Of course I know they are FAA guys. But they also work and fly for my company, which means they have a special "interest" in ensuring that your training and cetification goes well. I'm not in denial.

 

My honest assessment? I think they are both good and bad.

First, I think we are better off with them. I can thank them for pay and benefits that we would probably not have otherwise. There is no doubt that we have work rules which far exceed those found in a non-union environment. Having flown for two non-union carriers in my past, I can honestly say that my worst day under union negotiated work rules far exceeds my best day in the non-union environment.

Second, while I think we are better off with them, I have to say that unions are not without problems and far from perfect. They can get very political and the fees may or may not be spent wisely. While some committees are very necessary, some seem like they are created solely to provide non-flying jobs for pilots who don't want to fly. Jobs have rightfully been restored to members who have lost them under unfair circumstances. On the other hand, many people who shouldn't be in a cockpit are protected by the union.

At the end of the day, after listing the pros and the cons I would much rather be at a unionized carrier than not. Perfect? No, but it is certainly the best we can do with what we have to work with.

 

My biggest beef with pilot unions is the 'seniority' concept without regard for experience. This system is what's really keeping our wages artificially low.

Why should a 15,000 hour ATA/Aloha/Midwest captain sit as a copilot to a 3,000 hour kid from a regional just because his company went under all while working for apprentice-like wages?

Fix the 'seniority' problem, and you'll fix the root of all evils.

 

What do you think of the fact that management has control over supply of the commodity that they purchase? Isn't this an unfair relationship? That would be like gold buyers banding together to increase the mining of gold, so they could attain it at a cheaper price, from the producer. This is why unions are necessary. They help balance an unfair supply and demand relationship. When management can lower mins to 250 hours and a pulse, in order to increase supply of available commodity (labor), how is that fair or safe? 250 hour pilots are a dime/ dozen, and all an airline has to do to get them is make an agreement with a pilot farm. Get the dumbest, laziest SOBs you ever met in the door, get their 100 grand, and in 90 days they can be a copilot of an awesome, shiny airliner. Never mind the fact that they will attempt to pile this shiny airliner into the ground, and create a smoking crater on almost every flight. The FAA along with their bed buddy, the RAA, says they are a "fully qualified" airline pilot. If that doesn't work, just use aggressive lobbying efforts to try to get things like a "Multi-Crew Pilot License" legalized, in order to have almost 100% control of supply! Unions would be less of a necessity if pilots had a control on the supply of their labor. I think we can all agree that 250 hours is a totally inappropriate hour amount for someone to be flying an airliner in the 121 environment, in any capacity. If we band together, and encourage the FAA to raise mins (testing requirements, hours, educational requirments, etc.), it would have the effect of limiting supply, increasing safety, and increasing wages. The producer would be controlling supply; it's the way supply and demand is meant to work!!!

 

If they raise the mins indefinitely, not by supply and demand, then they would have to raise benefits, salaries. It will never happen. It's easier to lower mins because they know the golden rule: "will fly for food" How do you know that even 2500 hour pilots won't go out of their ways to stab other in their back for a job as much as a 200 hour pilot would?

 

If pilots fought for increased experience requirements, we would be taking control of the role we should have in supply and demand. We would be the producer of our labor, controlling the supply of what we are producing, just as it should be. This is opposed to what is happening now, where management can lower mins to dangerously low levels, to influence the supply and demand curve to their liking. The supply of 1000-2000 hour pilots will always be less than 250 hour pilots, just by the very nature of what it takes to attain 1000-2000 hours. Those number of hours are only attained in very limited ways, such as flight instruction, or flying Part 135. People can buy their way to 250 hours, no problem. But, they probably can't buy their way to 1000-2000 hours; not very easily, at least. With increased experience requirements, supply would be limited by a number of factors, such as the fact that there are only so many Part 135 jobs out there, and the fact that a flight school can't have 50 flight instructors on line, when there are only 3 new students coming in the door daily. Plus, if there were a glut of instructors, it would only take longer for them to reach 1000-2000 hours. Increasing barriers to entry would automatically limit supply, automatically increase wages, and increase safety, in my opinion. I have never flown with a 250 hour pilot who was competent-enough to fly Part 121. Their knowledge may have been up to par, but overall aircraft control and situational awareness were not where they should have been for an airline pilot. By the way, I was the one of the highest time people in my airline class, lest one think I'm being hypocritical. I could have easily got in with 1/2 the flight time, and probably even 1/3. It's time to grab this bull by the nuts, and make something happen. I've been in the process of writing every senator and representative I can, telling him or her what I think about 250 hour minimum experience requirements; especially how I believe it negatively affects the safety of passengers and crew.

 

I am sorta like Slice... they are a necessary evil. Crappy management has forced the need for unions. I have been a member of two pilot unions. Neither was a terribly good experience, but they do have their place BECAUSE of the way this industry has been run. Do I like unions? NO, but I support them in my profession because of reality. I worked on union committees at both places frankly the membership IS the Union and its reflection. I support unions in aviation but wish the day would come that they were not necessary. ( fat chance in h e l l )

 

They don't need to. The method by which civilian pilots log their flight times is open to much abuse. I knew of guys in the 80's who, upon learning that a particular commuter airline required 250 hours of multi-time to be considered for employment, went away with their logbooks for a weekend. When they returned they had the 250 hours, and shortly thereafter, the job.

Until civilain aviation gets a handle on how flight times are logged (easily done with computers, BTW), applicants are going to be showing up for jobs with however many hours are required. "Raising the minimums" means nothing.

 

I think the vast majority of pilots have enough integrity to not pencil-whip their logbook. It does happen, though; I agree. A lot of recruiters say they can spot a pencil-whipped logbook from a mile away. Not sure how...It's nothing I, or any pilot I know, would do, however. That's a good way to turn a senator into a smoking hole, up in northern MN.

 

Pilot unions, per se, are not really unions. They're more like associations. It's even in the ALPA moniker. Real unions practice solidarity with other trades. Pilot associations are isolationists and due to this, they lack power and fall short of their potential.