Wow. I've never seen six weeks in the public sector before. And I thought I had it good when I had four at my top-out point. Granted, mine was at 100%, but still...tadjr said:
"employee Cost...seniority(?), To Be Addressed"
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
Keep in mind the folks getting those weeks off do NOT get Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, etc - they work all holidays.mweiss said:
Keep in mind most of them do not get weekends off.
For example, a 20 year agent with Mon-Tues off (don't laugh - that's become the norm) with 5 weeks of vacation will only get 5 weekends off for the entire year.
He will work all holidays, unless they fall on his days off.
Plus, shift work.
Plus, if flights run late, he is mandatoried to stay and work them - no matter if it's the kid's last soccer game of the year, or you have a dentist appointment.
Yeah, yeah, we all knew what we were getting into.
Still, no bowl of cherries, yes?
No time+ for holidays?
Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the employee with four weeks' vacation works 48 weeks at five days per week (i.e., 241 days per year)?
I'm not going to pull out the old chestnut about knowing in advance.
Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the employee with four weeks' vacation works 48 weeks at five days per week (i.e., 241 days per year)?
I'm not going to pull out the old chestnut about knowing in advance.
Borrow a headset for a month while you are working 7a-330p with Tuesday/Wednesday off with 20 years of seniority while you are being hounded about lowering your talktime, raising your ETKT stats, trying to get in all the advisements that are required while the US1, 2 or 3 is telling you "yea yea I know" but you still have to say the advisements or your CMR will be marked off and see if you would really like to give up any weeks of vacation. This is the tip of the iceberg that comes from the Gestapo management in Reservations. Lots of agents have compliments that have been sent in and never given out. No positve feedback given just the negative. I think a month would let you see that no CWA agent is going to give up more vacation when the vacation is already at 75% of pay and one week is only 3 days. The seniority adjustment that CCY is looking at will insure a NO vote.USFlyer said:
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Actually, a 1/3 deal may actually pass a vote, for those who believe that their best chance for future employment is a merger. Particularly the pilots, since seniority would be the biggest issue for the employees of the aquiring airline.PBIRAMP said:
I believe that the most junior pilot currently flying at U has about 15 years. 1/3 would put the junior guy around 5 yrs, and the most senior guy around 10 or 11 yrs.
Any CEO knows that a merger followed by a moral crisis and a seniority battle amoung the employees would be the end of the combined entity. The place would come apart at the seams. So anyone seriously considering positioning US for a sale or merger will have to address this issue before hand.
This is directed to 767jetz. For sometime I have lurked here reading the board for it's news content, however your post referenced above finally drove me out of the bushes.
Though you do not come out and say so directly you seem to be suggesting that if the US Airways pilots should do something about adjusting their senority for PAY PURPOSES ONLY (which incidently is an automatic no vote from me, as well as a lot of other pilots), that this would also wipe out all of those hard earned years in the event of some form of a merger.
I do not know you or where you are currently flying, but I can assure you that every US Airways pilot that I do know will expect full credit for every one of the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that they have earned the hard way, in the very unfortunate event that they should have yet another misguided merger crammed down their throat.
Respectfully,
Boeing Driver
fatherabraham
Veteran
- Sep 27, 2002
- 814
- 354
Good job B driver, saw easily thru 767jetz motive.
Question for ya 767jetz... would you and your fellow pilots ( ual I think ) sign on to such an absurd idea should your airline be acquired?
Question for ya 767jetz... would you and your fellow pilots ( ual I think ) sign on to such an absurd idea should your airline be acquired?
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Answer:
As you both probably know, ALPA merger policy specifically DOES NOT include Date-of -hire. Let me say that again...
DOH is NOT part of ALPA's merger policy.
If you read it in it's entirety, you will see that there IS reference to career expectations and windfalls.
While you may wish to get "credit for every one of the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that they have earned the hard way," that is not how mergers between 2 ALPA airlines would work. (Be it UAL, AWA, or anyone else.)
If UAL were aquired by or merged into another ALPA carrier, I would expect ALPA's merger policy to prevail. If it were determined that my career expectations were to never fly a widebody airplane again, or become a captain, or whatever, then I would accept that.
My intention was not to start a fight here. My only point is that in the unfortunate event of US going CH7 (which I hope does not happen!), a 1/3 restructured list would make US more attractive to the aquiring airline due to integration problems and the resulting seniority war.
As for your comment about the 1/3 being for pay purposes only, I don't dispute that at all. But if US gets aquired by another ALPA carrier, the pay rates will be a big player in merger policy. For example, a US pilot on 7th year pay rate could be put in a position of a 7th year pilot of the aquired airline, resulting in a similar position and pay rate to which he currently holds. (As opposed to a 21 year pilot going from A330 F/O to 767 captain, for example.)
As many people from this site are saying, US is being restructured in the hopes of one day being aquired. If that is the case, you can be sure that any potential purchaser will weigh the effects of integration versus the benefit of the assets purchased. Therefore voting for 1/3 for pay purposes might be in an employee's interest IF that employee believes that their best chance of future employment is a merger or aquisition. This is just my opinion, and something I would consider if I were in the same shoes. No alterior motive here.
As you both probably know, ALPA merger policy specifically DOES NOT include Date-of -hire. Let me say that again...
DOH is NOT part of ALPA's merger policy.
If you read it in it's entirety, you will see that there IS reference to career expectations and windfalls.
While you may wish to get "credit for every one of the days, weeks, months, years, and decades that they have earned the hard way," that is not how mergers between 2 ALPA airlines would work. (Be it UAL, AWA, or anyone else.)
If UAL were aquired by or merged into another ALPA carrier, I would expect ALPA's merger policy to prevail. If it were determined that my career expectations were to never fly a widebody airplane again, or become a captain, or whatever, then I would accept that.
My intention was not to start a fight here. My only point is that in the unfortunate event of US going CH7 (which I hope does not happen!), a 1/3 restructured list would make US more attractive to the aquiring airline due to integration problems and the resulting seniority war.
As for your comment about the 1/3 being for pay purposes only, I don't dispute that at all. But if US gets aquired by another ALPA carrier, the pay rates will be a big player in merger policy. For example, a US pilot on 7th year pay rate could be put in a position of a 7th year pilot of the aquired airline, resulting in a similar position and pay rate to which he currently holds. (As opposed to a 21 year pilot going from A330 F/O to 767 captain, for example.)
As many people from this site are saying, US is being restructured in the hopes of one day being aquired. If that is the case, you can be sure that any potential purchaser will weigh the effects of integration versus the benefit of the assets purchased. Therefore voting for 1/3 for pay purposes might be in an employee's interest IF that employee believes that their best chance of future employment is a merger or aquisition. This is just my opinion, and something I would consider if I were in the same shoes. No alterior motive here.
fatherabraham
Veteran
- Sep 27, 2002
- 814
- 354
767jetz,
No dog in this fight. Just think your bias might be towards ual pilots. I would imagine that the u pilots would play by the rules of ALPA merger policy. Not this devious back door approach giving one an advantage over another.
I do have to ask you however, if ALPA is a national union, then why would you have more loyalty towards one airline alpa pilot over another? It seems as if you want to stack the deck in UAL pilot favor.
Additionally, the pilots of u and ual are in equally bad doo doo. So even with the idea of acquiring airline getting the better deal with seniority integration( amr/twa situation) I believe that no employee group determines these mergers and should not be favored.
You gotta understand that the u folks have a long history of being taken advantage of, and simply do not trust the mgt to NOTsell them and thier livliehood right down the river for their own profit. Everyone can clearly imagine the robber barrons putting such a deal together with the endorsement of the ual alpa MEC if past practice is applicable.
IMHO, the pilots and mechanics should have a national seniority list with great empasis on recruiting the LCC folks. Then this race to the bottom would not happen.
No dog in this fight. Just think your bias might be towards ual pilots. I would imagine that the u pilots would play by the rules of ALPA merger policy. Not this devious back door approach giving one an advantage over another.
I do have to ask you however, if ALPA is a national union, then why would you have more loyalty towards one airline alpa pilot over another? It seems as if you want to stack the deck in UAL pilot favor.
Additionally, the pilots of u and ual are in equally bad doo doo. So even with the idea of acquiring airline getting the better deal with seniority integration( amr/twa situation) I believe that no employee group determines these mergers and should not be favored.
You gotta understand that the u folks have a long history of being taken advantage of, and simply do not trust the mgt to NOTsell them and thier livliehood right down the river for their own profit. Everyone can clearly imagine the robber barrons putting such a deal together with the endorsement of the ual alpa MEC if past practice is applicable.
IMHO, the pilots and mechanics should have a national seniority list with great empasis on recruiting the LCC folks. Then this race to the bottom would not happen.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
mweiss said:
Off topic, but most Europeans cannot believe how American workers settle for so little vacation time. While it varies by country, standard vacation time per year is 4 to 7 weeks.
It's been said that Europeans work to live; Americans live to work.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
fatherabraham said: "I would imagine that the u pilots would play by the rules of ALPA merger policy. Not this devious back door approach giving one an advantage over another. "
767jetz responds: That would be nice. However the last time an aquisition was in the works, many US pilots did NOT want to follow ALPA's current merger policy and DID want date-of-hire seniority at UA. At the time, this would have put most US pilots in positions far above where they currently were and even far above where they ever could have been at US. So I am only speaking from recent past experience.
-----------------------------------------
fatherabraham says: "I do have to ask you however, if ALPA is a national union, then why would you have more loyalty towards one airline alpa pilot over another? It seems as if you want to stack the deck in UAL pilot favor."
767jetz responds: While ALPA is the national union, each airline has their own governing council, MEC, seniority list, etc. It's not a matter of favoring. It is a matter of protecting what you have from being taken away by someone else.
Unlike some other employees in the industry, a pilot's seniority not only determines things like travel and vacation and schedules. It also determines the size of the airplane we fly and therefore has a large effect on our income and retirement.
For example, while 737 captains from both companies have comparable saleries, a 747 captain makes much more than an Airbus captain. It would not be fair for an Airbus captain from one comapny to suddenly become a 747 captain overnight, when his former company never even had 747's. This is what would happen in a merger with straight DOH integration. Hence the sensitivity of the subject.
That being said, if two companies of comparable size were merged, in the example of US / AWA or Allegheny / Mohawk, it would not be as big an issue. But merging one large company with a relatively younger work force, and a much smaller company with a relatively older workforce, is a recepie for disaster if you don't first determine who gets what. This is what happened when TWA aquired Ozark, and AA aquired Reno and later TWA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
fatherabraham says: "IMHO, the pilots and mechanics should have a national seniority list with great empasis on recruiting the LCC folks. Then this race to the bottom would not happen."
767jetz responds: A national seniority list would certainly help matters, if pay and benfits from one company to the next were standardized and people were paid by years of service only, and not equipment type. And bringing the LCC's into the fold would definitely stop the race to the bottom. But realistically, I don't think that will ever happen. This industry is very cyclical. During good times, legacy carriers do well. During hard times LCC's do well. Maybe if the indusrty were regulated again, a national seniority list might work. But I'm not holding my breath.
767jetz responds: That would be nice. However the last time an aquisition was in the works, many US pilots did NOT want to follow ALPA's current merger policy and DID want date-of-hire seniority at UA. At the time, this would have put most US pilots in positions far above where they currently were and even far above where they ever could have been at US. So I am only speaking from recent past experience.
-----------------------------------------
fatherabraham says: "I do have to ask you however, if ALPA is a national union, then why would you have more loyalty towards one airline alpa pilot over another? It seems as if you want to stack the deck in UAL pilot favor."
767jetz responds: While ALPA is the national union, each airline has their own governing council, MEC, seniority list, etc. It's not a matter of favoring. It is a matter of protecting what you have from being taken away by someone else.
Unlike some other employees in the industry, a pilot's seniority not only determines things like travel and vacation and schedules. It also determines the size of the airplane we fly and therefore has a large effect on our income and retirement.
For example, while 737 captains from both companies have comparable saleries, a 747 captain makes much more than an Airbus captain. It would not be fair for an Airbus captain from one comapny to suddenly become a 747 captain overnight, when his former company never even had 747's. This is what would happen in a merger with straight DOH integration. Hence the sensitivity of the subject.
That being said, if two companies of comparable size were merged, in the example of US / AWA or Allegheny / Mohawk, it would not be as big an issue. But merging one large company with a relatively younger work force, and a much smaller company with a relatively older workforce, is a recepie for disaster if you don't first determine who gets what. This is what happened when TWA aquired Ozark, and AA aquired Reno and later TWA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
fatherabraham says: "IMHO, the pilots and mechanics should have a national seniority list with great empasis on recruiting the LCC folks. Then this race to the bottom would not happen."
767jetz responds: A national seniority list would certainly help matters, if pay and benfits from one company to the next were standardized and people were paid by years of service only, and not equipment type. And bringing the LCC's into the fold would definitely stop the race to the bottom. But realistically, I don't think that will ever happen. This industry is very cyclical. During good times, legacy carriers do well. During hard times LCC's do well. Maybe if the indusrty were regulated again, a national seniority list might work. But I'm not holding my breath.
If I may emphasize more a bit here. During the good times legacy carriers do well and suffer during the down times but it's the LCC that does well ALL the time.767jetz said:
I don't know if this is true, but assuming that it is, it would be that WN UNIT labor costs (cost per person) was higher but the much higher productivity per worker at WN more than outweighs the cost. Therefore, WN pays much less for the same amount of production as US would.PITbull said:
