Delta Pilots Association
11-24-2010 | 12:35 PM
#2951
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: New to mother D
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!
Personally, I think we would gain much more if we could alter the environment in a way that makes pilot costs a constant across the industry. When I dream, I see a future where ALPA would simply be an exclusive crew-leasing company to the airlines, and pilots would be no more tied to a carrier than a plumber to your personal sink. I also see much to be gained by controlling the supply of pilots by maintaining higher barriers to entry (i.e. advocating for higher and higher certification requirements, etc.).
11-24-2010 | 01:01 PM
#2952
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,166
Likes: 0
From: 737 Capt
I think part of the problem is that we're ignoring the environment around us. The only way a company will grant more than it can "afford" is if the competitive landscape requires it, i.e. if competitors are stuck doing same. When we negotiated C2K, don't forget that the bag sickers all said "United Plus". When we negotiated the 777 rate, we also traded 3B6 (I think that was the right section) for it, i.e. we waved our leverage to do hold up operation of a new aircraft type in the future. And the 777 numbers were so few, that the rate could have been $500, without materially affecting the contract.
Since then, we've seen that pilot groups will go through any length to keep a company afloat, because our seniority is not portable, which tilts the equation further to the company's favor.
Now, I do agree with you that there is something distasteful in the continuous "what are you willing to give up for it" talk, which is another way to say it's impossible to achieve more. And we all can guess how a defeatist attitude at the start would affect the result of any negotiation...
Personally, I think we would gain much more if we could alter the environment in a way that makes pilot costs a constant across the industry. When I dream, I see a future where ALPA would simply be an exclusive crew-leasing company to the airlines, and pilots would be no more tied to a carrier than a plumber to your personal sink. I also see much to be gained by controlling the supply of pilots by maintaining higher barriers to entry (i.e. advocating for higher and higher certification requirements, etc.).
When I'm not dreaming, and I look at this industry, the one we actually operate in, I want a negotiating philosophy that's somewhere between the debilitating and lame "no, we can't", and the unenforceable "we want". As I said before, I'd rather simply dial in on a logical place where we should be, considering the profitability of the company, but without regard to the other groups. In other words, if DALPA could articulate clearlly where the "sweet-spot" that doesn't quite kill off the goose, I'd sign up for that. Stated yet differently, if we could articulate that the company is good for X millions/year more (comfortably or not), and we could back up that number, I would then expect polling to discuss the group's priorites in how to distribute it, and then we spool up the Strike Committee, work the press to pretend we have the right to strike, tire the owners, and get to where we rightfully need to be.
Since then, we've seen that pilot groups will go through any length to keep a company afloat, because our seniority is not portable, which tilts the equation further to the company's favor.
Now, I do agree with you that there is something distasteful in the continuous "what are you willing to give up for it" talk, which is another way to say it's impossible to achieve more. And we all can guess how a defeatist attitude at the start would affect the result of any negotiation...
Personally, I think we would gain much more if we could alter the environment in a way that makes pilot costs a constant across the industry. When I dream, I see a future where ALPA would simply be an exclusive crew-leasing company to the airlines, and pilots would be no more tied to a carrier than a plumber to your personal sink. I also see much to be gained by controlling the supply of pilots by maintaining higher barriers to entry (i.e. advocating for higher and higher certification requirements, etc.).
When I'm not dreaming, and I look at this industry, the one we actually operate in, I want a negotiating philosophy that's somewhere between the debilitating and lame "no, we can't", and the unenforceable "we want". As I said before, I'd rather simply dial in on a logical place where we should be, considering the profitability of the company, but without regard to the other groups. In other words, if DALPA could articulate clearlly where the "sweet-spot" that doesn't quite kill off the goose, I'd sign up for that. Stated yet differently, if we could articulate that the company is good for X millions/year more (comfortably or not), and we could back up that number, I would then expect polling to discuss the group's priorites in how to distribute it, and then we spool up the Strike Committee, work the press to pretend we have the right to strike, tire the owners, and get to where we rightfully need to be.
11-24-2010 | 01:23 PM
#2953
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
11-24-2010 | 01:26 PM
#2954
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,166
Likes: 0
From: 737 Capt
11-24-2010 | 01:28 PM
#2955
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
Doug claims it became null and void in the transaction. Of course this LOA, negotiatedby ALPA, is seen differently by the east guys. So messed up over there....hopefully we don't sink that low.
11-24-2010 | 01:31 PM
#2956
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Hello ALPA, anyone home!
11-24-2010 | 01:50 PM
#2958
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Little to do with my point. The point I was making is that the lack of portability of our seniority means we are in reality married to our airlines, for better or worse. Ergo, we're stuck doing pattern-bargaining, and we're stuck with unions and collective bargaining as our only leverage. But our leverage isn't strong when we can be replaced easily and we have an obvious, demonstrated, and logical fear of losing our jobs. When we can bargain for many pilots with many airlines at once, we then are truly using the collective part of collective bargaining. When you can make pilot costs constant across carriers, you reduce the incentive for one group to ***** against another. It's pretty simple, really.
When you decide to work for someone else, you're no longer independently "running" your career. Not if you can't freelance and move around, anyway. What you would want, and what you have, are two different things. What you have is a world where the pilot next to you is a competitor for your seat, and the pilot in the next airline is the same. We've had some success with unions in making sure that the next pilot isn't stabbing us in the heart. I'm only talking about extending the concept to the next airline.
When you decide to work for someone else, you're no longer independently "running" your career. Not if you can't freelance and move around, anyway. What you would want, and what you have, are two different things. What you have is a world where the pilot next to you is a competitor for your seat, and the pilot in the next airline is the same. We've had some success with unions in making sure that the next pilot isn't stabbing us in the heart. I'm only talking about extending the concept to the next airline.
11-24-2010 | 01:55 PM
#2959
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
What people ask for, time and time again, is payrates. By prioritizing the end result over the means, they make just about certain we can't ever pull together with another group of pilots. And no unity = no leverage = no money.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
