ZDub

It is rumored that Chuck Norris' tears can cure a woe-struck regoinal airlines problems. It's too bad that Chuck Norris has never cried.

John Pennekamp

All signs I see are pointing to ASA.

JetBlast77

Why would you automatically assume that when Skywest & ExpressJet are already in the operation? ASA isn't the only airline with 50 seaters lying around that could use a home. XJT has 30 they could transfer into service right now....and they are already flying 10 for United under this "temporary" agreement. Skywest has all the Midwest RJs that are coming offline. Don't get me wrong I agree it could go either way, but there are others you can't count out.

PinnacleFO

I doubt they are going to replace any 50 seaters They might throw a couple of 70's out there if United scope clause allows it.

JoeyMeatballs

Fixed it for you.,.....................

duvie

All wishful thinking at this point gentlemen. Good luck to all, but especially to me

xtreme

Fixed it again...

BoilerUP

What specifically killed GM was the negotiated and mutually-agreed to pension and healthcare benefit for former workers, both UAW and non-UAW alike. Besides, shouldn't you appreciate the fact these workers negotiated the best possible compensation package for themselves...or is that praise limited to individuals instead of collectives? Besides, if GM management knew such benefits were going to be unsustainable, they had a fiduciary responsibility to refuse signing a contract with such generous benefits. You can't put the failure of the auto manufacturers solely, or even primarily, on the union...there's way too much "blame" to go around on that.

Toyota has only had major manufacturing operations in the US for 20-25 years, whereas the Big 3 have been entrenched for nearly a century with generations worth of former employees. Toyota and other foreign manufacturers also located their plants in areas which traditionally had little manufacturing (southern Indiana, Kentucky, Tennesee, Alabama) where labor's standard for compensation was lower than in Michigan.

Same goes for Jetblue; as a start-up airline they weren't faced with legacy airline costs related to multiple generations of employees (both management and labor) pulling high salaries and retirement benefits. Following a rapid expansion which largely left behind the "Jetblue culture" and entering a period of slow growth and/or stagnation, watch and see if their costs don't skyrocket...and if the next attempt at pilot unionization passes.

You may not be a sheep and an idiot...but the world isn't as clear-cut as you believe it to be, either.

boilerpilot

Um, union leaders are NOT business leaders. Their function is to try and negotiate with management to get the best rates the company can afford. If the company irresponsibly signs a contract that they cannot sustain, that's not the fault of the union, because that's not their job. That's the fault of the company, and not being able to foresee the ratio of cost vs revenue in the future IS a sign of poor management.

You mentioned you yourself negotiated two months of paid vacation a year, if I recall correctly. If the company then has to cancel a flight due to a lack of a crew, therefore losing revenue, during those two months, is that YOUR fault because YOU negotiated those two months off? It's the same logic. Is it the retiree's fault they negotiated their benefits, and now the company can't afford to honor what it negotiated? No.

Also; jetBlue is the leader of the industry? When did I miss that headline? Are you really blaming the woes of the Legacies on the 6% of their costs that are flight crews (cabin and cockpit)? See, I was under the impression that it was because they had no financial sense and no idea what a "cost vs revenue" curve meant. I have this great image in my head of a group of executives dozing in a board room, one mumbles "100% load factor" in his sleep, and they all wake up screaming "100% LOAD FACTOR!!!!!!". Sort of like the "Knights who say Ni".

macflyer

Well, your first paragraph, is very simplistic. I see the equation as not a function of the best rate company can AFFORD, rather of the best rate market demands. The problem with long term COLLECTIVE contracts is that markets change, more so and more frequently today then ever before because of the existence of more free markets. A collective contract is one of large and blind commitment by management and by labor. This type of contract is always behind the curve of natural balance of product demand and its supply or price.

Example, when times are great for an industry and a labor union negotiates a great contract for its labor market, the business (management) which agreed upon the terms suffers when the market takes a down turn. Vis versa when a contract is negotiated on the down turn the labor suffers and does not benefit from the upturn in the market. Now this is sustainable is a regulated industry where the business (management) is highly regulated and not free to move as they wish. Its a 50/50 advantage point as it was before airline deregulation act and as it is today in Europe. But when the management is competing on a free market as it is today in the U.S.A and they can use that maneuverability to make more profitable judgment, they will use that ability to maximize profits, as you see incase of gojets and other new airlines that pop up because of high cost labor. Some say that is wrong of management to do, to not adhere to their commitments and use our system to their benefits.

In todays market the only thing that a union has to fight that freedom of management to choose their lowest labor cost is the power to strike. As this industry has gradually, under the bush admin, been going more towards a free enterprise, the unions have lost the power to strike. Some say that is loss of power to strike and the management's power to move to a lower cost labor by savvy business practices is wrong. But I ask why? Look at it from the point of view of an airline. Their purpose is to make profits and money. Why, you, as a business owner should not have the right to hire better labor at a cheaper, lower, cost? If thats what the market bares then thats what the market bares.

If you go to your dentists, you have chosen him on priorities that are important to you. Those are, commonly, how good he is and how expensive/inexpensive he is. If you can find a dentist for a lower price at the same quality you surely would prefer him over your current one. Pilots are the same. Furthermore, if your dentist decides one day to charge you 50% less then what he regularly charges, do you then look at him and say “No I will pay you what you deserve”? I dont think that is what most people will do, I as most, will pay only what he is asking for and walk out with a bright shinny new smile.

The roll of charity and bleeding heart does not belong in a healthy business model. Nor does the roll of collective bargaining as it is, ALWAYS, non-retroactive and untimely does not correspond to supply and demand.

In my case of negotiating my holiday, its a small contract backed up by very little other then what the market will bare. If my company deems that in some months they do not want to continue this relationship with me under agreed upon guidelines, they will either cancel my contract or negotiate a new one. Either way it does not impede on their ability to continue business as usual as they have not committed their entire workforce to one collective bargaining agreement. I am not their golden child. Furthermore, if I choose to continue my relationship with them under a new yet less profitable contract I do so for reasons which may include not being able to find a more competitive contract or other personal reasons which will justify the costs vs. rewards. If I do decide to leave it will be because I can take my gained experience with them and take that to another competitor which will, BASED ON MY MERIT AND EXPERIENCE, compensate me on the going market rate.

I DO NOT HAVE TO START OVER AGAIN BECAUSE OF A SENIORITY SYSTEM, I DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BECAUSE OF A SENIORITY SYSTEM, I WOULD NOT HAVE TO START AT THE BOTTOM IN ANOTHER COMPANY, AND MY COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE ME BECAUSE WITHOUT ME THEY WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS. An equilibrium will come to existence with free will and free market.

This does not exist in the current American aviation system. Take a look at ATA, Aloha, and all the pay cuts that we endure because of “WHERE ELSE AM I GOING TO GO” attitude, which frankly, is currently justified. That is the vice of having a union AND THE AIRLINES EXPLOIT THAT WEAKNESS ARTFULLY.

On the other side of the coin, if there is a contract in place and the industry takes a great leap for the best and the airlines are making hand over fist, do you think they will come and give back money that they took? NO there is a contract in place and you as the seniority 210 aren’t going anywhere, because regardless of where you go you would have to start at the bottom. They will and can, even in a great market climate, negotiate a pay cut with a unionized labor organization. It will only be politically unpopular, but what has being politically unpopular stopped from happening lately?

JetBlue is a leader of this industry and there is no headlines about it, why? Because their employees are HAPPY, they have no contract hence their work environment is one of fluidity. If they need something more or company needs something less its achieved with less heartburn and less headache for the future of the airline in less time. A more healthy balanced relationship exists amongst pilots and their employers. Its not perfect at jetblue, why? Because for it to be as good as it can be, the rest of the market needs to be free and competitively open. The labor market needs to have an outlet for its people as much as the current market has an outlet for management.

When a pilot can compete freely within the entire u.s. network for better pay and quality of life based on experience and merit then and only then will the industry be one of complete fluidity and profitability. The ones who run bad airlines wont survive and the “bad” pilots will get washed out, while the cost of business will drop and the quality of life and pay will increase. Example; When jetblue pilots can go to Delta and Delta pilots can go to Jetblue without loosing pay and quality of life.

Excuse my long answer... 2nd bottle of wine, nice cigar, and beautiful women around, Puts me in a writing mood. Hopefully it remotely resembles what I wanted to say...