What ALPA and YOU should be doing . . .
10-10-2006, 08:13 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 657
What ALPA and YOU should be doing . . .
Maybe ALPA should develop a WHOLE NEW SYSTEM of performance evaluation for pilots. Implement it NATIONALLY. A 15 year Part 121 CA should get 15 year Part 121 pay at ALL Airlines. Even if he transfers to another airline right? Why doesn't ALPA work on that????
That's where the challenge lies. ALPA can't even make it happen.
If Jerry Atkins quit SKYW today and went to work for another airline, would he get paid $19.02/hr.? Why or Why not? He wouldn't, too much experience. Worth way more than $19.02/hr. But because the way the SENORITY system works in airlines (Pilots are commodities) each will always go to the bottom of the list. So . . . . .
ALPA should be focusing their efforts on a FAIR compensation for SKILL LEVEL across ALL AIRLINES. The seniority list becomes a non-factor and the ABILITY/SKILL-SET factor becomes the goal. This is the way the rest of the world works. So, if a seven year CA leaves SKYW to work as an FO for SWA (he/she) should get seven year pay scale. (Totally unrealistic I know). The problem is, that even ALPA can't make this happen (Evaluating pilots on SKILL/ABILITY-the agrument for ALPA's existence) so they employ unsubstantiated scare tactics that appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to justify their place. Higher Pay, Benefits and Job security. What else do they have to fall back on? (I'm not sure) Maybe the right to strike?
But even that can't happen. Just look at what the courts are saying in regard to the NWA Flight attendants, MESABA pilots, and COMAIR pilots. Even ALPA can't get it's own pilots to strike because the Government steps in. WHY? Because the airlines represent a major fiscal percentage to the US economy.
So what again are the reasons for ALPA. 1) Higher Pay, 2) Benefits and 3) Job Security. Seems to me that any logical person, working ANY job, skilled or unskilled, would want these three things. Sooooo . . . . . if that's that case, than OUR WHOLE country should be UNIONIZED. So why is it not? Because it's a free market. If SKYW pilots decided to stop flying today because of the three issues purports to represent (Don't need ALPA to do this) I'm sure that management would take a quick ear to the pilot group. There would also be all sorts of cost reductions, eliminated routes, delayed maintenance, etc . . . .
As long as there are pilots willing to work on the cheap, low pay will continue. However, some things are slowly changing at SKYW due to the free market economy.
1) I believe SKYW DID NOT pay you while in training: NOW THEY DO
2) SKYW didn't buy new hires uniforms: NOW THEY DO
3) SKYW didn't offer flight attendants an $800 bonus for sticking around after they were hired and went through training: NOW THEY DO
4) SKYW never had Low Hiring Minimums: NOW THEY DO
5) SKYW never had a comprehensive retirement and benefits package: NOW THEY DO
I am sure there are many more, but these are just some of the things that indicate to me that there is a quality EMPLOYEE shortage. WHY? People are less interested in working in the aviation field because greater opportunities exist elsewhere or at other airlines. Eventually, in order for airlines to exist, they will have to pay more to lure future participants to select an aviation career.
I encourage you all to watch the MESABA outcome, ASA outcome, and COMAIR outcome, then decide if having a union is really worth it.
I hear everyone talking about which airline should they work for, based on Lowest minimums, type of aircraft, bases, schedules, pay, friends working there, etc . . . . but no one ever talks about the financial stability of the companies they are going to work for. WHY? (I'd love to hear the answers)
If I were in your shoes I would spend more time evaluating WHAT company one should go to work for based on: FINANCIALS (Income, balance sheet, cash flow), BUSINESS PLAN, GROWTH (Past, current and future), TRACK RECORD OF MANAGEMENT, STABILITY OF MANAGEMENT, ON-GOING STRATEGY/TACTICS, EMPLOYEE MORAL, etc.
I feel if ALL of you did this, only a few airlines would be worthy of sending an application to. The weaker airlines, COMAIR, MESABA, and ASA included (ALPA represented) would have to change or go out of business due to market forces.
(YOU) taking responsibility for YOUR FUTURE, you will be the most happy in whatever EDUCATED choices you make. Even if you think you screwed up a choice/decision, you have the ability to fix it. This way YOU are in charge of your life, NOT your EMPLOYER or a LABOR GROUP.
That's where the challenge lies. ALPA can't even make it happen.
If Jerry Atkins quit SKYW today and went to work for another airline, would he get paid $19.02/hr.? Why or Why not? He wouldn't, too much experience. Worth way more than $19.02/hr. But because the way the SENORITY system works in airlines (Pilots are commodities) each will always go to the bottom of the list. So . . . . .
ALPA should be focusing their efforts on a FAIR compensation for SKILL LEVEL across ALL AIRLINES. The seniority list becomes a non-factor and the ABILITY/SKILL-SET factor becomes the goal. This is the way the rest of the world works. So, if a seven year CA leaves SKYW to work as an FO for SWA (he/she) should get seven year pay scale. (Totally unrealistic I know). The problem is, that even ALPA can't make this happen (Evaluating pilots on SKILL/ABILITY-the agrument for ALPA's existence) so they employ unsubstantiated scare tactics that appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to justify their place. Higher Pay, Benefits and Job security. What else do they have to fall back on? (I'm not sure) Maybe the right to strike?
But even that can't happen. Just look at what the courts are saying in regard to the NWA Flight attendants, MESABA pilots, and COMAIR pilots. Even ALPA can't get it's own pilots to strike because the Government steps in. WHY? Because the airlines represent a major fiscal percentage to the US economy.
So what again are the reasons for ALPA. 1) Higher Pay, 2) Benefits and 3) Job Security. Seems to me that any logical person, working ANY job, skilled or unskilled, would want these three things. Sooooo . . . . . if that's that case, than OUR WHOLE country should be UNIONIZED. So why is it not? Because it's a free market. If SKYW pilots decided to stop flying today because of the three issues purports to represent (Don't need ALPA to do this) I'm sure that management would take a quick ear to the pilot group. There would also be all sorts of cost reductions, eliminated routes, delayed maintenance, etc . . . .
As long as there are pilots willing to work on the cheap, low pay will continue. However, some things are slowly changing at SKYW due to the free market economy.
1) I believe SKYW DID NOT pay you while in training: NOW THEY DO
2) SKYW didn't buy new hires uniforms: NOW THEY DO
3) SKYW didn't offer flight attendants an $800 bonus for sticking around after they were hired and went through training: NOW THEY DO
4) SKYW never had Low Hiring Minimums: NOW THEY DO
5) SKYW never had a comprehensive retirement and benefits package: NOW THEY DO
I am sure there are many more, but these are just some of the things that indicate to me that there is a quality EMPLOYEE shortage. WHY? People are less interested in working in the aviation field because greater opportunities exist elsewhere or at other airlines. Eventually, in order for airlines to exist, they will have to pay more to lure future participants to select an aviation career.
I encourage you all to watch the MESABA outcome, ASA outcome, and COMAIR outcome, then decide if having a union is really worth it.
I hear everyone talking about which airline should they work for, based on Lowest minimums, type of aircraft, bases, schedules, pay, friends working there, etc . . . . but no one ever talks about the financial stability of the companies they are going to work for. WHY? (I'd love to hear the answers)
If I were in your shoes I would spend more time evaluating WHAT company one should go to work for based on: FINANCIALS (Income, balance sheet, cash flow), BUSINESS PLAN, GROWTH (Past, current and future), TRACK RECORD OF MANAGEMENT, STABILITY OF MANAGEMENT, ON-GOING STRATEGY/TACTICS, EMPLOYEE MORAL, etc.
I feel if ALL of you did this, only a few airlines would be worthy of sending an application to. The weaker airlines, COMAIR, MESABA, and ASA included (ALPA represented) would have to change or go out of business due to market forces.
(YOU) taking responsibility for YOUR FUTURE, you will be the most happy in whatever EDUCATED choices you make. Even if you think you screwed up a choice/decision, you have the ability to fix it. This way YOU are in charge of your life, NOT your EMPLOYER or a LABOR GROUP.
10-10-2006, 08:44 AM
#3
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
It doesn't matter if there was a friggin' SOS about this tomorrow...the airlines as a whole would never buy into it. Guild? Maybe. Longevity pay regardless of where you work? Never.
1) Longevity is a leftover from a bygone era, when all americans started in the mail room or sweeping the shop floor and worked their way up at the same company their entire career. Almost no one does that anymore...
2) Thieving managers have learned to exploit longevity to continously replace older workforces with younger workforces who do exactly the same job...if they do the same job, why should the get paid 80% less???
3) We need a new payscale that is based on equipment revenue (seats, max gross, range, etc). The payscale would be flat with NO longevity changes...essentially an average of the current 12-year (or 20 or whatever)scale.
4) Keep seniority of course...that determines equipment, domicile, schedule, upgrade and thus pay and QOL. Senior pilots still get paid a lot more, but if you replace them, the replacement gets paid the same!
5) A phase-in program would be required to prevent today's senior pilots who already paid their dues from losing their ballon payment.
Added benefit to this would be that entry-level airline people would earn a living wage.
10-10-2006, 08:53 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 657
[QUOTE=rickair7777;67985]Correct, but they way you get around that is by ELIMINATING longevity...
1) Longevity is a leftover from a bygone era,
2) if they do the same job, why should the get paid 80% less???
3) We need a new payscale that is based on equipment revenue (seats, max gross, range, etc). The payscale would be flat with NO longevity changes...
4) Keep seniority of course...that determines equipment, domicile, schedule, upgrade and thus pay and QOL.
QUOTE]
1) Agree
2) Agree
3) If based on equipment REVENUE then pilots should get paid less if they haul less people and paid MAX if they haul a full plane. Right? Just an argument. The only thing that forces businesses to grow is continued profitability.
4) Agree
1) Longevity is a leftover from a bygone era,
2) if they do the same job, why should the get paid 80% less???
3) We need a new payscale that is based on equipment revenue (seats, max gross, range, etc). The payscale would be flat with NO longevity changes...
4) Keep seniority of course...that determines equipment, domicile, schedule, upgrade and thus pay and QOL.
QUOTE]
1) Agree
2) Agree
3) If based on equipment REVENUE then pilots should get paid less if they haul less people and paid MAX if they haul a full plane. Right? Just an argument. The only thing that forces businesses to grow is continued profitability.
4) Agree
10-10-2006, 08:54 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 657
[QUOTE=rickair7777;67985]Correct, but they way you get around that is by ELIMINATING longevity...
1) Longevity is a leftover from a bygone era,
2) if they do the same job, why should the get paid 80% less???
3) We need a new payscale that is based on equipment revenue (seats, max gross, range, etc). The payscale would be flat with NO longevity changes...
4) Keep seniority of course...that determines equipment, domicile, schedule, upgrade and thus pay and QOL.QUOTE]
1) Agree
2) Agree
3) If based on equipment REVENUE then pilots should get paid less if they haul less people and paid MAX if they haul a full plane. Right? Just an argument. The only thing that forces businesses to grow is continued profitability.
4) Agree
1) Longevity is a leftover from a bygone era,
2) if they do the same job, why should the get paid 80% less???
3) We need a new payscale that is based on equipment revenue (seats, max gross, range, etc). The payscale would be flat with NO longevity changes...
4) Keep seniority of course...that determines equipment, domicile, schedule, upgrade and thus pay and QOL.QUOTE]
1) Agree
2) Agree
3) If based on equipment REVENUE then pilots should get paid less if they haul less people and paid MAX if they haul a full plane. Right? Just an argument. The only thing that forces businesses to grow is continued profitability.
4) Agree
