83 replies to this topic

[SparrowHawk]

Iclubbabyseals, on 14 March 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

On FB, they have almost exclusively been favorably comparing the TA to contracts and TAs of carriers in bankruptcy, references to solid carriers like Alaska and Southwest being poo-pooed or otherwise squelched with talk about high fuel prices and poor economy, highlighting their ignorance of carrier economies.

The mindset seems to be to take just above the bankrupt carrier's contracts and TAs, which I find pathetic.

I talk with UAL and CAL crew members all the time and they are quite confident that within two years LCC's FA contract, if voted in, will once again, define the bottom.

kudos for Parker and "$10 million per year" Jerry Glass for promoting such an attitude seen more with peons in feudal times.  I guess that is why "they" get the big bucks.

I'm going to comment in the form of a story (out of industry) that I have direct knowledge of. As most know in the mid 80's to mid 90's the Steel Industry was in shambles. Within the ranks of "Big Steel", #2 Bethlehem Steel was really in the crapper, at one point down to 20 days of cash. Prior to it getting that bad Beth. Steel went to the United Steelworkers of America hat in hand. The USW of A being a pretty hard assed group was skeptical. They said, "OK, we'll open the contract if you open the books to a mutually agreeable Financial Consultant" Beth Steel agreed and a few month later, Lazard Freres & Co came back with a report on just how ugly it had gotten for Beth Steel. USW of A and Beth Steel signed a concessionary contract that saved the company for a little more than 10 years before it landed in the dung heap and no longer exists.

My question is this, Why don't airline unions insist on full disclosure with independent review? I recall very clearly in the above story the USW of A threw down the gauntlet of "Full Pay to the Last Day" or let our guys see the books. To me it only seems fair.

[Iclubbabyseals]

SparrowHawk, on 14 March 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

My question is this, Why don't airline unions insist on full disclosure with independent review?

As someone who was there, the then pilot's union ALPA, in it's Constitution and ByLaws, demands that outside consultants be hired in the situation you describe.

During the restructuring (2001/2) as well as retirement/LOA 93 debacle, not one outside consultant was hired, much less consulted, the "negotiators" (most of whom work for other carriers now--I wonder why) apparently believing anything the company tossed their way.  It was an ugly time and the end result was the well-deserved cashiering of the incumbent union, ALPA.   Lawsuits should rightfully follow.  Unfortunately, the pilots are working hard to this day to root out the ALPA cancer that remains.  (ALPA still shows some $200,000 annually to USAirways, I always wondered how AOL (the west faux union) got their cash).

You are also dealing with a relatively unregulated (safety-wise) industry.  I heard from another pilot I was flying with about a safety report targeting closing the cabin entry door before all cargo doors are closed, something, for some idiotic reason, the company desires, despite several instances where passengers would have been injured or killed otherwise.  A meeting was held last December, attended top to bottom.  At the end the company decided that to expedite boarding procedures (I cannot imagine how) to have the entry door closed before the cargo doors (the DOT clock starts when the last "door" is closed).  Attending were several FAA officials, who, at the end of the meeting, stood up and stated that, while the procedure the company advocated was "legal", they considered the procedure to demonstrate extremely poor judgement.  Why am I not surprised?

That is how this company operates, "legal" but in extremely poor judgement, my definition of unsafe.  Crew members counter unsafe corporate policies all the time.  It is not the front line people, it is the tempe frat boys posing as executives who are the problem.  The same people who get rewarded more because the employees allow them to skim more off the top than any other airline.  I see several avenues to rectify this, but, so far, the frat boys seem safe.  However, their time may be growing short.

I blame no one but ourselves, the pilots.  It does, however, cause a mental blip when I see the FAs making similar mistakes several years after, their pretend scope "protections" in their tentative agreement being only one.

[N965VJ]

Iclubbabyseals, on 14 March 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

On FB, they have almost exclusively been favorably comparing the TA to contracts and TAs of carriers in bankruptcy, references to solid carriers like Alaska and Southwest being poo-pooed or otherwise squelched with talk about high fuel prices and poor economy, highlighting their ignorance of carrier economies.

The mindset seems to be to take just above the bankrupt carrier's contracts and TAs, which I find pathetic.

I talk with UAL and CAL crew members all the time and they are quite confident that within two years LCC's FA contract, if voted in, will once again, define the bottom.

I wonder if the proponents of this TA somewhere are hinting at the Boogeyman of higher fuel costs.  

[Iclubbabyseals]

N965VJ, on 15 March 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

I wonder if the proponents of this TA somewhere are hinting at the Boogeyman of higher fuel costs.  

My understanding is that the "usual few" are doing that.  The "concern trolls" or management shills, I guess.

One might think that after several rounds of adding "fuel surtaxes" or whatever management calls it, even a dim-witted employee might get the idea that management pretty much has that covered.

On a joint negotiating task force dominated by those with the worst contract, the west, every hint or slant that the merged agreement is not what they sell it to be is met with a full court press by the west chairperson that goes all the way to the Association of Flight Attendant's president.  It is almost as if the west president knows something bad is going to happen to PHX (downsize, closure or whatever) and they want the tentative passed to protect their FAs.  The wests lack of any scope provisions (without the tentative agreement) which would tend to make them somewhat vulnerable, though, it might enhance the company assessed valuation of the workforce in the event of a merger, at least in the eyes of the creditors/financiers.  Of course, as discussed, the tentative scope section seems somewhat lacking and unwieldy all my itself, the verbiage seeming more like a word salad than anything else and the poor sentence structure does not elicit confidence in the rest of the document. (Yes, I read it, my interest is in reverse engineering the document for clues as to future directions)

The only issues the east president seems to have brought up in writing are vague suggestions that if the tentative does not pass, that negotiations could be parked by the NMB, even for years.  Yes, it is possible, but it seems pretty funny in light of the merger speculation seen in the press lately.  All we need now is someone to chime in with, "It's a done deal!".

Hello?