The new airline thread

[SocialD]

Mostly agree with JeremiahWeed with an exception or two.  PBS is only as good or bad as your contract language and you can still have some of the niceties like trips touching, etc... the pilot group just has to be willing to expend negotiating capital to get them.  There are plenty of other efficiencies gained by PBS even if we still had trips touching.  When I say all this, I talking about carriers who currently have PBS.  If your carrier is currently LOT, I can't see any reason to give it up.  That said, even at 92% in my seat, PBS works great for me as a reserve bidder a majority of the year.  Based on my experience with LOT bidding, I highly doubt I would be able to execute my current bidding strategy without PBS.  Even the months I bid a line, my strategy is largely based on how our reserve rules work wrt trip length.  Even at my low seniority I was able to get 20-31DEC off this year, while getting my preferred trips.

Edited December 5, 2018 by SocialD

[Prozac]

Ditto what JW said for UPS. PBS would be a disaster at this place. Conflict bidding is one of the few ways guys have to recover from some of our more grueling night freight schedules. 

[ChkHandleDn]

On 12/3/2018 at 6:07 AM, MooseAg03 said:

Where you’ll work a lot more hours to make that pay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yuuuuup.  Nothing better than getting a multi-day GS for double pay.  Especially when these trips are usually cake one leg, 5 hr days if that.

[Lord Ratner]

I stand by PBS being great. Most of the arguments against it are contractual, or just flat out misunderstandings and what PBS actually does. But at it's core, PBS offers the ability to build your dream schedule, so long as you have the seniority. You can't do that in a system where the lines are predetermined. Trading, dropping, and picking up trips to manipulate a schedule from line-bidding are contractual elements (that we also have under a PBS system) to account for the shortcomings of a line-based bidding process.

PBS certainly does provide the company with the ability to more tightly manage manning, but the contract, rather than conflict bidding and other technicalities are where we should be securing our QOL protections.

When I was getting out of the military a whole bunch of people kept telling me about PBS and how I should avoid it at all costs. Now looking back, I realize those people were at Southwest FedEx and UPS. I think United too before they switched over. They knew about as much as I did about it. Now that I'm here, all I do is fly with guys who were line bidders for 20 years and only recently switched over to PBS once American did. I would say about 75% or more of them prefer PBS. If you take the time, learn the system, and create a very nuanced standing bid, you don't even need to do anything month-to-month. Again, seniority allowing.

There are many things at American that need to be fixed, probably even more than the other airlines right now. But PBS does not preclude those fixes from happening.

And on a more mercenary note, PBS is generally a benefit to the new guys, because let's face it, the old guys as a group aren't too keen on learning new systems. That leaves a lot of opportunities for us to get sequences that we would not otherwise have the seniority to hold.

[JeremiahWeed]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I stand by PBS being great. Most of the arguments against it are contractual, or just flat out misunderstandings and what PBS actually does. But at it's core, PBS offers the ability to build your dream schedule, so long as you have the seniority. You can't do that in a system where the lines are predetermined. Trading, dropping, and picking up trips to manipulate a schedule from line-bidding are contractual elements (that we also have under a PBS system) to account for the shortcomings of a line-based bidding process.

PBS certainly does provide the company with the ability to more tightly manage manning, but the contract, rather than conflict bidding and other technicalities are where we should be securing our QOL protections.

When I was getting out of the military a whole bunch of people kept telling me about PBS and how I should avoid it at all costs. Now looking back, I realize those people were at Southwest FedEx and UPS. I think United too before they switched over. They knew about as much as I did about it. Now that I'm here, all I do is fly with guys who were line bidders for 20 years and only recently switched over to PBS once American did. I would say about 75% or more of them prefer PBS. If you take the time, learn the system, and create a very nuanced standing bid, you don't even need to do anything month-to-month. Again, seniority allowing.

There's really not much point in having a big debate over PBS.  If I managed to make a compelling enough argument that you threw up your hands and said, "JW, you're right - I wish we had line bidding back at AA", you're still going to have PBS at the end of the day.  I just feel the need to point out that you really should caveat your positive comments about PBS and limit them to what you guys have successfully negotiated at AA.  PBS in the industry is just as widely varied as all the other aspects of individual airline contracts.  It's not accurate to say "PBS is great" without putting some qualifiers with that statement.  According to you (maybe you can help to quantify your opinion with a seniority hack), AA pilots have done a bang-up job creating an awesome PBS.  If the majority of pilots there share your viewpoint, good on you guys.  Not every airline with PBS can make that claim.

So, I continue not to try to sway your opinion, but to add some balance to the discussion and possibly offer new guys who are or eventually find themselves at a line bidding airline a differing perspective.

I disagree that most arguments against it are based on misunderstanding or contractual issues.  Maybe that's true at AA.  But, you can't evaluate it across the industry in a vacuum simply based on it's own merits.  Your only experience with it is at AA and according to you it's good.  If you wanted to refute arguments against it at another airline, you would need to evaluate it's impact on the complete system in place at that airline - not just what schedules pilots end up with each month.

One thing that kind of makes this an apples to oranges discussion is the significant variation in trip constructions at FedEx and UPS when compared to pax carriers.  I would say that PBS is more suited to a pax airline.  The concept of a "dream schedule" is probably only limited by one's imagination at AA.  At FedEx, everyone's dreams (on a particular) aircraft fall into very similar patterns.  So, it's very easy to build lines people want.  Domestically, we basically work Mon-Fri, sometimes Sat.  No one wants to work nights in a shotgun fashion, so we work week-on/week-off and so on.  With a huge population of commuters (70%-ish), that works great - less commutes each month.  Same for international.  We have huge trips.  Lots of them.  Most pilots either work one 12-14 day trip or two smaller trips each month.  There are a smaller number of lines for locals who prefer a higher number of shorter trips in a month.  My point is, PBS generated lines according to individual pilot's desires would most likely look like they do now being built by our own pilots on the scheduling group.  So, with all the negatives that come with PBS, we really have no reason to accept it.

I don't know about AA, but here, no contractual changes are going to generate the same level of QOL improvement that we can by conflict bidding.  Our contract already exceeds the FARs in every area.  The "shortcomings" (as you call them) of line bidding create opportunities for more pilots across a larger seniority range to be able to manipulate their schedules - BEFORE trip trading, dropping, picking up trips is an option.  As I emphasized by bolding your statements above, PBS is strictly seniority based which you accurately acknowledged and is a HUGE factor when evaluating the reality of PBS.  There's something to be said for the "So, you're saying I've got a chance!" potential even if it's occasional as opposed to knowing, without a doubt, you're only going to get what your 93% seniority can hold.

A final point - Airline management wants PBS.....badly.  That should tell you something in and of itself.  Many airlines that use PBS had it forced on them via bankruptcy contracts they had little to no choice in voting for.  At FedEx, we continue to counter management's efforts to introduce PBS into our contract negotiations.  We do that, not because we don't understand PBS - but because we do.  In our case, it's not worth the cost in:  pilots on our seniority list, time off during our vacation months, schedule flexibility for all especially junior pilots and having to waste negotiating capital to fend off attempts to enhance efficiency on the PBS scheduling algorithm every contract cycle just to get schedules similar to the ones we already get now.

Edited December 7, 2018 by JeremiahWeed

[gearhog]

44 minutes ago, JeremiahWeed said:

.

A final point - Airline management wants PBS.....badly.  That should tell you something in and of itself.  Many airlines that use PBS had it forced on them via bankruptcy contracts they had little to no choice in voting for.  At FedEx, we continue to counter management's efforts to introduce PBS into our contract negotiations.  We do that, not because we don't understand PBS - but because we do.  In our case, it's not worth the cost in:  pilots on our seniority list, time off during our vacation months, schedule flexibility for all especially junior pilots and having to waste negotiating capital to fend off attempts to enhance efficiency on the PBS scheduling algorithm every contract cycle just to get schedules similar to the ones we already get now.

Bingo. Every airline wants more productivity per employee, less absenteeism, and greater control over costs and scheduling. Every airline wants PBS.

 

[Hacker]

If guys flying with PBS like it, then good on ya.

I liked PBS when I was flying with it at the regionals, but having had a few years to compare it to line bidding the purple way, I am a solid "no" vote for PBS at FedEx.

[Prozac]

PBS = more productivity = fewer pilots required = longer upgrade times. Period. It may lead to some more flexibility in your own schedule planning, but you’re gonna have trouble convincing me that it’s good for any pilot group as a whole. As with anything, it’ll fit better with certain applications than with others. Right now things are good at the majors and there is good movement on the seniority lists. I think PBS will be a big liability the next time the economy turns south and airlines start tightening belts again. Admittedly that looks to be quite a ways off though. 

[HuggyU2]

On 12/7/2018 at 10:10 PM, Prozac said:

PBS = more productivity = fewer pilots required = longer upgrade times. Period. It may lead to some more flexibility in your own schedule planning, but you’re gonna have trouble convincing me that it’s good for any pilot group as a whole. As with anything, it’ll fit better with certain applications than with others. Right now things are good at the majors and there is good movement on the seniority lists. I think PBS will be a big liability the next time the economy turns south and airlines start tightening belts again. Admittedly that looks to be quite a ways off though. 

I'm still scratching my head at your post.  "More productivity" is a bad thing for my company???   I wasn't a Business major, but I'm all for "productivity".. But hey, if you think hiring 2000 more pilots below you will fix your woes and increase your pay through quicker upgrade times, then I don't know what more I can say.   

Having extra pilots hired below you is worth very little.  If/when the recession comes, they will all get furloughed... just like I was after 9/11.  

Don't blame PBS for your ills... blame the negotiating committee that gave you the contract that you have.  If your company is more productive, you should reap the benefits.  If that's not happening, your union has to fix it.  

I won't waste my time trying to convince you that PBS is good for your pilot group because I don't know enough about alternatives.  But I find PBS works quite well for me:  I am able to specify what I need (unlike line bidding), and I generally get it.   

As for line bidding... three days ago, I flew LAX-HNL with an Alaska Airlines Captain in the jumpseat.  He said they just left PBS and are going to line bidding.  He wasn't impressed, and went through a number of reason why it was inferior.  He had a shitload more experience in this industry than I do, and I simply listened and took notes.  

Edited December 19, 2018 by HuggyU2

[gearhog]

32 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

I'm still scratching my head at your post.  "More productivity" is a bad thing for my company???   I wasn't a Business major, but I'm all for "productivity".. But hey, if you think hiring 2000 more pilots below you will fix your woes and increase your pay through quicker upgrade times, then I don't know what more I can say.   

Having extra pilots hired below you is worth very little.  If/when the recession comes, they will all get furloughed... just like I was after 9/11.  

Don't blame PBS for your ills... blame the negotiating committee that gave you the contract that you have.  If your company is more productive, you should reap the benefits.  If that's not happening, your union has to fix it.  

I won't waste my time trying to convince you that PBS is good for your pilot group because I don't know enough about alternatives.  But I find PBS works quite well for me:  I am able to specify what I need (unlike line bidding), and I generally get it.   

As for line bidding... three days ago, I flew LAX-HNL with an Alaska Airlines Captain in the jumpseat.  He said they just left PBS and are going to line bidding.  He wasn't impressed, and went through a number of reason why it was inferior.  He had a shitload more experience in this industry than I do, and I simply listened and took notes.  

More productivity is good for the company because labor is the biggest single operating expense. If the company wants to reduce cost, they increase the productivity per unit of labor. But a cost still exists, so who's paying it and how? The employees are paying it with a different resource: time. That's because the company would like to keep their pilots in the seat more hours of the day, more days of the month, while reducing the employee opportunities for absenteeism.

Of course, there are lots of people who are fine with flying their ass of for a big paycheck. And I'm sure there's no shortage of stories of PBS pilots who worked 3 days a month. But let's face facts, that's not the status quo.

You're right that the unions committees and the voting memberships are responsible for the details of the scheduling section of the contract and the specifics very greatly from airline to airline. However, the two distinct categories of schedule management, line bidding and PBS, remain very different. PBS came into being during a period when pilots were a dime a dozen and the economy was poor and sold to the membership as a mutually beneficial plan to mitigate the threat of the company folding. As I understand it, every airline that does not already have PBS recently opened the last round of negotiations with "We want PBS" and their unions said "Absolutely a non-starter."

Why? Because the union committees studied every other airline contract in the industry upside down and inside out and determined they have leverage and it's a regression in work rules. That is, if the membership values seniority rules and schedule flexibility above sacrificing personal time for productivity. And of course, not everyone does. There are good things about PBS, but when you compare the sum totals of the benefits of drawbacks of each system, there's a reason why the most financially stable airlines over the last couple of decades do not have PBS.

[Lord Ratner]

I'm still scratching my head at your post.  "More productivity" is a bad thing for my company???   I wasn't a Business major, but I'm all for "productivity".. But hey, if you think hiring 2000 more pilots below you will fix your woes and increase your pay through quicker upgrade times, then I don't know what more I can say.   
Having extra pilots hired below you is worth very little.  If/when the recession comes, they will all get furloughed... just like I was after 9/11.  
Don't blame PBS for your ills... blame the negotiating committee that gave you the contract that you have.  If your company is more productive, you should reap the benefits.  If that's not happening, your union has to fix it.  
I won't waste my time trying to convince you that PBS is good for your pilot group because I don't know enough about alternatives.  But I find PBS works quite well for me:  I am able to specify what I need (unlike line bidding), and I generally get it.   
As for line bidding... three days ago, I flew LAX-HNL with an Alaska Airlines Captain in the jumpseat.  He said they just left PBS and are going to line bidding.  He wasn't impressed, and went through a number of reason why it was inferior.  He had a shitload more experience in this industry than I do, and I simply listened and took notes.  

Shack.

I'm new to this industry, but I'm already amazed by how many pilots are almost pathologically against anything that improves the company efficiency and bottom line. Coupled with the common union belief that more union members = better, no matter what.

Yeah, I'd like to do less work for more pay. But I'd also like to have this job for 32ish years without getting furloughed. Some of the old guys talk about the way it used to be as though it didn't have anything to do with the collapse of the entire industry.

Yeah, PBS is good for the company. But it's also good for the pilots. Those two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'd rather have my time off and QoL provided by simple contractual language rather than through conflicts and loopholes. Hopefully we get that in the upcoming negotiations.

And before someone calls me anti-union (I am), I'm a volunteer in mine. It's the way it is, so I will do my best to support it. But unions are also why our 30-year captains can only look at Delta's profit sharing with a longing gaze instead of jump ship and reap the benefits. Everything has a cost.

[Lord Ratner]

  He had a shitload more experience in this industry than I do, and I simply listened and took notes.  

What were some of his reasons?

[HuggyU2]

He pulled out the lines for January that he was carrying and just kind of walked me through it.  

He said his ability to get specific days off is reduced, and that finding a trip without a one-day and without a redeye was difficult. However, with PBS he was able to specify his criteria and had much better success at getting the specifics that he needed.  

I'll admit that it seems that the System Scheduling Committee should work harder to push the company to build better lines, and that I was at a loss to understand why it couldn't be much better.  However, the entire thing just looked cumbersome and inflexible.  

The PBS interface is terrible, no doubt.  In this day and age, there should be a much easier way to input the data.  

[gearhog]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah, I'd like to do less work for more pay. But I'd also like to have this job for 32ish years without getting furloughed. Some of the old guys talk about the way it used to be as though it didn't have anything to do with the collapse of the entire industry.

Yeah, PBS is good for the company. But it's also good for the pilots. Those two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'd rather have my time off and QoL provided by simple contractual language rather than through conflicts and loopholes. Hopefully we get that in the upcoming negotiations.

And before someone calls me anti-union (I am), I'm a volunteer in mine. It's the way it is, so I will do my best to support it. But unions are also why our 30-year captains can only look at Delta's profit sharing with a longing gaze instead of jump ship and reap the benefits. Everything has a cost.

If there is a correlation between line bidding and being vulnerable to furlough, how would you reconcile that the big airlines which have furloughed and/or declared bankruptcy use PBS while airlines which have never furloughed use line bidding?

I believe a company's financial health has more to do with it's business model, strategic plan, and quality of management than the different methods by which the same flying schedule is executed. If the company has an apple at the beginning of the month, is it better for them to turn their back, peel it, slice it, and distribute the different pieces among the pilots... or is it better for them to simply hand the apple to the pilots? Opinions vary depending somewhat on your idea of fairness.

Now things have changed, but many pilots who have been in the industry a while are not looking at Delta captains with a longing gaze as they remember, circa 2005, when thousands of Delta captains had multi-million dollar retirement accounts wiped out for pennies on the dollar.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by torqued

[Lord Ratner]

22 minutes ago, torqued said:

If there is a correlation between line bidding and being vulnerable to furlough, how would you reconcile that the big airlines which have furloughed and/or declared bankruptcy use PBS while airlines which have never furloughed use line bidding?

You answer this question below. My broader point was that I'm not against things that make the company more efficient (financially successful) because the more successful the company is, the less likely I am to get furloughed. PBS is just one way a company can become more efficient. And, it gives me more control over my schedule. Win win.

I believe a company's financial health has more to do with it's business model, strategic plan, and quality of management than the different methods by which the same flying schedule is executed. If the company has an apple at the beginning of the month, is it better for them to turn their back, peel it, slice it, and distribute the different pieces among the pilots... or is it better for them to simply hand the apple to the pilots? Opinions vary depending somewhat on your idea of fairness.

Not sure what you are getting at with the apple. 

Now things have changed, but many pilots who have been in the industry a while are not looking at Delta captains with a longing gaze as they remember, circa 2005, when thousands of Delta captains had multi-million dollar retirement accounts wiped out for pennies on the dollar.

I said "our 30-year captains" which was dumb, because I didn't say where I work. I meant AA captains. But the point stands for other examples. Unions prevent us from being able to go to another airline without a massive financial penalty. Pros and cons.

 

[HuggyU2]

28 minutes ago, torqued said:

If there is a correlation between line bidding and being vulnerable to furlough, how would you reconcile that the big airlines which have furloughed and/or declared bankruptcy use PBS while airlines which have never furloughed use line bidding?

When I was furloughed by my airline... both times... they were line bidding. So I’d say your theory is false. 

A strong airline needs to be profitable. Efficiency aids that profitability. If we only need 1000 pilots to meet flying within the limits of the collective bargaining agreement, I don’t believe we should have 1200 pilots. That doesn’t help. 

From what I’ve seen, the bigger problem in this industry are Captains that just don’t give a shit. They are wasteful. And they do nothing to engage with the people that get me my salary. They just don’t get it. 

[gearhog]

16 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You answer this question below. My broader point was that I'm not against things that make the company more efficient (financially successful) because the more successful the company is, the less likely I am to get furloughed. PBS is just one way a company can become more efficient. And, it gives me more control over my schedule. Win win.

Not sure what you are getting at with the apple. 

I said "our 30-year captains" which was dumb, because I didn't say where I work. I meant AA captains. But the point stands for other examples. Unions prevent us from being able to go to another airline without a massive financial penalty. Pros and cons.

Roger. But I would counter that if PBS makes a weak company strong, larger more important problems lie elsewhere. Looking at the historical data, fundamentally strong companies have not required PBS to grow and increase profitability.

Let's say, for argument's sake, PBS gives a pilot more control over his schedule. You're also saying PBS is also more efficient for the company. That has to mean more productivity per unit of labor. In other words, employees are required to work more. So yes, if I were to concede (which I'm not 😄 ) a pilot may have somewhat greater control, but it would be over more required work.

The apple was a poor analogy to the monthly schedule. I'm abandoning it. 

28 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

When I was furloughed by my airline... both times... they were line bidding. So I’d say your theory is false. 

A strong airline needs to be profitable. Efficiency aids that profitability. If we only need 1000 pilots to meet flying within the limits of the collective bargaining agreement, I don’t believe we should have 1200 pilots. That doesn’t help. 

From what I’ve seen, the bigger problem in this industry are Captains that just don’t give a shit. They are wasteful. And they do nothing to engage with the people that get me my salary. They just don’t get it. 

As above, line bidding was likely not the cause of the furlough. Just because a company failed during line bidding doesn't mean it's a fantastic business model under PBS. You're right about the number of pilots. Why not require an even fewer number of pilots to fly a schedule every month that will max out thier FAR work/rest limits for the benefit of the company? Blaming fellow pilots for the woes of the industry? That's a conversation better had on your union message board. Just kidding! Don't ever do that!

[Prozac]

I think I work pretty hard already. I’m not really willing to be more productive just so my company (which makes a BILLION dollars a quarter in PROFITS) can be that much more efficient. I’ll concede that PBS may be workable, and even preferable to some at many airlines.  I don’t work for an airline though.  I work for a trucking company that happens to run an airline and tends to view me as an overpaid hourly that should be frisked every time I leave the property just in case I’m stealing toilet paper from the lav. Our lines are constructed with many night hub turns and often have us flipping between those and second day air (day flying) over the course of a trip. Better schedules are a non starter during negotiations with this company which fought hard to keep us out of Part 117 because apparently freight pilots are unaffected by scientifically proven rest and circadian requirements. Don’t get me wrong, this is a great job. One of the best in the industry. But it’s great because of the many benefits that our union has negotiated and protected, one of which is is the ability to turn vacation or training events into much needed additional opportunities to rest. 

[SocialD]

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And before someone calls me anti-union (I am), I'm a volunteer in mine. It's the way it is, so I will do my best to support it. But unions are also why our 30-year captains can only look at Delta's profit sharing with a longing gaze instead of jump ship and reap the benefits. Everything has a cost.

Leaves non-union gig for cushy, higher paying/less working union gig...is anti-union.  🤣 Mostly messing with you Ratner, but I'm quite surprised by the amount of anti-union guys I've ran into, almost all of which seem to be former mil. 

 

6 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

He said his ability to get specific days off is reduced, and that finding a trip without a one-day and without a redeye was difficult.

This was my heart burn with LOT.  There would be a few good lines, a few more REALLY shitty lines, then the vast majority of the lines were just OK and often spread the crap evenly.  I'm 91% in my seat and I finish a trip tomorrow and don't go back to work until after the new year (though a 42 hour 3-day will be tough to pass as long as I can still make the family shindig).  This is all based on my regularly awarded lines for each month.  

I do like the idea of how quickly the schedules were released with LOT.
 

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

...one of which is is the ability to turn vacation or training events into much needed additional opportunities to rest. 

If your union negotiates that, you can still have this with PBS.  But ya, I wouldn't switch to PBS unless you kept trips touching or the sweet ass deal UPS has wrt 2 weeks vacation in one month. 

 

No matter what side you like better, these are some good discussions for all the dudes looking to make to jump to the airlines. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by SocialD

[Lord Ratner]

Why would that be surprising? Like so many things, unions have outlived their utility. They were great in the era of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Now? Not so much.

 

But I have no choice in the matter, all airlines are union, so I will do what I can to keep mine functional.

 

I'm against socialism too, but I joined the military. The more you develop your beliefs, the harder it is to adhere to them in an imperfect world.

 

Agreed though, this is a very good conversation.

 

 

[ThreeHoler]

Apparently you don’t know much about what airline unions do to protect pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Why would that be surprising? Like so many things, unions have outlived their utility. They were great in the era of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Now? Not so much.

Why do you think they're not so great?  Do you believe that we would continue to have many of the contractual items that make our QOL so nice?  Tomorrow I get to rest in an actual bunk, rather than the 1st class seat right in front of the mid galley (banging carts/dishes) that the company fought hard for us to use.   On my next trip I'll get to enjoy using KCM to go to work.  I'm certain we'd lose many of our contractual flight duty period limitations.  Hell management applied for an exemption so they could block us up to 9+45 hours (2 pilot), until the union found the filling on the web.  It caught the company with their pants down and they quickly retracted it.  I'm also guessing that section 1 would be completely dismantled ASAP. 

I'm all for helping the company run an efficient operation, but we're running pretty damn good and giving back Billions to shareholders.  IMHO this gig wouldn't be anywhere near as nice if our unions go away.  I have friends who have worked for non-union operators in this industry and it isn't pretty.  I'm guessing the UPS guys are extremely happy they have IPA.  Having done union work as well, I'm damn glad we have a union.  Glad to hear you're doing what you can to help as well.

Edited December 20, 2018 by SocialD

[Guest]

.
 
I'm against socialism too, but I joined the military..
 
 

One of the most socialist organizations in the government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

One of the most socialist organizations in the government?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly

[Lord Ratner]

Why do you think they're not so great?  Do you believe that we would continue to have many of the contractual items that make our QOL so nice?  Tomorrow I get to rest in an actual bunk, rather than the 1st class seat right in front of the mid galley (banging carts/dishes) that the company fought hard for us to use.   On my next trip I'll get to enjoy using KCM to go to work.  I'm certain we'd lose many of our contractual flight duty period limitations.  Hell management applied for an exemption so they could block us up to 9+45 hours (2 pilot), until the union found the filling on the web.  It caught the company with their pants down and they quickly retracted it.  I'm also guessing that section 1 would be completely dismantled ASAP. 
I'm all for helping the company run an efficient operation, but we're running pretty damn good and giving back Billions to shareholders.  IMHO this gig wouldn't be anywhere near as nice if our unions go away.  I have friends who have worked for non-union operators in this industry and it isn't pretty.  I'm guessing the UPS guys are extremely happy they have IPA.  Having done union work as well, I'm damn glad we have a union.  Glad to hear you're doing what you can to help as well.

In short, yes, I think we'd have those things, or some other mixture of perks. You think the highly skilled employees at Amazon and Google are languishing away under harsh work conditions because they have no union? When your talent is free to leave to better compensating employers, you need to compensate better. Unions make it easy for many to do nothing and reap the benefits of the few that bust their ass negotiating, but it also traps us at a certain company, and delays improvements until the contract is up for negotiation.

It's a logical fallacy to assume we only have the things we do because of a union. That doesn't mean there aren't benefits, but way too many things are attributed to unions in the airlines in my opinion. We're not grocery baggers. Our skill set is in high demand and limited in supply.