Amerijet On Strike!

Doug Taylor said:
That's cool.

He was told to ask. He did, I gather fully expecting none of his pilots to take the assignment. That's his job as a manager.

AND he had the fortitude to put his name on the internet and explain himself too. That's certainly a good thing that shows integrity.

But say he refused to ask, on principle, gets fired and replaced by a guy who outright says that if the pilots don't fly the cargo, they'll be summarily discharged.

How would that be a better outcome?
Click to expand...

That's what I've been trying to relate here for the past few pages.......

I fully understand this is an emotionally-charged situation, but people shouldn't let that get in the way of logical judgement.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
He would still have his integrity.
Click to expand...

Where was the integrity lost? By his own account, he asked his pilots what they thought...I would imagine was told to do so. It seems the wishes of the pilots were noted and no Amjet cargo was flown. It'd be one thing, IMHO, if he was telling the pilots to do X, or asking the pilots but not really asking them....with there only being one answer: fly the stuff. Those situations would be entirely different.

Point is, we don't know the background behind it....only the end result: those pilots aren't flying struck work, and management doesn't seem to be forcing them to.
 
Perhaps we should ask him if he hasn't disappear yet.

Seemed like the end result worked out in everyone's favor except those looking to move struck work.
 
CNN article(http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/09/04/amerijet.no.lavatories/index.html):

AmeriJet pilots raise a stink over lack of lavatories


  • Story Highlights
  • AmeriJet flight crews went on strike August 27, chiefly over pay issues
  • Lack of bathrooms on planes has caused more of stir with public, strikers says
  • On YouTube video, striking pilot shows bag in which crew must urinate
  • FAA says it doesn't regulate lavatories, and OSHA says issue isn't its jurisdiction
By Mike M. Ahlers
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pilots at AmeriJet International have nice big planes, but nowhere to go.


None of the cargo carrier's eight Boeing 727s have lavatories, pilots say, forcing the pilots and crews to use plastic bags for all their elimination needs.


"This is what you use for a Number One," one pilot says in a YouTube video, grabbing a small green bag. "And a much bigger bag for a Number Two."


The video has become the most compelling argument in the pilot's public-relations arsenal ever since flight crews went on strike August 27. Pay issues may be their top concern, but the lack of bathrooms has had the greatest resonance with the public, striking workers acknowledge.


"Nobody can believe that there's no bathroom on a plane of this size," said Gordon Shaylor, a striking pilot who has flown for AmeriJet for 9 1/2 years.
So at picket lines, and on YouTube, pilots have been hoisting the plastic bags, which the airline provides in lieu of a loo.


"It's degrading," said Dawn Leschinski, one of two women pilots employed by the carrier.


The striking pilots say AmeriJet originally removed the plane's lavatories to reduce the plane's weight and the cost of servicing the restrooms.
"Initially, they didn't provide anything," said pilot and shop steward Kamal Patel. "The bags that you see ... they didn't even provide those. Eventually they realized there were some corrosion issues when crew members had to go into the cargo hold to use the bathroom. So that's when they started to provide pee bags and bags to go Number Two."
Pilots say that the bags are fitted around a metal frame somewhat like portable johns used by campers. At the end of their flights, pilots dispose of the bags in an airport dumpster.


Pilots also complain that there are privacy issues, since cargo handlers sometimes ride in the cargo hold, where pilots go to the bathroom.
"You just have to be real discreet," Patel said. "You have to do it in front of everybody else."


An AmeriJet official declined to comment on the lavatory issue, or even discuss whether the planes have lavatories.


A Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said lavatories, or the lack thereof, are not a concern for regulators.


"That's not an aviation safety issue. It's a passenger or crew-member comfort issue," said agency spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen. "There is absolutely no requirement for any aircraft to have a lavatory."
That includes large passenger planes used for cross-country flights, Bergen said.


Nor does the Occupational Safety and Health Administration require lavatories on planes, saying aircraft do not fall under their jurisdiction.
But one business industry group says lavatories should be a concern.
Kevin Mitchell of the Business Travel Coalition, which represents corporate travel offices, called AmeriJet's working conditions "worse than the sweatshops of the 1930s" and said it is a safety issue.


"You cannot have these kind of conditions and have them compatible with safety margins. It just doesn't work that way. You need motivated employees with good morale that are well-rested coming up to work to fly these aircraft," Mitchell said.


"Poor morale among flight attendants leads to poor service. Poor morale among pilots can lead to something far more dangerous," he said.
"These cargo aircraft are flying in the same space as commercial passenger aircraft. These pilots are making split-second decisions on landings, on diversions, on crossing runways. And you want these people to be well-trained, well-rested and with high morale -- and that doesn't appear to be the set of circumstances at AmeriJet," Mitchell said.


Pilots in the industry say the major cargo carriers all fly planes with lavatories, but several smaller cargo carriers have eliminated restrooms.
Click to expand...
 
ATN_Pilot said:
And when he was told to do so, his answer should have been "$&%$ you."
Click to expand...

And then what? He'd probably be replaced with someone who would tell the guys to go fly the struck cargo, or get fired.

It's possible that a good tactic as a middle manager would be to take the poll from your pilots, get their obvious answer, take that answer back to upper management with a "here you go....told you," sentiment. Thats one way to make a statement of the pilot group, collectively, to higher management. Maybe that's what happened?

What I'm saying is there's a time for the in-your-face action, and times where alot more can be accomplished, and with a bigger impact (ie, get the message across better), by using some savvy.
 
If there was a way for me to have my pilot group not cross a picket line or fly scab freight and I'd get to keep my job... I choose that option if I was in his shoes. I wouldn't expect the AMJ pilot group and the unions could ask anymore of someone who works at a non-union carrier.:dunno:

What more can they ask for?
 
MikeD said:
And then what? He'd probably be replaced with someone who would tell the guys to go fly the struck cargo, or get fired.
Click to expand...

Any run of the mill scab could make the same argument. "If I don't do it, someone else will." Sorry, I ain't buying it. Either you have enough to integrity to not get involved in it, or you don't.

Remember, you like the outcome in this case because his pilots did the right thing, but what would the outcome have been if 25% of them had said they would do it? He would have then been complicit. At least it didn't go that far, but it still shows a lack of integrity. He should have refused to be involved in any sort of scab search.
 
MikeD said:
Like I said, throttle it back a bit here with the namecalling. We do have rules around these parts; and since you're allegedly new, you may want to take a bit of time to review them. Don't say you weren't warned...again. All that was asked of you is to back up your allegations with a few facts, as many may not be in the know. Thats not asking much. And with so much possibility for misinformation to go back and forth, who's to say whats what? Just something to consider in the midst of all the emotions with the situation at hand.

"Beloved management" Are you on crack? Who's beloving or trusting management? I just simply understand what it is they do. Kind of like the frog and the snake crossing the river.....frog gets surprised he got bit by snake after repeated times of being told he wouldn't be. Why? Because that's what snakes do, said the snake. Same concept hoss. And if pilots knew their history, they'd say no to management trying to whipsaw them now in the same ways that were done in history during strikes. Seems thats what the pilots did do, whether or not you came to the rescue or not. Point is, there's no thought police......hold people accountable for what they do, not what was thought or considered.
Click to expand...

Mike...I do understand where you're coming from...that said...

You GOTTA check out the website of the wife of Amerijet's CEO, Doug Bassett. "KandeeG" and the "G Force" of motivational mumbo jumbo that these guys have to listen to every year...it's hard to look at it with a straight face, understand where Bassett is getting his ideas...and not laugh your ass off.:rotfl:

www.kandeeg.com
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Any run of the mill scab could make the same argument. "If I don't do it, someone else will." Sorry, I ain't buying it. Either you have enough to integrity to not get involved in it, or you don't.

Remember, you like the outcome in this case because his pilots did the right thing, but what would the outcome have been if 25% of them had said they would do it? He would have then been complicit. At least it didn't go that far, but it still shows a lack of integrity. He should have refused to be involved in any sort of scab search.
Click to expand...

Sure, that would be a scab argument. I would hope that the conversation I was describing went something like "....hey guys, management wants me to ask you guys what you think of flying Amjet's cargo (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)..." so the guys could at least know that it's window dressing on his part in order to take the obvious answer back up to higher. I don't know if it went down that way, only he can answer that if he decides to.

Sure I like the outcome of this one because the pilots did the right thing, good on them! Lets go with your hypothetical and say 25% did say to do it......in that case there'd be a whole another problem, and one that I'd agree there'd be some complicit in if he took a different answer to upper management. I see your point in refusing to be part of any scab search, and generally agree. I also can see where someone can use that "assigned search" to their advantage, knowing in advance what the answer would be from the rank and file, in order to make a more solid case to upper management of "do NOT do this.....this is a bad idea!". Again, I don't know if this is what happenecd, but the positive outcome that occurred here did so for some reason.

We're solidly on the same side here, just differing on the tactics at hand.
 
Is this even a serious discussion on a thread supporting a strike for basic human rights?

It's super-simple. AMJ freight flown = scab. No AMJ freight, no scab.

Done. Take it somewhere else for a "might be, could be, maybe not" scab discussion.

You move the freight, you scab. A discussion/poll/attempted persuasion doesn't make a scab.

I was told once that locks on doors are only to keep honest people out.

Oh, I haven't seen any other DOs of non-union companies publicly state they won't fly AMJ freight.
 
Was going to add too, that Amerijet seems be doing well filling the stereotype of "evil management" in this whole situation. In fact, they seem to be the personification of it.

Unbelieveable.....

I STILL don't understand why someone would scab for this operation. Scabbing is bad enough, but to scab in a place where you're knowingly and willingly being treated like some sort of slave labor insofar as basic amenities.........I can't fathom that.
 
MikeD said:
Was going to add too, that Amerijet seems be doing well filling the stereotype of "evil management" in this whole situation. In fact, they seem to be the personification of it.

Unbelieveable.....

I STILL don't understand why someone would scab for this operation. Scabbing is bad enough, but to scab in a place where you're knowingly and willingly being treated like some sort of slave labor insofar as basic amenities.........I can't fathom that.
Click to expand...

You've got to keep in mind that some of these guys are repeat offenders. Their names are already on a list, so they have nowhere else to go. They've already destroyed their lives and careers, so no need to hold out for "luxuries" like bathrooms and food. :rolleyes:
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You've got to keep in mind that some of these guys are repeat offenders. Their names are already on a list, so they have nowhere else to go. They've already destroyed their lives and careers, so no need to hold out for "luxuries" like bathrooms and food. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Good point.

You know, as I've seen it, in most labor/management disputes and/or strike actions, one has to usually do some research to separate the wheat from the chaff regards the propaganda arguments of the two respective sides. Union says alot...ok, now lets see where the facts are; management says alot....ok, lets see where the facts are there.

In this situation though, it's almost completely one sided. The pilot group complaints are not merely complaints, they're established fact. Management is doing nothing to either defend or refute these complaints, or say/do anything to try and make themselves in a positive P.R. light (because they don't have a leg to stand on, I know, but bear with me for sake of argument). In fact, management is going so far as to put out a public statement that what the pilot group is asking for is somehow unreasonable?!?! That due to economics and cost of the industry, that that somehow justifies treating the crews like they're in the stoneage? In fact, justifying treating them like crap AND paying them a lousy wage for the privilege! There's little wheat/chaff to sort through on this one, which is good for one side, and bad for the other.
 
I wonder what Velocipede would have to say about this whole ordeal.......whatever happened to that guy anyway
 
The simple fact that the situation at KII was put out on this forum and into the open is what swayed management's decision. Another crew member at the company saw the post and reported it to the office (and I will let you all think about what that act says all by itself). The company backed off due to this publication which makes this forum a success because it lead to the end result we were looking for.

Everyone here is asking for facts. What a lot of you are failing to understand is - that knowledge - that fact supplying - is a dangerous game (and is most likely at ANY company) because it could lead to a loss of being able to speak anonymously here. It leads to certain forms of what management would call "disciplinary action up to and including termination". Does this sound familiar to anyone because I am sure it is in everyone's handbook? The only fact that matters here is that their DO corroborated what was posted by coming clean about making those phone calls.
 
Todd it looks like KII did something me and you have talked about companies never doing. They looked at the real cost and profits of doing something.
KIIDO said:
KII management will continue to make its decisions based on facts available at the time.
Click to expand...
AKA: Does it make the company money today and not cost the company money in the future.
 
Actually, I think you're giving them too much credit. I think they just realized that they were going to have a bunch of pilots refuse to fly the freight, terminations or not. If 25% of the pilots had voiced a willingness to do it, I think you'd see Kalitta Charter II airplanes flying scab freight as we speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top