And just to head off the next lob which will be directed towards me... Yes I know you are responsible for thousands of lives, and fly endless routes over desolate stretches of the world, and every landing (seemingly, if you listen to many pilots long enough) is on a short, ice covered runway with a 50kt crosswind with 0 visibility in a blizzard with heavy blowing snow... While we F/As barely deserve the meager salaries we get because we just sit in the back reading Vogue and goofing off (oh and occassionally have to deal with the knife-wielding nut case trying to break into your Ft.Knox-like protected cockpit).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Uh oh, avek, now you've done it... you've stirred up the ALPA PR Police. Imply that the pilots are somehow less than 100% perfect and virtuous in all things at all times, or dare to point out that by most people's standards they are grossly well-paid, and they come swarming out of the woodwork in full attack mode. And they are relentless. Good luck!
mancityfan
Member
- Aug 20, 2002
- 57
- 0
What an interesting thread! It starts with a ridiculous scaling system that is so obviously skewed against pilots that it is ALMOST funny, and continues with the pilots make too much money and are the root of all evil at UAL mantra. How tired!
To think that as the discussion progressed, it came to include the rocket science that employees (oh no, just pilots!) should be paid based on the number of pax on the aircraft! Hmm, should the CSR be paid based on how many pax they check in, and the IAM paid based on how many pax were on the aircraft they serviced that day, and the F/As paid based on how many people they helped down an escape slide? WHat exactly IS the measure of an employees worth? Difficult question, to be sure. However, for pilots, it has ALWAYS been based on their productivity ( pretty much the weight of the aircraft).
So, a big airplane driver gets more money than a small airplane driver, as he is being more productive for the same time period. Now, it is up to the company to tell those pilots where to fly and when, and it is also up to the company to market the flight so that the pilot can fly as many people as possible when he goes to work. Is this an unfair system, or has the thought that the airline industry is currently being taxed to death in a very poor economy and is seeking wage concessions caused minds to go to mush?
Now, should a 747-400 Captain make alot of money? I say Yes but I am not objective. What does the airline industry say? Oh look, they seem to say Yes too. In fact, UAL Mgmt tried to pay UAL 747 and 777 Captains MORE than they currently make from Contract 2000! Strange, huh?!
WHEN does a pilot get to fly the 747-400? Perhaps, if he is lucky, h will be able to fly it for the last 3 years of his career. Perhaps. So, we drag out this average pilot 747 Captain and his paycheck every time we have this discussion, but for the 9000 pilots at UAL, there are probably 6000 who will NEVER fly it and achieve that pay, another 2000 who will only ever get to fly it for one or two of their last few years, and perhaps a 1000 who will manage to make all three years on the aircraft to help their retirement check. This pilot is a red herring in the cost argument!
The real problem at UAL is that the ILCs came at the worst time in economic history for UAL, as they came on top of a bloated airline, that was punch drunk with its smoke and mirrors success of the ESOP years. It was followed very closely by mgmt missteps that cost billions, and then by the worst act of terrorism the US has ever seen. It is not as if it was all a fait accompli of C2K, but C2K was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
So, or all the pi$$ and vinegar this topic always generates, it will all come down to the few people who have any say in it at all...the union leaders, the new CEO, and the ATSB. If you think anyone else has any real effect on it, I think you are mistaken. Sure, there may well be MR for all the unions, but anyon who thinks they are going to get a better deal by voting it down is out to lunch. It will be take it or leave it, and if you leave it, we are off to see the Judge.
Good luck to US ALL, as we will sink or swim TOGETHER!
mancityfan
To think that as the discussion progressed, it came to include the rocket science that employees (oh no, just pilots!) should be paid based on the number of pax on the aircraft! Hmm, should the CSR be paid based on how many pax they check in, and the IAM paid based on how many pax were on the aircraft they serviced that day, and the F/As paid based on how many people they helped down an escape slide? WHat exactly IS the measure of an employees worth? Difficult question, to be sure. However, for pilots, it has ALWAYS been based on their productivity ( pretty much the weight of the aircraft).
So, a big airplane driver gets more money than a small airplane driver, as he is being more productive for the same time period. Now, it is up to the company to tell those pilots where to fly and when, and it is also up to the company to market the flight so that the pilot can fly as many people as possible when he goes to work. Is this an unfair system, or has the thought that the airline industry is currently being taxed to death in a very poor economy and is seeking wage concessions caused minds to go to mush?
Now, should a 747-400 Captain make alot of money? I say Yes but I am not objective. What does the airline industry say? Oh look, they seem to say Yes too. In fact, UAL Mgmt tried to pay UAL 747 and 777 Captains MORE than they currently make from Contract 2000! Strange, huh?!
WHEN does a pilot get to fly the 747-400? Perhaps, if he is lucky, h will be able to fly it for the last 3 years of his career. Perhaps. So, we drag out this average pilot 747 Captain and his paycheck every time we have this discussion, but for the 9000 pilots at UAL, there are probably 6000 who will NEVER fly it and achieve that pay, another 2000 who will only ever get to fly it for one or two of their last few years, and perhaps a 1000 who will manage to make all three years on the aircraft to help their retirement check. This pilot is a red herring in the cost argument!
The real problem at UAL is that the ILCs came at the worst time in economic history for UAL, as they came on top of a bloated airline, that was punch drunk with its smoke and mirrors success of the ESOP years. It was followed very closely by mgmt missteps that cost billions, and then by the worst act of terrorism the US has ever seen. It is not as if it was all a fait accompli of C2K, but C2K was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
So, or all the pi$$ and vinegar this topic always generates, it will all come down to the few people who have any say in it at all...the union leaders, the new CEO, and the ATSB. If you think anyone else has any real effect on it, I think you are mistaken. Sure, there may well be MR for all the unions, but anyon who thinks they are going to get a better deal by voting it down is out to lunch. It will be take it or leave it, and if you leave it, we are off to see the Judge.
Good luck to US ALL, as we will sink or swim TOGETHER!
mancityfan
Mancity I have to agree with you here
The real problem at UAL is that the ILCs came at the worst time in economic history for UAL, as they came on top of a bloated airline, that was punch drunk with its smoke and mirrors success of the ESOP years. It was followed very closely by mgmt missteps that cost billions, and then by the worst act of terrorism the US has ever seen. It is not as if it was all a fait accompli of C2K, but C2K was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
The real problem at UAL is that the ILCs came at the worst time in economic history for UAL, as they came on top of a bloated airline, that was punch drunk with its smoke and mirrors success of the ESOP years. It was followed very closely by mgmt missteps that cost billions, and then by the worst act of terrorism the US has ever seen. It is not as if it was all a fait accompli of C2K, but C2K was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
atabuy-
Your scheme of paying pilots according to how full their aircraft are will never work in the real airline world. Basically, what you are suggesting is that the pilots be paid by commission? Full flights = higher pay?
1) I'm not a used car salesman, I'm an airline pilot. If I wanted to be paid by commission, I'd run down to my local GM dealer and sell Buicks.
2) Why limit your scheme to just the pilots? Why not pay the flight attendants less if that 777 has only 50 people on it. After all, there not having to work as hard with less people on the plane. And why not pay the mechanics who maintain the aircraft less? If the aircraft is bringing in less revenue, then certainly they should be paid less. And how about those rampers? 50 peoples' bags take less time and effort to unload than 300 peoples' bags. And how about paying the management people less who put the aircraft on that route for the first place? They get paid big bucks to make sure that a 777 IS NOT placed on a route that will only have 50 people, so they should get paid less too? Etc., Etc!! Are you seeing where I'm going with this? It's completely impractical.
******By the way, when you move up to a higher salary bu bigger a/c, is the company paying for your training or do you pay the bill?*******
What does it matter?
Your scheme of paying pilots according to how full their aircraft are will never work in the real airline world. Basically, what you are suggesting is that the pilots be paid by commission? Full flights = higher pay?
1) I'm not a used car salesman, I'm an airline pilot. If I wanted to be paid by commission, I'd run down to my local GM dealer and sell Buicks.
2) Why limit your scheme to just the pilots? Why not pay the flight attendants less if that 777 has only 50 people on it. After all, there not having to work as hard with less people on the plane. And why not pay the mechanics who maintain the aircraft less? If the aircraft is bringing in less revenue, then certainly they should be paid less. And how about those rampers? 50 peoples' bags take less time and effort to unload than 300 peoples' bags. And how about paying the management people less who put the aircraft on that route for the first place? They get paid big bucks to make sure that a 777 IS NOT placed on a route that will only have 50 people, so they should get paid less too? Etc., Etc!! Are you seeing where I'm going with this? It's completely impractical.
******By the way, when you move up to a higher salary bu bigger a/c, is the company paying for your training or do you pay the bill?*******
What does it matter?
- Thread Starter
- #36
----------------
[/blockquote]
So, a big airplane driver gets more money than a small airplane driver, as he is being more productive for the same time period. Now, it is up to the company to tell those pilots where to fly and when, and it is also up to the company to market the flight so that the pilot can fly as many people as possible when he goes to work. Is this an unfair system, or has the thought that the airline industry is currently being taxed to death in a very poor economy and is seeking wage concessions caused minds to go to mush?
____________________________
mancityfan,
I posted this thread to give some sort of example as to how we could all take a cut based on who can afford to take a larger cut to keep us out of BK. This had nothing to do with where you worked and more to do with how much you made.
Not knowing where this percentage would put us, I used figures which could be way to high. This also might get all to come on board with the recovery effort. It is simple and everything else would stay the same unless workrules changed.
My other post was a way of giving the company and pilots a way to come up with a wage which works on revenue, instead of potential revenue.
Your point of higher productivity is cancelled if a 777 and a 320 go out of the same city with the same amount of people paying the same price to the same destination. The pilot making the higher wage is costing the company money, compared to the 320 pilot.
Now if that 777 is full and the passengers are paying good fares, the 777 pilot will make out real good. What is wrong with tying your earnings to real productivity instead of potential productivity.
By the way, when you move up to a higher salary bu bigger a/c, is the company paying for your training or do you pay the bill?
I think saving everyones job is more important than just keeping the senior employees. With the right percentage we could get back up to the top.
Good luck,
[/blockquote]
So, a big airplane driver gets more money than a small airplane driver, as he is being more productive for the same time period. Now, it is up to the company to tell those pilots where to fly and when, and it is also up to the company to market the flight so that the pilot can fly as many people as possible when he goes to work. Is this an unfair system, or has the thought that the airline industry is currently being taxed to death in a very poor economy and is seeking wage concessions caused minds to go to mush?
____________________________
mancityfan,
I posted this thread to give some sort of example as to how we could all take a cut based on who can afford to take a larger cut to keep us out of BK. This had nothing to do with where you worked and more to do with how much you made.
Not knowing where this percentage would put us, I used figures which could be way to high. This also might get all to come on board with the recovery effort. It is simple and everything else would stay the same unless workrules changed.
My other post was a way of giving the company and pilots a way to come up with a wage which works on revenue, instead of potential revenue.
Your point of higher productivity is cancelled if a 777 and a 320 go out of the same city with the same amount of people paying the same price to the same destination. The pilot making the higher wage is costing the company money, compared to the 320 pilot.
Now if that 777 is full and the passengers are paying good fares, the 777 pilot will make out real good. What is wrong with tying your earnings to real productivity instead of potential productivity.
By the way, when you move up to a higher salary bu bigger a/c, is the company paying for your training or do you pay the bill?
I think saving everyones job is more important than just keeping the senior employees. With the right percentage we could get back up to the top.
Good luck,
sumsonic
Member
atabuy,
I understand the point you were trying to make. However, ualdriver is right. You could make that assertion to a whole lot of functions in this airline or any other airline, it's not that practical. It's not the pilots, mechanics, rampers, flight attendants, etc. fault to fly a 777 on a run that produces as much as an A320. We have a division that is responsible for that. They do the best they can under the circumstances. It's easy to say it's not my fault, it's someone else’s. However it's a lot harder to say we have a serious problem let's get this solved. I think everyone is coming to terms with reality. After all the grandstanding, if you want to call it that, the problem we have is simple. Expenses exceed Revenues that is the bottom line. Do I think that getting our labor costs down is the only way to do it? No. The revenue has to be addressed. In order for our revenue to come back, we can pray that the economy picks up, or we can do something about it. People are thinking out of the box, and there is nothing wrong with that. I know some of you guys have proposed non-hub flying, not bad ideas, unfortunately this is the wrong time to do it. The other majors are not our problem. It's the leaches that have put a huge strain on us in our largest hubs. Take a look at the major carriers that are performing well, NW and CO. Yes their costs are lower, but more importantly, their revenue is outperforming UA, AA, and DL. Why, it's simple, their hubs are not under revenue duress. It should be simple for us. It's either them or us. Take it any way you want, but I'd rather be the airline standing than the other guy. That is our fight, it’s up to AA and DL to catch up.
I understand the point you were trying to make. However, ualdriver is right. You could make that assertion to a whole lot of functions in this airline or any other airline, it's not that practical. It's not the pilots, mechanics, rampers, flight attendants, etc. fault to fly a 777 on a run that produces as much as an A320. We have a division that is responsible for that. They do the best they can under the circumstances. It's easy to say it's not my fault, it's someone else’s. However it's a lot harder to say we have a serious problem let's get this solved. I think everyone is coming to terms with reality. After all the grandstanding, if you want to call it that, the problem we have is simple. Expenses exceed Revenues that is the bottom line. Do I think that getting our labor costs down is the only way to do it? No. The revenue has to be addressed. In order for our revenue to come back, we can pray that the economy picks up, or we can do something about it. People are thinking out of the box, and there is nothing wrong with that. I know some of you guys have proposed non-hub flying, not bad ideas, unfortunately this is the wrong time to do it. The other majors are not our problem. It's the leaches that have put a huge strain on us in our largest hubs. Take a look at the major carriers that are performing well, NW and CO. Yes their costs are lower, but more importantly, their revenue is outperforming UA, AA, and DL. Why, it's simple, their hubs are not under revenue duress. It should be simple for us. It's either them or us. Take it any way you want, but I'd rather be the airline standing than the other guy. That is our fight, it’s up to AA and DL to catch up.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/22/2002 6:44:30 PM ualdriver wrote:
...Why limit your scheme to just the pilots? Why not pay the flight attendants less if that 777 has only 50 people on it...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Just want to point out that we already have that-- it is called variable staffing. If the 777 is not full, there is generally not a full complement of F/As on board (at least as much as possible based on the crew desk's abilities to maximize efficiencies matching F/A to passenger load and other scheduling requirements). It still goes out with at least two pilots though (and more on international flights).
Though we (F/As) still get paid the same hourly flight pay rate, we pay for this efficiency through staffing levels which impacts bidding and ultimately total F/A population-- i.e., job security.
----------------
On 10/22/2002 6:44:30 PM ualdriver wrote:
...Why limit your scheme to just the pilots? Why not pay the flight attendants less if that 777 has only 50 people on it...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Just want to point out that we already have that-- it is called variable staffing. If the 777 is not full, there is generally not a full complement of F/As on board (at least as much as possible based on the crew desk's abilities to maximize efficiencies matching F/A to passenger load and other scheduling requirements). It still goes out with at least two pilots though (and more on international flights).
Though we (F/As) still get paid the same hourly flight pay rate, we pay for this efficiency through staffing levels which impacts bidding and ultimately total F/A population-- i.e., job security.
- Thread Starter
- #39
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/22/2002 9:17:19 PM sumsonic wrote:
atabuy,
I understand the point you were trying to make. However, ualdriver is right. You could make that assertion to a whole lot of functions in this airline or any other airline, it's not that practical. It's not the pilots, mechanics, rampers, flight attendants, etc. fault to fly a 777 on a run that produces as much as an A320. We have a division that is responsible for that. They do the best they can under the circumstances. It's easy to say it's not my fault, it's someone else’s. However it's a lot harder to say we have a serious problem let's get this solved. I think everyone is coming to terms with reality. After all the grandstanding, if you want to call it that, the problem we have is simple. Expenses exceed Revenues that is the bottom line. Do I think that getting our labor costs down is the only way to do it? No. The revenue has to be addressed. In order for our revenue to come back, we can pray that the economy picks up, or we can do something about it. People are thinking out of the box, and there is nothing wrong with that. I know some of you guys have proposed non-hub flying, not bad ideas, unfortunately this is the wrong time to do it. The other majors are not our problem. It's the leaches that have put a huge strain on us in our largest hubs. Someone said low cost carriers cover about 71% of our network. To everyone, check how many of our top 50 markets have low fare pressure in them. Better yet, check how many top markets out of our largest hubs (Places where we have invested BILLIONS of dollars), have low fare pressure. We simply have to defend what we have spent years of building. Take a look at the major carriers that are performing well, NW and CO. Yes their costs are lower, but more importantly, their revenue is outperforming UA, AA, and DL. Why, it's simple, their hubs are not under revenue duress. It should be simple for us. It's either them or us. Take it any way you want, but I'd rather be the airline standing than the other guy. That is our fight, it’s up to AA and DL to catch up.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I have no problem with all groups working off of a percentage basis. In fact a wage basis like that would never have permitted the summer of 2000 to happen.
Fixed costs with fluctuating revenue only works if the company has full airplanes.
No one can say it is managements responsibility to fill up the planes when unions can perform slowdowns, or work to the contract, and screw the customer.
A pilot said to me once that the customer always comes back. Well this time they haven't.
Your other point about low fare carriers is right. How can we compete if we don't come down to their level and drive them out of business?
----------------
On 10/22/2002 9:17:19 PM sumsonic wrote:
atabuy,
I understand the point you were trying to make. However, ualdriver is right. You could make that assertion to a whole lot of functions in this airline or any other airline, it's not that practical. It's not the pilots, mechanics, rampers, flight attendants, etc. fault to fly a 777 on a run that produces as much as an A320. We have a division that is responsible for that. They do the best they can under the circumstances. It's easy to say it's not my fault, it's someone else’s. However it's a lot harder to say we have a serious problem let's get this solved. I think everyone is coming to terms with reality. After all the grandstanding, if you want to call it that, the problem we have is simple. Expenses exceed Revenues that is the bottom line. Do I think that getting our labor costs down is the only way to do it? No. The revenue has to be addressed. In order for our revenue to come back, we can pray that the economy picks up, or we can do something about it. People are thinking out of the box, and there is nothing wrong with that. I know some of you guys have proposed non-hub flying, not bad ideas, unfortunately this is the wrong time to do it. The other majors are not our problem. It's the leaches that have put a huge strain on us in our largest hubs. Someone said low cost carriers cover about 71% of our network. To everyone, check how many of our top 50 markets have low fare pressure in them. Better yet, check how many top markets out of our largest hubs (Places where we have invested BILLIONS of dollars), have low fare pressure. We simply have to defend what we have spent years of building. Take a look at the major carriers that are performing well, NW and CO. Yes their costs are lower, but more importantly, their revenue is outperforming UA, AA, and DL. Why, it's simple, their hubs are not under revenue duress. It should be simple for us. It's either them or us. Take it any way you want, but I'd rather be the airline standing than the other guy. That is our fight, it’s up to AA and DL to catch up.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I have no problem with all groups working off of a percentage basis. In fact a wage basis like that would never have permitted the summer of 2000 to happen.
Fixed costs with fluctuating revenue only works if the company has full airplanes.
No one can say it is managements responsibility to fill up the planes when unions can perform slowdowns, or work to the contract, and screw the customer.
A pilot said to me once that the customer always comes back. Well this time they haven't.
Your other point about low fare carriers is right. How can we compete if we don't come down to their level and drive them out of business?
sumsonic
Member
atabuy,
actually, fixed costs with fluctuating revenues don't even work when you have full airplanes in this environment. We are way beyond that. However, you have the right idea. We have to insulate ourselves from down trends like this. Maybe the answer is to have our fixed (salaries or what not) costs set to down trends with LARGE revenue sharing in the good times. In this business, we will always carry large fixed costs, that is what it is. It might be a matter of setting risk and reward expectations for all of our employees. You can't always burn the employees, and like wise, employees can't burn the company. What happened has happened. It's time to move on. You're absolutely correct in your last sentence. I just wonder if people really realize that is what is killing us on the revenue side, and that can not be attributed to the unions
actually, fixed costs with fluctuating revenues don't even work when you have full airplanes in this environment. We are way beyond that. However, you have the right idea. We have to insulate ourselves from down trends like this. Maybe the answer is to have our fixed (salaries or what not) costs set to down trends with LARGE revenue sharing in the good times. In this business, we will always carry large fixed costs, that is what it is. It might be a matter of setting risk and reward expectations for all of our employees. You can't always burn the employees, and like wise, employees can't burn the company. What happened has happened. It's time to move on. You're absolutely correct in your last sentence. I just wonder if people really realize that is what is killing us on the revenue side, and that can not be attributed to the unions
mancityfan
Member
- Aug 20, 2002
- 57
- 0
On 10/22/2002 6:44:30 PM ualdriver wrote:
...Why limit your scheme to just the pilots? Why not pay the flight attendants less if that 777 has only 50 people on it...
----------------
Bear 96 responded:
Just want to point out that we already have that-- it is called variable staffing. If the 777 is not full, there is generally not a full complement of F/As on board (at least as much as possible based on the crew desk's abilities to "maximize efficiencies" matching F/A to passenger load and other scheduling requirements). It still goes out with at least two pilots though (and more on international flights).
Though we (F/As) still get paid the same hourly flight pay rate, we pay for this "efficiency" through staffing levels which impacts bidding and ultimately total F/A population-- i.e., job security.
----------------
Variable staffing is only allowed to the FAR minimum per the number of SEATS NOT PASSENGERS. So, a 737 with ONE passenger still needs 3 F/As. However, should all three get paid 120th of their maximum allowable pay for the flight based on only having one passenger on board?
As for the insinuation that LESS than two pilots might be needed for ANY flight, it is quite obvious that the minimum number of pilots is an FAR, and is based on the number of pilots required to operate the aircraft. Most jet aircraft REQUIRE two pilots...from the smallest Lear to the 747-400, so I doubt variable staffing is ever going to get the FAAs attention as a money saver.
Unfortunately, this whole notion that employees should get paid based on the current revenues of the airline are so ridiculous that I can't believe I am even sitting here typing!
G'night!
mancityfan
...Why limit your scheme to just the pilots? Why not pay the flight attendants less if that 777 has only 50 people on it...
----------------
Bear 96 responded:
Just want to point out that we already have that-- it is called variable staffing. If the 777 is not full, there is generally not a full complement of F/As on board (at least as much as possible based on the crew desk's abilities to "maximize efficiencies" matching F/A to passenger load and other scheduling requirements). It still goes out with at least two pilots though (and more on international flights).
Though we (F/As) still get paid the same hourly flight pay rate, we pay for this "efficiency" through staffing levels which impacts bidding and ultimately total F/A population-- i.e., job security.
----------------
Variable staffing is only allowed to the FAR minimum per the number of SEATS NOT PASSENGERS. So, a 737 with ONE passenger still needs 3 F/As. However, should all three get paid 120th of their maximum allowable pay for the flight based on only having one passenger on board?
As for the insinuation that LESS than two pilots might be needed for ANY flight, it is quite obvious that the minimum number of pilots is an FAR, and is based on the number of pilots required to operate the aircraft. Most jet aircraft REQUIRE two pilots...from the smallest Lear to the 747-400, so I doubt variable staffing is ever going to get the FAAs attention as a money saver.
Unfortunately, this whole notion that employees should get paid based on the current revenues of the airline are so ridiculous that I can't believe I am even sitting here typing!
G'night!
mancityfan
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/25/2002 2:41:00 AM mancityfan wrote:
Variable staffing is only allowed to the FAR minimum per the number of SEATS NOT PASSENGERS. So, a 737 with ONE passenger still needs 3 F/As. However, should all three get paid 120th of their maximum allowable pay for the flight based on only having one passenger on board?
As for the insinuation that LESS than two pilots might be needed for ANY flight, it is quite obvious that the minimum number of pilots is an FAR, and is based on the number of pilots required to operate the aircraft. Most jet aircraft REQUIRE two pilots...from the smallest Lear to the 747-400, so I doubt "variable staffing" is ever going to get the FAAs attention as a money saver.
Unfortunately, this whole notion that employees should get paid based on the current revenues of the airline are so ridiculous that I can't believe I am even sitting here typing!
G'night!
mancityfan
----------------
[/blockquote]
Just to clarify, I was only responding to another poster who brought up an aspect of F/A pay and scheduling. I was not somehow advocating variable pilot staffing as obviously that wouldn't work. Nor am I advocating that crew get paid based on passenger load on each individual segment; maybe that was someone else's idea. (However I am not sure it is so ridiculous to dismiss the entire concept of pay being based on current revenues. There has to be at least SOME correlation, don't you think, between revenue and pay!)
With F/A staffing you are correct; most narrowbody aircraft are not affected by variable staffing. A 737 either goes out with three F/As, or it does not go out at all. However with widebodies, and even 757s in some cases, it is a very different story. The difference between FAA mimumus and full staffing on 777s and 747s is between five and nine F/As. And with advance bookings so lean right now, our November bid packages has the bid positions for many widebody flights only at FAA mins, which has a big impact on what we can hold and often on our pay.
Finally it is not correct to imply that pilot staffing is governed solely by FARs. The ALPA/UAL agreement has stricter pilot staffing requirements than required by FARs on international flights. I don't think the FAA requires three pilots on a six-hour 767-300 flight from BOS to LHR, or many flights from the northeast US to western Europe for that matter that UAL staffs with three pilots.
----------------
On 10/25/2002 2:41:00 AM mancityfan wrote:
Variable staffing is only allowed to the FAR minimum per the number of SEATS NOT PASSENGERS. So, a 737 with ONE passenger still needs 3 F/As. However, should all three get paid 120th of their maximum allowable pay for the flight based on only having one passenger on board?
As for the insinuation that LESS than two pilots might be needed for ANY flight, it is quite obvious that the minimum number of pilots is an FAR, and is based on the number of pilots required to operate the aircraft. Most jet aircraft REQUIRE two pilots...from the smallest Lear to the 747-400, so I doubt "variable staffing" is ever going to get the FAAs attention as a money saver.
Unfortunately, this whole notion that employees should get paid based on the current revenues of the airline are so ridiculous that I can't believe I am even sitting here typing!
G'night!
mancityfan
----------------
[/blockquote]
Just to clarify, I was only responding to another poster who brought up an aspect of F/A pay and scheduling. I was not somehow advocating variable pilot staffing as obviously that wouldn't work. Nor am I advocating that crew get paid based on passenger load on each individual segment; maybe that was someone else's idea. (However I am not sure it is so ridiculous to dismiss the entire concept of pay being based on current revenues. There has to be at least SOME correlation, don't you think, between revenue and pay!)
With F/A staffing you are correct; most narrowbody aircraft are not affected by variable staffing. A 737 either goes out with three F/As, or it does not go out at all. However with widebodies, and even 757s in some cases, it is a very different story. The difference between FAA mimumus and full staffing on 777s and 747s is between five and nine F/As. And with advance bookings so lean right now, our November bid packages has the bid positions for many widebody flights only at FAA mins, which has a big impact on what we can hold and often on our pay.
Finally it is not correct to imply that pilot staffing is governed solely by FARs. The ALPA/UAL agreement has stricter pilot staffing requirements than required by FARs on international flights. I don't think the FAA requires three pilots on a six-hour 767-300 flight from BOS to LHR, or many flights from the northeast US to western Europe for that matter that UAL staffs with three pilots.
U
UAL24
Guest
Bear96,
You said that the flight attendants get pulled down off of a 777 if it is not full but still leaves with 2 pilots. Well, the FAA determines minimum staffing levels and we fly with the minimum pilot staffing levels as required by the FAA in it's aircraft certification. FA's apparently are staffing above required FAA minimums on a routine basis if what you say is true. There is, based upon your statement, a potential windfall to the company. Reduce FA staffing requirements to the FAA minimum like they do pilots. That sword swings two ways so before you point it at your perception of excess by one group maybe cut some of the fat off of your own hide. If the FAA says all you need is 3, 4 or 5 FA's on any given flight why staff to 5,6 or 7? Perhaps you can hide behind the we are there for their safety bit and feel better about yourself. Or even hide behind the the more FA's the better the service. Yeah right. A sizable portion of this group is overjoyed when the flights they are working are empty. More magazine reading time and bid sheet review time. It is sad. I know, of course, YOU don't ever do that and you always give 110% to all your customers everytime and so on and so on. I am sure you do. There are 1000's of your partners that don't and it is very much a cultural issue within your workgroup. Your a purser on a 400 flying ORD to HKG. The flight is half full. They reduce all crew components accordingly. Do you feel safe with 12 flight attendants? Do you feel safe having just one pilot flying the plane all the way? A 59 1/2 year old geezer who is 50lbs overweight looking thru his bi focal glasses. Or would you wrather have 2 pilots up there to keep an eye on each other. I know your answer will be some very eloquent higher ground stance on why you would feel perfectly safe with 1 old ovewrweight pilot on a 14hr flight but you know you would be argueing against what you know is correct.
You are partially correct in your assessment of contract manning requirements for pilots. You example is poor however. Yes , it is less than 8 hrs BOS to LHR but where are they flying after that. LHR to SFO/ORD/LAX? FAR's do dictate pilot requirents for flights over 12 hrs so that again is out of our hands. There are some scheduled trips that are 7:30 one direction but due to headwinds become 8:15 on the way back. We didn't make the rule we just fly by it.
Final point Bear96. When was the last time you had to deal with a Knife wielding lunatic in the back? I suspect never. When was the last time this month a pilot had to land an aircraft because of an emergency? It is ridculous to suggest you deal with knife wielding lunatics as a matter of routine. If there were isnt it your duty to defend the passengers against the threat of this lunatic. After all your group stands on the bullpulpit of Were here for your safety not to serve you. You sound like you want some contract stipulation written in that says you don't have to care about a knife wielding lunatic getting into the cockpit. Them pilots make all that money so they should deal with it. Not my problem mentality. Spend some time in the military and then you will know what it is like to deal with knife wielding lunatics for real and make no money to do it. All to protect a bunch of whinning internet chat room geeks who feel slighted by the evil Pilots and UAL. It's a tough world and in the big scheme you have little to complain about.
Have ignored this board for a couple of months because it became meaningless. Just one group bashing another group and nothing contructive in the middle. I see it hasn't changed. Adios.
You said that the flight attendants get pulled down off of a 777 if it is not full but still leaves with 2 pilots. Well, the FAA determines minimum staffing levels and we fly with the minimum pilot staffing levels as required by the FAA in it's aircraft certification. FA's apparently are staffing above required FAA minimums on a routine basis if what you say is true. There is, based upon your statement, a potential windfall to the company. Reduce FA staffing requirements to the FAA minimum like they do pilots. That sword swings two ways so before you point it at your perception of excess by one group maybe cut some of the fat off of your own hide. If the FAA says all you need is 3, 4 or 5 FA's on any given flight why staff to 5,6 or 7? Perhaps you can hide behind the we are there for their safety bit and feel better about yourself. Or even hide behind the the more FA's the better the service. Yeah right. A sizable portion of this group is overjoyed when the flights they are working are empty. More magazine reading time and bid sheet review time. It is sad. I know, of course, YOU don't ever do that and you always give 110% to all your customers everytime and so on and so on. I am sure you do. There are 1000's of your partners that don't and it is very much a cultural issue within your workgroup. Your a purser on a 400 flying ORD to HKG. The flight is half full. They reduce all crew components accordingly. Do you feel safe with 12 flight attendants? Do you feel safe having just one pilot flying the plane all the way? A 59 1/2 year old geezer who is 50lbs overweight looking thru his bi focal glasses. Or would you wrather have 2 pilots up there to keep an eye on each other. I know your answer will be some very eloquent higher ground stance on why you would feel perfectly safe with 1 old ovewrweight pilot on a 14hr flight but you know you would be argueing against what you know is correct.
You are partially correct in your assessment of contract manning requirements for pilots. You example is poor however. Yes , it is less than 8 hrs BOS to LHR but where are they flying after that. LHR to SFO/ORD/LAX? FAR's do dictate pilot requirents for flights over 12 hrs so that again is out of our hands. There are some scheduled trips that are 7:30 one direction but due to headwinds become 8:15 on the way back. We didn't make the rule we just fly by it.
Final point Bear96. When was the last time you had to deal with a Knife wielding lunatic in the back? I suspect never. When was the last time this month a pilot had to land an aircraft because of an emergency? It is ridculous to suggest you deal with knife wielding lunatics as a matter of routine. If there were isnt it your duty to defend the passengers against the threat of this lunatic. After all your group stands on the bullpulpit of Were here for your safety not to serve you. You sound like you want some contract stipulation written in that says you don't have to care about a knife wielding lunatic getting into the cockpit. Them pilots make all that money so they should deal with it. Not my problem mentality. Spend some time in the military and then you will know what it is like to deal with knife wielding lunatics for real and make no money to do it. All to protect a bunch of whinning internet chat room geeks who feel slighted by the evil Pilots and UAL. It's a tough world and in the big scheme you have little to complain about.
Have ignored this board for a couple of months because it became meaningless. Just one group bashing another group and nothing contructive in the middle. I see it hasn't changed. Adios.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/25/2002 11:31:49 AM UAL24 wrote:
Bear96,
You said that the flight attendants get pulled down off of a 777 if it is not full but still leaves with 2 pilots. Well, the FAA determines minimum staffing levels and we fly with the minimum pilot staffing levels as required by the FAA in it's aircraft certification. FA's apparently are staffing above required FAA minimums on a routine basis if what you say is true. There is, based upon your statement, a potential windfall to the company. Reduce FA staffing requirements to the FAA minimum like they do pilots. That sword swings two ways so before you point it at your perception of excess by one group maybe cut some of the fat off of your own hide. If the FAA says all you need is 3, 4 or 5 FA's on any given flight why staff to 5,6 or 7? Perhaps you can hide behind the "we are there for their safety" bit and feel better about yourself. Or even hide behind the "the more FA's the better the service". Yeah right. A sizable portion of this group is overjoyed when the flights they are working are empty. More magazine reading time and bid sheet review time. It is sad. I know, of course, YOU don't ever do that and you always give 110% to all your customers everytime and so on and so on. I am sure you do. There are 1000's of your partners that don't and it is very much a cultural issue within your workgroup. Your a purser on a 400 flying ORD to HKG. The flight is half full. They reduce all crew components accordingly. Do you feel safe with 12 flight attendants? Do you feel safe having just one pilot flying the plane all the way? A 59 1/2 year old geezer who is 50lbs overweight looking thru his bi focal glasses. Or would you wrather have 2 pilots up there to keep an eye on each other. I know your answer will be some very eloquent "higher ground" stance on why you would feel perfectly safe with 1 old ovewrweight pilot on a 14hr flight but you know you would be argueing against what you know is correct.
You are partially correct in your assessment of contract manning requirements for pilots. You example is poor however. Yes , it is less than 8 hrs BOS to LHR but where are they flying after that. LHR to SFO/ORD/LAX? FAR's do dictate pilot requirents for flights over 12 hrs so that again is out of our hands. There are some scheduled trips that are 7:30 one direction but due to headwinds become 8:15 on the way back. We didn't make the rule we just fly by it.
Final point Bear96. When was the last time you had to deal with a Knife wielding lunatic in the back? I suspect never. When was the last time this month a pilot had to land an aircraft because of an emergency? It is ridculous to suggest you deal with knife wielding lunatics as a matter of routine. If there were isnt it your duty to defend the passengers against the threat of this lunatic. After all your group stands on the bullpulpit of "Were here for your safety not to serve you". You sound like you want some contract stipulation written in that says you don't have to care about a knife wielding lunatic getting into the cockpit. Them pilots make all that money so they should deal with it. Not my problem mentality. Spend some time in the military and then you will know what it is like to deal with knife wielding lunatics for real and make no money to do it. All to protect a bunch of whinning internet chat room geeks who feel slighted by the evil Pilots and UAL. It's a tough world and in the big scheme you have little to complain about.
Have ignored this board for a couple of months because it became meaningless. Just one group bashing another group and nothing contructive in the middle. I see it hasn't changed. Adios.
----------------
[/blockquote]
ATTENTION ALL BITTER AND OVERLY-SENSITIVE MEMBERS OF THE ALPA PR/PC PATROL:
Please go back and read my original post about variable staffing. I was ONLY pointing out, in response to a pilot who was pointing out that it is a bit ridiculous to pay flight crew based on passenger load on a particular flight (which I AGREE with), that in a way F/A compensation is already dependent on passenger load. My only intent was to clarify that F/As have a variable staffing program in place, saving the company money, and to describe what it is.
UAL decides what the staffing is based on the planned service and load. They have been reducing the staffing gradually over the past couple of years now (i.e., 2 down from 3 F/As on the 747 upper deck; 5 down from 6 coach F/As on a 777). They probably can and will do more staffing adjustments. I was not pointing a sword at anyone or trying to be critical of pilots in my points.
As to the knife wielding lunatic and the landing in a blinding snowstorm with high crosswind, etc., variations of which I have seen posted many times by pilots here to make us poor ignorant schlubs (which I am defining as passengers and other airline employees) realize how on every flight we should get down on our knees and thank the pilots for saving our lives because every flight is a brush with disaster and so they should be compensated accordingly, etc. etc. etc. (check your ALPA PR Manual for more details.) To answer your question, I suspect I personally have had to deal with a cabin security issue and a threatening passenger (though thankfully he didn't have a knife, as far as we knew, at least not this time) much more recently (as in, last month) than you personally have had to land in a blinding snowstorm. I was choosing two rather extreme examples of a worst-case scenario for both a cabin and cockpit situation ). My point is that we are all trained for these situations, and they have in fact happened to our colleagues in the past and probably will in the future. If pilots should be compensated for these extreme situations, why not F/As?
Have ignored this board for a couple of months because it became meaningless. Just one group bashing another group and nothing contructive in the middle. I see it hasn't changed. Adios.
Oh spare me. This must be in the ALPA PR Manual as well since the last two pilots posting here have made the exact same point: you want to portray that you are somehow above all this bickering amongst the lower-paid riff-raff, yet somehow you manage to hold your nose and plunge right in and make your insults and snide comments about other work groups. How big of you. Auf wiedersehen.
----------------
On 10/25/2002 11:31:49 AM UAL24 wrote:
Bear96,
You said that the flight attendants get pulled down off of a 777 if it is not full but still leaves with 2 pilots. Well, the FAA determines minimum staffing levels and we fly with the minimum pilot staffing levels as required by the FAA in it's aircraft certification. FA's apparently are staffing above required FAA minimums on a routine basis if what you say is true. There is, based upon your statement, a potential windfall to the company. Reduce FA staffing requirements to the FAA minimum like they do pilots. That sword swings two ways so before you point it at your perception of excess by one group maybe cut some of the fat off of your own hide. If the FAA says all you need is 3, 4 or 5 FA's on any given flight why staff to 5,6 or 7? Perhaps you can hide behind the "we are there for their safety" bit and feel better about yourself. Or even hide behind the "the more FA's the better the service". Yeah right. A sizable portion of this group is overjoyed when the flights they are working are empty. More magazine reading time and bid sheet review time. It is sad. I know, of course, YOU don't ever do that and you always give 110% to all your customers everytime and so on and so on. I am sure you do. There are 1000's of your partners that don't and it is very much a cultural issue within your workgroup. Your a purser on a 400 flying ORD to HKG. The flight is half full. They reduce all crew components accordingly. Do you feel safe with 12 flight attendants? Do you feel safe having just one pilot flying the plane all the way? A 59 1/2 year old geezer who is 50lbs overweight looking thru his bi focal glasses. Or would you wrather have 2 pilots up there to keep an eye on each other. I know your answer will be some very eloquent "higher ground" stance on why you would feel perfectly safe with 1 old ovewrweight pilot on a 14hr flight but you know you would be argueing against what you know is correct.
You are partially correct in your assessment of contract manning requirements for pilots. You example is poor however. Yes , it is less than 8 hrs BOS to LHR but where are they flying after that. LHR to SFO/ORD/LAX? FAR's do dictate pilot requirents for flights over 12 hrs so that again is out of our hands. There are some scheduled trips that are 7:30 one direction but due to headwinds become 8:15 on the way back. We didn't make the rule we just fly by it.
Final point Bear96. When was the last time you had to deal with a Knife wielding lunatic in the back? I suspect never. When was the last time this month a pilot had to land an aircraft because of an emergency? It is ridculous to suggest you deal with knife wielding lunatics as a matter of routine. If there were isnt it your duty to defend the passengers against the threat of this lunatic. After all your group stands on the bullpulpit of "Were here for your safety not to serve you". You sound like you want some contract stipulation written in that says you don't have to care about a knife wielding lunatic getting into the cockpit. Them pilots make all that money so they should deal with it. Not my problem mentality. Spend some time in the military and then you will know what it is like to deal with knife wielding lunatics for real and make no money to do it. All to protect a bunch of whinning internet chat room geeks who feel slighted by the evil Pilots and UAL. It's a tough world and in the big scheme you have little to complain about.
Have ignored this board for a couple of months because it became meaningless. Just one group bashing another group and nothing contructive in the middle. I see it hasn't changed. Adios.
----------------
[/blockquote]
ATTENTION ALL BITTER AND OVERLY-SENSITIVE MEMBERS OF THE ALPA PR/PC PATROL:
Please go back and read my original post about variable staffing. I was ONLY pointing out, in response to a pilot who was pointing out that it is a bit ridiculous to pay flight crew based on passenger load on a particular flight (which I AGREE with), that in a way F/A compensation is already dependent on passenger load. My only intent was to clarify that F/As have a variable staffing program in place, saving the company money, and to describe what it is.
UAL decides what the staffing is based on the planned service and load. They have been reducing the staffing gradually over the past couple of years now (i.e., 2 down from 3 F/As on the 747 upper deck; 5 down from 6 coach F/As on a 777). They probably can and will do more staffing adjustments. I was not pointing a sword at anyone or trying to be critical of pilots in my points.
As to the knife wielding lunatic and the landing in a blinding snowstorm with high crosswind, etc., variations of which I have seen posted many times by pilots here to make us poor ignorant schlubs (which I am defining as passengers and other airline employees) realize how on every flight we should get down on our knees and thank the pilots for saving our lives because every flight is a brush with disaster and so they should be compensated accordingly, etc. etc. etc. (check your ALPA PR Manual for more details.) To answer your question, I suspect I personally have had to deal with a cabin security issue and a threatening passenger (though thankfully he didn't have a knife, as far as we knew, at least not this time) much more recently (as in, last month) than you personally have had to land in a blinding snowstorm. I was choosing two rather extreme examples of a worst-case scenario for both a cabin and cockpit situation ). My point is that we are all trained for these situations, and they have in fact happened to our colleagues in the past and probably will in the future. If pilots should be compensated for these extreme situations, why not F/As?
Have ignored this board for a couple of months because it became meaningless. Just one group bashing another group and nothing contructive in the middle. I see it hasn't changed. Adios.
Oh spare me. This must be in the ALPA PR Manual as well since the last two pilots posting here have made the exact same point: you want to portray that you are somehow above all this bickering amongst the lower-paid riff-raff, yet somehow you manage to hold your nose and plunge right in and make your insults and snide comments about other work groups. How big of you. Auf wiedersehen.
- Thread Starter
- #45
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 5:23:26 PM sumsonic wrote:
atabuy,
actually, fixed costs with fluctuating revenues don't even work when you have full airplanes in this environment. We are way beyond that. However, you have the right idea. We have to insulate ourselves from down trends like this. Maybe the answer is to have our fixed (salaries or what not) costs set to down trends with LARGE revenue sharing in the good times. In this business, we will always carry large fixed costs, that is what it is. It might be a matter of setting risk and reward expectations for all of our employees. You can't always burn the employees, and like wise, employees can't burn the company. What happened has happened. It's time to move on. You're absolutely correct in your last sentence. I just wonder if people really realize that is what is killing us on the revenue side, and that can not be attributed to the unions
----------------
[/blockquote]
sumsonic,
My plan was very simplistic, and I think it could work on many fronts.
If you tie this plan to the employees also owning shares of the company, how do you think the stock would do if Ual never had another loss because wages would reflect either a upturn or downturn in revenues.
Investors look favorably on companies that never lose money and have a steady growth rate.
Say that Ual had a steady profit year after year of 10 %.
There would be a good chance that the stock would split many times over the career of an employee. A nice little retirement plan for all.
There would be a good chance that productivity could increase.
Maybe have incentives within groups or stations. A bonus for extra productivity. Say 2 guys call out sick in the ramp, cs, freight, or any other department. Instead of filling those jobs with overtime, the rest of the group would get paid a small part of that overtime to pick up the slack.
Not something that can be done all the time, but something to think about.
For most employees, it is important to keep a goal in mind. Sometimes retirement is way to far down the road for some one to focus on. Give them shorter goals to set their sights on.
Again these are just crude ideas out of the box. Not refined, or set to go.
Traditional ideas don't seem to be working.
Thanks for your responses.
----------------
On 10/23/2002 5:23:26 PM sumsonic wrote:
atabuy,
actually, fixed costs with fluctuating revenues don't even work when you have full airplanes in this environment. We are way beyond that. However, you have the right idea. We have to insulate ourselves from down trends like this. Maybe the answer is to have our fixed (salaries or what not) costs set to down trends with LARGE revenue sharing in the good times. In this business, we will always carry large fixed costs, that is what it is. It might be a matter of setting risk and reward expectations for all of our employees. You can't always burn the employees, and like wise, employees can't burn the company. What happened has happened. It's time to move on. You're absolutely correct in your last sentence. I just wonder if people really realize that is what is killing us on the revenue side, and that can not be attributed to the unions
----------------
[/blockquote]
sumsonic,
My plan was very simplistic, and I think it could work on many fronts.
If you tie this plan to the employees also owning shares of the company, how do you think the stock would do if Ual never had another loss because wages would reflect either a upturn or downturn in revenues.
Investors look favorably on companies that never lose money and have a steady growth rate.
Say that Ual had a steady profit year after year of 10 %.
There would be a good chance that the stock would split many times over the career of an employee. A nice little retirement plan for all.
There would be a good chance that productivity could increase.
Maybe have incentives within groups or stations. A bonus for extra productivity. Say 2 guys call out sick in the ramp, cs, freight, or any other department. Instead of filling those jobs with overtime, the rest of the group would get paid a small part of that overtime to pick up the slack.
Not something that can be done all the time, but something to think about.
For most employees, it is important to keep a goal in mind. Sometimes retirement is way to far down the road for some one to focus on. Give them shorter goals to set their sights on.
Again these are just crude ideas out of the box. Not refined, or set to go.
Traditional ideas don't seem to be working.
Thanks for your responses.
