Advantages to Union Representation
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
Fly4Pay
New Member
Correct. It's supposed to be "rethinkeded".
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
Lets look at both sides now. Keep in mind a union DOES NOT run the company. The sole purpose of a union is to protect the workers interests. It is not supposed to fleece as much money from the company as possible for short term gain by the employee, ie United Airlines.
The sad fact is our unions (airline unions) are necessary to protect safety when that should be soley in the hands of the FAA and the regulation process (show me in the regs where a pilot needs a certain number of days off per month or quarter, minus the 1 in 7 rule). Pay and QOL of would eventually work itself out much like corporate or fractional jobs (best pay and QOL attracts the best pilots, etc). Currently union negotiated pay rates, especially first few years are doing more harm than good, and yes places like Continental, UPS, FedEx, etc fall into that category.
Union representation, especially in the airline world, should not benefit the upper percentage of the seniority list more than the lower percentage. A 10 year FO is no more "productive" than a 1st year FO, but the current shape of contracts does not reflect that. The romantic idea of longevity with the company being worth the hire pay is nothing more than those who have been there the longest to make it worth THEIR while to stay and not seek out possible better employment, it does the newer, younger ranks no good. Of course their should be added benefit for longevity, however it should be expressed in terms of days off, vacation, retirement, etc and not soley base pay.
So what is the answer, there really isn't one, but the continued course our unions are taking is not the right answer, in my opinion.
The sad fact is our unions (airline unions) are necessary to protect safety when that should be soley in the hands of the FAA and the regulation process (show me in the regs where a pilot needs a certain number of days off per month or quarter, minus the 1 in 7 rule). Pay and QOL of would eventually work itself out much like corporate or fractional jobs (best pay and QOL attracts the best pilots, etc). Currently union negotiated pay rates, especially first few years are doing more harm than good, and yes places like Continental, UPS, FedEx, etc fall into that category.
Union representation, especially in the airline world, should not benefit the upper percentage of the seniority list more than the lower percentage. A 10 year FO is no more "productive" than a 1st year FO, but the current shape of contracts does not reflect that. The romantic idea of longevity with the company being worth the hire pay is nothing more than those who have been there the longest to make it worth THEIR while to stay and not seek out possible better employment, it does the newer, younger ranks no good. Of course their should be added benefit for longevity, however it should be expressed in terms of days off, vacation, retirement, etc and not soley base pay.
So what is the answer, there really isn't one, but the continued course our unions are taking is not the right answer, in my opinion.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Dugie, when the retirement age is raised to 65 the lower first year rates might work in favor of those at the bottom of the seniority list and those who want to break into a major.
The legacies might offer lump sum retirement packages to those top tier earners to skim their salaries off the top. With that, guys would hopefully take it, retire and allow those at the lower scale to upgrade quicker, and more new hires added on property.
Another point to think about.
Bottom line is union representation is A LOT better than no representation.
The legacies might offer lump sum retirement packages to those top tier earners to skim their salaries off the top. With that, guys would hopefully take it, retire and allow those at the lower scale to upgrade quicker, and more new hires added on property.
Another point to think about.
Bottom line is union representation is A LOT better than no representation.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Each MEC determines their own priorities and negotiates their own contract, but they have all of the resources of ALPA National at their disposal. That includes attorneys that deal in grievances and negotiations (Contract Administrators) and attorneys that have certain specialties (scope, merger & acquisition, etc...). Economic & Financial Analysis is also there, plus many more resources that come with the benefits of a national union. It's the best of both worlds: you get to set your own priorities, but also get the experience and resources of a huge international union structure.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
Seggy
I guess I don't buy the "ends justify the means" when it comes to Union theory. What happens to all the newbies when all the retirees that can benefit from cashing out are gone?
I have the best gig going, I think, and no Union, and frankly a Union would destroy what we have. Does that mean I am anti Union, not at all. However, a lot of the blame, a fair share of it actually, rests on ALPA's shoulders for our current status.
Someone needs to explain to me why a regional/commuter cannot be a career place. When exactly was the vote that determined only Legacy carriers were the end all be all? That line of thinking has set the bar so low at the regional level that the pay has gone with it. With that, the operating costs are lower (most of the time) so where exactly do we think management is going to put most of the flying? Flying a 737 is no different than flying a Dash8 or a CRJ/ERJ, they are both airplanes. We have no more responsibility with 30 pax or 300 pax and the argument about generating more revenue, come on, we as pilots don't sell the seats, we simply move them. BUT, the current culture says, bigger airplane entitles bigger paycheck, when bigger airplane typically means less legs flown per month. I would bet a Dash8 pilot carries more pax in a month than a 767 pilot but is paid A LOT less, the logic of the payscale doesn't follow the reality, in my mind.
All this bickering over what airplanes should be flown under which seniority list is exactly what management wants. Keep up the stigma of only certain people being capable of flying certain airplanes and keep the pay low for the most movement of pax.
It is time to wake up ya'll and realize we all do the same job from Doug to the new hire at GoJets. This is nothing more than a job, it isn't a social status, it isn't a measure of how smart you are, it is just a job. We are lucky that it is a damn cool job, but that has no bearing on anything other than our own satisfaction with our job(s).
I guess I don't buy the "ends justify the means" when it comes to Union theory. What happens to all the newbies when all the retirees that can benefit from cashing out are gone?
I have the best gig going, I think, and no Union, and frankly a Union would destroy what we have. Does that mean I am anti Union, not at all. However, a lot of the blame, a fair share of it actually, rests on ALPA's shoulders for our current status.
Someone needs to explain to me why a regional/commuter cannot be a career place. When exactly was the vote that determined only Legacy carriers were the end all be all? That line of thinking has set the bar so low at the regional level that the pay has gone with it. With that, the operating costs are lower (most of the time) so where exactly do we think management is going to put most of the flying? Flying a 737 is no different than flying a Dash8 or a CRJ/ERJ, they are both airplanes. We have no more responsibility with 30 pax or 300 pax and the argument about generating more revenue, come on, we as pilots don't sell the seats, we simply move them. BUT, the current culture says, bigger airplane entitles bigger paycheck, when bigger airplane typically means less legs flown per month. I would bet a Dash8 pilot carries more pax in a month than a 767 pilot but is paid A LOT less, the logic of the payscale doesn't follow the reality, in my mind.
All this bickering over what airplanes should be flown under which seniority list is exactly what management wants. Keep up the stigma of only certain people being capable of flying certain airplanes and keep the pay low for the most movement of pax.
It is time to wake up ya'll and realize we all do the same job from Doug to the new hire at GoJets. This is nothing more than a job, it isn't a social status, it isn't a measure of how smart you are, it is just a job. We are lucky that it is a damn cool job, but that has no bearing on anything other than our own satisfaction with our job(s).
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I KNOW YOU! I KNOW YOU! I KNOW YOU!
You have to post here more often. How is training going?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Dugie,
You do have excellent points. I agree there is flaw to ALPA like everything else out there and of course not going to fault you for working for a nonunion place.
The thing with regionals/commuters is that in the past they never were career places. When Chautauqua, Comair or Bar Harbor was flying around Jetstreams, BE99s or E-110s those guys moved on to places such as United, Delta, or American. You would stay there for 4 or 5 years, burn a few thousand hours of time and move on because the pay and work rules stunk.
With the evolution of these regionals to bigger planes, then it made sense for guys who have been there to stay. If they do, nothing is wrong with that. There are some guys who have done very well at regionals. Good for them. Its not my goal but would never fault someone for staying at a regional.
I completely agree with you that it doesn't matter WHAT you fly. We all have the same career, that is to get people/packages from point A to point B. Compensate us well for that.
You do have excellent points. I agree there is flaw to ALPA like everything else out there and of course not going to fault you for working for a nonunion place.
The thing with regionals/commuters is that in the past they never were career places. When Chautauqua, Comair or Bar Harbor was flying around Jetstreams, BE99s or E-110s those guys moved on to places such as United, Delta, or American. You would stay there for 4 or 5 years, burn a few thousand hours of time and move on because the pay and work rules stunk.
With the evolution of these regionals to bigger planes, then it made sense for guys who have been there to stay. If they do, nothing is wrong with that. There are some guys who have done very well at regionals. Good for them. Its not my goal but would never fault someone for staying at a regional.
I completely agree with you that it doesn't matter WHAT you fly. We all have the same career, that is to get people/packages from point A to point B. Compensate us well for that.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
What's up Seggy? Started upgrade yet?
Training's going great, but I miss my platinum ALPA pin already.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Are you aware of what FedEx 1st year pay is? Might want to edit that one!
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
A wide body FO makes about 54K first year, not something to brag about considering the requirements to get hired at FedEx. You can argue that 2nd year and up pay makes up for it, but that is, to me, an "ends justifying the means" mentality.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
Dugie, first year pay sucks everywhere. That's the way it is and the way it's always been. Doubt it's ever gonna change. As a union, we could have changed that on our last contract, but we didn't. Couldn't get enough votes for it. It's something we all lived with and expect those coming on to live with. It's your probationary year. There is a price to pay.
Feel free to stick with the regional job if moving up seems unfair to you. Nobody is gonna notice, either way. And, yeah, the "ends do justify the means". That's what I think. If you wanna know what I make at a 18 year UPS Capt, check out APC.
Feel free to stick with the regional job if moving up seems unfair to you. Nobody is gonna notice, either way. And, yeah, the "ends do justify the means". That's what I think. If you wanna know what I make at a 18 year UPS Capt, check out APC.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
Good for you Don, I really don't give two ####s what you make, and I haven't been at a regional in almost 4 years. If first year crappy pay is ok and justifying the end with the means is ok, then you really have no leg to stand on to argue against places like GulfStream or any kind of PFJ/PFT, it is all a means to an end.
The fact that pilot groups won't vote in higher first year pay and bennies shows the true colors of these people, I got mine, up comes the ladder, I suffered so should you. Probation year, please give me a break, I would guess that second year pay, minus the cost of training is fairly close to what first year pay is, sounds an awful lot like PFT to me but dressed up to make it look pretty.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
"The fact that pilot groups won't vote in higher first year pay and bennies shows the true colors of these people,"
I don't fault my pilot group for prioritizing things. Our "true colors", as you say, seem to have been shown just fine in some other ways.
And if you don't care what I make, then I'm not surprised you don't see the big picture in this. Suit yerself....
I don't fault my pilot group for prioritizing things. Our "true colors", as you say, seem to have been shown just fine in some other ways.
And if you don't care what I make, then I'm not surprised you don't see the big picture in this. Suit yerself....
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
While I would agree there are certain benefits to a local or national union, I will tell you that ALPA has been nothing but bad for a lot of people in professional airline careers. The most recent example is 1986-1989 hires at USAirwas/Piedmont.
What is deeply disturbing about a career as an airline pilot in the USA and as an ALPA member is that when your airline hits hard times and furloughs or ceases to exist there is no ( and I mean: none, nada, zilch ) credit for your experience or ability when it comes to getting another job in the USA. You get lumped in with all the regional pilots and other up and comers in competing for a new hire job at poverty level wages. There are very few examples of airlines going out of their way to hire groups en-masse ( USAir/Piedmont hiring Braniff pilots being the single largest event at over 400 people. Still they started over at year one wages ).
Don, I respect you, but the $27,000/year new hire wage at UPS was insulting in the early 2000s. Nobody with a house, cars, and family to support could take that job unless they had substantial savings in place. That begs the question why an experienced pilot should be made to dip into his life savings in order to start again at a new company? It doesn't happen that way with almost all other union members. They take their experience with them and are compensated accordingly when they go to a new company.
Granted it would be very difficult or impossible to restructure the airline pilot career pay scheme, but something more along the lines of a guild would have benefitted many over the years. Pilots should be compensated for their experience and skill not for getting lucky with the right airline.
Our career success shouldn't hinge on dumb luck. I've been pretty lucky, and also willing to go to extreme corners of the globe in order to be successful. Many of my contempories hired at USAir in 1989, who are equally as skilled and most probably more intelligent than me, have not had it so good. Many only make $75,000 or less per year after more than 20 years total as professional airline pilots. That's is not acceptable and ALPA is a big reason that is has happened.
ALPA can never be forgiven for that.
Typhoonpilot
What is deeply disturbing about a career as an airline pilot in the USA and as an ALPA member is that when your airline hits hard times and furloughs or ceases to exist there is no ( and I mean: none, nada, zilch ) credit for your experience or ability when it comes to getting another job in the USA. You get lumped in with all the regional pilots and other up and comers in competing for a new hire job at poverty level wages. There are very few examples of airlines going out of their way to hire groups en-masse ( USAir/Piedmont hiring Braniff pilots being the single largest event at over 400 people. Still they started over at year one wages ).
Don, I respect you, but the $27,000/year new hire wage at UPS was insulting in the early 2000s. Nobody with a house, cars, and family to support could take that job unless they had substantial savings in place. That begs the question why an experienced pilot should be made to dip into his life savings in order to start again at a new company? It doesn't happen that way with almost all other union members. They take their experience with them and are compensated accordingly when they go to a new company.
Granted it would be very difficult or impossible to restructure the airline pilot career pay scheme, but something more along the lines of a guild would have benefitted many over the years. Pilots should be compensated for their experience and skill not for getting lucky with the right airline.
Our career success shouldn't hinge on dumb luck. I've been pretty lucky, and also willing to go to extreme corners of the globe in order to be successful. Many of my contempories hired at USAir in 1989, who are equally as skilled and most probably more intelligent than me, have not had it so good. Many only make $75,000 or less per year after more than 20 years total as professional airline pilots. That's is not acceptable and ALPA is a big reason that is has happened.
ALPA can never be forgiven for that.
Typhoonpilot
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Very good point. I think Don said its not "seniority is everything" its more like "luck is everything" A furlough is an unfortunate event which can significantly reduce pilot career earning. I glad you were able to recover and be successful. Your idea of pay for experience sounds great, but I wonder how such a plan can be implemented without creating chaos amongst the pilots.