Envoy (American eagle) to reduce pilots

Screaming_Emu said:
Worst...union rep...ever
Click to expand...

You know the last DFR suit that was upheld? It's pretty much because they had reps that told them EXACTLY what they wanted to hear instead of what Todd is saying here.

He's not advocating rolling over and just taking it. He's not advocating give backs.

He's simply saying what the MOST likely reality will be due to the actions of Envoy.

Y'all (and I'm not directing this at you depsite the quote) can bury your heads in the sand and say it's bad leadership, you can scream in denial (like some other guys on here have been doing) that it's all a bluff and WE HAVE LEVERAGE DAMMIT!!! But at the end of the day, like Todd said, Envoy will have to be made a lesson of, just like Comair was. Just like CCAir was. And just like Eastern was. There are ways of standing up to management and getting what you want, but there are also ways of standing up to management in times you probably shouldn't (or standing up in ways you shouldn't). The trick is knowing which sort of time it is.

Some time at an NJC I'll tell y'all about the moment the negotiating committee I was on realized we could never actually strike and as such had zero long term options. Fun stuff.
 
alaskadrifter said:
I don't see how the Eagle/Envoy pilots reaction was "full retard."
Click to expand...
He didn't say the pilots went full retard. He said the EGLMEC did. As if the MEC had anything to do with the way the pilots voted. As a union rep, he should support the wishes of his pilots. In the case of the Eagle pilot group the have made crystal clear to the MEC and management how they felt about the TA. That was true prior to the February MEC vote and moreso after the pilot vote results. Sounds suspiciously like he thinks the tail wags the dog, as did the previous to me EGLMEC leadership.

Sometimes doing the right thing has undesirable consequences, sometimes not. The consequences do not change right and wrong. To say that management "has" to do anything is incorrect, it is mere assertion. Time will tell. So far, threats have been numerous, as have deadlines, while realizations have been zero.
 
Last edited:
BobDDuck said:
You know the last DFR suit that was upheld? It's pretty much because they had reps that told them EXACTLY what they wanted to hear instead of what Todd is saying here.

He's not advocating rolling over and just taking it. He's not advocating give backs.

He's simply saying what the MOST likely reality will be due to the actions of Envoy.

Y'all (and I'm not directing this at you depsite the quote) can bury your heads in the sand and say it's bad leadership, you can scream in denial (like some other guys on here have been doing) that it's all a bluff and WE HAVE LEVERAGE DAMMIT!!! But at the end of the day, like Todd said, Envoy will have to be made a lesson of, just like Comair was. Just like CCAir was. And just like Eastern was. There are ways of standing up to management and getting what you want, but there are also ways of standing up to management in times you probably shouldn't (or standing up in ways you shouldn't). The trick is knowing which sort of time it is.

Some time at an NJC I'll tell y'all about the moment the negotiating committee I was on realized we could never actually strike and as such had zero long term options. Fun stuff.
Click to expand...

I hear and understand what you're saying.

But I think a lot of us have the point of view that while we may not have a ton of leverage, we have some....probably more than we will ever have. So while it may not actually improve conditions at our respective airlines, I think overall it will lead to improvements for those who are left standing in the industry...either through better contracts or getting rid of the regionals altogether.

Todd claims not to be advocating rolling over for management, but I have yet to see anything from him that doesn't imply that we should just roll over and take it. It actually seems kind of entertaining for him.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Todd claims not to be advocating rolling over for management, but I have yet to see anything from him that doesn't imply that we should just roll over and take it. It actually seems kind of entertaining for him.
Click to expand...

I've actually said repeatedly that I personally would have voted against the TA. You choose not to pay attention to that because you don't like the fact that I refuse to take the hard-line militant stance of people like Charlie.

You can stand up for yourself in a rational and deliberate way. But that's not what the EGL MEC did.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
I hear and understand what you're saying.

But I think a lot of us have the point of view that while we may not have a ton of leverage, we have some....probably more than we will ever have. So while it may not actually improve conditions at our respective airlines, I think overall it will lead to improvements for those who are left standing in the industry...either through better contracts or getting rid of the regionals altogether.

Todd claims not to be advocating rolling over for management, but I have yet to see anything from him that doesn't imply that we should just roll over and take it. It actually seems kind of entertaining for him.
Click to expand...

This assumes that management will get rid of the regionals.

If I was in management, I'd keep letting regionals shut their doors after they'd been around 5-8 years, since longevity costs are what drive the price of a regional. So find a way to get all the senior guys off the list by getting rid of regionals on a regular basis.

If they do this, we'll be left standing here wondering WTF happened, clamoring about all the leverage we thought we had.
 
jtrain609 said:
If they do this, we'll be left standing here wondering WTF happened, clamoring about all the leverage we thought we had.
Click to expand...

Yep. Compass and GoJet (for realz!) aren't actually cheaper because they have less value in their contracts than all the other companies. It's because their most senior captain is only at 8 or 9 year pay as opposed to having 20% of their captains topped out at 18 (or 12) years.

When we were negotiating at PSA we ran the numbers of taking Compass's contract and applying it to our demographic and we were still going to be 30% more expensive.
 
BobDDuck said:
Yep. Compass and GoJet (for realz!) aren't actually cheaper because they have less value in their contracts than all the other companies. It's because their most senior captain is only at 8 or 9 year pay as opposed to having 20% of their captains topped out at 18 (or 12) years.

When we were negotiating at PSA we ran the numbers of taking Compass's contract and applying it to our demographic and we were still going to be 30% more expensive.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the flow will continue to keep Compass cheap for the next handful of years.

If we don't think that management hasn't figured this out, then we're not paying attention. As usual, I imagine that pilots, as a group, are a few steps behind the game that is actually being played. We're worried about "taking it back" when management has a few ways to simply change the game altogether.

The only way to prevent management from doing this with regionals would be to have a national (regional) seniority list, and minimum pay rates across the board for regional aircraft. That way when they shut down regional A and transferred the flying to regional B, there would be no cost savings for the mainline partner to force these types of situations.

And THAT might actually force the regional business model to go away.
 
Welp, only time will tell. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Popcorn still in hand!
 
jtrain609 said:
The only way to prevent management from doing this with regionals would be to have a national (regional) seniority list, and minimum pay rates across the board for regional aircraft. That way when they shut down regional A and transferred the flying to regional B, there would be no cost savings for the mainline partner to force these types of situations.
Click to expand...

That was actually the original plan behind the Fee For Departure Task Force in 2006 (or maybe 2007?). The first goal was to harmonize contracts. If you can make the cost per hour to operate a plane the same across the board, the relative cost savings gained by shuffling flying around is reduced or removed. The second goal was to work out a process for longevity portability. If your group flew 100 RJs and 20 of those planes were shifted to another carrier (thing about how many CMR tails ended up at ASA and Skywest over the years), the number of pilots that it would take to crew those planes went with them, instead of being furloughed, keeping their longevity, but starting over with their seniority. Of course none of this worked in the end, but there was several months of meetings about it.
 
jtrain609 said:
The only way to prevent management from doing this with regionals would be to have a national (regional) seniority list, and minimum pay rates across the board for regional aircraft. That way when they shut down regional A and transferred the flying to regional B, there would be no cost savings for the mainline partner to force these types of situations.

And THAT might actually force the regional business model to go away.
Click to expand...
The problem is that management has to sign off on this idea. I am fairly certain no one in management would be stupid enough to do just that.
 
BobDDuck said:
Yep. Compass and GoJet (for realz!) aren't actually cheaper because they have less value in their contracts than all the other companies. It's because their most senior captain is only at 8 or 9 year pay as opposed to having 20% of their captains topped out at 18 (or 12) years.

When we were negotiating at PSA we ran the numbers of taking Compass's contract and applying it to our demographic and we were still going to be 30% more expensive.
Click to expand...

Kinnnda. Pay is a big part, but you also have fleet costs. I think that plays a HUGE role. New airplane deals have been lucrative in recent years because it gives companies an edge.

I somewhat agree with Todd and I think John has it right. I don't know if EGL management will actually follow through with their claimed plans. The only way to really know is to understand what goals they are comfortable with having. Are they ok with shutting the doors or do they consider the RJ market to still be crowded enough to get the pilots back to the table, eventually?

IMO, there is going to be more consolidation and the best prepared groups will negotiate with that in mind. Does that mean, either side should just roll over and agree to every LBFO? No, but what many don't fully comprehend is that negotiations are what the name implies. They are not "Demands and Gives". Leverage helps but is not unlimited. EGL's pilot reps are calling management's bluff. If management is really willing to shut the place down over this, that's a little mean spirited, I think. But, if they want to allow shrinkage over a lack of concessions, that can be negotiating just as much as the TA vote, itself, is actually negotiating.
 
jtrain609 said:
The only way to prevent management from doing this with regionals would be to have a national (regional) seniority list, and minimum pay rates across the board for regional aircraft. That way when they shut down regional A and transferred the flying to regional B, there would be no cost savings for the mainline partner to force these types of situations.
Click to expand...

Even that would only be successful if it was legislated. Every time mainline management starts a "NewCo" to replace the shut down regional, they're starting with a blank slate without any requirement to adhere to a contractual provision to use a national seniority list. Then ALPA has to go in and start from scratch organizing them, then negotiating a new CBA that includes the national seniority list, using all sorts of bargaining capital to buy it back again.
 
I would like to know what kind of time frame management is planning on doing this. They left that part out on purpose of course. They're ramping up for AIP part 3. I personally think they're not quite decided on whether or not they want to kill Eagle. From a management standpoint, how awesome would it be to have three wholly owned regionals you can whipsaw all you want? That's where AAG is going. There isn't a Pinnacle out there they can go buy (yet), so this is their way of topping what Delta has for them.
 
So I guess the point is that if you don't take concessions you'll be forced to go to work for a major and make a livable wage and have an improved quality of life. That's scary.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Todd claims not to be advocating rolling over for management, but I have yet to see anything from him that doesn't imply that we should just roll over and take it. It actually seems kind of entertaining for him.
Click to expand...

I think that Todd's analysis of the situation, and management's desires and expectations, is spot on.
 
jtrain609 said:
If I was in management, I'd keep letting regionals shut their doors after they'd been around 5-8 years, since longevity costs are what drive the price of a regional. So find a way to get all the senior guys off the list by getting rid of regionals on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Exactly what happens already right now. There is one other card they can play though. Even at an operation with higher longevity, adding lots of aircraft quickly and hiring a bunch of folks at the bottom of the pay scale lowers labor cost for a few years. The expectation is the run the place into the ground a few years down the road when that happens anyway.
 
Best way to make money in the airline biz is either start a new company (NewCo/Compass) or buy up an old bankrupt one for pennies on the dollar (Mesa, Endeavor), award them flying, go public with an IPO or sell to an investor and sell your share. Then rinse and repeat. Easy money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top