AIRLINES FEAR COLLAPSE WITHOUT MORE HELP

[767jetz]

Just my 2 cents worth on the sick leave issue.

It is also possible for me to get sick, medicate myself, hop a flight to Hawaii, then call in sick. The FAA says I can not fly as a pilot while taking Sudafed or many other over-the-counter meds. No one says I can't go as a passenger.

 

[bigJ]

UAL CREW DESK MAN-
If you are such a stickler for details, your response was posted on 9/11. Besides, does a day or two make that much difference? I'm curious, was the memorial at WHQ for only off-duty employees or did some folks get paid for being there? I was getting paid to be at FL390, looking at a flimsy door, thinking about fallen pilots, F/A's, pax, and victims on the ground.
I'm sorry if you actually had to do your job, which is to cover trips due to equip subs, wx, misconnects, or contractually mandated things such as vacation, sick leave, or days off. I personally didn't use sick leave during SOL 2000, but I never worked on a day off. Is that the ruin of the company? If schedulers or anyone else refuses to be away from home on their days off, is anyone crying foul? Of course not. If the company can't cover trips without overtime (of course it's not really overtime!) then they are understaffed. This is management's fault, but evidently they passed the buck to you and now you want to pass it on.
ps-if the people you talk to on the phone are so unbalanced, do you refuse to SA or send your family/friends on the jets? Being a pilot and all I'm sure you'd know if it was safe.

 

[UAL777flyer]

As I continue to say, it would be great if we could stop living in the past and move forward, but while we're on this subject, can we please dispense with the if overtime flying is required than the airline is understaffed and it's management's fault rhetoric? People forget that this little arrangement gets the blessing of both the company and ALPA. It allows the company to keep fewer pilots on the payroll and it also allows ALPA the ability for their members to pick up extra trips on their days off for more money. Nobody ever complains about this system when it is used each and every day by many, many pilots. The only time complaints are issued is when it is convenient justification for an obvious job action like the Summer of 2000, or when fellow pilots are on furlough. I'm certainly not saying that pilots should be required to pick up extra flying on their days off. But if this is a system that works to the advantage of both the company and the union (in good times) and only the union in bad times, let's at least be honest and acknowledge it as such.

 

[bigJ]

I'm a pilot and don't work on days off (I'm gone from home enough!). Just because some people work overtime doesn't mean everyone does. It's not true to say the summer of 2000 was a pilot job action. Was the contract followed? If it is so obvious pilots won't work voluntary overtime during contract negotiations then perhaps someone should do something about it...deliver the promised seamless contract or hire more pilots. If I remember correctly the ALPA master chairman told the company they were understaffed.
If employees are screwing the company by following the contract, then what is the company doing when it does the same? Are senior management contracts the only valid ones? (Goodwin)

 

[The Ronin]

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes.
Henry Kissinger (1923 - )

 

[shipwrecked]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/28/2002 6:13:27 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

Of course nobody is stupid enough to admit it, but we all know it was a job action. It's a quid pro quo arrangement between the company and ALPA. 99% of the time, it works to the advantage of both sides. It further lines the pockets of pilots who want to fly extra on their days off and it keeps the company from having to hire more pilots. The only time pilots complain about it in large numbers is when contract time rolls around. If you're so against it, than tell your union that when the next contract is negotiated, they refuse to allow ANY pilots to work ANY EXTRA trips. Yeah, we'll see how much support that gets.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It was all simply a matter of trust. Now you tell us, who failed....management or the pilots?

 

[UAL777flyer]

Of course nobody is stupid enough to admit it, but we all know it was a job action. It's a quid pro quo arrangement between the company and ALPA. 99% of the time, it works to the advantage of both sides. It further lines the pockets of pilots who want to fly extra on their days off and it keeps the company from having to hire more pilots. The only time pilots complain about it in large numbers is when contract time rolls around. If you're so against it, than tell your union that when the next contract is negotiated, they refuse to allow ANY pilots to work ANY EXTRA trips. Yeah, we'll see how much support that gets.

 

[GGpillow]

From a CS standpoint, they both did.

 

[bigJ]

UAL777Flyer-
I think it would be great to allow NO extra flying! I would rather have more jobs available at less hours, but with better quality of life (plus more better-pay-per hour jobs). I think alot of pilots see the value of this. The company obviously doesn't want this (when will a crew of two be able to fly 250,000 block hours already!?!). You say ALPA comprised on this. Okay, if this benefits both parties why would the pilots penalize themselves with no overtime unless management wasn't holding up their end of your so-called quid pro quo arrangement?
P.S.- Of course, I know you are aware there is no such thing as overtime for UAL pilots.

 

[300guy]

ual777flyer,

I usually respect your posts here because you have seen the industry in good times and bad and also seem to have an open mind. But when you tell me that I was apart of a job action during the summer of 2000, this is where I say you are dead wrong. A job action would have been if a large population of the pilot group had called in sick all at the same time. Wanting to be home on my days off and spending that time with my family instead of flying overtime (using that term very loosely) to help out the company was my choice. I and a lot of my fellow pilots did not fly overtime that summer, and because of this, we are being blamed for the summer of 2000. This is not a job action, it is following the contract that ALPA and UAL management agreed upon. It is obvious that we do not agree on this topic, but I just needed to express my view.

 

[Bear96]

What went on in Summer 2000 was not so much an orchestrated job action by the pilots but rather more of an exercise in stretching the limits of the status quo provisions of the RLA requiring both sides to continue business as usual during contract negotiations so as not to exert unfair influence on the negotiations process. ALPA leadership very wisely was not obviously involved in any way in terms of condoning or encouraging such behavior or I susepct the matter would have been in court.

This is not to say that the pilots were or weren't justified in their actions or that management was not to blame for breaking their seamless / on top on time pomises, or that there weren't other unique ATC and weather issues going on that summer, or that by ALPA's definition (and probably even UAL's too) the airline wasn't actually understaffed. But to try to convince people that all the pilots who suddenly declined to pick up open flying on days off that summer (I agree it is misleading to use the term overtime) would still have made that same choice when OPBCM called had negotiations not been ongoing does not strike those of us who lived through it as realistic.

 

[flaptrack]

Does it occur to any of you people that the jet aircraft is now just the Bus? Think about it! Do you ride in a wagon any more? NO! Do you ride a Trailways or Greyhound bus (with the vista cruiser top!) NO! How about the California Zephyr on Amtrak? NO! At the start of all of these modes or transportation , only the well to do could afford them. And as a new transportation system came along, the well to do abandoned them, and left them for the common folk. Therefore, many of these older forms of transportation are now gone or hurting. It comes time to realize that this might be the case with the airlines. Yes, there is still a need for 747's and the like to ply the overseas airways. Overseas is a job for capitol intensive airlines with big airplanes. Or is it? You say you have lost many of the High Yield business travelers, Of course you have! These corporations can now buy 3 engine business jets to get them where they need to go. Go to any major regional airport and see if you do not see many beautiful business jets. Look at the big hangars that are going up. (of course look for a sign on the hangar and you will not see one ---- they do not want you to know) So airlines are now the bus and that is why Southwest and Airtran are doing fine domestically and you can not. They fulfill the transportation need of this time. Instead of the “Star Allianceâ€￾ you need to ally yourselves with a low cost carrier to feed your International routes .

P.S. Did you know that a loaded 757-300 gets 70 miles per gallon per person?

OK , You are now free to kill me.

 

[UAL777flyer]

Oh, absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree that had Goodwin and his cronies not failed as leaders, Summer 2000 wouldn't have happened. But that wasn't my point. I'm not assigning blame to the pilots. But let's call a spade a spade. We all know it was a job action. We also know that nobody is stupid enough to admit it. The fault lies with the senior management morons who negotiated an item that the pilot group can wield like a hammer when they have an axe to grind. It may have saved them a little up front in not having to hire more pilots, but I think they more than paid the price for it, don't you think?

Busdrver,

A job action is not solely a mass sick call-in by a union group. It can manifest itself in many ways, such as all of a sudden all pilots stop picking up extra flying like it stopped on a dime. If it wasn't an orchestrated act, than what about the pilots who got anonymous phone calls at home telling them to stop flying on their days off. If it was simply every pilot exercising his or her right to not fly on their days off, than why is it that those pilots who still chose to pick up more flying were intimidated? Sounds like an orchestrated act to me. However, I'm also realistic enough to figure out that no UA pilot is ever going to admit that it was, which at least goes to show that something was learned from AA's sick-out fiasco.

I sincerely apologize for hammering this issue. But I just feel that trying to tell us that the Summer of 2000 was just all pilots independently exercising their right to not fly extra hours on their days off is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

I realize my opinion is not shared by most. I guess differing opinions is what makes the world go round. I just hope that we can learn lessons from that fiasco and our many other failures and try to see that they don't happen again. However, if industry history is any indicator, than it surely will happen again.

 

[wts54]

It was a job action and everyone knows it.Also refusing to fly because there was no orange juice in the f/c galley.Yes there were weather issues as their as there always is in summertime.You can put earrings and lipstick on a pig,but its still a pig.

 

[gatemech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 10:58:15 PM ual-crewdesk-man wrote:

www.yahoo.com/s/18908


I don't understand why all the airlines are asking the government to bail them out. Ultimately, isn't the management responsible for the biggest cost to all airlines, labor? They sign off on all the contracts and salary increases (what's that?) for SAM. I would tell the the airlines to fix the problem yourself, you have already received over $6 billion from us, how much more do you need?
Some would argue the government (the FAA) shut down operations for 3 days in 2001, so they should help the airlines recover. I respond by saying there are downturns (sometimes severe) in every business, and with the downturn come cuts. I don't think IBM or Motorola has asked the Feds for money to help them out. Why are the airlines so special? I'm a big believer in self help.
----------------
[/blockquote]

ual-crewdesk-man,
I had to reply to your topic post.

George W thought the airlines were so important to the economy that he stepped in when Northwest mechanics were ready to strike. He stepped in when UA mechanics were ready to strike. You see the government will show their power when it suits them. When it comes to money out of their pockets then it's a different story. They tax the ***t out of us because the airlines are a cash cow. Also because they can. Many things the government wants from the airline employees are the same things they go over board with. Maybe they should clean there own house first. I know people that work for the government and get great benefits. I have a neighbor that had so much sick time on the books she was sent home for two months. Yet UA wants some of our sick leave back through the ATSB.

I believe the government should pay for the security and lighten up on taxes. Especially in times like these when the industry is hurting so bad and in process of change.