New Hire Bonus

[drunkenbeagle]

Airline employees talk about how "bad" things would be if it weren't for the union. I say that we have no idea what a non-unionized airline industry would look like because there's never been one.

Interesting perspective but factually incorrect.

Hmm, that's actually an fairly interesting thought experiment.

 

[Seggy]

Hmm, that's actually an fairly interesting thought experiment.

What is?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

What is?

What an entirely non-union airline business in the US would look like.

 

[rocketman5150]

Interesting perspective but factually incorrect.

ALPA has been around since the early 1930's. AFA since mid-40's. The IAM since the 1800's (although it didn't really get going into avation until the 1950's. What facts am I incorrect on?

 

[Seggy]

What an entirely non-union airline business in the US would look like.

Well, for one, the safety record would be a lot worse. You do understand a lot of the safety improvements came from ALPA, do you? ALPA is the largest non-goverment safety agency in the world today as a matter of fact.

http://www.alpa.org/AboutALPA/OurHistory/tabid/2235/Default.aspx

 

[Seggy]

ALPA has been around since the early 1930's. AFA since mid-40's. The IAM since the 1800's (although it didn't really get going into avation until the 1950's. What facts am I incorrect on?

Do you work in the airline industry?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Well, for one, the safety record would be a lot worse. You do understand a lot of the safety improvements came from ALPA, do you? ALPA is the largest non-goverment safety agency in the world today as a matter of fact.

http://www.alpa.org/AboutALPA/OurHistory/tabid/2235/Default.aspx

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think union vs non-union operators have very different safety records to date.

There would be one major change - without seniority based pay, there would be far more lateral movement between operators. As a side effect, one would expect that pay rates would become far flatter over time, and training costs would go up substantially.

With no scope clauses, regional carriers would not exist for long either.

 

[jtrain609]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think union vs non-union operators have very different safety records to date.

There would be one major change - without seniority based pay, there would be far more lateral movement between operators. As a side effect, one would expect that pay rates would become far flatter over time, and training costs would go up substantially.

With no scope clauses, regional carriers would be all that's left because mainline carriers would franchise out their brand to multiple, independently owned carriers.

FIFY.

 

[Seggy]

Maybe, maybe not.

It is not a 'maybe, maybe not' answer. Take a look at how the FOQA and ASAP programs are written. The success of these programs depends heavily on union involvement.

There would be one major change - without seniority based pay, there would be far more lateral movement between operators. As a side effect, one would expect that pay rates would become far flatter over time, and training costs would go up substantially.

With no scope clauses, regional carriers would not exist for long either.

You are assuming a lot here without any facts. I would suggest jtrain609 is right though.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

With no scope clauses, regional carriers would be all that's left because mainline carriers would franchise out their brand to multiple, independently owned carriers.

They could, sure. That's what I first figured when I thought it through, but in hindsight, I don't think so.

Without a union, why would they bother? They could just hire off the street into whatever type they wanted. No union contract, you would just have to pay slightly better than whatever the market rate was to attract pilots.

 

[jtrain609]

They could, sure. That's what I first figured when I thought it through, but in hindsight, I don't think so.

Without a union, why would they bother? They could just hire off the street into whatever type they wanted. No union contract, you would just have to pay slightly better than whatever the market rate was to attract pilots.

Why pay for the infrastructure to support an airline when you can get it off your balance sheet and let somebody else deal with the details?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Why pay for the infrastructure to support an airline when you can get it off your balance sheet and let somebody else deal with the details?

If the payroll cost is the same, duplicating all of that infrastructure adds cost. Why have 2 HR departments, 2 legal departments, 2 sets of management, etc ?. They exist now because the payroll costs are substantially lower. If regional airlines truly were more efficient at "dealing with the details," why not outsource most management to them?

 

[BobDDuck]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think union vs non-union operators have very different safety records to date.

Sure. But that's because when ALPA or APA or whomever lobbies for a safety change they do it at a national level and push for it to apply to all carriers that operate under the applicable regs. Skywest CRJs don't run around with out TCAS, even though TCAS is pretty much a 90% ALPA invention/push.

You want to see what an industry looks like with no unions? Check out India. They have an AWESOME safety record, right?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

But why bother? Everyone with more than three brain cells to rub together already gets in. Cherokee is beyond help.

Gets in where?

Beyond help? Not what my psychiatrist told me!

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Sure. But that's because when ALPA or APA or whomever lobbies for a safety change they do it at a national level and push for it to apply to all carriers that operate under the applicable regs. Skywest CRJs don't run around with out TCAS, even though TCAS is pretty much a 90% ALPA invention/push.

You want to see what an industry looks like with no unions? Check out India. They have an AWESOME safety record, right?

What Indian crashes would you like to compare to USA crashes?

As for TCAS, the main push came after the Cerritos crash of Aeromexico and a Piper. You had PSA and a Cessna. If enough people die, the regs change. Sure ALPA may have pushed for it, but it is the crash itself that leads to changes. Just as I'm sure ALPA has been pushing for rest rule changes for a long time, but it took the Colgan crash to really get real change. Past history has shown that any big, real change in the industry comes from and is written in blood.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

You want to see what an industry looks like with no unions? Check out India. They have an AWESOME safety record, right?

It was a what-if question, and I don't see reason to think that pilots wouldn't lobby for safety programs, union or not. (I don't personally work for an airline, and therefore unlikely to ever be in a union. But I do spend a lot of time studying and teaching aviation safety. I think that is something that most aviation groups would have an interest in. )

Definitely not suggesting it would be better. But the current system isn't exactly perfect either.

 

[Seggy]

It was a what-if question, and I don't see reason to think that pilots wouldn't lobby for safety programs, union or not. (I don't personally work for an airline, and therefore unlikely to ever be in a union. But I do spend a lot of time studying and teaching aviation safety. I think that is something that most aviation groups would have an interest in. )

Definitely not suggesting it would be better. But the current system isn't exactly perfect either.

You are failing to understand how the ASAP and FOQA Programs work when you post something like this.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

You are failing to understand how the ASAP and FOQA Programs work when you post something like this.

When did I write anything specifically about FOQA or ASAP?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Gets in where?

Sorry, typo. Supposed to be "gets it."

Beyond help? Not what my psychiatrist told me!

I'm sure. After all, he's counting on your money to add that extra wing to his house.

 

[BobDDuck]

It was a what-if question, and I don't see reason to think that pilots wouldn't lobby for safety programs, union or not. (I don't personally work for an airline, and therefore unlikely to ever be in a union. But I do spend a lot of time studying and teaching aviation safety. I think that is something that most aviation groups would have an interest in. )

Definitely not suggesting it would be better. But the current system isn't exactly perfect either.

I wasn't aware we were even discussing the current system, which as you point out is far from perfect. That said, even if you think this is a simple "what if" scenario, we can use a lot of the hard evidence floating around out there to pretty easily show that a system without a union body pushing for safety regulations would be inherently less safe than one that has such a body.

How exactly do you propose that pilot's, with out union voice, lobby for safety? I assume that even if you haven't worked in the aviation industry, you've spent some time in big business? If so you know that EVERYTHING comes down to cost and in passenger transport, the costs is either in dollars and cents or bad publicity (which translates to dollars and cents). There are actuary tables floating around that show that it is cheaper for an airline to plant one into the side of a mountain every 7 years than to equip all their planes with EGPWS. There is plenty of data that shows it's cheaper to have a serious runway incursion event every three months than to put smart ground guidance systems in planes and to update the holdshort lighting bars at all airports. The ONLY thing that's changes the equation is the public's increased interest and knowledge about aviation safety. And that, especially more so in the past in the days before the rapid data flow allowed by the interwebs, was caused by airline unions running safety publicity campaigns and lobby the hell out of congress to get safety changes made.