have is trust. Management gave us their word on certain issues, I'm going to trust them to follow through. In a year or two, I'm going to either look like a genius or the worlds biggest ass. Only time's going to tell.

If you're electing new people to your PAC, can I surmise that it's because management isn't keeping their promises and you feel the PAC members who are voted out aren't doing a good job of making them keep their promises? What I'm getting at is that maybe the REAL problem isn't the PAC. Maybe it's that management isn't keeping their word. And if they aren't keeping their word, it's because they don't have to. How will new people on the PAC change that? Will they have different tools available to make sure management keeps their word? If not, odds are your results won't change.

Great points, see my above response.

Again, I don't know if a union is right for you folks. Not pushing that agenda. But having worked for union and non-union carriers, I can tell you that the ONLY way to insure management does what they say they are going to do is to have it in a written and legally-binding contract.

My issue with unions with their binding contracts is that they remove the flexibility that might be needed in tough times. What good is a contract if it puts you in an unemployment line? If someone gives you "their word" on an agreement regarding an issue, that's good enough to start with. A monitoring component like the PAC just helps ensure a timely implementation of that agreement. True, there's no enforcement capacity, but as I said before, hopefully there won't be a need for one.

Good luck to you folks!

Thanks! And thanks for discussing this like an intelligent manner, free from insults. Much appreciated.