JetBlue Pilots vote against union

I have a question, and don't mean to come off as a smartass but rather just don't know:

What makes anybody think that re-regulating the airline industry would lead to higher compensation? Just because there was higher pay during regulation? I don't really understand why that means pay would increase now with re-regulation, especially now seeing how low the pay can go.
 
Ecl!pse said:
I have a question, and don't mean to come off as a smartass but rather just don't know:

What makes anybody think that re-regulating the airline industry would lead to higher compensation? Just because there was higher pay during regulation? I don't really understand why that means pay would increase now with re-regulation, especially now seeing how low the pay can go.
Click to expand...

It would only lead to higher pay if the unions are given the ability to strike by the NMB I would think. Lorenzo and the CAL SCABS proved that pilots would work for nothing and this was reinforced with UAL's SCABS and EAL's. In my thinking, re-regulation would lead to enormous airline profits but they wouldn't necessarily lead to higher pay without a militant union to demand that. Pay and profit do not always go hand in hand. Just because you are making an enormous profit doesn't mean that you all of a sudden, as a manager, correspondingly improve your wages just to be a nice guy - you would still try to pay market rate for a given job. So, reregulation isn't the panacea for pay without a lot of additional changes and union action. That's just my opinion.
 
Ecl!pse said:
What makes anybody think that re-regulating the airline industry would lead to higher compensation?.
Click to expand...

Did you miss my answer to Hacker? Its because during regulation, Companies can more easily pass higher labor costs on to the consumer. They are not "under the gun" of competition to cut fares drasticly to gain market share because the access to their markets and route structures are limited by govenment regulation.

Sure, Companies will always try to minimize labor costs, but in a regulated environment, the costs are passed on to the consumers...as it should be, I might add.

WacoFan said:
In my thinking, re-regulation would lead to enormous airline profits but they wouldn't necessarily lead to higher pay without a militant union to demand that...you would still try to pay market rate for a given job. So, reregulation isn't the panacea for pay without a lot of additional changes and union action. That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Both these statements are true. However, with limited access to market share, Union self-help is a LOT more effective. The consumer has but one other option to travel in that market. The profits are higher for the Companies and they are loath to miss out on any opportunity, especially with a life limited product like an airline seat. And Unions would be in a stronger negotiating position because the standard excuse for low wages, "We need to keep our costs down to compete," goes away. The Companies can pass the increased costs to the consumer because the consumer has but one other option in each market.

n77j said:
Velo+a topic on unions= a never ending thread:)
Click to expand...

Probably because the trend, as I see it, among young people in all walks of life is towards "right to work" not realizing that it is actually "right to be exploited by soulless Corporations."
 
Velocipede said:
Did you miss my answer to Hacker? Its because during regulation, Companies can more easily pass higher labor costs on to the consumer. They are not "under the gun" of competition to cut fares drasticly to gain market share because the access to their markets and route structures are limited by govenment regulation.

Sure, Companies will always try to minimize labor costs, but in a regulated environment, the costs are passed on to the consumers...as it should be, I might add.
Click to expand...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but they'd also need to show that there was a need for a route in order for it to exist. If they passed it on to the consumer, fewer people fly. Fewer people flying means fewer routes necessary. Sure, they could pass the cost on to the consumer, but how long before the consumer starts taking the bus or the train.....again?
 
Well, never, because the service doesn't exist anymore. You tried to book train travel recently?

Not only is it time consuming but its EXPENSIVE IF you can get there from here.
 
Velocipede said:
Well, never, because the service doesn't exist anymore. You tried to book train travel recently?

Not only is it time consuming but its EXPENSIVE IF you can get there from here.
Click to expand...

So, uh, you're saying they WILL pay the higher prices? Not in this economy. They'll elect to take vacations at home or drive. At least, that's what my parents did during regulation before. I remember a time when airlines were considered a rare, special occasion, not mass transit.
 
That was also the time when airline pay was in the top 1% of wage earners. Now its mass transit and we're bus drivers.

You really want to eventually be flying a 737 for RJ wages? That's what deregulation has done for you and continues to do for you.

Hey, my career is about over. And it wasn't as good as my Dad's career was. Deregulation is good for the consumer, its bad for you. Some of you young Regional guys better get used to the idea of retiring as RJ Captains.
 
darrenf said:
And that right there is why you will never again see regulation. The government isn't going to put us poor pilots ahead of the consumer.
Click to expand...

With lack of a really good reason to do it, the government will not harm the consumer to help what most people consider to be high wage earning pilots. It would take something drastic like a rash of accidents for the government to impose change. Since airline travel has gotten safer since deregulation, even with the vast increase in trafiic, that argument is not going to happen. And, I am not saying that deregulation has caused this safety, but the technological advances, advances in CRM, etc have just started to really take hold in that time.
 
Velocipede said:
That was also the time when airline pay was in the top 1% of wage earners. Now its mass transit and we're bus drivers.

You really want to eventually be flying a 737 for RJ wages? That's what deregulation has done for you and continues to do for you.

Hey, my career is about over. And it wasn't as good as my Dad's career was. Deregulation is good for the consumer, its bad for you. Some of you young Regional guys better get used to the idea of retiring as RJ Captains.
Click to expand...

So now, you're saying they WON'T pay the higher prices, and the jobs will just disappear. Well, if it's on the regional level, I agree, that needs to happen. But guess what? It won't be exclusive to the regional level. It's not just us regional guys. Might wanna think about those guys that just got furloughed at Alaska, too. Re-regulation would mean they'd be out of a job as well, or (worse in your opinion it would seem) back flying RJs.

I agree that pay needs to go up, and re-regulation would potentially do that. But you also have to consider the cost. We're trying to get mainline jobs BACK at mainline, not the regionals. In this economy, de-regulation would kill United dead, and maybe a few of the other as well. That's just losing jobs at mainline AND regionals. I'd rather see the regional jobs move back to mainline rather than see the jobs disappear. Then again, my career ISN'T almost over, hopefully.
 
No offense, but if you truly believe that re-regulation would drive prices higher, and therefore wages higher, you are sadly mistaken. First, it would be very hard to re-regulate this industry in an attempt to drive prices up. Rather, the government would do their best to help the consumer, and that plan could backfire. Look at government jobs as a prime example. Local, state and national governments are looking for ways to cut costs and reduce wages themselves. The problems we face in the free market are not ours and ours alone. What happens if we re-regulate, and the government decides that our highest wage earners make too much? Their salaries and benefits packages do not align with the ideals for the pricing levels that have been set?

Secondly, if you take a cursory glance at the current load factors and ticket prices, you'll see that even with capacity cuts airlines are having trouble breaking the 70-75% load factor. Even "low cost" airlines like JetBlue and Southwest are having reduced loads, because simply put, people are not flying. In addition, many businesses are choosing to use e-mail and teleconferencing to conduct business that in the past would be face-to-face. Rather than spend the money on an airline ticket, or use a company plane, they'll just do their business over the phone. Sure, it is not ideal, but it saves money. All businesses, big and small, are doing their best to reduce costs and increase productivity.

Personally, I'd hope a better solution could be considered, before we attempt re-regulation. Pilots need to find an equitable solution to increase job security, all while retaining pay and benefits. Yes, major cuts have been made. In this trough of the current economic cycle, it might be even more important to keep what we have, since we are at high risk of losing it all.
 
FlyChicaga said:
In addition, many businesses are choosing to use e-mail and teleconferencing to conduct business that in the past would be face-to-face. Rather than spend the money on an airline ticket, or use a company plane, they'll just do their business over the phone. Sure, it is not ideal, but it saves money. All businesses, big and small, are doing their best to reduce costs and increase productivity.
Click to expand...

Exactly, businesses/consumers are always looking to save money. Air travel has been cut back already, imagine what it will be like with tickets going up 2-4x?

It's a sore subject but one that needs to be looked at with open eyes. The same way that airline management have seen how low pilots will go to be paid, consumers have seen how low ticket prices can actually go. It is going to be a tough battle to raise prices that much. There is a happy medium between ticket prices and load factor...tough part is to find where it is.
 
Velocipede said:
Did you miss my answer to Hacker? Its because during regulation, Companies can more easily pass higher labor costs on to the consumer. They are not "under the gun" of competition to cut fares drasticly to gain market share because the access to their markets and route structures are limited by govenment regulation.
Click to expand...

Easy there, I read your response to Hacker in full. And I fully understand that the government will regulate markets, route structures, fares, etc. But why does this definitely mean an increase in pay? Now that the government and management have seen that the bar is/can be lowered, why will they deem it necessary to increase pay? I feel like just because the two (regulation and great pay) went hand in hand in the past does not mean that it will absolutely happen again. While I do agree with you that those are the rates you all deserve and this might be the only way to get that back, I don't think I'm certain that regulation would ensure seeing those rates again.
 
WacoFan said:
PCL has told me that the pilot pay is not as extreme a factor as one would think, but I like to see the numbers.
Click to expand...

I'll use AirTran as an example. These numbers were provided by our union's financial analyst using the company's own data:

AirTran's total Cost per Available Seat Mile (CASM) is 9.5 cents. If the pilots received a new contract that doubled our compensation (top 737 payrate would go to a whopping $304/hr), then our CASM would increase by only 0.07 cents to 9.57 cents. That is a 0.7% increase in the company's total costs. Now, let's be more reasonable and only assume a 30% increase in payrates. That would equate to only a 0.2% increase to the company's costs. In other words, completely unnoticeable, especially when the drop in oil prices is saving the company over $400 million per year.
 
Velo, while I understand your point, I don't agree with it.

Your argument would be valid if we could all jump in a time machine to 1978 and freeze the CAB regulation exactly how it existed then.

Unfortunately, that's not possiblem

You can't base the benefits of a potential future re-regulation on what past regulation looked like.

I think this is a GIANT case of "be careful what you ask for". Re-regulation circa 2010 could look like an industry that has to bend over backward for the customer (ergo, a federally-mandated "passenger bill of rights") and restricts the big, evil companies from padding their bank accounts on the backs of everyman. What if re-regulation included a salary cap for pilots?

I know that's not what it looked like 30 years ago, but it's what it COULD look like today with the massive "nanny state" mentality that has infested American culture and government.

The worst part is that if we, the pilot population, got the shaft when the paradigms of re-regulation were drafted, there would be almost zero recourse.
 
Agree. Re-regulate wouldn't fix things. The idea of "just let the government handle it" is a fluke. Creating federal agencies doesn't fix problems, it only makes them worse. Look at the TSA....and in some respects, the DHS....if you want examples of "feel good" regulation that cost $$$$ and accomplish little, since they only "fixed" what wasn't broken in the first place.

Hacker15e said:
Velo, while I understand your point, I don't agree with it.

Your argument would be valid if we could all jump in a time machine to 1978 and freeze the CAB regulation exactly how it existed then.

Unfortunately, that's not possiblem

You can't base the benefits of a potential future re-regulation on what past regulation looked like.

I think this is a GIANT case of "be careful what you ask for". Re-regulation circa 2010 could look like an industry that has to bend over backward for the customer (ergo, a federally-mandated "passenger bill of rights") and restricts the big, evil companies from padding their bank accounts on the backs of everyman. What if re-regulation included a salary cap for pilots?

I know that's not what it looked like 30 years ago, but it's what it COULD look like today with the massive "nanny state" mentality that has infested American culture and government.

The worst part is that if we, the pilot population, got the shaft when the paradigms of re-regulation were drafted, there would be almost zero recourse.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top