The Canadians "get it"

Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

I never said I was anti-union. I just think that the reality of returning AC to a strong, competitive international airline wasn't on the minds of their pilots. Bickering over the extra seats on a 773ER was a dumb move and just shows greediness on the part of the pilots. Personally, I'd rather have a shot at a job for the long term than to jeopardize it in the near-term over a relatively minor issue such as demanding more pay for an extra 30 or so seats. The airline business is changing. The old way of doing things isn't going to work anymore and the sooner people wake up and realize that, the better off we'll all be down the road. I think the days of the 777/747/MD-11/A340 Captain flying four days a month trans-Atlantic/Pacific making $250K/year are severely numbered.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
With some of the anti-union sentiment I've seen here, I fear for the future. The only thing that gives me hope is I remember sorta feeling the same way before I had a clue about the reality of being an airline pilot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, guys? I've noticed that a lot of the anti-union comments come from people who haven't had to deal with corporate America and its nonsense for very long.

When I was a 22 year old, snot nosed, fresh out of college kid, I was glad to see unions on the decline.

Now that I've been around the block a few times, I'm all for unionizing just about everything. And when people say that unions are the downfall of successful companies, I say, and tell me why Southwest is doing so well.

But there is hope. On my way back from the Paris Air Show, I sat next to the president of a very large company. We were in e-plus. He said something that I hope takes hold in corporate America.

He said that he's entitled to sit in business class if he wants, but he just can't justify to himself spending $4K more, especially when his employees are not allowed to.

We need more thinking like that in the executive suites.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that the most profitable carrier is also the most unionized as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a very fair statement, Southwest is perhaps one of the few union airlines that the Union & the Management are in synch with one another & their joint goal is to make a profit.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Replying to Tony...

It's nice to see that this person didn't feel he was entitled to flying in first/business class. If corporate America needs more of this integrity then why do the pilots feel they're entitled to more pay b/c the 773ER is larger than the A343's they are replacing?

The smart move would have been to vote for the Boeing order because it was in the best interest of the AIRLINE and not just a few pilots who are lucky enough to fly the 777. If I was a pilot flying AC's A32X planes, I'd be mighty pissed that my union just jeopardized my future by being so short-sighted.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
Who says Air Canada ever had any intention of actually purchasing the aircraft?

It very well have been a negotiating tactic much like a parent telling a child that he'll take the family to Coaster Kingdom if his sister drops that lousy bum she's dating.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's too bad the pilots didn't think of that. They'd have really caught them with their pants down if they had voted affirmative.
smile.gif
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that the most profitable carrier is also the most unionized as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a very fair statement, Southwest is perhaps one of the few union airlines that the Union & the Management are in synch with one another & their joint goal is to make a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good example of why I'm not anti-union. It is possible for an airline to work well with their unions. In the case of AC, thier union is either out of control or out of their minds...take your pick.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
With some of the anti-union sentiment I've seen here, I fear for the future. The only thing that gives me hope is I remember sorta feeling the same way before I had a clue about the reality of being an airline pilot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unions would be great, if people were not involved. People are greedy, whether the unions or in management. Sometimes no matter what you do is wrong, no union, people are exploited, company is run into the ground. With the union, work rules tend to get carried away, in-efficient, company gets run into the ground.

I have had to deal with unions, not the easiest thing in the world, though, I have never worked for a company that had a union & was never taken advantage of.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
With some of the anti-union sentiment I've seen here, I fear for the future. The only thing that gives me hope is I remember sorta feeling the same way before I had a clue about the reality of being an airline pilot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be confusing criticism of some things unions or memberships do with being anti-union. For example, after deregulation some ALPA units made some very poor strategic moves. They went for all or nothing, strike til we bring them to their knees, and they ended up with nothing. It was all highly principled, fighting the likes of a Lorenzo, but strategically stupid. And also very emotional. Observing the goings ons at carriers like Eastern and knowing many of their employees I saw them lose all sense of rationality and self-preservation. When you are willing to sacrifice the roof over your family's head to "get even" with a multi-millionaire who will live just fine no matter what happens, I think you've lost some perspective. And I knew some Eastern machinists that were like that. Some pilots that were almost as bad.

I don't know much about the Air Canada situation. I suspect that the union leaders favored getting the equipment on the property where they would have more leverage in the future and some emotions got churned up and the pilots voted to teach management a lesson. But that could be a wrong guess.

I have been a fan of the measured approach ALPA has taken here in the US. There have been calls on this forum for some pilot groups to make the ultimate sacrifice "for the cause". I think that's pretty easy to say if it's not your job, company and career on the line.

And I have never been a fan of much democracy in unions. I think the stronger and safer thing to do is elect the reps and let them make the call. Individuals are pretty smart. Mobs can be pretty stupid. For some reason doing self-destructive things is easier if you are all holding hands as you do it. And if the argument is that unions never do self-destructive things, I'll have to disagree with that.

I would not want to see an industry without a pilot's union.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

sarcasm.gif


So I guess you sent back the 'extra' out of your paycheck to the company?
smile.gif


It's pretty easy to look back at the industry as a retired person, having enjoyed all of the fruits of collective bargaining, and talk down the value of unions.

Nothing personal, but it's almost like me decrying the great evils of personal injury lawsuits when the award from one helped put me thru college.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

You know, I luv ya Penguin, but methinks the impending SWA ground worker strike a few summers ago didn't have much to do with walking hand in hand with management on the road to Koombayah!
smile.gif
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
I have never worked for a company that had a union & was never taken advantage of.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that?

What was Harry Stonecipher's payout after he resigned? If it's like most execs contracts, it's in the tens of millions of dollars.

If you resign, you get what, two weeks?
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty easy to look back at the industry as a retired person, having enjoyed all of the fruits of collective bargaining, and talk down the value of unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what I find funny is the idea that criticising some things unions do is talking down the value of unions. If that's the case you're pretty anit-union, and I don't believe that for a second. You hang in there, even when you are in the minority on a contract or concession vote. You give 'em heck on the forums. Is this whole criticism thing a one-way deal? OK if you are a "strike, strike, strike" kind of union member, but not if you just paid the dues for 25 years and were more moderate? If I think a reactionary, militant approach is bad because it could destroy ALPA does that make me anti-union? And if you think a concessionary, too soft approach is destroying the union does that make you pro-union? I'm guessing in our great democratic process I've voted with the majority more often than you. Anti? Pro? How do you keep score? Just for my reference?

Tony keeps harping on SWA. The one thing he won't concede or talk about is their lower labor costs (costs not salaries). That's the big picture issue. It's not whether SWA is union or not. It's whether they can make money in today's environment or not, and they can. None of the insolvent companies have asked anyone to be non-union. They've asked for concessions to get their costs down and keep their company going.

And besides it worked out well for me to go early and move you up a number. Glad to do it. I hope the retirement is there for you too. And I think ALPA is doing everything they can to try to make that happen. It's a steep hill.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Maybe it's from mowing the lawn in 110 heat, but it really sounds like you were arguing against organized labor rather than extolling the virtues of a lower cost structure (and fuel hedging).

Two different animals entirely.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's from mowing the lawn in 110 heat , but it really sounds like you were arguing against organized labor rather than extolling the virtues of a lower cost structure (and fuel hedging).

Two different animals entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now does that make any kind of sense? Unless you have a ride mower. And I heard it was 111 degrees today!

sarcasm.gif


-Matthew
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Probably. Holy fricken cow it's no day to be outside. I sure wish my employer was hiring pilots as I'm sure I wouldn't have to mow my own lawn anymore!

"Letter of reccommendation? Sure, but there's a catch..."

smile.gif
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
If corporate America needs more of this integrity then why do the pilots feel they're entitled to more pay b/c the 773ER is larger than the A343's they are replacing?

[/ QUOTE ]

737 is marginally bigger than a CRJ, but the pay is different, Why? More seats. More seats mean more lives in the pilots' hands. IMO, if you're shouldering more responsibility, you should be compensated for it. I'm sure the union at AC is more than willing to work with management towards a profitable goal and expanding the airline. It would be asinine and counterproductive if they thought otherwise. However, if management says "You're doing the same job, but you're responsible for more people. But since it's the same job, you get paid the same" then management is not willing to work with the pilots. It's a two way street, and since management loves to negotiate in the media, the pilots are normally fighting an uphill battle, especially since Joe Six Pack already thinks they're overpaid button smashers anyway.

Think of it this way, if someone in management moved laterally into a job similar to the one he was doing but was managing a larger staff, wouldn't he feel he deserves a raise for the added responsibility?
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Kellwolf, I hear your argument. I do. However, If the unions feel that extra pax means extra responsibility, why aren't the unions fighting for pilots to be promoted to the bigger planes based on how good of a pilot they are rather than on seniority? Personally, I want the best person flying the plane I'm on, not someone who happens to have a high seniority number. I'll use Air Force One for example: You don't get to fly AF1 because you have a high seniority number, you get to fly it because you are the best of the best. The seniority system is perhaps the thing I disagree with most about unions.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Oh, puhlease, the best of the best? You've been watching too much Top Gun, my friend.

You think that a guy flying Air Force One is a better pilot than a guy who has, say, 100 combat missions over Iraq? Better yet, how could you tell?
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Not picking on you here, but I'm all full of taco and lazily sitting on the couch:

[ QUOTE ]
Kellwolf, I hear your argument. I do. However, If the unions feel that extra pax means extra responsibility, why aren't the unions fighting for pilots to be promoted to the bigger planes based on how good of a pilot they are rather than on seniority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define a good pilot?

- Always lands on time? (taxis at unsafe speeds or doesn't deviate around thunderstorms)

- Used very few sick days? (comes to work sick, gets other crewmembers ill)

- Most completed segments? (Conducts approaches below landing minimums)

- Did well in training? (Don't we all?
smile.gif
)

Actually, people will think I'm nuts, but seniority is one of the few things that improves safety. If I have to use captain's authority to make a decision in regard to safety that might cancel a flight, I don't need the stress of thinking that one of my counterparts is going to be in the chief pilots office backstabbing me about how he would have bit the bullet and flown anyway.

I got a good sample of that when I was a CFI. I took a couple days off to go visit Kristie and "Nazi Boy" (as my students called him because he had a lot of issues with my Indian students) was in the asst chief pilot's office demanding my multi-engine students before I even finsihed my day.

The best person in any industry isn't promoted, usually the most (office) politically well-connected does. As a nation, we like to think that the average Joe can kick butt in his job and end up as CEO, but that's really not the case because unless you've got an Ivy league diploma or come from a powerful pedigree, checking "CEO" on the application will result in boisterous laughter emiting from the HR office window.

The last thing you want is pilots competing amongst themselves to score brownie points to get upgrades. You'd see more backstabbing, mouthbreathing and catty behavior than backstage at a fashion show.

Trust me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top