TallFlyer

(sigh)

Since ALPA is actually subsidizing the cost of regional representation, please tell me how the regionals are subsidizing the majors.

And given the internet poo flinging contests that erupt around here frequently when airlines sign contracts that are (supposedly) harmful to other carriers interests, how long do you think a pilot union would last if said union could impose it's own will on a pilot group?

I'll give you a hint: not very long.

So can you answer the questions or not? Because the answers to those questions actually have meaning, and are actually impacting the things you're going on and on about.

Ok, so according to their APC profile Delta has rates for 900s in their mainline CBA, but are they actually flying any? Do they have any plans to? The 190s that AA are flying are well above their scope limitations. Are there any regional pilots flying the same type as their mainline counterparts for less money?

Not that the whole discussion really means anything, as it's all semantics, but when you start a discussion with decision makers with statements that belie partial facts you don't do yourself any favors.

As to my keyboard warrior comment, what are you doing outside of APC to actually affect change? What are you doing to actually learn about the system?

TallFlyer

My bank account and number of pilots below me on the seniority list disagrees.

I think that is a symptom of the underlying problem, which is contained in the three questions I asked you earlier.

But as I laid out before, pilot groups aren't going to be subject to a union that imposes the will of the whole on it. If you think otherwise I give you USAPA as exhibit A.

You really think that a regional only union, somehow reliant on dues revenue from the pilot group of regional airlines that it imposes its collective will on, is somehow going to generate enough revenue to support the activities that I listed above?

sweetholyjesus

I've explained this already... Let's just assume it's even true that the regionals cost more to represent than the dues they contribute. That would only be the case because their wages are so low. Why are they so low? Because mainline pilots voted in scope in order to retain/increase their own wages and benefits. If you lower one scale and increase the other, what does ALPA's bank account get in the middle? Balance.

So you don't think regional pilots would be happy with the end of whipsawing and under-cutting? They wouldn't be happy with increased leverage and pay? What would be your suggestion then? Stay under the boot of ALPA or...?

The answers are obvious. Why don't you explain your own argument? I promise to pay full attention.

Sorry but this is a bit silly. There's a reason Delta isn't flying any 900s, because Endeavor is doing it for cheaper. If Endeavor had the same contract rates that Delta does, do you think the 900s would be at Endeavor? Common sense says no.

Please feel free to show me any of my posts that belie partial facts. Vague, baseless remarks like that don't do you any favors.
No joint venture ever began without a discussion...

sweetholyjesus

It's this type of attitude that got us into the scope mess in the first place.. ME ME ME. You fail to see the big picture just like the scope yes-voters did. Temporary, non-contractual bonuses only paid to new hires are better than permanent pay scale raises for everybody??

I don't know how much those programs cost versus how much revenue the regionals pay in dues, so I can't honestly answer. I still question the need to stay under ALPA just for those services, especially since their unions sold everyone out in the first place. Their history doesn't suggest that they have regional pilots' best interests in mind.

mx911tom

[QUOTE=wiz5422;2316842]It isn't about providing loans for student pilots. Medical students don't have any trouble getting loans because they know they Will get a great paying job right out of training....while most student pilots know they have to wait years for that great paying job. So anyone smart now a days know it isn't beneficial to get swapped in loans they know they can't pay back because of the lack of great paying jobs out of the gate.


I tried pulling loans. 80k a year. still said "I need more collateral than what I make now" I rent. dad cosigning wouldn't work. grandparents too. No there are not a lot of people who can GET the loans. There are a hell of a lot of them who can apply, Pilotfinance etc..... They want an ivy league or higher university student whose daddy is an attorney n mommy runs a Costco to sign their house as collateral and pay 86K just to get a CMEI. that was 2 years ago. God only knows how bad it is now. They want your first 4 born to even think of getting a loan. The issue is its hard for students like myself who want to train but cant do the atp route. They need to make the training available.

Avroman

Capitalism in 4 letters, F.U.P.M. The banks finally figured out what aviation students have seen for over 15 years... there has not been enough return on investment in this career...

mx911tom

AVROMAN..... pretty much. and now. W.W.F.M.?
WHO WILL FLY ME

they've dug such a ditch, the banking institutions and loans cant get the average American an 86k or now a 100+K loan. They are increasing wages but only l crem de la crem can even get the loan. I wonder if they've talked about this in congress. Great. Its now 75k a year for TSA and PSA.... nobody can get the loan if they wanted to train now. Another road block. People like myself are stuck doing the 6-8 year route doing slow training and hoping to get there. I plan on it, but my resources doesn't seem to be stopping the shortage.

TallFlyer

You're making the assumption that the only reason my income has gone up and new pilots have come to my carrier is that somehow everyone on property somehow gave something away that caused all this to happen. If anything, the ones who have come here later than I have made more money over time than I ever did.

The truth (not that anyone really cares about that here) is that PSA pilots positioned themselves for growth, and therefore leverage in the new pilot hiring environment.

Speaking of big picture, can you name another pilot group that was harmed by that vote? No? How about name all the pilot groups who've seen their compensation go up. Truth be told, that's much more about market forces than anything else.

Again, I'm not arguing that there are pilot groups that have voted in contracts that have increased pay and relaxed scope. I think if pilot groups back then could've foreseen the growth of regionals to the levels that exist now they may have been more circumspect. But 20+ years ago when all this started that danger wasn't anticipated.

But even saying that, your math, or more accurately your hypothesized incentives, still doesn't work. Why settle for balance when one could just hold the line on scope and create more mainline jobs, and create more dues revenue that doesn't require subsidizing an entire pilot group? Doesn't ALPA make more money that way?

But I guess since it isn't ALPA National making the decisions, but rather individual pilots voting their own wallets, it doesn't work that way. Funny how that works.

I think the moment that management offers an incentive to one pilot group that isn't offered to another, and that pilot group wants to take it, then there's the end of your theoretical union. Unless of course you'd rather keep all regional pilots under that particular boot. It's really hard to make an argument against perceived authoritarianism by advocating for, wait for it, more authoritarianism.

What your describing is more akin to a Guild than a labor union, and while there are some merits to that concept, the problem is getting there from here. In the end, why not let the market continue to do the work it's already been doing?

If the answer is obvious then why are you unable to answer?

Um, actually they probably would. Understanding why requires knowing the answer to my original three questions, and understanding that pay rates are only a small part of the present and future costs of operating those aircraft. Work rules and benefits are a significant part of that cost, and so long as Delta management can keep those airplanes off the mainline certificate, they will.

The other reason they would is that you can be sure that the mainline carriers will try anything to alleviate their pilot hiring issues, be it on the demand side (age 67) or the supply side (ATP rule). If they're able to get legislative relief in any of those areas, look for them to try and lower those rates back down.

Read the above, none of which is vague or baseless.

ItnStln

Great point!

sweetholyjesus

You're only making my point here.. Also, I never said anything about your pay going up. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Again... Allowing the company to selectively alter pay rates and pay bonuses means the rest of the group lost an opportunity for their own improvements. That is not how collective bargaining works.
Umm, when did I say anything about PSA? While we're on the subject, do you think PSA undercutting another ALPA carrier is a good thing? But sure, they "positioned themselves for leverage" by voting in concessions to take jets from another ALPA carrier, forcing the others to take concessions as well. What a great move for pilots everywhere...
Again, you only prove my point. They didn't see the big picture when they decided to sell scope, just like you aren't seeing the big picture now. Failing to see the outcome is no excuse for such a failure. How many times are you going to make excuses and let management win?
Scope has been sold because mainline pilots (ALPA) wanted it that way. "Holding the line" on scope that's already been sold off does nothing to change the current state of affairs. How much has ALPA national done to retake scope? Zero. Why? Because the loss of subsidizing from low regional wages would hurt mainline pilots' wallets.
Under one combined union, management wouldn't be allowed to offer something to one group without offering it to the other. It's called collective bargaining for a reason. I guess that's a concept you don't fully understand since you support targeted signing bonuses and uneven pay raises.

Being afraid of change is no reason to stay under ALPA's boot. The Association limits the regionals from negotiating collectively. I think it's peculiarly ironic that all 3 AA WO carriers are ALPA. All are owned by and flying for the same carrier, and all have been repeatedly whipsawed against each other to reduce wages. AA's intent is so obvious, and ALPA couldn't care less. Why would you support that kind of representation?
Because I have no idea what you're getting at. Again, why don't you try making your own argument?

Soooo once again, you only prove my point. I really don't understand why you're arguing with me on this. You said earlier that Endeavor CRJ pay isn't less than Delta CRJ pay because Delta doesn't actually fly CRJs. Now you've done a 180, and you're telling me "Oh it's not the pay rates that make Endeavor cheaper it's the benefits, that's why Delta isn't flying them". So basically, Endeavor is cheaper, just like I said. Splitting hairs after the fact doesn't make you any less wrong...

So, you're telling me Delta is contracting out their RJs because they wouldn't be able to hire enough people?? Bwhahahaha!