So about that Delta + $1

Revenue sharing between airlines scares me. Makes me think of Lorenzo and his idea that carriers could share revenue to help others weather times when pilots were on strike in an effort to bust up the unions.....
 
ATN_Pilot said:
They have been given anti-trust immunity by the feds for a joint venture with UAL, Air Canada, and Lufthansa, for a code share arrangement for overseas flights. The CAL contract prohibits the company from entering into any sort of revenue sharing deal with another domestic carrier, so unless relief is provided, CAL will have to back out of the joint venture. The feds have given them until Jan 2011 to begin their venture, so if the scope relief isn't provided by the fall, then they won't have enough time to get it off the ground.
Click to expand...

Yeah because the last thing you would want to do is allow your employer to make a little money. That's just a bad deal all around.
 
skydog2 said:
Yeah because the last thing you would want to do is allow your employer to make a little money. That's just a bad deal all around.
Click to expand...

You sound like a management stooge. How about the employer making the money using their own employees. If they can't do that then maybe they need to get out of the business.
 
skydog2 said:
Yeah because the last thing you would want to do is allow your employer to make a little money. That's just a bad deal all around.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between what you're saying and what is being proposed. If the CAL pilots let it go just so their employer can make a little money, they'll wake up in a few years with Aer Lingus pilots doing their flying while they drive to Home Depot to their new jobs. In a perfect world, management and the employee groups could mutual agree on something that works for BOTH groups. In this case, what makes money for management might do so at the loss of the employees jobs, or at least a decent portion of them.
 
Cptnchia said:
You sound like a management stooge. How about the employer making the money using their own employees. If they can't do that then maybe they need to get out of the business.
Click to expand...

And you sound like a petulant child; "If I can't have it no one can."
 
kellwolf said:
There's a difference between what you're saying and what is being proposed. If the CAL pilots let it go just so their employer can make a little money, they'll wake up in a few years with Aer Lingus pilots doing their flying while they drive to Home Depot to their new jobs. In a perfect world, management and the employee groups could mutual agree on something that works for BOTH groups. In this case, what makes money for management might do so at the loss of the employees jobs, or at least a decent portion of them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you end up at Home Depot either way. If that's the case, why destroy something that is working for someone else?
 
skydog2 said:
Sounds like you end up at Home Depot either way. If that's the case, why destroy something that is working for someone else?
Click to expand...

Is the "something" you're talking about the same company that you work for? Management sharing or outsourcing to another company to do the same job that they have hired me to do, and that I've worked 20+ years for sounds like management destroying their own company. Me disagreeing to it through a contract is not an attempt to destroy my company, rather protect me from management.
 
Baronman said:
Is the "something" you're talking about the same company that you work for? Management sharing or outsourcing to another company to do the same job that they have hired me to do, and that I've worked 20+ years for sounds like management destroying their own company. Me disagreeing to it through a contract is not an attempt to destroy my company, rather protect me from management.
Click to expand...

Not to a pure capitalist idealogue.

Employees are nothing.
 
skydog2 said:
And you sound like a petulant child; "If I can't have it no one can."
Click to expand...


Seriously? Nice retort. No one is telling Continental they can't make money. They are just telling them to use their own employees.

Continental using foreign pilots to fly for them is like the Cleveland Indians hiring the Yankees to play ball for them, while still allowing the Yankees to field their own squad. If you can't compete with the players(employees) you brought to the dance, then you need to go home.
 
skydog2 said:
Sounds like you end up at Home Depot either way. If that's the case, why destroy something that is working for someone else?
Click to expand...

Think about what you just said. You're asking people to give up just so someone else can make money. There's a chance you WON'T end up at Home Depot as well. The downside to that, which you're failing to see, is that management might not make as much on the deal. It would hardly put them out of business. No one's talking about shutting down an airline.
 
skydog2 said:
Sounds like you end up at Home Depot either way. If that's the case, why destroy something that is working for someone else?
Click to expand...

Not sure how you're reaching that conclusion. If the CAL pilots give up scope and let Aer Lingus in, a lot of them will be out of jobs. If they don't, a few of them might be, but far fewer than would otherwise.

Would you sign away your job just so that your company could make a bit more money, knowing that you will not be able to find a comparable one?
 
Baronman said:
Is the "something" you're talking about the same company that you work for? Management sharing or outsourcing to another company to do the same job that they have hired me to do, and that I've worked 20+ years for sounds like management destroying their own company. Me disagreeing to it through a contract is not an attempt to destroy my company, rather protect me from management.
Click to expand...

I don’t view an employer as having a responsibility to me. I view myself as having a responsibility to my employer: to do the work they pay me to do. Nor have I ever viewed it as MY job. If the company I choose to work for decides that they can do without my services, or they can get similar services at a lower cost, then it’s their right to make a change. They are, after all, the ones paying for the service. Likewise, at any time I can find a better deal for my services, I am free to pursue it. I find it arrogant that some think the employer they choose to work for owes them something beyond payment for the work already performed.
 
skydog2 said:
I find it arrogant that some think the employer they choose to work for owes them something beyond payment for the work already performed.
Click to expand...

The employer owes it because the contract they signed with the employee says so. Same as the contracts that the company signed with Boeing, Airbus, GE, Exxon/Mobile, BP, Fidelity Financial, the CEO, Skywest, Walgreen Inc., United Healthcare, Port Authority of NYC/NJ, Goodyear, etc.

Don't for a second believe that any of the aforementioned groups would adjust their contracts if it did not benefit them as well. This is all assuming that the company is not in bankruptcy.
 
skydog2 said:
I don’t view an employer as having a responsibility to me. I view myself as having a responsibility to my employer: to do the work they pay me to do. Nor have I ever viewed it as MY job. If the company I choose to work for decides that they can do without my services, or they can get similar services at a lower cost, then it’s their right to make a change. They are, after all, the ones paying for the service. Likewise, at any time I can find a better deal for my services, I am free to pursue it. I find it arrogant that some think the employer they choose to work for owes them something beyond payment for the work already performed.
Click to expand...

Your utter lack of self-respect is truly appalling.
 
JoelT said:
The employer owes it because the contract they signed with the employee says so. Same as the contracts that the company signed with Boeing, Airbus, GE, Exxon/Mobile, BP, Fidelity Financial, the CEO, Skywest, Walgreen Inc., United Healthcare, Port Authority of NYC/NJ, Goodyear, etc.

Don't for a second believe that any of the aforementioned groups would adjust their contracts if it did not benefit them as well. This is all assuming that the company is not in bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

If the employee has a contract with a company, I agree: both parties have to honor the contract. And you;re right, they do amend their contracts with their customers and such.

But here's the rub: unlike any other customer/vendor relationship, and a lot of other professions, airline labor law essentially requires the the company (the customer) to deal with only one vendor of labor (the union). Contracts don't expire, they become amendable, at least under the RLA. So an airline company has no choice but to continue to do business with the one vendor (ALPA or whoever). Even if that were not the case, because FAA rules force the company to home-grow their own labor, the company can't readily change vendors. They are forced by the economics to continue to maintain their relationship with the union. I can hire the most exerienced pilot in the world who is rated and current on the aircraft I operate, but I still have to put him through 2 months of training in order to legally utilize his skills and make him productive. No airline, or indeed any company, has the resources to retool themselves in that manner and still be competitive.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your utter lack of self-respect is truly appalling.
Click to expand...

You're the one who paid for training, accepted jobs under false pretenses, and generally speaking places responsibility for success or failure on someone else's shoulders. But I lack self-respect? Whatever.
 
skydog2 said:
If the employee has a contract with a company, I agree: both parties have to honor the contract. And you;re right, they do amend their contracts with their customers and such.

But here's the rub: unlike any other customer/vendor relationship, and a lot of other professions, airline labor law essentially requires the the company (the customer) to deal with only one vendor of labor (the union). Contracts don't expire, they become amendable, at least under the RLA. So an airline company has no choice but to continue to do business with the one vendor (ALPA or whoever). Even if that were not the case, because FAA rules force the company to home-grow their own labor, the company can't readily change vendors. They are forced by the economics to continue to maintain their relationship with the union. I can hire the most exerienced pilot in the world who is rated and current on the aircraft I operate, but I still have to put him through 2 months of training in order to legally utilize his skills and make him productive. No airline, or indeed any company, has the resources to retool themselves in that manner and still be competitive.
Click to expand...

We're as handcuffed as they are...

If I were a Doctor and there were a better deal for my services, you can bet dollars to donuts that I'd take that deal. Same goes for other professional roles such as, CEO, Lawyer, CPA, etc.

If I could pick up and move from one airline to another and make the same amount of money, then the market would be a free market. Right now, we're handcuffed as employees not only by the RLA, but also by the policy of the airline to put every new hire, regardless of experience level, at the lowest pay rate.

Most "real" jobs wouldn't involve a pay cut to go to a better place. If that were the case, more employers would be hurting and employees would be more unionized.

Would you support "de-regulation" of the FAA certification schemes? One ATP license fits all? No need for type ratings or training at the new company to take months?
 
If you guys are successful and convincing him of these revelations, you let me know. Then I'll be able to take part in the conversation, but heaven forbid I waste my finger energy on something so ridiculous as trying to convince the capitalist ideaologue of our way of life and why things we feel important are important.
 
skydog2 said:
But here's the rub: unlike any other customer/vendor relationship, and a lot of other professions, airline labor law essentially requires the the company (the customer) to deal with only one vendor of labor (the union). Contracts don't expire, they become amendable, at least under the RLA. So an airline company has no choice but to continue to do business with the one vendor (ALPA or whoever).
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I had to ponder that on for a moment but, I believe that is not the case. Essentially, what the RLA and the NMB do is provide an artificial labor market. Because when labor contracts are negotiated all other contracts from other "vendors" is taken into account. Therefore, market rates are kept relatively standard. Also, amendable and not expire-able is to the benefit of both the employer and employee for reasons which you stated.

Although you did not bring it up, I just want to nip this part in the bud, the quality of the labor "vendor" is not at issue during a negotiation unlike with other vendors which provide and good or service. We all know that a company may choose to switch vendors because another might have a better product, even if the price is higher/lower. But, when it comes to labor, the production of the "product" is the responsibility of the employer so, switching vendors for a better product is moot. Basically, the argument becomes irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top