A lot of Union talk lately, so why.....

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by Frank_Rizzo

Protesting out on the street with the signs and the whole bit can get visibility out into the public domain whereas a lot of union bargaining can be made behind closed doors or less public. When the Dallas Morning News puts up a huge picture of guys stomping about AA it gets the word out their that things are not rosy. Sometimes just that visibility can hurt the company in lost outside investment.

Yes solid union action is better but I would not discount an old fashioned march in front of headquarters.

I agree that it does merit something to stand out there with the signs and 10' tall rat but I also question how much the airline using public cares.

Investors is another story. They do care how work relations are between mgmt and labor are. It's divulged in almost every market analysis report I've ever read.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

I can think of a number of members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers who would take issue with your statement. Although you are correct about individual bargaining units, the railroad unions prove that there can be a LOT more collective muscle flexed than ALPA does.

You are correct about the railroad unions (except it's the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ), but that strength is the result of an agreement between 7 of the major railroad unions that none of the 7 would make any agreement with management unless all of the 7 agreed (there's some interesting stuff on that here -- http://www.teamster.org/05news/nr_050103_1.htm ).

ALPA could do the same thing; all they have to do is get the pilots at, say, American, Delta, Southwest, United, Northwest, US Airways, and Continental on the same page. Considering the pilots at US Airways are not on the same page with themselves right now, I would hazard a guess that the likelihood of pulling together 7 major pilot groups would be somewhere between snowball's chance and bupkiss.

In addition, to really do what the railroad unions did, you would have to get the airlines to bargain as one. And I really doubt anyone could talk them in to that. (I don't know the history behind the consolidated bargaining in the railroad industry; if you have some information on that, please share -- I'd be interested to know.)

[akaFlyboy 4]

Thanks to you all. I am learning a lot. I am going to research more on trade unions, both pros and cons. I know a few people heavy in the politics in a couple of other professional unions that I will be contacting as well as I learn more.

The BEST part of this thread was how no one got into personal attacks or mean spirited negative responses, Thank You.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by akaFlyboy 4

The BEST part of this thread was how no one got into personal attacks or mean spirited negative responses, Thank You.

Give it time.

[Maximillian_Jenius]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Both. I argue their effectiveness and in turn, question why we're still engaging in such activities.

I am a businessman Max. I've never made any decent deals on real estate or medical devices by chanting outside my customers' workplace. I believe that negotiation is the most powerful tool any businessman can use and you better believe, we as pilots are nothing more than businessmen and women trying to negotiate a price for our service.

You dont see rallies/protests as "unprofessional" and thats fine, its your opion. However, I think there is a better way.

Comparing your business deals either real estate or medical devices to the CBA process is comparing apples to oranges.

Negotiation is great in and of itself. Don't you think that the pilots at ASA or PNCL want to negotiate with the company, after 5 yrs. don't you think ASA pilots are ready for a contract?

But when the RLA greatly favors management, and they're holding all the cards, what can you do?

The only thing available to you, hurt the companies media image.

[RPJ]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Both. I argue their effectiveness and in turn, question why we're still engaging in such activities.

I am a businessman Max. I've never made any decent deals on real estate or medical devices by chanting outside my customers' workplace. I believe that negotiation is the most powerful tool any businessman can use and you better believe, we as pilots are nothing more than businessmen and women trying to negotiate a price for our service.

You dont see rallies/protests as "unprofessional" and thats fine, its your opion. However, I think there is a better way.

I am taking it you are/were in sales? Sales is completely different than a "limited" trade. What someone does in terms of how much wealth is made and how much effort they put in sales is completely dictated by the individual salesman. There is never a reason for a salesmen to strike or protest unless someone breaks a sales contract. Thats one reason I enjoyed sales based positions, sky is the limit.

How could the average airline pilot negotiate with people that would make a difference in the fight? They can't, thats why there are designated individuals that do the negotiating for the masses.

Also if there was one national union for all commercial pilots that would not be the end all regarding work related problems. If the airlines got completely fed up with the national union they could always flip the union the bird and restructure complete airlines to 100% non-union airlines with most likely very little effort to convince the share holders. Then more and more non-union airlines will start popping up.

I am not convinced that complete uniformity across the board is the correct answer to this industries labor disputes.

-Ryan

[scramjet]

Here's a thought that would never work for a variety of reasons but is worth throwing out there: a single union for all airline labor groups much like the seaman unions before 1980 (I don't know if they're this strong anymore, I'm inclined to think not because you can go right to lines and look for a job nowadays). Imagine if not only every airline's planes couldn't fly due to a pilot strike, but an airline's bottom line was also affected because of no ticket selling, no aircraft maintenance (smaller nonunionized airlines who outsource to majors would also be greatly affected), and even no plant maintenance and the like. The Teamsters could almost organize something like this.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

we as pilots are nothing more than businessmen and women trying to negotiate a price for our service

Here's your problem. You think of yourself as a businessman. You're not. You may think of yourself that way, but management, the government, the investors, the media, etc... view you as just another blue collar worker. Management views you as nothing but a line item on a balance sheet that has a pesky habit of demanding more funding every 3-6 years. They have no intention of negotiating in good faith with you, and the media, the government, and the investors are certainly not going to see your side of it and help you out. The only leverage you have to force management to the table comes from activities like picketing that scares the public and depresses business, not to mention that it demonstrates to management that the pilot group is unified and a force to be reckoned with. You have the same problem that too many pilots have had throughout the history of the profession: you think you're a white collar businessman when you're really just another blue collar worker as far as everyone else is concerned.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Soul Brotha'

If ALPA truly worked, when [insert airline name here] goes on strike all ALPA members go on strike.

Captain Woerth was starting to consider the idea of "secondary boycotts," which is just the legal term for sympathy strikes. I haven't heard the same kinds of ideas from Prater, so I'm not sure if we'll see any of that during his term in office. It is perfectly legal under the RLA, however.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

you think you're a white collar businessman when you're really just another blue collar worker as far as everyone else is concerned.

Glad you think so highly of pilots social status.

Guess what? ALPA hasn't done much for anyone lately. Just ask USAir pilots or any other group that has been stomped on. ALPA needs to revise their tactics. Most pilots are ready for a new union.

Picketing outside a major airport doesn't do much for the public. They already think we're overpaid as it is. If I had a $1 for every time I heard people say "look at those pilots crying about their $300,000 salary outside of Sky Harbor."

It is my opinion, pilots need to resort to tactics that work. Board room tactics. Not renting a blower from Diamond Rental to power a 15' rat with red eyes and claws.

This is a business. We're providing a service that we need to deem the value of through business-style negotiations.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

And that's the million dollar question. If ALPA was a REAL union you'd have:

1. One comphrehensive pay scale and set of work rules for every unionized airline pilot.

ALPA has studied this idea numerous times, and each committee always comes to the same conclusion: a single pay scale and set of work rules is both completely unworkable and undesirable. There are far too many variables in the operations of each individual airline to be able to assign a single set of workrules, and ALPA's ability to advance wages and work rules is directly tied to the ability to "jack up the house one corner at a time." Captain Behnke set up ALPA the way it is for this specific reason.

2. A national seniority list

You'll never get the majority of pilots to go along with it. Captain Woerth was in favor of this concept, but saw the reality that this would never be possible. The ship sailed for this concept 76 years ago when ALPA was founded. It's impossible to change it now.

the AAA MEC stuck doggedly to their Date of Hire position even though ALPA National advised them to modify their stance.

Small correction: ALPA National never advised the AAA MEC to change their stance on the integration. ALPA maintains a strict policy of neutrality during seniority integrations. It's very likely that the attorney for the AAA MEC advised them to change their stance, but that attorney was not an ALPA lawyer and was selected solely by the AAA MEC.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Glad you think so highly of pilots social status.

This isn't about what pilots think of their own social status. This is about what everyone else, especially management, thinks about our status. Your perception of yourself is irrelevant. What matters is how everyone else perceives you.

Guess what? ALPA hasn't done much for anyone lately. Just ask USAir pilots or any other group that has been stomped on. ALPA needs to revise their tactics. Most pilots are ready for a new union.

Actually, if you look at the independent polling results, most pilots hold favorable opinions of their union leadership. You wouldn't know it because of the vocal minority of anti-ALPA zealots, but most pilots don't seek a new union. As for your comment that "ALPA hasn't done much for anyone lately," you should ask the Mesaba pilots about that. They came out of bankruptcy with a contract that is actually worth more than their pre-bankruptcy contract, despite the fact that management had been pushing for some of the most draconian payrates and work rules in recent history. Thanks to ALPA, that didn't happen. All of the concessionary contracts you see would have been far worse had it not been for ALPA. It's easy for you to attack ALPA, but you're just going after the convenient scape-goat. The real culprits are the bankruptcy laws, the RLA, and immoral management.

Picketing outside a major airport doesn't do much for the public. They already think we're overpaid as it is. If I had a $1 for every time I heard people say "look at those pilots crying about their $300,000 salary outside of Sky Harbor."

I don't want their sympathy. I couldn't possibly care less. I want their fear. I want them to be afraid that their next flight on (insert picketing carrier here) is going to be canceled or delayed because of labor unrest. If they take their business elsewhere, then I've achieved some more leverage. Make no mistake about it, the NWA pilots achieved the improvements to their concessionary CBA specifically because of their picketing and "what about BOB" (block or better) campaigns. Negative press for the airline always plays into our hands.

This is a business. We're providing a service that we need to deem the value of through business-style negotiations.

Management will simply not engage you in business-style negotiations because they view you as being inferior and not worth their time. You are scum in their eyes, and they would replace you with a monkey tomorrow if they could. Your idea that you can engage these people on a normal professional level as business associates is naive. No, you have to force them to the table through leverage tactics. Eliminate the picketing, the slowdowns, the strikes, the bad press, etc..., then you have no leverage, and management will not even agree to meet with you. Sorry, that's just the reality.

[killbilly]

I was tossing around a couple ideas - they call it 'blue-skying' in advertising...and was wondering if any of these ideas would work...none of them are either-or, or mutually exclusive positions....

...take the pilots out of the airlines. That's right. Essentially, form a corporation of...call them aviation consultants. The pilots work for a corporation which is not the airline, paid by the corporation, insured and protected by the corporation. The airlines RENT the pilots from the corporation - sort of like a contract/temp/agency. There are 5,000 things about this scenario that wouldn't work, but collectively, it could wield a pretty big sword, y'know?

...I think a national seniority system could work if it was tied to PAY only - if you have x-number of hours as an ATP, this is what you get paid. Schedule would still be bid based on seniority at a given carrier, but pay would be nationwide across the board...hadn't fleshed that out yet, but it would seem to me that it would be more palatable....I dunno...

just ideas....

[flyover]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

You are correct, but just try to get a bunch of Republicans to act like blue collar labor. Once when I asked one of our guys if he donated to ALPA-PAC, he said, "I give $200 a year to the NRA." I said, "So, basicly what your saying is keeping an arsenal in your basement is more important to you than your job." "Yep." he said.

Wait a minute. Have we met?

[skydog]

Originally Posted by Airdale

A Union is a way for pilots to stand behind each other to fight for fair wages and work rules.

Fight? Fight who? Fight what? This is not a war. There is not a star chamber of eeeevil airline managers hunkered down in some smoke filled room plotting to "stick it to the pilots." Management is just a group of people trying to figure out how to make money by flying people or things on airplanes. Not that they are doing a very good job, mind you, but that is a different story.

The job is what it is. It is not going to go back to something even remotely resembling what it was. Airline pilots are still going to make a good salary, but it is not going to be like it was pre-9/11. The only thing you can do is decide if the rewards are worth the costs. If they are, great! Enjoy your career. If not, well then there are plenty of other ways to make a 6 digit income. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are somehow going to reverse the past 30 years.

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by skydog

Fight? Fight who? Fight what? This is not a war.

Actually it is. ALPA volunteers man the battlements EVERY DAY protecting individual pilots and the contract from assault by airline managers. Contrary to your opinion, middle managers spend a huge amount of time attempting to circumvent our contract...on a daily basis.

They do everything they can to sharpshoot wages and benefits even stooping so low as to shortcheck unsuspecting pilots who don't review their pay stubs and paysheets EVERY MONTH.

Believe me, I've seen it all.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by skydog

Fight? Fight who? Fight what? This is not a war. There is not a star chamber of eeeevil airline managers hunkered down in some smoke filled room plotting to "stick it to the pilots." Management is just a group of people trying to figure out how to make money by flying people or things on airplanes.

Ahhh, so naive.

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by skydog

Fight? Fight who? Fight what? This is not a war. There is not a star chamber of eeeevil airline managers hunkered down in some smoke filled room plotting to "stick it to the pilots." Management is just a group of people trying to figure out how to make money by flying people or things on airplanes. Not that they are doing a very good job, mind you, but that is a different story.

Which regional carrier in contract negotiations have you worked for? I can assure you, it IS a war. It's a war to cut costs by any means necessary, and ALPA reps are the ones standing up for the pilots. If it were up to management, they'd walk all over the contract and tell us "Sue us. We're making money." There's plenty of ways that the two groups can work together and make plenty of money for the airline moving passengers from point A to point B. From what I've seen here in the nearly 2 years I've been here, those proposals from the union side have fallen of deaf ears, even when it could have made MORE money for the company. Management didn't think of it, so it must not be a good idea.

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Guess what? ALPA hasn't done much for anyone lately. Just ask USAir pilots or any other group that has been stomped on. ALPA needs to revise their tactics. Most pilots are ready for a new union.

B/c those people are confusing the acts of their own, locally elected reps with ALPA national. The local reps went AGAINST the recommendation of ALPA's consultants, and look where it got them. Now, those that don't know how it works, blame ALPA national for their troubles instead of leveling blame where it belongs: local representation.

The ironic thing is ALPA COULD have been one big trade union. The debate was on back in the 30s when ALPA first started. The original ALPA heads decided it would be better to have several contracts instead of one national contract. This way they could use pattern bargaining to "jack up the house" and get better pay and benefits. One contract gets signed, then the next contract ups that one, and so on and so on. When the original contract is up for re-newal, then there have been multiple contracts since then to build on. Wanna know why CAL wants to enter negotiations early? So they don't have to one up a contract signed by Alaska, Delta, etc in post-bankruptcy conditions.

[scramjet]

Originally Posted by skydog

Fight? Fight who? Fight what? This is not a war. There is not a star chamber of eeeevil airline managers hunkered down in some smoke filled room plotting to "stick it to the pilots." Management is just a group of people trying to figure out how to make money by flying people or things on airplanes. Not that they are doing a very good job, mind you, but that is a different story.

The job is what it is. It is not going to go back to something even remotely resembling what it was. Airline pilots are still going to make a good salary, but it is not going to be like it was pre-9/11. The only thing you can do is decide if the rewards are worth the costs. If they are, great! Enjoy your career. If not, well then there are plenty of other ways to make a 6 digit income. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are somehow going to reverse the past 30 years.

Defeatism! Sure, maybe things will never be the same, but we can work to make things closer to what they were. That's one reason we have unions.

[scramjet]

Let's use an example here. Imagine if corporations that employed lawyers attempted to slash their wages so much so that a new lawyer at said corporations was making around $18k a year. We're talking professional labor here. What do you think would happen? Now substitute pilot, another labor group that meets the sociological definition of a professional (requiring use of theory to accomplish tasks, making decisions based on said theory, making decisions that affect many people, sedentary labor requiring extensive training and multiple certifications). Now what do you think happens? Or wait, it already is happening...

[JHines]

Originally Posted by scramjet

Let's use an example here. Imagine if corporations that employed lawyers attempted to slash their wages so much so that a new lawyer at said corporations was making around $18k a year. We're talking professional labor here. What do you think would happen? Now substitute pilot, another labor group that meets the sociological definition of a professional (requiring use of theory to accomplish tasks, making decisions based on said theory, making decisions that affect many people, sedentary labor requiring extensive training and multiple certifications). Now what do you think happens? Or wait, it already is happening...

A key difference, though, is that there isn't such a ready potential "oversupply" of lawyers that would allow such wage-slashing. Union efforts are great but they're fighting uphill against the economics. What would really keep pilots' wages up in the long term would be create a politically acceptable barrier to entry, something along the lines of requiring ATP minimums for ANY 121 flying.

[scramjet]

Originally Posted by JHines

A key difference, though, is that there isn't such a ready potential "oversupply" of lawyers that would allow such wage-slashing. Union efforts are great but they're fighting uphill against the economics. What would really keep pilots' wages up in the long term would be create a politically acceptable barrier to entry, something along the lines of requiring ATP minimums for ANY 121 flying.

True, but there really aren't that many pilots that are able to be commercially employed either. I can't remember the exact figure, but its well under 300,000. But yeah, I've always been a supporter of requiring the ATP for all 121 flying. Not only would it help limit the supply of pilots, but it would make the air transport system even safer.

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by JHines

A key difference, though, is that there isn't such a ready potential "oversupply" of lawyers that would allow such wage-slashing. Union efforts are great but they're fighting uphill against the economics. What would really keep pilots' wages up in the long term would be create a politically acceptable barrier to entry, something along the lines of requiring ATP minimums for ANY 121 flying.

Slash the requirements, and there might be. This time two years ago, 300-500 hour guys weren't getting hired at airlines on a regular basis, either. Toss in some fly by night "zero to litigation in 90 days!" advertising, and you've just created a supply of lawyers, especially if they toss in how much a top lawyer MAY earn like the glossy pilot ads I read in Flying magazine yesterday......right next to the article on how CAPT is doing such a great job at educating the 250 hour guys for the 121 environment.

[JHines]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Slash the requirements, and there might be. This time two years ago, 300-500 hour guys weren't getting hired at airlines on a regular basis, either. <SNIP>.

Yes, that's just my point. Currently, a FO only has to have a comm/inst as far as the FAA is concerned, correct? So that gives the airlines the "minimums slashing" power. It takes a state legislature to do that for attys.