How much $$ is enough?

Polar742 said:
Nice smartass reply. Thanks for my daily dose of condensention. I'm glad you spread it around equally. There are a thousand different ways to say what you said without being a jerk. A good leader would have used one of those ways instead.

I didn't have any of that good data when I was an ALPA member. And I take it that either a) your leadership style is management by exclusion b) you want us to believe that you know more than you do c) the data points don't back up your claim

In any case, for someone that claims and usurps leadership roles, you are definately not the person I'd want to be my leadership. I'd be to afraid your personal agenda, that of you think you're smarter than the rest of us so we should follow along, would get in the way of representing the wishes of the pilot group.
Click to expand...

Dude, relax. I wasn't trying to be a "smartass," and re-reading my post, I still don't see how you can read it that way. Notice the smiley face?

It's the honest-to-God truth that E & FA information isn't released publicly. ALPA reps have to sign confidentiality agreements in order to receive any of this kind of information.
 
Polar742 said:
Nice smartass reply. Thanks for my daily dose of condensention. I'm glad you spread it around equally. There are a thousand different ways to say what you said without being a jerk. A good leader would have used one of those ways instead.

I didn't have any of that good data when I was an ALPA member. And I take it that either a) your leadership style is management by exclusion b) you want us to believe that you know more than you do c) the data points don't back up your claim

In any case, for someone that claims and usurps leadership roles, you are definately not the person I'd want to be my leadership. I'd be to afraid your personal agenda, that of you think you're smarter than the rest of us so we should follow along, would get in the way of representing the wishes of the pilot group.
Click to expand...

Whoa there Polar, I think you took his joke out of context. I don't see where he was being condescending or a smartass. He even put a smilie at the end. Easy there!:)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Dude, relax. I wasn't trying to be a "smartass," and re-reading my post, I still don't see how you can read it that way. Notice the smiley face?

It's the honest-to-God truth that E & FA information isn't released publicly. ALPA reps have to sign confidentiality agreements in order to receive any of this kind of information.
Click to expand...

Since I didn't get the good word from my fellow pilots, there's not much I can do now, but I think that there needs to be much more transparency in what the heck our Union is doing for us. The only people who suffer are the constituents, since I highly doubt the airline doesn't have access to something very similar.
 
cencal83406 said:
Since I didn't get the good word from my fellow pilots, there's not much I can do now, but I think that there needs to be much more transparency in what the heck our Union is doing for us. The only people who suffer are the constituents, since I highly doubt the airline doesn't have access to something very similar.
Click to expand...

The constituents would be the ones to suffer if information was released publicly. Airlines only allow ALPA E & FA to have access to their books because they know that ALPA will never release the data publicly. It's taken ALPA decades to build up the reputation in this industry that allows them to have unfettered access to the books of even the most anti-labor airlines. ALPA's reputation in this area is so pristine that airlines themselves even hire ALPA's E & FA to do financial analysis for them and develop costing models for new proposals. If you prohibit ALPA from keeping this information from the membership, then ALPA will no longer have access to the information, and you'll be in a much worse situation in bargaining. Bad idea.
 
Soul Brotha' said:
Some might disagree with me on this but here we go anyway. The problem with pay is pilots. We are rarely ever happy. You could pay every pilot an equal amount(let's say $150K) and someone will bitch and complain. What $$ is fair? I fly way more legs than Doug does daily and probably carry the same or more passengers per month as him. I know that he only flies 6-7 times per month. I'm sure his flight generates way more revenue than mine. But who is getting him his passengers to their flights across the pond, etc. Where does one draw the line? Just my .02
Click to expand...

So. . .

If your boss comes to you and offers you a 5% raise, you'd say no?

Now, what if your boss never offers you a raise, and yet cost of living increases, inflation increases, etc.

What? You're going to be happy being paid _______ forever?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
As to the original question, I'm honestly not too concerned about first year pay. I think airlines actually have a valid argument in paying someone significantly less during their first year, since they have no idea whether the individual will even make it past probation, plus they have to outlay $30,000+ to train a newhire in his first year. I think a union is usually wasting its time by negotiating first year pay.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we know the old argument about recouping training costs as an excuse to start pilot wages ridiculously low. Perhaps following that argument we should just do PFT like in Europe, where a guy has to have the type in hand to even be considered for the job, and then will paid somewhat like a professional.

I have a better idea, why doesn't ALPA hold the line on pilot pay, and say "no more ramen noodles and living in a car in the employee parking lot." We expect pilots that are professional and ready to do the job from day one, and that they are paid accordingly. In my mind that would be a guarantee that would double first year pay to 35 to 40k.

So if we are not concerned about first year pay, we are saying that all is fair in love and war. Who is to blame the shortcut taker going to Gulfstream or the erstwhile equivalent of JetU, if we are basically saying that a FO is a apprentice unworthy of a living wage?

How can you argue for spectacular rates for senior captains when the bar is set so low?
 
ALPA tries to get the most dollars out of each contract. That (generally) means they usually focus on the terminal pay where you spend many more years at than the 1st year pay where you spend only one.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
ALPA tries to get the most dollars out of each contract. That (generally) means they usually focus on the terminal pay where you spend many more years at than the 1st year pay where you spend only one.
Click to expand...

I know how the system works. Captains alone are usually 52% of the voting, with FOs ready to upgrade another large percent. FOs on probation = 0%. I am making a prescriptive statement. I believe ALPA shoots themselves in the foot, by lowering the whole profession by allowing such payscales. It is in the long run counterproductive if not hypocritical? So realistically under close examination, it is the union and not the companies that are responsible for low pay?
 
Have a better idea? I mean, ALPA usually looks at it on a very scientific basis. Our guys will get $X more dollars with this, or they'll get $Y more dollars with that. Then they usually choose the ones which over the entire membership generate most money.

Mesa didn't help the regional airline industry by passing this contract which merely brings up 'near par' with everyone else's old ass contracts. I didn't vote for it, Pinnacle negotiators specifically -- sorry.
 
I think I put forth a better idea. Have ALPA hold the line on starting airline professional pay a living wage. Or spare us the hypocritical hyperbole of pulling out the corporate rat, or signs of "family need before corporate greed" or the "I make less than 20k $$ signs".
 
Would need a stronger National, or rather a National with a little more power over MEC's affairs than they do now. I'm not entirely sure that would be popular.
 
So in your mind it would be better to waste negotiating capital on the pay rate that you'll spend one year of your life at rather than the 12-year rate where you'll likely spend 20 years at? Doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
So in your mind it would be better to waste negotiating capital on the pay rate that you'll spend one year of your life at rather than the 12-year rate where you'll likely spend 20 years at? Doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me.
Click to expand...

You got a good point there and I am no longer at 1st year pay, at least at this company... My point is that if you want to make the argument that pilots are professionals, it would seem that ALPA would not totally disregard entry level pay, and demand a living wage. I really see this more of an issue at the regionals.

What President, Congressman, Senator would want to help out a labor group that throws the most jr guys under the bus.
 
There's a limited amount of things you can get per contract. Raising year one pay necessitates lower gains in other pay or QOL issues. Perhaps because probationary pilots don't vote but I don't think I've met anyone who would agree for a raise in year 1 pay if it meant say one day less off a month, or lower gains in the terminal pay.

Perhaps I've been brainwashed by evil men in Herndon but I've come to believe that the only real way to create the levarage we need is to somehow stem the tide of new applicants. Perhaps requiring a ATP for any 121 op. USA has the cheapest flight training environment in the world, it shows due to the entire other world sends us students. I think user fees are going to happen, but they don't have to be crippling to flight schools. You might have to leave like the bigger airports, but I think Obama is really focused on this.

In an ideal situation we would have the same kind of control the AMA has over how many doctors are produced a year, but that's kind of a pipe dream.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
There's a limited amount of things you can get per contract. Raising year one pay necessitates lower gains in other pay or QOL issues. Perhaps because probationary pilots don't vote but I don't think I've met anyone who would agree for a raise in year 1 pay if it meant say one day less off a month, or lower gains in the terminal pay.

Perhaps I've been brainwashed by evil men in Herndon but I've come to believe that the only real way to create the levarage we need is to somehow stem the tide of new applicants. Perhaps requiring a ATP for any 121 op. USA has the cheapest flight training environment in the world, it shows due to the entire other world sends us students. I think user fees are going to happen, but they don't have to be crippling to flight schools. You might have to leave like the bigger airports, but I think Obama is really focused on this.

In an ideal situation we would have the same kind of control the AMA has over how many doctors are produced a year, but that's kind of a pipe dream.
Click to expand...
First, let me say I am not trying to be polemic here. I really believe that if we are going to make any real progress, we need to hold the line on entry level requirements (I totally agree that part 135 mins or ATP should be the way forward)and corresponding pay AT LEAST = to a living wage.

May I post a link and an excerpt from the newsbot?:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090517/ap_on_go_ot/us_airline_pilots
Lawmakers now are wondering if such working conditions are more widespread and pose safety risks.
Members of Congress said they were stunned by the salaries of the pilots of Continental Connection Flight 3407, employees of the smaller commuter airline Colgan Air Inc. The pilots may have tried to snatch sleep in an airport crew lounge, which is against company policy. The first officer lived with her parents near Seattle and commuting cross country to work in New Jersey.

So imagine if you will public hearings into this matter.

Congressman umptyfrat: So you are saying that you are not concerned about your junior FOs payrate?

ALPA bigwig schmeezle: Uh, not really. I mean it's only a couple of years...

Representative umptyfrat: Ok then nevermind. I mean it is your profession, I defer your experience. But please no more of the annoying signs and slogans. sheesh...
 
granlistillo said:
My point is that if you want to make the argument that pilots are professionals, it would seem that ALPA would not totally disregard entry level pay, and demand a living wage.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we shouldn't demand a living wage. I think that's obvious. Hell, I'm a supporter of a national living wage of $10/hr.

What I don't support is going beyond that for first year pay. I think it's a waste of negotiating capital to try to get $40/hr for first year RJ FOs. If $30/hr is a living wage, then I don't see a need to spend capital on that rate when it could be better spent on the second year wage of the guy that isn't on probation.
 
Todd, have you heard any news on the Fee for Departure Committee? Realize not really your bag anymore, but lowly volunteers don't get much juicy gossip.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Todd, have you heard any news on the Fee for Departure Committee? Realize not really your bag anymore, but lowly volunteers don't get much juicy gossip.
Click to expand...

I know that Captain Tom Wychor (MSA) gave a presentation about a month or so ago that dealt with ideas similar to the portable longevity concept, but I'm not sure where it's gone since then. I'll be seeing some of the ALPA attorneys on Monday, so I'll ask them about it. Just remind me to give you an update, because I'm sure that I'll forget. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top