The Canadians "get it"

Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, bad example, Harry Stonecipher had a contract and was not an "at will employee", Boeing was simply honoring the terms of the contract.

I have a contract with my employer, but, I would imagine that Harry Stonecipher negotiated a better contract than I was able to...
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Looks like the Air Canada is more than just pay cuts, even though I could not find anything that said pay cuts, this was a clip of something that I found:

[ QUOTE ]
The Air Canada Pilots Association, with 3,000 members, last week voted down a tentative pact reached between the union's leaders and the airline for reasons that ranged from dissatisfaction over the proposed work terms to lingering frustration over longstanding pilot seniority issues that stem from the merger of Air Canada and the former Canadian Airlines

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

I have a contract too! But considering it'd be a little goofy to have 7000 pilots negotiate their own, we just lump it all into one pile and call it collective bargaining.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

As mentioned in another thread on these forums, fighter pilots aren't typically brought onboard the 89th. Only the heavy pilots get there. I refuse to believe that some shmuck who is politically connected can get a job as a pilot for AF1. You have to be the best as well as politically connected. So yes, only the best of the best make it there. I haven't watched Top Gun in years.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
You have to be the best as well as politically connected.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just shot down your own argument. POLITICALLY CONNECTED!

Think it's all merit alone? Oh, wait, you don't.

Puhlease.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

L1011 Fan
You seem to have a problem with the AC pilots rejecting the contract. In the past couple years the AC pilots have taken huge wage cuts and made a lot of concessions. The way it works at AC is that the bigger the plane, the more money you make. That's just the way it is. So now these pilots have made all these concessions and have a contract that says how much they should be paid and AC says well if we want these jets we're not gonna pay you according to the contract. I think I would be a little angry as well. The union does not have to much power, the company is making deals that are dependent on changing around the contract of the pilot's. That is not smart in my opinion. The pilots have simply taken a stand. They have made a lot of concessions and are tired of it. There are other issues with seniority that the pilots were angry about but still. You can't just make a deal with the union, then say we want bigger planes and are changing the deal for it. That is not the union having to much power that is the company being stupid. I think it's great that the pilots have said enough is enough.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Politcally connected was implied. I love how you pick one sentence out my statement and just attack it instead of trying to further justify your thesis. Your impressive use of the word "puhleeze" twice really convinced me alright!

Nevermind Tony...
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
L1011 Fan
You seem to have a problem with the AC pilots rejecting the contract. In the past couple years the AC pilots have taken huge wage cuts and made a lot of concessions. The way it works at AC is that the bigger the plane, the more money you make. That's just the way it is. So now these pilots have made all these concessions and have a contract that says how much they should be paid and AC says well if we want these jets we're not gonna pay you according to the contract. I think I would be a little angry as well. The union does not have to much power, the company is making deals that are dependent on changing around the contract of the pilot's. That is not smart in my opinion. The pilots have simply taken a stand. They have made a lot of concessions and are tired of it. There are other issues with seniority that the pilots were angry about but still. You can't just make a deal with the union, then say we want bigger planes and are changing the deal for it. That is not the union having to much power that is the company being stupid. I think it's great that the pilots have said enough is enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

See Tony, this is how you post on these forums. You should use a well thought out, coherent statement to justify your position just like Drummerboy has done here. Drummerboy's statement has much more impact than your "puhleeze".

That being said, I think my statements on the union's action here have been misinterpreted. Allow me to clarify.

I think the main reason AC went with this order is that the 777/787 combination is a real game-changer in this industry. That order would allow AC (and other carriers for that matter) to gain significant cost savings in the form of commonality of cockpits, similar engines, the composite technology of the 787, etc. Let's face it, if an airline is to survive nowadays costs must be reduced. This order, in my opinion, was critical to the long-term viability of AC. It was a very smart move for them.

I am against the union's action to block this purchase for the sole reason that it now jeopardizes the future of AC. The pilot's action was a near-term "me me me" decision that did not consider the long term ramifications. AC will be less competitive now, and that could lead to furloughs or even worse. I'm sure I'm going to be really hated for this next statement but when I see an A343 (which is a large airplane) I'm sure that the pilots who fly it are well compensated and experienced. Does it really make that much of a difference to move up to a 777 while still getting paid the same? Yes, there are more seats but looking at the problem of AC's ultimate survival, was it really worth bickering over not getting paid more to fly an extra 30/40 (whatever) seats? I'd rather make the same $$$ flying the 777 that I was making when I flew the A343 than not to have a job at all.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Yeah but as you agreed, the AC Pilot's union has already conceded and given up a lot. Where do you draw the line? In the end, everything that management proposes can be presented as something that is good for the long term benefit of the company.

If these new planes will save the company so much money, then why can't the company share some of that with the employees using the rules that have already been agreed to (i.e. more pay for more seats)?

Mahesh
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Mahesh, it's because they need the cost savings to offset the problems facing the industry as a whole: High fuel prices, LCC competition, and overcapacity. Those factors alone practically eliminate the costs savings associated with these new planes. Not looking for ways to reduce costs will result in bye-bye AC.
Make sense?
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

Oh, give me a break. I have to listen to YOU on how to post on a forum? I'm far from perfect, but you know what?

I DON'T POST THINGS THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT MY OWN "ARGUMENT" RIGHT AFTER MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

Now, you talk about the best of the best. You wanna tell me how you evaluate who the best pilot is? Go on, I dare you. Is it being a good stick? Getting there on time the most? And how do you compare a guy who flies an A-10 in a close support role against a guy who flies a C-130 against a guy who flies an air superiority fighter, or a B-52?

And then in the very same post, you say that you have to be the best and politically connected.

Well, son, you just shot down your own argument quicker than we did the Iraqi Air Force in Gulf War I. You just said that political connections are very important.

So then. It's not about who the "best" is, however you quantify that. It's about political connections.

And to further blow your "argument" out of the water, guess how non-union employers handle things in many situations? It ain't about who got the best review. Last hired, first fired has everything to do with seniority and nothing to do with merit.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

There is no contradiction. I wrote that they won't allow a shmuck to fly AF1 regardless of how highly connected that person is. I've shaken George W's hand and I've flown Cessna 172's. Does that mean I can join the 89th and fly AF1? Of course not. There are tests that determine a pilot's skill such as passing or failing in the sim or knowledge testing on all sorts of pilot related material. It's possible to quantify a good pilot from an average pilot and so on.

By telling me I watched too much Top Gun and then using the word 'puhleeze' twice, you deserved to be called out on your posting...
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

So you've done a lot of study on how compitition works in Canada as opposed to the U.S. eh?
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

If that's what you call "calling out" it's pretty weak.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how to determine who the "best" pilot is.

Hell, man. I personally think the guys who fly out of the bush in Alaska are right up there, but then, how do you compare them to an F15 pilot or a guy who flies 747s across oceans.

I mocked you because you made it so easy.

And shaking el Presidente's hand doesn't mean you're politically connected.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

L1011...I'm going ot have to respectufully have to disagree with you on this subject.
From previous dicussions I know that your pretty gung ho republican so I'm sure that you favor mangement vs. labor more often then not.
You said that the pilots should have accepted the new contract and it's terms for flying the new shiny jets.
You said that it's more important for the pilots to take cut for the health and survival of the company then to bicker over getting paid more for 30-40 seats.
Well to that I say did the execs for go there huge bonus that I'm sure they receieved for restructuring Air Canada and bring it back from the brink? Probably not.
In this industry the more seats the plane has the more money that your going to make for piloting that craft. So that is what is at the center of this argument. Your asking the pilots to just take it yet again.
As someone said when is enough, enough? I don't think what the pilots did as being unfair after all they are just seeking fair compensation for the job funtion they perform.
Now something that Air Canada management might have done was to promise that once the industry stabilizes itself and fuel prices return to normal that the pilots group would be FULLY & FAIRLY compensated for all there sacrifies in the past to preserve the companies future.
Lastly the whole ultimatium thing going on in the industry leaves a rather bitter taste in my mouth. Why is management resorting to juvenile tactics.But more importantly why are pilot groups falling for them more often then not?
"You can fly these new aircraft if your willing to take consessions."
I seriously think that deals like this do a dis serevice to airline pilots who at that level of the game have put up with enough of the BS to make to the top. They have paid there dues and should be paid accordingly. Just my two cents...

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

[ QUOTE ]
From previous dicussions I know that your pretty gung ho republican so I'm sure that you favor mangement vs. labor more often then not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite...Independent actually. Regarding mgmt v. labor, I don't favor one group over another. Both have legitimate issues and ways of solving them. In this particular case of AC, I'm siding with management.

[ QUOTE ]
You said that the pilots should have accepted the new contract and it's terms for flying the new shiny jets. You said that it's more important for the pilots to take cut for the health and survival of the company then to bicker over getting paid more for 30-40 seats.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with shiny new jets and i didn't ask them to take a cut for the sake of the company. I did say that they shouldn't have voted down this order for Boeing planes on the grounds they won't make more $$$ for flying the 777. I don't see how AC asking the pilots to fly a 777 for the same wage as an Airbus A343 hurts them, as this is not technically a pay cut. They're still receiving the same pay. I never advocated the pilot's take a pay cut.

[ QUOTE ]
Well to that I say did the execs for go there huge bonus that I'm sure they receieved for restructuring Air Canada and bring it back from the brink? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This adds an entirely new scope to this discussion. How or what bonus mgmt received for restructuring AC is not known to me (I thought it was a government bailout) but if you have some facts to bring to the table on this, I'm all ears
smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
In this industry the more seats the plane has the more money that your going to make for piloting that craft. So that is what is at the center of this argument. Your asking the pilots to just take it yet again.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not necessarily the case. Which plane do you think generates more revenue for an airline, a 777 flying twice a day across the pond or a 737 flying 10-12 segments a day (WN for example) doing short hops?

[ QUOTE ]
As someone said when is enough, enough? I don't think what the pilots did as being unfair after all they are just seeking fair compensation for the job funtion they perform.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where the mgmt v. labor debate really heats up. I agree with you, to a certain extent. But I also recognize that costs must be cut in order for the airline to surive. Is asking a pilot to fly a 777 for the same amount of $$ he/she made when flying the A343 really that bad, in light of $60/barrell oil, vicious competition, and overcapacity?

[ QUOTE ]
Now something that Air Canada management might have done was to promise that once the industry stabilizes itself and fuel prices return to normal that the pilots group would be FULLY & FAIRLY compensated for all there sacrifies in the past to preserve the companies future.

[/ QUOTE ]

A noble gesture perhaps but this is one area where I would most definitely go with the pilots to not fall for that. A similar analogy would be the Tobin bridge in Boston. The tolls on that bridge were supposed to be charged up to the point where the bridge's construction costs were paid for. Do you think they ever removed the tolls? Hell no.


[ QUOTE ]
Lastly the whole ultimatium thing going on in the industry leaves a rather bitter taste in my mouth. Why is management resorting to juvenile tactics.But more importantly why are pilot groups falling for them more often then not? "You can fly these new aircraft if your willing to take consessions."
I seriously think that deals like this do a dis serevice to airline pilots who at that level of the game have put up with enough of the BS to make to the top. They have paid there dues and should be paid accordingly. Just my two cents...

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't believe that AC simply dangled the proverbial carrott in front of the horse's mouth in the form of shiny new airplanes. That order was a legitimate and necessary strategy to ensure the long term survivability of AC. And as far as the pilots who had to endure years of BS to make it to the top, well, I don't think I'm going to go there b/c I have some pretty strong statements when it comes to the entitlement mentality.

I appreciate you arguments Matthew...thanks!
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
I did say that they shouldn't have voted down this order for Boeing planes on the grounds they won't make more $$$ for flying the 777. I don't see how AC asking the pilots to fly a 777 for the same wage as an Airbus A343 hurts them, as this is not technically a pay cut. They're still receiving the same pay. I never advocated the pilot's take a pay cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows a complete and fundamental lack of knowledge of how the pay scales work at most airlines. Fly bigger airplanes, get more money. Fly a 747, you get more than if you're flying a 737.

Comprende, senor?

So then. Flying a larger plane for the same wages as a smaller plane IS a pay cut.

Sounds like you've fallen for the management BS hook, line, and sinker. Thank God the guys at Air Canada didn't.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite...Independent actually. Regarding mgmt v. labor, I don't favor one group over another. Both have legitimate issues and ways of solving them. In this particular case of AC, I'm siding with management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...for an independent you seem rather conservative in most of your views!

[ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with shiny new jets and i didn't ask them to take a cut for the sake of the company. I did say that they shouldn't have voted down this order for Boeing planes on the grounds they won't make more $$$ for flying the 777. I don't see how AC asking the pilots to fly a 777 for the same wage as an Airbus A343 hurts them, as this is not technically a pay cut. They're still receiving the same pay. I never advocated the pilot's take a pay cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they took concessions I'm sure to enable the airline to lower it's cost both to be more competitve and leaner and meaner during this downturn in the industry. But also probably to save there company from going under.
Now the airline is doing better financial or the prospect of greater future earnings is on the horizon and they (the pilots) wants whats due for there sacrifice and due diligence.

[ QUOTE ]
Well to that I say did the execs forgo there huge bonus that I'm sure they receieved for restructuring Air Canada and bring it back from the brink? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

This adds an entirely new scope to this discussion. How or what bonus mgmt received for restructuring AC is not known to me (I thought it was a government bailout) but if you have some facts to bring to the table on this, I'm all ears
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

This adds an entirely new scope to this discussion. How or what bonus mgmt received for restructuring AC is not known to me (I thought it was a government bailout) but if you have some facts to bring to the table on this, I'm all ears
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if there was any kind of bonus for the execs. I was simply speculating. But if their anything like there America CEO counterparts government bailouts or not they all got a big bonus and a pat on the back for a job well done.

[ QUOTE ]
In this industry the more seats the plane has the more money that your going to make for piloting that craft. So that is what is at the center of this argument. Your asking the pilots to just take it yet again.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

That is not necessarily the case. Which plane do you think generates more revenue for an airline, a 777 flying twice a day across the pond or a 737 flying 10-12 segments a day (WN for example) doing short hops?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely it would be that 777 flying international. First class seats can go from $2000-5000 so I have heard. Also remember that the Legacy carriers haven't really been making a profit on the domestic side. But making money only on there international flights.
But it isn't revenue that is at the heart of the issue but rather compensation. Per the contract rules that if asked to fly a larger plane the pilots should be paid accordingly. Management asked the pilots to accept current salaries for flying larger aircraft the pilots balked...good for them in my opinion!


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

Regards pilots that get selected to fly AF1. Remember something here. These guys have already been flying for the 89th Airlift Wing for a good while prior to their selection to fly AF1. They didn't juet get "hired on" to do the job. That being said, I guarantee that there are three main factors behind who gets the job of AF1 among the pilots in the 89th AW:

1. Seniority (they are usually full Colonels...not some schmuck Captain)
2. Skill (they're generally pretty good)
3. Politics (likely the job in the world with the most politics attached. These days, to even become a Colonel, you have to be a politician in the military. The "cut the crap, get the job done" guys like me are rarely up there). Plus, the commander is likely going to select someone he likes too. That's the politics of the USAF. Don't get me wrong, the pilot has to be able to perform well, but your head would be in the sand if one didn't think there were political motivations too.

So, in sum, all these factors everyone is arguing about, factor in.
 
Re: The Canadians \"get it\"

[ QUOTE ]
Most likely it would be that 777 flying international. First class seats can go from $2000-5000 so I have heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's on the low end for BUSINESS class. I priced a business class ticket for my trip to Paris. It was about $5,000. First class? Around $11K.

Do it to Asia and it gets more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top