Originally Posted by
tsquare
DO you not see the oxymoron in this statement when arguing for "productivity"? The sentence that you make after the bold red one is what I don't get. How do we play into the hands of those who wish to (p)aint us with the brush of being afraid to be productive?
Because management isn't the one blamed for THEIR decisions on how to schedule and what airframes to buy. Unions are the ones who get blamed for being afraid of productivity. It's a patently unfair characterization, but it's the truth of how unions are portrayed.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
The productivity aspect is a management decision.. based on how they schedule, and to an extend, which airframe they buy.. NEITHER of which we have any input to.
Absolutely correct.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
There is an illusion that we have some control over scheduling, but if that were true, why are there still 3 hour sit arounds in ATL and DTW?
But we do have control over our scheduling. Our cave in on scheduling rules (both fNW and fDL) is the "control" we gave away. I remember being in a meeting in NRT when a pilot asked some management puke why we do these 3 and 4 hour sit arounds. The management puke responded: "Because your contract allows me to."
Originally Posted by
tsquare
And on top of that, you readily admit that you make your decision based on financial considerations. As a proponent of unionism like you claim to be, I would think you would be great guns for a banded pay rate.. Push throttles.. get pay... simple.
I AM a proponent of it for my own personal situation. That would be best for me from a QOL basis. The argument is whether we really want to go down this road where WE will again be tarnished with the stain of being "afraid to be productive". Add to that my concern that it may incentivize management to buy bigger and bigger airplanes...which would require fewer and fewer pilots, and that really makes me concerned.
Carl