Pilots, Us Airways Remain At Odds

700UW

Corn Field
Nov 11, 2003
37,637
19,369
NC
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04195/345461.stm

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

By Dan Fitzpatrick, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



More than a month into a critical set of contract negotiations, US Airways and its pilots remain at odds over the maximum number of hours that each pilot can work per month.

While both sides agree that pilots should fly more to make the airline more productive, they disagree on the details, with the company asking for a maximum of 95 hours and the union wanting no more than 90.

The five-hour gap between the two negotiating teams materialized last week as the company officially responded to the pilots initial offer, made June 23, that would have increased their monthly work load from 85 to 90 hours. US Airways, which hopes to wring as much as $295 million in savings from its highest-paid union, also said it wanted changes in how the pilots' vacation and sick time would be accrued.

The airline has yet to address another major plank of the pilots' first offer -- a 12.5 percent pay cut -- or the subject of retirement, saying only that "critical elements" such as benefits would be discussed separately.

What continues to rankle some pilots is the company's unwillingness thus far to attach a dollar figure to the pilots' first offer, which observers believe is significantly less than the $295 million in annual savings requested by the company.

That final figure is important as US Airways tries to regain profitability by shaving $1.5 billion in annual costs, $800 million of that from its unions. The company has said it must have new agreements from all unions by September, but to date only the pilots have agreed to discuss any contract changes.

US Airways declined comment on its counteroffer, as did a pilots spokesman, who said the union would not talk about negotiations until they are completed.

But other pilots, writing on pilots-only Web sites, are criticizing the talks, with some expressing concern that the company has yet to discuss what the pilots could receive in return for their third round of concessions in two years.

Pilot union leaders John Crocker and Dan Von Bargen, who represent Philadelphia-area pilots, yesterday described the company's counterproposal as a "wish list" inspired by JetBlue Airways, which also requires pilots to fly 95 hours per month and is a major competitor in key US Airways markets.

"Our response, given to the company, was, 'We do not wish to scrap the current contract and replace it with JetBlue's work rules,' " the pair wrote in an e-mail to the pilot union's Philadelphia members. They also reiterated their complaint of last week, which said the company has yet to explain what corporate cuts can be made to contribute to the goal of $1.5 billion in annual savings.

"We continue to sit across the table attempting to negotiate in good faith with the same basic management team that has been in place for the past several years," the pair wrote last week. "Their tactics appear to be only more of that which we have become accustomed to, yet were promised would change."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dan Fitzpatrick can be reached at [email protected] or 412-263-1752.)
 
It's unsafe! Bottom line just like at the regionals. Bullshit schedules, sucky crewdesks, lousy greedy mgmt.
 
boeing787 said:
It's unsafe! Bottom line just like at the regionals. Bullshit schedules, sucky crewdesks, lousy greedy mgmt.
Yes, you are correct. No one should ever fly JetBlue because their pilots fly 95 hours a month. It is a just a matter of time before their A320s start falling from the skies.
 
I don't know about you guys but I work about 120 hours a month depending on the number of days in the month.
 
Heinrich said:
I don't know about you guys but I work about 120 hours a month depending on the number of days in the month.
With travel time to/from client sites, I work approx. 280 hours/month, and that does not include time spent in hotels (but does include time spent in cabs, in the air, etc.).
 
USFlyer said:
With travel time to/from client sites, I work approx. 280 hours/month, and that does not include time spent in hotels (but does include time spent in cabs, in the air, etc.).
That 95 hours is FLIGHT TIME only, doesn't include preflight time, time between legs, time spent in hotels, time spent on "productivity breaks", etc. Pilots now are on the road at least 4 days a week to fly the 85 hours they fly now (note: thats 4 x 24 hours, or up to 96 hours a week NOW). OK, now how many folks here work AT LEAST 96 hours a week. I thought not! <_<
 
I think what some are missing is that the 95 hours that is being talked about for us is flying hours, not "at work" hours. For most of us (excluding the one's that fly the European trips), that equates to around 200 hours "on the job" per month. Not in hotels, not commuting to or from work, but 200 or more hours spent in planes or airports per month. Using myself as an example, for 85 flight hours (4 4-day trips) I'll spend 160 to 180 hours "at work" in an airplane or airport.

Someone mentioned JetBlue (which is where the company's proposal found it's genesis). They fly their airplanes 13 hours per day so their operation is more like a blend of our European and Caribbean flights. Their pilots can probably get 95 flight hours in 120-130 "at work" hours a month. That is the difference.

Jim
 
And for USFlyer,

How many life & death split-second decisions do you make riding in cabs or the back of airplanes during that 280 hours a month?

The next time you're on the last flight of the evening on approach when there are storms around, the weather is at minimums, the winds howling, etc just ask yourself "Are the pilots well rested and sharp or have they been on duty 14:50 after a minimum overnight (getting only 6-7 hours of sleep)?" Remember that the FAA says it perfectly "safe" for pilots to be on duty 16 hours a day 6 days a week.

Jim
 
Woah, you misinterpreted my post. I was more responding to the absurd comment that jetBlue's planes "would start falling from the skies" as a result of the 95 hour maximum. It's comments like that which cause pilots to lose credibility when talking about how much they work. And, FWIW, with all the downtime everyone complains about, it seems like the company's inefficiencies actually result in rest time throughout the day, or am I missing something?
 
oldiebutgoody said:
That 95 hours is FLIGHT TIME only, doesn't include preflight time, time between legs, time spent in hotels, time spent on "productivity breaks", etc. Pilots now are on the road at least 4 days a week to fly the 85 hours they fly now (note: thats 4 x 24 hours, or up to 96 hours a week NOW). OK, now how many folks here work AT LEAST 96 hours a week. I thought not! <_<
Ok, using your calculation that anytime anyway from home is "work time", I work 480 hours/month. Whatever, you guys know better than I do what is reasonable. Just keep in mind when non-pilots see a dispute over 95 vs. 90 hours, many have no clue why that's a big deal.
 
USFlyer,

Sorry, my apologies - I should have known that you weren't part of the "only 95 hours a month, let me tell you my story" group.

Jim
 
BoeingBoy said:
I think what some are missing is that the 95 hours that is being talked about for us is flying hours, not "at work" hours. For most of us (excluding the one's that fly the European trips), that equates to around 200 hours "on the job" per month. Not in hotels, not commuting to or from work, but 200 or more hours spent in planes or airports per month. Using myself as an example, for 85 flight hours (4 4-day trips) I'll spend 160 to 180 hours "at work" in an airplane or airport.

Someone mentioned JetBlue (which is where the company's proposal found it's genesis). They fly their airplanes 13 hours per day so their operation is more like a blend of our European and Caribbean flights. Their pilots can probably get 95 flight hours in 120-130 "at work" hours a month. That is the difference.

Jim
That's a fair point (about how higher utilization means a greater ratio of flight hours to non-flying hours).

But if that is the objection, how about tying the number of monthly flying hours to aircraft utilization---or perhaps better, to average stage length or another measure of efficiency.

At the end of the day, what pilots object to is high time on duty. For a given time on duty, I would imagine that pilots would actually welcome a higher proportion of time spent in the cockpit. If you're spending 160 hours on duty, then better 95 of those are in the cockpit than 60, no? Waiting around airports is something that makes most of us cranky---probably pilots too.
 
BoeingBoy said:
Sorry, my apologies - I should have known that you weren't part of the "only 95 hours a month, let me tell you my story" group.
No, I'm not. Explain the issues to me without the rhetoric and I'll gladly listen. When people start using absurd comments, every so often I have to reply.

By the way, weren't the PILOTS at jetBlue asking to raise the max?!
 
vc10,

Very valid comments - just about every pilot I know would rather "get their time in" in less days.

As I understand it, the thought of tying the increased flying to increased aircraft utilization was in the union proposal - though mainly as a way to prevent further furloughs and/or backward movement by the "productivity improvements". The company's response was that if we wanted no furloughs or downgrades we'd have to take bigger cuts somewhere else to pay for it.

Strictly from my personal perspective, I would rather recall furloughed pilots to fly the extra time generated by increased aircraft utilization than do more flying myself to make up for what will surely be some amount of pay cut. The difference in the effect on our overall CASM will be basically negligable, and the furloughed pilots deserve a chance to come back to work more than I need to "make myself whole" by flying more. But that's me.

Jim
 

Latest posts

Back
Top