Allegiant + union

[SpiraMirabilis]

The problem with a NSL is this:

People who are doing well don't want it until they're not doing well and that's when the people who are doing well don't want it until they're not doing well and at that time the people who are then doing well don't want it until ...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

What are the biggest roadblocks that make you believe an NSL will never happen? Do you think it would be a good thing or bad?

It would certainly be a good thing, but it will probably never happen because of:

The problem with a NSL is this:

People who are doing well don't want it until they're not doing well and that's when the people who are doing well don't want it until they're not doing well and at that time the people who are then doing well don't want it until ...

The man speaketh the truth. I remember Captain Woerth talking about this a number of years ago. He started his career at Braniff, and things quickly went down hill after he got there. Many pilots at his carrier were screaming for an NSL, because they saw the writing on the wall. Of course, the pilots at other carriers that were doing much better wanted nothing to do with it. For every pilot group that wants it to happen to protect themselves *cough*United*cough*, there is another group that doesn't want it because they don't want to dilute their own seniority.

The real answer, in my opinion, is a concept called "portable longevity," which is something that the Fee for Departure Task Force has been looking at. You wouldn't carry your seniority with you to another carrier, but you would carry your longevity. Let's say that UAL goes out of business, but other carriers are hiring. A 12-year UAL captain goes looking for a job, and gets hired at CAL. He would still start at the bottom of the seniority list, but he would start on the 12-year pay scale with all of the vacation accruals and everything else that goes along with longevity in that carrier's agreement. This is actually doable, but it will require commitment from all ALPA carriers to bargain for the necessary provisions. I think it's much more realistic than an NSL, though.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Typical anti-Union threat from someone who obviously blames the Union for the management decision to sell his airline.

Nope, I wasn't there when they sold it. Just stating facts for those who may not know the history of Tim and Maury. They did, in fact, say that they'd sell the airline if a union got voted in. They carried through with their threat and it ended a good airline. I'd hate to see that happen to Allegiant.


Typhoonpilot

 

[ladder360]

The real answer, in my opinion, is a concept called "portable longevity," which is something that the Fee for Departure Task Force has been looking at. You wouldn't carry your seniority with you to another carrier, but you would carry your longevity. Let's say that UAL goes out of business, but other carriers are hiring. A 12-year UAL captain goes looking for a job, and gets hired at CAL. He would still start at the bottom of the seniority list, but he would start on the 12-year pay scale with all of the vacation accruals and everything else that goes along with longevity in that carrier's agreement. This is actually doable, but it will require commitment from all ALPA carriers to bargain for the necessary provisions. I think it's much more realistic than an NSL, though.

That makes sense. A senior accountant from a failed major firm wouldn't typically take an advanced accounting position with another firm for a wet CPA salary.

So would the ALPA carriers (CAL to be consistent with the example) be required to hire someone with 12 years at UAL over someone with 4 years at CHQ? The CHQ candidate obviously a more cost effective choice from a management perspective.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That makes sense. A senior accountant from a failed major firm wouldn't typically take an advanced accounting position with another firm for a wet CPA salary.

So would the ALPA carriers (CAL to be consistent with the example) be required to hire someone with 12 years at UAL over someone with 4 years at CHQ? The CHQ candidate obviously a more cost effective choice from a management perspective.

Yes, that's the idea. Exactly how it would be written into agreements is up in the air, but they're working on various ideas.

 

[kellwolf]

The problem with a NSL is this:

People who are doing well don't want it until they're not doing well and that's when the people who are doing well don't want it until they're not doing well and at that time the people who are then doing well don't want it until ...

Coulda just said "United." That woulda covered it.

 

[WacoFan]

I would be hard pressed to hire a 12 year vet as opposed to a 4 year. Depending upon the pay scale, it would almost be economical to do ab-initio with a long contract than hire more seasoned vets under the portable longevity plan. So, my question is this - how do you structure the hiring of airlines to avoid this discrimination against the experienced guys? Do you mandate that the most experienced get hired based solely on longevity (almost like a guild)?

 

[surreal1221]

Yes.

 

[jtrain609]

Or you have the union take a BIG part in the hiring, which some companies already do.

 

[skydog]

The real answer, in my opinion, is a concept called "portable longevity," which is something that the Fee for Departure Task Force has been looking at. You wouldn't carry your seniority with you to another carrier, but you would carry your longevity. Let's say that UAL goes out of business, but other carriers are hiring. A 12-year UAL captain goes looking for a job, and gets hired at CAL. He would still start at the bottom of the seniority list, but he would start on the 12-year pay scale with all of the vacation accruals and everything else that goes along with longevity in that carrier's agreement. This is actually doable, but it will require commitment from all ALPA carriers to bargain for the necessary provisions. I think it's much more realistic than an NSL, though.

PCL, you and I went around on this a while back. I proposed eliminating longevity based pay in favor of a single pay rate for equipment and seat, regardless of longevity. 1 year or 100, all pilots in a given seat and type get paid the same. They're all doing the same job after all. I still think the idea has several advantages over the current paradigm, one of which was that it would reduce the pain of having to switch carriers. There are others, but none relevant to this discussion

You shot my idea down; and I'll admit you had a couple of good points, not least off which was that it would cost too much negotiating capital to get it. So tell me how this portable longevity idea is really any different that a single pay rate, or how getting it implemented would cost any less negotiation capital.

The thing is, you wanna get an airline's management to go for something, you have to show how it benefits them. I don't see how a national longevity list benefits anybody, except of course the employees of the worse-off carriers. You're certainly not going to get airline management to hire 12 year guys when 4 year guys are available. There's no benefit to them

To the OP, that's the nature of this business, and really, any business. Nothing is guaranteed, nothing is certain. Like Jack Nicholson said "Roll the dice and take your chances." But here's the thing. You know how it works now. If you still go ahead with an aviation career, your success, or lack of, is entirely up to you. Make your choice.

 

[N8389P]

However, they never tire of using the "I'll sell this F'ing place before I see a Union on the property" threat.

GR Has LOL

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You shot my idea down; and I'll admit you had a couple of good points, not least off which was that it would cost too much negotiating capital to get it. So tell me how this portable longevity idea is really any different that a single pay rate, or how getting it implemented would cost any less negotiation capital.

It won't. This idea would take immense amounts of bargaining capital. It all comes down to a decision about how you want to allocate your leverage. This would require a commitment to allocate most of every MEC's bargaining leverage for this entire bargaining cycle to get this done. In other words, we won't be able to get back to pre-9/11 wages this bargaining cycle if we instead prioritize a portable longevity system. The better idea is to take it in steps. For example, start with half longevity; if you had 12 years at UAL, then you would enter another carrier at 6 years longevity. Or even quarter longevity. Whatever it takes to simply get the concept codified into language. It can improved in later bargaining cycles, but we need to get our foot in the door.

The thing is, you wanna get an airline's management to go for something, you have to show how it benefits them.

The "benefit" is that you won't drive their airline out of business with a strike. In order to make portable longevity work, you have to make it a strike issue. If you then take it in baby steps as described above, then management will likely accept it rather than facing self-help.