|
Originally Posted by pagey
(Post 1572595)
It just goes towards my point that everyone is all harda$$ when its another company but when it affects "you" then its a different story.
Yes, XJT voted no, and that is commendable to say the least. My opinion is that Eagle, PSA, and probably very soon Piedmont are in a worse position due to being wholly owned. The threat of a shutdown is a little more empty when it comes to XJT. Asking another pilot group to "fall on their sword" without giving them an "out" is just as selfish as voting yes. In the wholly owned world, they are trying to force concessions via agreements AIPs, 10 year contracts, flowthrough carrots, pref. hiring, etc... In the independent contractor model at XJT and Republic they are trying to force concessions through fear mongering, a constant deafening mantra of cost-structure speak about not being "profitable." So the main difference is we have to deal with a company trying to make "profits" off of mainline money that should be in our paycheck if we were simply connected to the mainline without having independent financials. Your version of "profits" are simply reduced costs that are hidden within the mainline carrier's financials. It's exactly the same situation, just slightly different accounting, and possibly more difficult control mechanisms for the mainlines who do not own their regionals. We have no more or less protection than you do. The only protections any of us may have is how big our particular pilot group is (the bigger it is the more difficult to make real threats due to service disruption-- so for a smaller group, the threats are magnified) and the fact that they are more or less out of new, young pilots who will accept an extended number of years in or near poverty. They're trying to mitigate that with cutting flights and rhetorically blaming a lot of it on the 1500hr/ATP regulations and hoping Congress may backtrack if enough airline service disappears. Probably not going to happen though we may see some more easing on r-ATP quals, but who knows. The 50 dead people are still dead whether regionals are out of pilots or not. Writers of that law would say that was the whole point... reduce access to passenger airline cockpits for less qualified pilots, so it appears to be working as written, give or take. |
Originally Posted by CaptainNameless
(Post 1572813)
I really don't see how it's any different whatsoever, wholly owned or not.
In the wholly owned world, they are trying to force concessions via agreements AIPs, 10 year contracts, flowthrough carrots, pref. hiring, etc... In the independent contractor model at XJT and Republic they are trying to force concessions through fear mongering, a constant deafening mantra of cost-structure speak about not being "profitable." So the main difference is we have to deal with a company trying to make "profits" off of mainline money that should be in our paycheck if we were simply connected to the mainline without having independent financials. Your "profits" are hidden within the mainline carrier's financials. It's exactly the same situation, just slightly different accounting, and possibly more difficult control mechanisms for the mainlines who do not own their regionals. We have no more or less protection than you do. The only protections any of us may have is how big our particular pilot group is (the bigger it is the more difficult to make real threats due to service disruption) and the fact that they are more or less out of new, young pilots who will accept an extended number of years in or near poverty. They're trying to mitigate that with cutting flights and rhetorically blaming a lot of it on the 1500hr/ATP regulations and hoping Congress may backtrack if enough airline service disappears. Probably not going to happen though we may see some more easing on r-ATP quals, but who knows. The 50 dead people are still dead whether regionals are out of pilots or not. Writers of that law would say that was the whole point... reduce access to passenger airline cockpits for less qualified pilots, so it appears to be working as written, give or take. Why would a CEO shut down his own company? Parker doesn't care who does the feed for AA because its not his company. If he shuts down a wholly owned then someone else does the feed and Dougie still makes money. I'd say a CEO at a non-wholly owned has a vested interest in his company continuing to exist. |
Originally Posted by pagey
(Post 1572816)
Why would a CEO shut down his own company? Parker doesn't care who does the feed for AA because its not his company. If he shuts down a wholly owned then someone else does the feed and Dougie still makes money. I'd say a CEO at a non-wholly owned has a vested interest in his company continuing to exist.
So what breaks first? I don't know. I don't really care. I am just not taking it in the nutz for 1 penny of concessions of ANY kind with the mainlines all raking in healthy profits because some airline business brains can't get together and make a system that is functional and pays airline pilots a decent living and offers a decent life (most regional jobs are no such thing). If they want a broken system with flights that cancel and no kids becoming pilots anymore, well fine, that seems to be their answer so far. |
Originally Posted by SkylineAviation
(Post 1572496)
Because that's what I said. Please learn how to read and comprehend.
It would be a lot easier to "read and comprehend" if you were fluent in English... I say again, "fiduciary duty for management" doesn't require them to get pay cuts from employees! Show me one example of management going to jail for failing to get pay cuts from their employees. |
Eagle AIP
There is no example, never said there was. I also said, if you go back and read, that pilots or employees shouldn't have to take pay cuts to get planes.
|
vote no, there is no company to replace eagle pilots, not because they don't want to but they just cant staff what they have now. regional will have to merge to streamline ops on one certificate to get a few pilots on the balance sheet from the merge to staff just to cover what feed they have today.
mainline ceos busted the model in an act of greed but it is biting them in the *** just like at united soon delta and inevitably aag |
Originally Posted by SkylineAviation
(Post 1571924)
You think I'm advocating this contract, or think I agree? I'm simply putting out information that came directly from the shot callers.
I think the whole thing stinks but at the same time everyone needs to be well informed. You can not deny that management has fiduciary responsibility. If not they go to jail (i.e. Enron). And yes, they prey on that but it's not only limited to airlines, it's corporate america. Vote yes, vote no...make a move and stick to it. But at least know the facts in a rational way. Try to think as others around you do and then you can know others motives and next move. It's a great negotiating tactic that management has mastered and we're just trying to play catch-up. Guess I just "misread" your statement above about "managements fiduciary responsibility, if not they go to jail (i.e. Enron)"? |
Eagle AIP
Never did I say if they don't get pay cuts they go to jail...those were your words. I was making a point about their responsibility to shareholders. Which is to maximize returns. That comes in various forms, one of which is by squeezing labor. Hence their fiduciary responsibility to cut costs and maximize shareholder returns.
They are using Pinnacle and PSA as their reasoning for such concessions against Eagle. Scott Kirby and Parker both openly stated in calls with investors that they MUST compete with Delta and their Pinnacle contact to lower other wholly owned costs. This is how corporate America works and why they must appease shareholders to keep market value. Understand that you and I are in agreement about how deplorable this is. But I'm simply stating the reasons for their actions and why it's come to this. |
Originally Posted by SkylineAviation
(Post 1572994)
Never did I say if they don't get pay cuts they go to jail...those were your words. I was making a point about their responsibility to shareholders. Which is to maximize returns. That comes in various forms, one of which is by squeezing labor. Hence their fiduciary responsibility to cut costs and maximize shareholder returns.
They are using Pinnacle and PSA as their reasoning for such concessions against Eagle. Scott Kirby and Parker both openly stated in calls with investors that they MUST compete with Delta and their Pinnacle contact to lower other wholly owned costs. This is how corporate America works and why they must appease shareholders to keep market value. Understand that you and I are in agreement about how deplorable this is. But I'm simply stating the reasons for their actions and why it's come to this. Smart management knows that if they take care of their employees, the employees take care of their customers. This has been proven by Southwest paying their 737 crews at the highest rates in the industry, and yet being a very highly profitable company. The same can be said of pay and profitability of flight crews at UPS and Fedex. It's well known by intelligent management that happy employees equate to happy repeat customers! If current management at some carriers is too dumb to realize the connection between taking care of employees, so they'll take care of customers. It is the fiduciary duty of every crew member at those airlines to vote NO and put a stop to the degradation of this industry by inept management!!! |
Originally Posted by pagey
(Post 1572816)
Why would a CEO shut down his own company? Parker doesn't care who does the feed for AA because its not his company. If he shuts down a wholly owned then someone else does the feed and Dougie still makes money. I'd say a CEO at a non-wholly owned has a vested interest in his company continuing to exist.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:12 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands