We all talk about food stamp wages, but this is a good read

Ajax said:
Maybe it's just me, but the fact that regionals haven't done it yet and aren't currently is probably indicative of a flawed process.
Click to expand...
It's supposed to be a deliberate process, otherwise a regional would be on strike on a yearly basis.

Fact is, these pay rates/scales were voted in by the workgroup. The pie was divided up in a way that benefits a very specific demographic on those rates/scale. The promise being "you" would one day too be part of that preferred demographic. That is mostly a lie, maybe lie is too strong of a word but it isn't a realistic expectation.
 
Ajax said:
Maybe it's just me, but the fact that regionals haven't done it yet and aren't currently is probably indicative of a flawed process.
Click to expand...

You can't strike a company that is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy. Has nothing to do with a flawed process. The regionals are just bad businesses.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You can't strike a company that is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy. Has nothing to do with a flawed process. The regionals are just bad businesses.
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say it but just in case someone wants to pick a fight.

The regionals using the FFD model is bad business. Using turboprops to feed mainline hub systems doesn't seem like a bad way to make a buck, just don't hitch your horse to the prettiest girl at the ball, she will find cake eventually.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You can't strike a company that is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy. Has nothing to do with a flawed process. The regionals are just bad businesses.
Click to expand...
I understand the margins are small and there likely isn't a way to fix the issue. If regionals paid more then it would probably render them useless as they aren't cost effective, as is its barely there. That is no reason to perpetuate a mentality of poverty wages being acceptable, however.

A regional striking would be damaging to not just their company, but also the mainline partner...at least at first. How the mainline partner would deal with it would probably be an attempt to absorb the flying where possible.

Still, my main thought is that treating regional pilots as b level workers deserving of such poor treatment and pay isn't and shouldn't be acceptable.
 
Last edited:
You get a better contract at a feeder, your carrier can no longer support those rates because margins are razor thing and they don't have the ability to get more revenue from mainline (they would balk at paying an extra $0.01).

Feeder goes bankrupt and resets the rates back to even less than they were before. See Pinnacle etc.

It's an absolutely great system by management standards but one the regional pilots cannot win. The solution is to GTFO. The reward is a hopefully long career at mainline living the good life.

Mainline taking the flying back vs. paying the feeders a couple bucks more to supply pilots is an absolute BS line. It costs exponentially more to have a guy on your own property as it does to pay a feeder pilot. Look at the worst mainline pay - $40/hr to start - which is about $15/hr more than the feeders to begin with. Now tack on health benefits, 401k @ 16% vs 5%, much higher utilization at the feeder vs. mainline, throw in the ability to whipsaw labor and move airplanes around resetting seniority (Eagle to PSA CRJ-700s) and you can see right through their line. DAL/UAL is what, $68/hr first year? That is an even bigger difference in pay.

Who knows who started that lie, but it was probably someone that had a very optimistic outlook on life.
 
Ajax said:
I understand the margins are small and there likely isn't a way to fix the issue. If regionals paid more then it would probably render them useless as they aren't cost effective, as is its barely there. That is no reason to perpetuate a mentality of poverty wages being acceptable, however.
Click to expand...

What's acceptable is whatever the members consider to be acceptable. A labor union is a democracy. The members get to decide what they're willing to do. If you're in the minority, then it sucks. But that's true in any democracy.

A regional striking would be damaging to not just their company, but also the mainline partner...at least at first. How the mainline partner would deal with it would probably be an attempt to absorb the flying where possible.
Click to expand...

All of the mainline companies have found ways to absorb regional strikes since CMR in '01. You may be a minor inconvenience to them for a couple of weeks, but that's about it. You'll shut down permanently in two weeks, and then the flying gets transferred to someone willing to play ball.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
What's acceptable is whatever the members consider to be acceptable. A labor union is a democracy. The members get to decide what they're willing to do. If you're in the minority, then it sucks. But that's true in any democracy.
Click to expand...
Question: Does the union present, untethered, to the members every company proposal or is it presented to the members with the union endorsement of acceptance or "recommendation" of disapproval?

EDIT: corrected spelling, I know how this crowd can get....:)
 
dustoff17 said:
Question: Does the union present, untethered, to the members every company proposal or is it presented to the members with the union endorsement of acceptance or "recommendation" of disapproval?

EDIT: corrected spelling, I know how this crowd can get....:)
Click to expand...
Well your asking a pretty complex question without knowing it, but I imagine it's to somehow paint him in a corner.

The union doesn't present it's members with every stupid thing the company comes up with, nor should it. The company means well but the morons that go selling crap half cocked is how you drive a pilot group insane,

The rest, about the endorsement, can depend wildly with the situation.
 
dustoff17 said:
Question: Does the union present, untethered, to the members every company proposal or is it presented to the members with the union endorsement of acceptance or "recommendation" of disapproval?

EDIT: corrected spelling, I know how this crowd can get....:)
Click to expand...

The union bargains based upon polling data of what the membership expects. If the company's proposals are too far off the mark, there's no reason to entertain them. If you meet the goals, you get a TA. If you are unable to meet the goals, but get pretty damned close, it will usually get sent out.

There are different philosophies on endorsements. I've always been of the belief that nothing should get sent out unless the MEC is willing to endorse it. Others have different views.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
There are different philosophies on endorsements. I've always been of the belief that nothing should get sent out unless the MEC is willing to endorse it. Others have different views.
Click to expand...

This does vary from property to property and even MEC to MEC. I do think that in most cases nothing should get sent out unless the MEC gives it a thumbs up. There are some exceptions to that (BK stuff mostly). I don't think anything should ever go out with a MEC's thumbs down on it though.

The flip side of all this is that if something DOESN'T get sent out and then things turn out worse (see: SWA-ATN deal #1), it is possible that members could file a DFR lawsuit. And to be clear, I don't think that would be warranted in the aforementioned case, but in others it may be.
 
BobDDuck said:
The flip side of all this is that if something DOESN'T get sent out and then things turn out worse (see: SWA-ATN deal #1), it is possible that members could file a DFR lawsuit. And to be clear, I don't think that would be warranted in the aforementioned case, but in others it may be.
Click to expand...

The beauty of that case was that we knew without a doubt that it would end up in litigation no matter which decision was made, so the threat of a lawsuit didn't hang over anyone's head when trying to make their decision. The lawsuit was inevitable, so just voting their conscience without worrying about avoiding litigation was easier. Vote to send it out, the group that thought we would get better in arbitration would sue. Vote to kill it, the group that thought they should have a vote would sue.

There's no avoiding litigation in mergers. Ever.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Well your asking a pretty complex question without knowing it, but I imagine it's to somehow paint him in a corner.

The union doesn't present it's members with every stupid thing the company comes up with, nor should it. The company means well but the morons that go selling crap half cocked is how you drive a pilot group insane,

The rest, about the endorsement, can depend wildly with the situation.
Click to expand...
Not at all, my question was not meant to jam anyone up, I was truly curious how the airline pilot union worked. If I have issue with someone, I'll send a PM....

ATN_Pilot said:
The union bargains based upon polling data of what the membership expects. If the company's proposals are too far off the mark, there's no reason to entertain them. If you meet the goals, you get a TA. If you are unable to meet the goals, but get pretty damned close, it will usually get sent out.

There are different philosophies on endorsements. I've always been of the belief that nothing should get sent out unless the MEC is willing to endorse it. Others have different views.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This makes sense, I appreciate your response.
The union I was involved with (not a pilot union) was required to send forward any formal offer the company presented, even if they were against it. It would be presented either endorsed or "thumbs down" (as mentioned here). If the offer was "thumbs down", the members had to choose between what they thought was a good deal and pissing off the union (numbered and tracked ballots).
 
dustoff17 said:
The union I was involved with (not a pilot union) was required to send forward any formal offer the company presented, even if they were against it. It would be presented either endorsed or "thumbs down" (as mentioned here). If the offer was "thumbs down", the members had to choose between what they thought was a good deal and pissing off the union (numbered and tracked ballots).
Click to expand...

Awful policy, but not unheard of. It gives the company far too much leverage.
 
eightballfreight said:
This is just a place holder until all of this is done on my phone before I even get to store front and frankly I can't wait.
Click to expand...

Either way it's going to result in those workers being replaced. One of my parent's neighbors owns a couple franchise businesses in RI (he's very wealthy though you wouldn't know it). I asked him what he thought and he pretty much said 15/hr min wage and paying for health insurance will pretty much force him to switch to 4-5 automated kiosks and one worker vs. 5 workers and no automated kiosks. At current minimum wage it's cheaper to hire workers than the upfront cost of automation. We'll see...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top