surreal1221
Well-Known Member
wow. . .
Randy,
First of all, thanks for joining the site. Good to hear some management types standing by the line pilots of another airline - no matter the reasoning.
Take care
Amerijet On Strike!
- Thread starter 727to7400
- Start date
wow. . .
Randy,
First of all, thanks for joining the site. Good to hear some management types standing by the line pilots of another airline - no matter the reasoning.
Take care
Are the people from Kalitta II or whatever flying Amerijet aircraft? Are they getting paid the same as Amerijet pilots? Are they working under the same rules that caused the current Amerijet pilots to strike? If so then they are scabs. But from what I read, thats not the case. These people are flying Kalitta II planes and they are doing it according to Kalitta II's work rules, which I assume are much better than Amerijet's.
"The purpose of a strike IS to stop the company from doing buisiness."
No it's not. The point of a strike is to get better work conditions. You're telling me after a few days/weeks/months Amerijet were to end this thing by giving in to the demands, the whole thing is a failure, because the point all along is to end the company?
Do you have any numbers to back this up? From my experiences is more like 35 in costs for the flight, 5 in profit for the company to fly the cargo with their own equipment, and something like 80 in cost to have another company fly the freight on contract.
joliet
New Member
Hey silly salamander, did you see the D.O. over at Kalitta II just posted on this very thread?
Diego Dangers.
Well-Known Member
Guys, I have a question. I can't put myself in any of your shoes, so I'd like your opinions.
If you strike against a company and then everyone that flies the cargo is a scab so people choose not to fly the cargo therefore the company doesn't make any money and closes, what does that mean for the pilot group? Will the union still pay strike bennies? It seems to me like all it will do is put a few dozen pilots on the street.
Also, what stops the company from starting a new company a few days later and new pilots coming to that company, wouldn't the same people go to that same job and start the process all over again?
I have to add, this isn't myself asking if its ok to scab or figuring out a way around the companies situation, its just a question I asked myself.
- Diego
If you strike against a company and then everyone that flies the cargo is a scab so people choose not to fly the cargo therefore the company doesn't make any money and closes, what does that mean for the pilot group? Will the union still pay strike bennies? It seems to me like all it will do is put a few dozen pilots on the street.
Also, what stops the company from starting a new company a few days later and new pilots coming to that company, wouldn't the same people go to that same job and start the process all over again?
I have to add, this isn't myself asking if its ok to scab or figuring out a way around the companies situation, its just a question I asked myself.
- Diego
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I'm heading out the door to fly a trip so I'm only going to answer this part of your question. When you (as a Union) pass a strike vote, you are basically saying that having NO job is more appealing than having a job under the conditions you currently operate under.
Diego Dangers.
Well-Known Member
Attachments
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
You're funny. :laff:
toyoufromme
New Member
Fantastic, Mr. KIIDO, sounds great except you left out the fact that you personally called members of your pilot group and asked them if they would fly Amerijet freight before you (and your "management group") decided not to fly it AND YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T DENY THAT. You folks would have flown Amerijet freight because you're cut from the same cloth as the Amerijet owner and management. And, by the way, thanks for mentioning the name of your Chief Pilot; now we all know the name of the SCAB we can kick off when he asks for a jump seat in the future. And thanks for indirectly and unintentionally supporting the Amerijet pilots; a first from airline management; make sure you ask for kudos from Doug Kalitta.
It's a risk, but a big part of it is that generally management wants the company to continue to exist, so it exerts extreme pressure on them to give in before they can no longer continue.
No, the GOAL of the strike is better working conditions. The PURPOSE of the strike it to stop the company from doing buisiness so it gives in and provides those better working conditions. It's not to stop the company from doing buisiness PERMANENTLY but it's to stop the operations until the strike is ended.
Pilots flying amerijet's freight are scabs. They are helping management attempt to break the pilot group (management's goal in a strike is to continue operating long enough that the pilot group can no longer maintain the strike).
I'll say once again, your analysis of the costs involved in freight is massively inaccurate. For one, many companies have agreements to provide discounted rates to eachother. Two, why would they have to pay MORE than a regular customer would be paying?
Regardless of your reasoning, the freight going on another carrier helps the company continue in the strike. No matter of made up numbers to try to justify it to yourself by saying "it doesn't really help" is going to change it.
Lets throttle it back a bit here.
If no freight was moved, then it's no harm no foul. Correct? What somebody would have done (or not) doesn't matter. It's what someone does do that should matter. No freight moved (no struck work worked), no scab.
toyoufromme
New Member
Throttling back is not an option. The fact is that KIIDO DID call members of his pilot group and ask them if they would have a problem flying Amerijet freight. Me posting these remarks contributed to interceding and preventing KII pilots from flying Amerijet freight.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Lol, I said "interesting." Good to know you guys aren't flying struck stuff.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I remember when my uncles trucking company struck that his buddies weren't even allowed to attend the rally, on pain of firing, I thought it was like that everywhere.
They aren't helping Amerijet at all. Its not just some small 10% overhead or whatever for Amerijet to have another another company to send a few airplanes to MIA to cover their runs. Not only are these other companies' aircraft more expensive to operate (because the pilots are paid more) but you also have to pay positioning costs and other such things. Anytime you have a company whose sole industry is to transport goods, and they are made so they can no longer transport stuff, then that company has problems. Major problems. Amerijet of not making a profit by paying other people to come in and do their business. These companies are not "helping" Amerijet. If anything they're taking advantage of them.
The only way any of these companies would be helping Amerijet is if they were to fly their cargo at such a price that would allow Amerijet to still turn a profit. If that were to happen, then the other company is either eating the costs (and they're stupid), or they are somehow paying their pilots less to fly that cargo. If it's the latter, then you could argue they are scabs. Its still not technically scabbing since those pilots didn't actively choose to go out and be scabs (their company basically forced it upon them), but their actions do have the same effect as in it is enabling Amerijet to do business just like it did before the strike in a sustainable way.
The way I see it, there are basically two sins to "real" scabbing: #1, Enabling the company being struck against to continue operating under the protested conditions. This is bad because it renders the strike basically powerless. Why would the company give in to the strikers demands when they can just hire new people?
Sin #2 is how the scab takes the job completely knowing that his actions are effectively rendering another person unemployed. And not only that, but the scab is only able to get the job because the striker is in a vulnerable state.
There are four "levels" of scabbing:
The negative scab - This is someone who is actively or passively hurting the company being struck against. These are the people who hold picket signs and refuse to fly anything with the Amerijet logo on it. Neither sin #1 or #2 is being committed.
The zero scab - Someone who is neither hurting nor helping the company/strikers in any way. Most people fall into this camp. Neither sin is being committed. Most pilots doing contract work for Amerijet right now are in this camp too. Its not so much they these people are hurting the striker's cause, they just aren't helping. They aren't jamming any knifes in, but they aren't taking any out either.
The slight scab - Sin #1 being committed, but sin #2 isn't. GoJet pilots fall into this category. GoJets pilots aren't setting out to take jobs away from people, but through a chain of indirect cause and effect, thats kind of what ends up happening. If you decide to continue flying for another company who is covering Amerijet's runs in such a way that allows Amerijet to continue doing what they've been doing, you are indeed undermining the strikers cause, but the distinction here isn't that you aren't taking anyone's job away from them. You already have your own job. In my opinion, people in this group get too much flak than what they deserve. There are hundreds of things that could undermine a strike's cause. Sheesh, if Amerijet were to go to a bank and get an operating loan to help them get through thins thing, you could argue the bank is helping undermine the strike because they're helping Amerijet continue their operations. The truck drivers who carry the freight off the planes and onto the roads are scabs too, right? The janitor who cleans the headquarters bathrooms are helping the company run, so he's a scab too, right?
The "Full Frontal" scab - Both sins are being committed. This is when a person actively and knowingly takes a job when he is 100% aware that the only reason he is being offered the job is because the person who normally holds the job is on strike. Not only is he completely undermining the strike effort, by allowing the company to operate under its old rules, but he is also benefiting himself by taking advantage of someone else who is in a weakened state. This is by far the worse of all types of scabs. What elevated these people above "slight" scabs is the intent of their actions.
The problem with these discussions is that people reduce all these types into either "negative scab" or "full frontal scab". Either you're with us or you're against us. Either you're doing everything you can to screw over Amerijet, or you're a scab who deserves to have your career ended and be spit on and have your flight bag pee'd into, etc...
3enginejock
Well-Known Member
I saw a CargoJet 767 getting loaded on the CargoCity ramp this morning, as well as a Russian AN-12. I didnt catch the name of the company flying the AN-12 though.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes.
:yeahthat:
We use the name, but not the trademarked logo. Demonstrating against the company is protected speech under the law, so they can't stop you from using the name to protest, but they can stop the use of their trademarks.
3enginejock
Well-Known Member
Well they had started 767 service using leased ABX airplanes before the strike. That might be what they are talking about the AMJ site.
So what's the point? You allegedly interjected and prevented struck freight from being flown. Good work. Doesn't make anyone a scab. No scabbery was performed apprently. And so what if KIIDO did what you alledge, that's what management does. If the pilots said yes they would have a problem and didn't want to fly AJ's freight, then no harm, no foul. Now if he pushed them to do so, then that'd be a different story. But there's no evidence of that so far (not saying it did or didn't happen, as there's no way I'd know).