Arbitrator finds Alaska Violated Contract....
08-08-2008, 10:38 AM
#11
Administrator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
This is the Seattle Times take on the arbitrator's ruling. I've underlined what Wacker said about whether they can agree to a remedy. The ink isn't even dry yet on the ruling and AS is already doubting they can work together on a solution. I say just fire Menzies and open up the 480 lost jobs. Pay them what they would have received in wage increases and inflation as if they had not been replaced.
Three years after more than 480 Alaska Airlines baggage handlers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport were replaced by lower-paid staff working for an outside vendor, a federal arbitrator ruled Alaska violated its contract with the Machinists union in outsourcing those jobs.
The arbitrator directed the airline Thursday to begin talks with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union to reach a remedy. If they can't agree, the case will go back to the arbitrator.
Steve Gordon, IAM District 143 president, said the union will push to bring back the same number of union jobs at Sea-Tac.
"Our goal is to provide livable-wage jobs once again back on that ramp in Seattle," Gordon said. "We had 485 union positions on that ramp. This arbitration allows us to stake a claim back on that property."
Many of the workers who lost their jobs in 2005 accepted an Alaska Air severance package, which Gordon acknowledged was "above and beyond the contracted requirements." They have since scattered to jobs elsewhere.
Gordon declined to detail what a remedy might look like, but when asked if Alaska might have to oust the vendor, Menzies Aviation, he said: "It's very possible."
Alaska spokeswoman Caroline Boren said it would be "premature to start speculating on the remedy."
Even though the ruling comes three years after outsourcing started, Gordon said it has relevance today as airlines across the U.S. scramble to cut labor costs further.
"It sends a strong message throughout an ailing industry," said Gordon. "It's absolutely huge for us and for all organized labor. ... Today's ruling solidifies the fact that there are job protections."
Alaska's contract with the union allowed the airline to outsource jobs to a vendor only if doing so reduced costs. The arbitrator ruled that despite the lower wages paid by Menzies, the overall charges were not less than the work done in-house.
Alaska employees who lost their jobs had been earning on average more than $20 an hour.
The contract offered to ramp workers by Menzies had a cap at $15 an hour, and starting wages were much lower.
Boren said the company disputes the arbitration finding. "Clearly in this extremely difficult industry environment, we wouldn't continue to outsource if we believed it was costing us more than performing the work ourselves," Boren said.
Herman Wacker, Alaska Airlines' managing director of labor and employment law and associate general counsel, said in a statement that the airline's "focus is on working with the union to determine if we can agree on a remedy."
"Depending on the outcome, the company can appeal the ruling in federal court," Wacker added.
After Menzies started working for Alaska at Sea-Tac in May 2005, there was a rash of accidents that damaged jets on the ground and poor performance that upset passengers waiting for bags.
In response, Menzies brought in consultants in January 2006 and shuffled its leadership on the ground at the airport. Boren said that review and overhaul fixed the problems and that Menzies' performance is meeting all the airline's goals.
She said the average time for bags to reach the luggage carousel after landing is down to 20 minutes. The incidence of both misplaced bags and ground mishaps is below the industry average, she said.
The airline contracts out its baggage handling at all airports except for those in the state of Alaska.
No timetable has been set to negotiate a remedy, but Boren said the company plans to start talks with the union as soon as possible.
The arbitrator directed the airline Thursday to begin talks with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union to reach a remedy. If they can't agree, the case will go back to the arbitrator.
Steve Gordon, IAM District 143 president, said the union will push to bring back the same number of union jobs at Sea-Tac.
"Our goal is to provide livable-wage jobs once again back on that ramp in Seattle," Gordon said. "We had 485 union positions on that ramp. This arbitration allows us to stake a claim back on that property."
Many of the workers who lost their jobs in 2005 accepted an Alaska Air severance package, which Gordon acknowledged was "above and beyond the contracted requirements." They have since scattered to jobs elsewhere.
Gordon declined to detail what a remedy might look like, but when asked if Alaska might have to oust the vendor, Menzies Aviation, he said: "It's very possible."
Alaska spokeswoman Caroline Boren said it would be "premature to start speculating on the remedy."
Even though the ruling comes three years after outsourcing started, Gordon said it has relevance today as airlines across the U.S. scramble to cut labor costs further.
"It sends a strong message throughout an ailing industry," said Gordon. "It's absolutely huge for us and for all organized labor. ... Today's ruling solidifies the fact that there are job protections."
Alaska's contract with the union allowed the airline to outsource jobs to a vendor only if doing so reduced costs. The arbitrator ruled that despite the lower wages paid by Menzies, the overall charges were not less than the work done in-house.
Alaska employees who lost their jobs had been earning on average more than $20 an hour.
The contract offered to ramp workers by Menzies had a cap at $15 an hour, and starting wages were much lower.
Boren said the company disputes the arbitration finding. "Clearly in this extremely difficult industry environment, we wouldn't continue to outsource if we believed it was costing us more than performing the work ourselves," Boren said.
Herman Wacker, Alaska Airlines' managing director of labor and employment law and associate general counsel, said in a statement that the airline's "focus is on working with the union to determine if we can agree on a remedy."
"Depending on the outcome, the company can appeal the ruling in federal court," Wacker added.
After Menzies started working for Alaska at Sea-Tac in May 2005, there was a rash of accidents that damaged jets on the ground and poor performance that upset passengers waiting for bags.
In response, Menzies brought in consultants in January 2006 and shuffled its leadership on the ground at the airport. Boren said that review and overhaul fixed the problems and that Menzies' performance is meeting all the airline's goals.
She said the average time for bags to reach the luggage carousel after landing is down to 20 minutes. The incidence of both misplaced bags and ground mishaps is below the industry average, she said.
The airline contracts out its baggage handling at all airports except for those in the state of Alaska.
No timetable has been set to negotiate a remedy, but Boren said the company plans to start talks with the union as soon as possible.
08-08-2008, 12:16 PM
#12
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 57
Congrats to the IAM!!
I just hope the BOD and major shareholders take notice of how this management team has, and continues to, devalue their stock in this company. If any of the senior managers at Alaska had an ounce of foresight when it came to employee relations, we might have an airline that provided a return on investment for all stakeholder.
Change in the upper ranks here is long overdue.
I just hope the BOD and major shareholders take notice of how this management team has, and continues to, devalue their stock in this company. If any of the senior managers at Alaska had an ounce of foresight when it came to employee relations, we might have an airline that provided a return on investment for all stakeholder.
Change in the upper ranks here is long overdue.
08-08-2008, 01:13 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by Pelican
Vagabond-
Yeah, I read that post awhile back. I've been reading this forum for quite awhile, just new to posting. As far as the thread, It was one of the most hijacked threads I've seen but on the competition note of how ALK will compete with VA....I'm not exactly sure we really have to. I don't think the SFO - SEA is one of our most profitable routes anyway.....or as far as that goes, SOCAL - SEA. I know we have a ton of flights going to and from but as far as profitability....ANC is our bread and butter. Also, intra-Alaska is subsidized by the State so when we are carrying 6 pax from WRG to PSG, go missed approach 4 times and divert to SIT....we still make money on that. I say let the dirt bag low ballers have a couple SOCAL flights a day, we can pull some planes off and send more to Hawaii, or have a SEA - ANC flight every 17 minutes instead of 23 minutes or whatever the hell it is....doesn't matter, they're all full.
I'm not sure of the contract the rampers had with ALK management but I thought it was pretty odd to to say if you can outsource for less, then by all means go ahead....wouldn't give me a warm and fuzzy.
The Pelican
Yeah, I read that post awhile back. I've been reading this forum for quite awhile, just new to posting. As far as the thread, It was one of the most hijacked threads I've seen but on the competition note of how ALK will compete with VA....I'm not exactly sure we really have to. I don't think the SFO - SEA is one of our most profitable routes anyway.....or as far as that goes, SOCAL - SEA. I know we have a ton of flights going to and from but as far as profitability....ANC is our bread and butter. Also, intra-Alaska is subsidized by the State so when we are carrying 6 pax from WRG to PSG, go missed approach 4 times and divert to SIT....we still make money on that. I say let the dirt bag low ballers have a couple SOCAL flights a day, we can pull some planes off and send more to Hawaii, or have a SEA - ANC flight every 17 minutes instead of 23 minutes or whatever the hell it is....doesn't matter, they're all full.
I'm not sure of the contract the rampers had with ALK management but I thought it was pretty odd to to say if you can outsource for less, then by all means go ahead....wouldn't give me a warm and fuzzy.
The Pelican
08-08-2008, 04:32 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 466
In regards to dirt-bag low ballers, I think it is obvious to who he is referring to and why. I don't think you need an explanation but I don't agree with the premise either. As far as Alaska flying goes, I think it is a little more complicated than you think. We have been doing it for decades and nobody to date has wanted that type of flying (hence all the Alaska code-sharing with ALK). Too much of a pain in the keister to start up and competition would probably make it unprofitable for anyone to do. Without subsidies it would be a no win game and competition would bring the subsidies down and make it unprofitable. Alaska wants jet service for these outlaying small communities that are difficult to serve and require extra training to do. I am not saying it cannot be done, but there must be a reason it has not been done by anyone else on a larger scale over the last 75 years. I would like to hear your thoughts on it though as you seem to know something about it.
Last edited by Moose; 08-08-2008 at 04:39 PM.
08-08-2008, 09:27 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 737 f/o
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
Please explain to us what a dirt bag low baller is. Also don't get too used to bread and butter flights because if it makes money for you someone is eyeballing it.
I was talking about any airline that comes into a market, sells tickets at dirt low prices with a bunch of pomp and circumstance, pays their employees next to nothing and drives semi-healthy airlines under. I'm laughing at VAs timing to come into SFO, probably one of the most expensive airports to operate out of, fuel prices at record highs and weak economy to boot. If they weren't coming from deep pockets, I wouldn't think they would last as long as they have.
Heck, maybe Alaska management can contract out some of our flying to their pilots, it'de be cheaper afterall.
I'm not ****ed at any pilot group in fact I commend the VA bubbas for the risk they are taking with a new airline. I'm sure it was equally as risky for SWA guys 15-20 years ago when you were some of the lowest paid guys on the street and the legacy dudes were making the big bucks.....with promises of quick upgrades etc. it is still a gamble. I just can't stand these crack head executives trying to make a quick kill.
Everybody in here takes comments so personal and so dam quick to take offence....to quote Pulp Fiction......"***** be cool"
08-11-2008, 07:09 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Moose and Pelican,
I asked the question and you both answered it. I do believe that perhaps you both took it out of context. While I will fight misinformation leveled at little 'ol SWA I simply wanted to get your definition of low ball.
I to believe that the flying that Alaska does in some areas is not attractive to other airlines (including SWA) simply because of volume. I will say that those that believe their bread and butter will always be there should take action now to preserve it. If it is subsidized by the govt it could be up for bid at some point and it would be wise to be prepared to bid appropriately (i.e. take less profit) before someone under bids you. You guys have a great product but the price is a big factor in the decision process of the passenger.
I asked the question and you both answered it. I do believe that perhaps you both took it out of context. While I will fight misinformation leveled at little 'ol SWA I simply wanted to get your definition of low ball.
I to believe that the flying that Alaska does in some areas is not attractive to other airlines (including SWA) simply because of volume. I will say that those that believe their bread and butter will always be there should take action now to preserve it. If it is subsidized by the govt it could be up for bid at some point and it would be wise to be prepared to bid appropriately (i.e. take less profit) before someone under bids you. You guys have a great product but the price is a big factor in the decision process of the passenger.
08-11-2008, 09:56 AM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
I to believe that the flying that Alaska does in some areas is not attractive to other airlines (including SWA) simply because of volume. I will say that those that believe their bread and butter will always be there should take action now to preserve it. If it is subsidized by the govt it could be up for bid at some point and it would be wise to be prepared to bid appropriately (i.e. take less profit) before someone under bids you.
You are partially correct about the volume argument in Alaska, except for the fact that no other airline (including SWA) could offer reliable service to places we go in Alaska. To say it is simply a matter of volume is a drastic oversimplification. Southeast Alaska is probably the best, but not the only, example of where communities in Alaska have expected a high level of reliability that other airlines would not be able to match. I'm sure you've heard of RNAV RNP procedures. This allows us to get into places, especially SE, all year long while other NON-RNP capable aircraft and flight crews go missed and never get in. We've had RNAV RNP mastered for more than a decade, while other airlines (including SWA) are just beginning to think about it or develop procedures to implement it. Just two years ago the FAA came out from D.C. to ride in our jumpseat through SE Alaska to see what this RNAV RNP "magic" was all about. How it lets you fly down mountain valleys to near ILS minimums, all in weather and turbulence that sometimes requires you to pull the seat cushion out of your @ss at the end of it.
It's not a simple matter of getting your aircraft equipped and capable, it's a matter of training each and every pilot in very specific procedures...a huge task for a larger airline. Also it is my understanding that Alaska developed and ownes the RNP procedures throughout Alaska. I could be wrong on some of the details, but it's not like some airline can get RNP approval from the FAA, then just set up shop using the procedures in Alaska. Plus, and here is where you are correct about volume, Alaska would put so many flights on the competing destinations and operate it far more reliably that it would drive the major competitor out. Alaska would defend this territory like a mother bear defends her cubs.
I'm not bashing SWA airlines in any way (I have a lot of friends that works there), but it seems that some people that work there assume that SWA can move into any market at any time and dominate simply because it's the indomitable SWA. The only way another airline could operate like we do in our "bread and butter" market is to buy us and operate us as a seperate entity. Not real likely in the foreseeable future.
Last edited by GolfKilo73; 08-11-2008 at 10:06 AM.
08-11-2008, 03:13 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by GolfKilo73
Oscar,
You are partially correct about the volume argument in Alaska, except for the fact that no other airline (including SWA) could offer reliable service to places we go in Alaska. To say it is simply a matter of volume is a drastic oversimplification. Southeast Alaska is probably the best, but not the only, example of where communities in Alaska have expected a high level of reliability that other airlines would not be able to match. I'm sure you've heard of RNAV RNP procedures. This allows us to get into places, especially SE, all year long while other NON-RNP capable aircraft and flight crews go missed and never get in. We've had RNAV RNP mastered for more than a decade, while other airlines (including SWA) are just beginning to think about it or develop procedures to implement it. Just two years ago the FAA came out from D.C. to ride in our jumpseat through SE Alaska to see what this RNAV RNP "magic" was all about. How it lets you fly down mountain valleys to near ILS minimums, all in weather and turbulence that sometimes requires you to pull the seat cushion out of your @ss at the end of it.
It's not a simple matter of getting your aircraft equipped and capable, it's a matter of training each and every pilot in very specific procedures...a huge task for a larger airline. Also it is my understanding that Alaska developed and ownes the RNP procedures throughout Alaska. I could be wrong on some of the details, but it's not like some airline can get RNP approval from the FAA, then just set up shop using the procedures in Alaska. Plus, and here is where you are correct about volume, Alaska would put so many flights on the competing destinations and operate it far more reliably that it would drive the major competitor out. Alaska would defend this territory like a mother bear defends her cubs.
I'm not bashing SWA airlines in any way (I have a lot of friends that works there), but it seems that some people that work there assume that SWA can move into any market at any time and dominate simply because it's the indomitable SWA. The only way another airline could operate like we do in our "bread and butter" market is to buy us and operate us as a seperate entity. Not real likely in the foreseeable future.
You are partially correct about the volume argument in Alaska, except for the fact that no other airline (including SWA) could offer reliable service to places we go in Alaska. To say it is simply a matter of volume is a drastic oversimplification. Southeast Alaska is probably the best, but not the only, example of where communities in Alaska have expected a high level of reliability that other airlines would not be able to match. I'm sure you've heard of RNAV RNP procedures. This allows us to get into places, especially SE, all year long while other NON-RNP capable aircraft and flight crews go missed and never get in. We've had RNAV RNP mastered for more than a decade, while other airlines (including SWA) are just beginning to think about it or develop procedures to implement it. Just two years ago the FAA came out from D.C. to ride in our jumpseat through SE Alaska to see what this RNAV RNP "magic" was all about. How it lets you fly down mountain valleys to near ILS minimums, all in weather and turbulence that sometimes requires you to pull the seat cushion out of your @ss at the end of it.
It's not a simple matter of getting your aircraft equipped and capable, it's a matter of training each and every pilot in very specific procedures...a huge task for a larger airline. Also it is my understanding that Alaska developed and ownes the RNP procedures throughout Alaska. I could be wrong on some of the details, but it's not like some airline can get RNP approval from the FAA, then just set up shop using the procedures in Alaska. Plus, and here is where you are correct about volume, Alaska would put so many flights on the competing destinations and operate it far more reliably that it would drive the major competitor out. Alaska would defend this territory like a mother bear defends her cubs.
I'm not bashing SWA airlines in any way (I have a lot of friends that works there), but it seems that some people that work there assume that SWA can move into any market at any time and dominate simply because it's the indomitable SWA. The only way another airline could operate like we do in our "bread and butter" market is to buy us and operate us as a seperate entity. Not real likely in the foreseeable future.
As far as other airlines coming into the RNP domain of Alaska I think I stated that it would be prohibitive (volume mostly) but didn't go into the detail that you did. I do believe that ALK is safe from any incursions in those areas for now. To say that you will be able to defend it at all costs is a situation that will probably not happen any time soon. RNP will become the rule and not the exception for most airlines in the not too distant future (SWA announced training that will begin next year). The fuel savings and reliability (that you spoke of) are certainly going to be the driving factor pushing other airlines towards the use of RNP. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "ALK developed and owns" the procedures. While I congratulate ALK for this I am not sure that it won't be for sale (if you truly own it) at some time in the future. We plan on implimenting it throughout our system so maybe we can "copyright" the procedures we develop. I guess we will have to wait and see.
08-11-2008, 05:26 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 466
Oscar,
Alaska developed and owns many procedures used for getting into and out of Alaska airfields. You will not find them in Jepps or anywhere else. Oh, and we get your point that we are not secure in Alaska and now that SWA will be RNP we might get booted out of Alaska in the distant future. Thanks for the heads up!
Alaska developed and owns many procedures used for getting into and out of Alaska airfields. You will not find them in Jepps or anywhere else. Oh, and we get your point that we are not secure in Alaska and now that SWA will be RNP we might get booted out of Alaska in the distant future. Thanks for the heads up!
08-23-2008, 09:19 AM
#20
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 55
Tailored RNP procedures are private procedures and not available for use by other carriers. That doesn't mean that in 5-6 years when SWA is comfortable with the technology they won't be giving SE AK serious consideration. The very same guys that developed the Alaska Airlines' RNP network are available for hire (Naverus). Coincidentally, Naverus has the contract with SWA for the implementation of RNP to include the design of hundreds of tailored approaches.
Naverus | RNP RNAV | High Performance Navigation
Naverus | RNP RNAV | High Performance Navigation
