What Davex2 Want From Pilots
- Thread starter oldcrow
- Start date
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
Naw. Just to point out that you certainly described the situation with regard to potential ALPA actions to a "T."PITbull said:LOL......is that a Clinton joke, or what?
If I had said "nailing a lady with a cigar," you could have inferred a Clinton joke :unsure:
I'm waiting for the moderators even as I type...
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Years ago when I flew for TWA, we had 1/2 pay for DH and that was bad enough. Say hello to Trans-con turns! On the L1011 we would fly to the west coast with 2 crews. One would fly out, the other back. With no DH pay, do any of you think the company would hesitate to start this kind of BS? Be careful what kind of precidents you start. Just remember, if they can do it... they will.BoeingBoy said:
michael707767
Senior
- Aug 21, 2002
- 332
- 0
Not being a USAir pilot I don't understand all the ramifications of the what the company is asking for. I do understand that the pilot job is different. They may work less days than most of us do, but they work as many hours and they don't go back to their home every night.
It seems to me that the pilots are willing to fly more, just not add more days away from home. I understand and agree with that. You don't want to allow the company to waste your days without getting any flying from you. Right now you have some rules which prevent them from doing this. They want to get rid of these rules.
So, instead of you worrying about the productivity, I say let them worry about it. I propose this. Switch to a straight salary, a set amount of pay hours per month (90 or so) for a set number of work days per month (17 sounds fair), and within those 17 days they can fly you as much or as little as they want, within the FARs. I bet you would suddenly see them building very productive trips and avoiding all the wasteful crap you complain about.
Michael
It seems to me that the pilots are willing to fly more, just not add more days away from home. I understand and agree with that. You don't want to allow the company to waste your days without getting any flying from you. Right now you have some rules which prevent them from doing this. They want to get rid of these rules.
So, instead of you worrying about the productivity, I say let them worry about it. I propose this. Switch to a straight salary, a set amount of pay hours per month (90 or so) for a set number of work days per month (17 sounds fair), and within those 17 days they can fly you as much or as little as they want, within the FARs. I bet you would suddenly see them building very productive trips and avoiding all the wasteful crap you complain about.
Michael
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Paying pilots a salary. Interesting point. How far away from your proposal would it be for U to contract with U ALPA to provide pilot services? Well, that's crazy.michael707767 said:
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Mar 6, 2003
- 1,430
- 1,143
Finally, somebody who has not bought into the media frenzy of how little flight crew works. Great comments Michael. Work rules for flight crew have, in my opinion, NEVER been about featherbedding and creating an "easy" job...they are there to make the company work smart. Working smart does two things....it indeed makes crews lives better, because they are not out getting 2 hours a day towards 85 or 95 or whatever number hours they must fly. It also makes the company use its crews efficently...and that helps the bottom line. When the pilots started relaxing duty rigs back in the early 90's, it took about 1 month for the company to start wasting time and crews. After the third relaxing of rules in BK, the crews now find themselves working 20 hour four days (nothing wrong with that in it self, but they would prefer 24 hours HARD time in a 4 day) with a 20 hour layover in god knows where followed by a 1.5 hour flight home. Had the company used crews effectively in the 90s, when the givebacks started, they could have slowly shrunk the pilot group through attrition as everyone worked harder, instead they simply slacked off with even more ineffecient trips. As to your suggestion, I am actually for it....How about 80 hours SALARY pay for all pilots. They can work the pilots 17 days a month, straight FAA duty rigs. They can either fly them 8 hours a day, sit them at the airport 8 hours on really short call, or (as now) sit them at home for 15 hours on short call. A day of vacation would be a day of vacation, and if a training float or 911 type of situation occured, the unions could grant temporary relief in the number of days worked. During normal times, extra days would would pay above regular days...and crew would not be stealing time from their brothers and sisters because everyone would be on salary. It sucks that it has come to this, but as you suggested...how else to hold sub par managers accountable for poor performance. I predict a lot of managers would lose their jobs, as they would have NO idea of how to actually use crews. Best to you. And sorry to the rest of you...can somebody tell me how to spellcheck posts (its probably right in front of me). Just my opinions, based on my observations of flight crews!michael707767 said:
michael707767
Senior
- Aug 21, 2002
- 332
- 0
Thanks Walmartgreeter.
If people dont like the idea of pilots on salary, I have one other suggestion. Pay them for each hour worked (like the rest of us) instead of each hour flown. Let the company schedule them for 40 hours of work per week, and within those 40 hours, they can utilize the pilots how they see fit, flying them as much or as little as they want. Again, I bet suddenly the company would find a way to make them very productive.
Michael
If people dont like the idea of pilots on salary, I have one other suggestion. Pay them for each hour worked (like the rest of us) instead of each hour flown. Let the company schedule them for 40 hours of work per week, and within those 40 hours, they can utilize the pilots how they see fit, flying them as much or as little as they want. Again, I bet suddenly the company would find a way to make them very productive.
Michael
USA320PILOT COMMENTS: In regard to the IAM, I am not free to discuss the issue, but without a resolution to the A320 overhaul and work rule issue that is acceptable to the company and the union, I understand the IAM-M could see some major negative changes imposed on their members that are permitted in the current CBA.
THE DUDE REPLIES:from what i understand of the area of the contract you are refering to and from some discussions with HIGH LEVEL UNION OFFICIALS there was a plan being tossed around that would have pilots roll up their sleeves to help mechanics in some out stations with limited line maintenance,ie:tire and brakes,fluids,lav repairs,etc.of course a non A/P can work under the direct supervision of a licensed A/P per FAR'S.
is this what you ellude to?
are you lav truck certified?
THE DUDE REPLIES:from what i understand of the area of the contract you are refering to and from some discussions with HIGH LEVEL UNION OFFICIALS there was a plan being tossed around that would have pilots roll up their sleeves to help mechanics in some out stations with limited line maintenance,ie:tire and brakes,fluids,lav repairs,etc.of course a non A/P can work under the direct supervision of a licensed A/P per FAR'S.
is this what you ellude to?
are you lav truck certified?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #70
Michael,
From a pilot's perspective, it is an interesting idea and if my feeble memory serves has been tried at a couple of airlines before (TWA seems like one of them but maybe somebody with a better memory can chime in).
The one problem I can see is that there would be increased training for some period of time. Those pilots that are junior on the big equipment would no longer have any monetary incentive to be there and would bid to the smaller equipment where they would be senior with better "lifestyle". Likewise, junior captains would bid to f/o since the pay was the same and their seniority would be much better. Eventually everything would settle down but it would probably take a year or two at best.
Because of this, I doubt management would go for the proposal unless it was "cost neutral" and the new pay rate was enough below the current "average" to pay for the extra training.
Jim
From a pilot's perspective, it is an interesting idea and if my feeble memory serves has been tried at a couple of airlines before (TWA seems like one of them but maybe somebody with a better memory can chime in).
The one problem I can see is that there would be increased training for some period of time. Those pilots that are junior on the big equipment would no longer have any monetary incentive to be there and would bid to the smaller equipment where they would be senior with better "lifestyle". Likewise, junior captains would bid to f/o since the pay was the same and their seniority would be much better. Eventually everything would settle down but it would probably take a year or two at best.
Because of this, I doubt management would go for the proposal unless it was "cost neutral" and the new pay rate was enough below the current "average" to pay for the extra training.
Jim
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
PitBull:
PitBull said: “I should not speak for autofixer, he speaks just fine for himself, however, what I read in his post is a sentiment that is shared by many with the exception of you. U has become a terrible place to work. And that is only because work conditions, benefits andwages have deteriorated very rapidly.â€
USA320Pilot responds: “With all due respect, I disagree with your point. There is no question the U.S. airline industry is undergoing a fundamental change with the shift towards the consumer obtaining the best possible product at a dramatically lower purchase price. This nationwide sentiment shift is causing unprecedented network carrier loses and other legacy carriers to react. For example, the average American Airlines W-2 rates are 13% less than US Airways and United flight crews have lost many of their “duty rigsâ€, thus US Airways’ current labor contracts do not look so bad. Moreover, yield is depressed for a number of reasons such as Acela, alternate ground transportation, the sluggish economy, internet booking, etc, but the biggest problem is the LCC explosion.
LCC’s have accelerated their growth model, have purchased 100-seat RJs, and have more efficent work groups. In fact, according to the following article (click here for report), a Southwest Airline Flight Attendant is making much less and is much more productive than a US Airways Flight Attendant under the current contracts. Is that Dave Siegel’s fault?
For example, according to the column, "Southwest flight attendants receive no pension or company funded retirement insurance plans and work more days a month on average than most other airlines. The starting wage for a new flight attendant is $14,000, and median income for a Southwest flight attendant is $24,600 and they perform a multitude of tasks on the ground for which they are not compensated. They are the only flight attendants at a major airline that clean the plane between every flight." Well...it appears to me it is not Dave Siegel's fault that Southwest has a more efficent flight attendants with a lower employee expense, but that is a problem for your work group.
PitBull, it’s time to recognize the economic realities facing this company because these competitive forces are going to intensify and will not go away.
Thus, if you do not like it I suggest you may want to spend time looking for a new job while you still have one.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
PitBull said: “I should not speak for autofixer, he speaks just fine for himself, however, what I read in his post is a sentiment that is shared by many with the exception of you. U has become a terrible place to work. And that is only because work conditions, benefits andwages have deteriorated very rapidly.â€
USA320Pilot responds: “With all due respect, I disagree with your point. There is no question the U.S. airline industry is undergoing a fundamental change with the shift towards the consumer obtaining the best possible product at a dramatically lower purchase price. This nationwide sentiment shift is causing unprecedented network carrier loses and other legacy carriers to react. For example, the average American Airlines W-2 rates are 13% less than US Airways and United flight crews have lost many of their “duty rigsâ€, thus US Airways’ current labor contracts do not look so bad. Moreover, yield is depressed for a number of reasons such as Acela, alternate ground transportation, the sluggish economy, internet booking, etc, but the biggest problem is the LCC explosion.
LCC’s have accelerated their growth model, have purchased 100-seat RJs, and have more efficent work groups. In fact, according to the following article (click here for report), a Southwest Airline Flight Attendant is making much less and is much more productive than a US Airways Flight Attendant under the current contracts. Is that Dave Siegel’s fault?
For example, according to the column, "Southwest flight attendants receive no pension or company funded retirement insurance plans and work more days a month on average than most other airlines. The starting wage for a new flight attendant is $14,000, and median income for a Southwest flight attendant is $24,600 and they perform a multitude of tasks on the ground for which they are not compensated. They are the only flight attendants at a major airline that clean the plane between every flight." Well...it appears to me it is not Dave Siegel's fault that Southwest has a more efficent flight attendants with a lower employee expense, but that is a problem for your work group.
PitBull, it’s time to recognize the economic realities facing this company because these competitive forces are going to intensify and will not go away.
Thus, if you do not like it I suggest you may want to spend time looking for a new job while you still have one.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
USA320,
Here's your epiphany for the day:
1.....I'M NOT LEAVING! So, my vote, along with many others, just may effect your life style. Get ready to "rock".
2. If it is reported that SW Median (middle income) is $24,000, that is because their f/as are not mature in years of service yet. The average SW f/a has much less years of service to SW when compared to the years of service of a f/a at USAirways. Therefore, more USA f/as are top-out bringing our medium income to $29,000. Stick with apples to apples USA320, this is where you only give half truths, and ususally loses you credibility.
Your last two lines are right out of Dave's mouth....I've heard it before, over and over and over again.
All of labor realizes that the "world" in this business has changed. Hell, we are living it. The only folks who don't get it yet, and continue to operate this airline the same as in the past........ IS MANGEMENT!
And they got you "brainwashed" and acting as their cheerleader! My suggestion for you....pay off your bills and your house, and clean off your resume.....tell your wife to STOP spending, sell the benz, and get a used chevy.
PS: And if I see ya, we'll have a beer...your a pilot, so don't worry, I'll buy.
Here's your epiphany for the day:
1.....I'M NOT LEAVING! So, my vote, along with many others, just may effect your life style. Get ready to "rock".
2. If it is reported that SW Median (middle income) is $24,000, that is because their f/as are not mature in years of service yet. The average SW f/a has much less years of service to SW when compared to the years of service of a f/a at USAirways. Therefore, more USA f/as are top-out bringing our medium income to $29,000. Stick with apples to apples USA320, this is where you only give half truths, and ususally loses you credibility.
Your last two lines are right out of Dave's mouth....I've heard it before, over and over and over again.
All of labor realizes that the "world" in this business has changed. Hell, we are living it. The only folks who don't get it yet, and continue to operate this airline the same as in the past........ IS MANGEMENT!
And they got you "brainwashed" and acting as their cheerleader! My suggestion for you....pay off your bills and your house, and clean off your resume.....tell your wife to STOP spending, sell the benz, and get a used chevy.
PS: And if I see ya, we'll have a beer...your a pilot, so don't worry, I'll buy.
- Banned
- #74
Come A320Pilot, we are all still waiting for you to back up your statements about how the big bad company is gonna punish the Mechanic and Related Members since we are not gonna bendover for Dave as you want everyone else in this company to do so you can not give.
Well you know what we are not gonna give, so better get out the three stripe epilates and getting ready for the right seat.
This fits you to a tee as we all know you are full of false information:
Main Entry: credibility gap
Function: noun
Date: 1966
1 a : lack of trust <a credibility gap between generations> b : lack of believability <a credibility gap created by contradictory official statements —Samuel Ellenport>
2 : DISCREPANCY <the credibility gap between the professed ideals… and their actual practices —Jeanne L. Noble>
Here is a new pic for your avatar
Well you know what we are not gonna give, so better get out the three stripe epilates and getting ready for the right seat.
This fits you to a tee as we all know you are full of false information:
Main Entry: credibility gap
Function: noun
Date: 1966
1 a : lack of trust <a credibility gap between generations> b : lack of believability <a credibility gap created by contradictory official statements —Samuel Ellenport>
2 : DISCREPANCY <the credibility gap between the professed ideals… and their actual practices —Jeanne L. Noble>
Here is a new pic for your avatar
savyinvestor
Senior
- Jan 15, 2003
- 494
- 0
Ah you gotta love the DELETED. Last time he was telling the CWA folks to quit, now AFA and in addition threats for the IAM. Assume he still has his European job lined up! What a guy! Savy
