Denying the Jumpseat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Velocipede, how do you justify denying GoJets based on your unionization argument. Don't get me wrong. I hate what the bastards did to TSA just as much as the next guy and have had the pleasure of talking a Captain into dumping one off our flight. But you've stated multiple times that you are against non unionized airlines that are undercutting everybody else (hence why Skywest gets a pass). It sounds to me that you are more against airlines that are undercutting others, and the union part doesn't have much to do with it. Also, (and I don't want to get on my Skywest soap box here) but it also seems that you are only looking at situations that directly under cut your position. As Wheelsup said, the CRJ 900s out there are pretty much DC9s at half the rate. Additionally, some companies flying a CRJ900 for -200 wages might not directly affect you, but it sure as hell hurts everybody else who is trying to negotiate "good" 900 wages. We were recently asked to take 900s at a "market" rate. That market rate sucks because the guys who set it are flying 90 seats for 50 seat pay. I agree with you, it's hard to make a stand when the ground keeps getting shoveled out from under you. But it isn't just in the greater then 100 seat market where it happens.
 
calcapt said:
Obviously Velocipede is passionate about this issue. Although I disagree somewhat with his delivery at times, his thoughts on the decline of our profession are valid. I am a pretty easy going guy but I must tell you that if a Virgin America, GoJets or Skybus pilot approached me for a ride, I would have to decline his or her request. There are jobs out there that by accepting them, you are no doubt crossing the line. There are many opportunities out there today and most new guys should set their sights on working for average to above average carriers and leave these scumbag outfits wondering why they can't get a single application for their substandard offerings. Only when that happens will progress at places like this be made. In fact, If that did happen, these places would cease to exist as they would have to compensate like legitimate carriers do which they would be unable to do. Their only weapons are cheap fares and they are able to do this by having sweatshop labor rates and deplorable working conditions. A pilot willing to work under these conditions just enables these evil doers. A new pilot joining the airline ranks would serve themselves well by avoiding pitfalls like crossing picket lines, working for places like we have been talking about and adopting a willingness to open their ears instead of their mouths for the first couple years.
Click to expand...


......:yup: :yeahthat: :yup: :yeahthat:


BobDDuck said:
... As Wheelsup said, the CRJ 900s out there are pretty much DC9s at half the rate. Additionally, some companies flying a CRJ900 for -200 wages might not directly affect you, but it sure as hell hurts everybody else who is trying to negotiate "good" 900 wages. We were recently asked to take 900s at a "market" rate. That market rate sucks because the guys who set it are flying 90 seats for 50 seat pay. I agree with you, it's hard to make a stand when the ground keeps getting shoveled out from under you. But it isn't just in the greater then 100 seat market where it happens.
Click to expand...



Airline managements are working from the same playbook and "market rate" is killing us.

Velocipede makes a compelling argument...

Maybe it's time to rethink "playing nice..."



Kevin
 
CalCapt...Very eloquently put.

Bob,

The GoJets embargo has nothing to do with their Union status. It has everything to do with the outsourcing issue. I was probably not clear on why they are on my personal "no fly" list. As far as I'm concerned, the whole outsourcing issue is one that is about to burst on the industry and GoJets will have been the leader.

And just to address your RJ issue. CRJ-900s and E-jets are not RJs. They are, as you said, DC-9s and 737-2/300s. They should be flown by mainline pilots at mainline rates. This is a scope issue. Unfortunately, the decline of wages and retirement benefits has become the overwhelming target for MEC NCs these days. Scope has taken a back seat. You're also right in that it will eventually bite us all in our collective butts.
 
I don't know about you guys- but the only guys who ride my jumpseat are non-union carriers. It's my jumpseat, and ain't no union guy ridin it!
 
Velocipede, I never looked at it that way. I'm sort of in agreement with you. I'm a lowly FO so I really don't have the final say, but someone just mentioned about both pilots feeling good about the jumpseater. I hear stories how some of the GoJets guys walk around the terminals with their ID's turned around. Why would you want to work there?
 
Soul Brotha' said:
I'm a lowly FO so I really don't have the final say, but someone just mentioned about both pilots feeling good about the jumpseater. I hear stories how some of the GoJets guys walk around the terminals with their ID's turned around. Why would you want to work there?
Click to expand...

Even a "lowly F/O" has something to say...give your input to your Captain! Here's Section115.E.3 verbatim from the ALPA Admin Manual:

1.Under the Captain's authority, entry to the flight deck will not be permitted for individuals with whom the Captain or his flight deck crew is not entirely comfortable.


That's good enough for me!

 
When UPS started the airline in 1988, Capts pay was $80/hr. Next year it will be four times that. The pilot group was always union, as well. Teamsters, then IPA.

My point is that it's not unusual for a startup to offer low wages. The payoff is taking a chance that you'll be at the top of the list at a successful company that will one day pay market rates for the job.

I'm not disagreeing with the arguments against low start up pay. I'm just trying to figure out how all those guys who went to UPS in 1988 for subpar pay screwed up.
 
They didn't. They got a Union. They built up their pay and workrules through several subsequent negotiations. That's how its done.

Its not done by accepting substandard wages/benefits from a non-Union company with no hope of increasing them except at the whim of the bosses. Its also not done by bragging (as did jetBlue) that they were going to have 200 airplanes and dominated U.S. domestic service based on substandard wages.

AWA had arguably the WORST ALPA contract for many years. But dedicated hard work by thier MEC and NC brought the wages up to where they are comparable today. Likewise, hard work by the FedEx ALPA NC and the UPS IPA/Teamsters NC brought you guys to the pinnacle of the airline business.

But, then, your profit metric is different from a passenger airline. People are willing to pay what it takes to get that package delivered as opposed to looking for the $10 ticket to haul their butt to BLI.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
And all because he let a Virgin/Skybus guy ride? C'mon, you're reaching...

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, someone has to do it if we collectively as a group will not.

I'll gladly recommend renting a car for one's commute, when the time comes, for someone who wants to ride my jumpseat if they are employed by a non-union, or alter-ego airline.

The end.

Different people, Different strokes.

As I recall it, the jumpseat - was a union benefit, fought and gained by union pilots. Not the other way around.
 
Ok, you guys make a very good case. I will, in the future, use discretion when allowing alter-ego pilots access to my jumpseat.

Ok, here's a question. Many on here preach the values of QOL and living in base.....esp. at the regional level. What if the person lives in said 'evil-airline's base and wants to work there for improved QOL? Understanding that being employed by said airline is obviously a negative....but they are trying to improve their QOL? Does that automatically make that person evil as well?
 
No. But, you can't have it both ways. You can't deny a Skybus guy a jumpseat due to your principles, then turn around and ask for one because you live in Columbus. I, for one, will not ask for a jumpseat on GoJets, Virgin, Skybus or jetBlue nor will I EVER buy a ticket on any of those carriers.

A boycott is total or it is a sham
 
Velocipede said:
A boycott is total or it is a sham
Click to expand...

Definately agree with that (and a lot of the other things you've said).

But...

I'm assuming you're not a commuter. What if your pilots started denying a lot of jumpseats to "scumbag" carriers? What if the pilots at those "scumbag" carriers start denying your carriers pilots?

And (unless I missed it) you still haaven't said if you'd deny a skywest pilot the jumpseat. If so, would it matter if they supported the union (lanyard, pin, all the free sticklers you can fit on a flightcase)? What if they were on the OC?
 
Man, I really thought we'd have all come to an agreement by now! :) :sarcasm:
 
I am surprised that we've gone several pages so far and it's been kept pretty much civil.

Seems to me that if we are ever going to even approach the lifestyle and pay that airline pilots enjoyed in the past that we have to fight every battle, even the small ones. You lose a war by caving in on the little fringe things. The other side chips away and chips away and suddenly you're left with no walls and no roof while scratching your head wondering "wha...?" The jumpseat privilege is one of those things.

By letting alter-ego or non-union pilots into your jumpseat you are allowing them to continue working for sub standard pay or benefits (or what was at one time leading) and thus allowing the company to see no reason to ever improve them. Make it more difficult for pilots to commute to those jobs and grumbling starts. When it gets bad enough (and add in a few other problems), you get a company looking at it's employees having a union drive or not able to keep people hired to fly their planes. In the end every little bit we do helps. Conversely every little bit we don't do hurts us. I'm a fighter, I will do whatever I can whenever I can to get our lifestyle back on track.
 
doug_or said:
I'm assuming you're not a commuter. What if your pilots started denying a lot of jumpseats to "scumbag" carriers? What if the pilots at those "scumbag" carriers start denying your carriers pilots?
Click to expand...

Again (or the 3rd or 4th time) our pilots have no business going to the scumbag airlines and asking for favors. By doing so, they become indebted to those guys and are expected to return the favor. A blanket denial by jetBlue, GoJets, Virgin or Skybus would not effect me in any way because I would never ask them for a jumpseat.

And (unless I missed it) you still haaven't said if you'd deny a skywest pilot the jumpseat. If so, would it matter if they supported the union (lanyard, pin, all the free sticklers you can fit on a flightcase)? What if they were on the OC?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you missed it 3 or 4 times. Skywest is not on the embargo list because, even though they are currently non-Union, they pay top of the scale wages for a regional airline. Likewise, GoJets makes the list because, even though they are Union, they are stealing flying from TSA through outsoucing.
 
Rocketman99 . . . well said, especially that second paragraph. Exactly how ALL of us should feel.

mikecweb said:
Just curious how you guys look at allowing jumpseaters from a non-union 135 freight company?
Click to expand...

I think I know the answer to this one.

121 operators (pilots), are not real worried about 135 cargo companies stealing their flying, or undercutting the pay of said pilot group, or starting an alter-ego 135 company to operate RJs, 737s, 75, 76, A320s, 747, 777, or any other large commercial aircraft.

So, I don't think 135 non union cargo operators are a threat to the 121 fight to increase QOL, work rules, and Pay movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top