Because your union sold it. That's right. We had a great scope clause and Mike Glawe et. al. sold it. For those of you not on the property in December '97 I will explain. For those that were, I will remind. For those that chided me at union meetings and in flight ops with "You wanna fly RJs or 747s??" I will chastize, because it was you idiots that got us where we are today.
United had THE scope clause in the industry, because at one time we were the only major with a jet commuter (Air Wisconsin/BAE 146s). Summer '97 management wants relief to compete with Comair in the monkey-see-monkey-do logic of airline planning and so they come to ALPA. All 12 LECs vote no. We are at the mid point in the ESOP contact and due for a mid term pay raise. Management has offered us a paltry 1.5% this year, 1.5% next. We are not impressed. The maximum the arbitrator can allow is 5% this year, 5% next. That's it. Come December a cryptic, one page letter comes from our union explaining why we cannot afford to fly the RJs (it included bogus costs structures and also a holy mandate that no captain should be paid less than an F/O. 747 F/O s were making around 130K at the time, Comair captains about 65K. No contest. Revote at the LEC level yields 11 out of 12 LECs rolling over (Hawaii held out because they could read the writing on the island wall) and granting management the go ahead. Hey presto, the following week management authorizes a 5% pay raise, followed by another 5% pay raise, followed by the restoration of the B fund. i.e. MORE than an arbitrator could have awarded. I did query a representative and he assured me that the B fund was restored because "Gerry Greenwald had promised Mike Glawe it would be so". So I put him back on his turnip truck and bid him a good day. So the "Do you want 747 or RJ" protagonists got their way. And now 55% of our domestic flying is not being done by us. 1400+ are furloughed who would not have been had it not been for your union's desire to cater to senior members at the expense of everyone else. And now they want you to pay with your jobs. Make no mistake, the 90 seaters ARE coming, and you can choose to fly them. or not.
Fast forward......
2002 and I am in Narita with the then NY LEC chairman who is explaining to me that we can'y fly the RJs because the going rate is simply not enough. i.e HE decided what the 2100+ guys then on the street were/were not willing to accept. And this is what will happen this time. Your negotiating committee will surface with long faces, a brave air, and a story of tireless effort and how "management simply doesn't want us to fly them" ( and of course, we ARE at the center of the world and so management doesn't want US to fly them simply because mangement sees a way to piss US off and that's ALL they care about. Not profits or economics or any of that business stuff. It's all about Us.....right?) You will not get to hear what we demanded, and what our counterparts found uneconomical. What pork we attached to it. What benefits we demanded. Let's face it, nobody on this property right now will be in the right seat of one of those things. It is a left seat (pay raise) opportunity (Skywest captains are at about 110K a year now) for many F/Os. It is a removal of a future threat, and a disincentive for management to finagle off-balance-sheet accounting practises using shell corporations. It is a ticket back on to the property for all furloughees. It is of immense benefit to the company for us to fly them. It allows for seamless schedule adjustments to maximize load factors, cover for out-of-position equipment, and a much better quality control situation so happier customers. Management has an incentive for us to fly them. AT THE RIGHT PRICE. Your union has demonstrated in the past that it does not wish to be in the RJ business. ALPA wants to fly RJs at mainline rates, and that is simply not economical. Management has every right to refute the gesture. This company MUST be profitable for you to have a stable future. There is no other way to slice it. I believe your union is still of that expensive mindset no matter what they say. They are not demonstrating otherwise. The attitude that "The money is there/they are just hiding it/can't believe the accounting/ it's all lies" does not create an environment where ANY deal can be reached. IF you buy into that mindset, you'd better be prepared to gamble with your career because that's where this thing is going.
So tell your officers what you expect. Demand transparency and quit accepting the mushroom treatment. This is YOUR company, not your union's, not management's.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Union dues.
Ever been tired of seeing part of your dues head off to ALPA national for the express purpose of providing lobbying power for ALPA represented regoinal airline pilots that are threatening your job?
Perhaps it is time for your dues to go elsewhere?
Is this possible?
The answer is yes.
You may, by virtue of Federal Law have your dues, in whole or in part depending on the conditions, redirected to a charity of your choice.
The link for this information is:
http://www.pacificjustice.com/faq/can-i-redirect-my-union-dues-another-charity
Of course if you do this you don't get to wear your pin.
Perhaps it is time for your dues to go elsewhere?
Is this possible?
The answer is yes.
You may, by virtue of Federal Law have your dues, in whole or in part depending on the conditions, redirected to a charity of your choice.
The link for this information is:
http://www.pacificjustice.com/faq/can-i-redirect-my-union-dues-another-charity
Of course if you do this you don't get to wear your pin.
The JetBlue vote
JetBlue pilots, having been offered ALPA representation, have expressed their opinion.
No thanks.
A 60/40 split after much lobbying was a dismal performance by our union. But if we think for a moment, why should the JetBlue pilots have voted otherwise? Their A-320 hourly rate is higher than ours. They have premium pay for overtime where we don't. They are not saddled with artificially low maximum pay caps designed to prevent them from making money. Why should they vote for a union that has demonstrated time and again on our property that it does not care what your year end W-2 is.
Why indeed?
No thanks.
A 60/40 split after much lobbying was a dismal performance by our union. But if we think for a moment, why should the JetBlue pilots have voted otherwise? Their A-320 hourly rate is higher than ours. They have premium pay for overtime where we don't. They are not saddled with artificially low maximum pay caps designed to prevent them from making money. Why should they vote for a union that has demonstrated time and again on our property that it does not care what your year end W-2 is.
Why indeed?
Saturday, August 20, 2011
PBS
When mangement came to us and floated the PBS scheme they were out to obtain three things:
1.Greater efficiency
2.Later line closings and so more flexibility
3. Relief from month end staffing issues
They handed us PBS because it was (to them) slightly manpower positive, but this was in my view, inconsequential.
ALPA saw it as yet ANOTHER way to cater to its seniority based obsession, by making life supposedly better for senior pilots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that junior pilots would pay. Nobody knew how dear, at the time, that price would be. We do now.
We like to pontificate about the value of QOL issues in the contract. Well how about this: I consider PBS to be the most onerous infraction on my QOL out of all the issues we have had to deal with here at United. Including the bankruptcy. I have no control over my schedule whatsoever. Why? The natural balancing of line construction is now dissolved, an enormous amount of choice is given to pilots senior in seat, and of course, the rest of us pay. Thank you ALPA for hammering yet another nail into your own coffin.
Q:Why is the rescinding of PBS not part of the QOL discussion right now?
A: It doesn't not suit seniority obsessed pilots.
For those of you who are senior, and will retire senior, I understand, COMPLETELY, why you would discount my view.
For those of you who are younger, junior, and expecting to be senior at some point (and so are compliant in this selective catering):
You.
Will.
Get.
Yours.
What goes around comes around. Believe it.
1.Greater efficiency
2.Later line closings and so more flexibility
3. Relief from month end staffing issues
They handed us PBS because it was (to them) slightly manpower positive, but this was in my view, inconsequential.
ALPA saw it as yet ANOTHER way to cater to its seniority based obsession, by making life supposedly better for senior pilots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that junior pilots would pay. Nobody knew how dear, at the time, that price would be. We do now.
We like to pontificate about the value of QOL issues in the contract. Well how about this: I consider PBS to be the most onerous infraction on my QOL out of all the issues we have had to deal with here at United. Including the bankruptcy. I have no control over my schedule whatsoever. Why? The natural balancing of line construction is now dissolved, an enormous amount of choice is given to pilots senior in seat, and of course, the rest of us pay. Thank you ALPA for hammering yet another nail into your own coffin.
Q:Why is the rescinding of PBS not part of the QOL discussion right now?
A: It doesn't not suit seniority obsessed pilots.
For those of you who are senior, and will retire senior, I understand, COMPLETELY, why you would discount my view.
For those of you who are younger, junior, and expecting to be senior at some point (and so are compliant in this selective catering):
You.
Will.
Get.
Yours.
What goes around comes around. Believe it.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Now is not the time to dump ALPA
"We are in negotiations"
There's too much at stake right now"
Guess what? We always are and there always is.
I have been listening to these platitudes for years and frankly, they don't wash any more. It (ALPA) has a conflict of interest in representing regionals and majors, and as such, cannot, in all good conscience, say it represents YOU.
The objection, or at least, condition, stipulated by those who would entertain this idea, is that there must be a replacement in place before we act. Not so. In fact, as has been shown in the past, the very system of ALPA unionism is obstructionist in allowing any change to happen.
(The first rule of any bureaucracy is: protect the bureaucracy).
No, a void will be created and like any other aspect of physics, powers will rush to fill that void.
Your negotiators and leader are of a mind that the talks are progressing, and are doing so at a rate predetermined by the RLA and its conditions. This is rubbish. It is a lie. There is no reason why this contract could not have been done in six weeks (it took less than that for the Treaty of Versailles to be draughted), except for the fact that it would not have been perfect, and those bringing it to you do not want to be accused of allowing an imperfection to pass their muster. It is THEIR egos that are causing this process to linger and fester. Egos that are supported and fostered by this very "union". It WILL be an imperfect contract. If you don't think so, somebody else will.
As to Wendy's claim that "Just ask any Continental pilot and you will see why we had to use United's contract as a template" (the suggestion being that their work rules are so onerous), let me say this:
In questioning a Continental 737 captain with the same relative seniority in equipment and seat as myself (I fly the Airbus in NY, he was based in EWR) I found that he had more control of his schedule than I did, he worked fewer days per month than I did, he made more money than I did (quite a bit more). So tell me Wendy, to which one of these fabulous United work rules do you attribute this situation?
Anybody?
................................................I'm waiting...............................
There's too much at stake right now"
Guess what? We always are and there always is.
I have been listening to these platitudes for years and frankly, they don't wash any more. It (ALPA) has a conflict of interest in representing regionals and majors, and as such, cannot, in all good conscience, say it represents YOU.
The objection, or at least, condition, stipulated by those who would entertain this idea, is that there must be a replacement in place before we act. Not so. In fact, as has been shown in the past, the very system of ALPA unionism is obstructionist in allowing any change to happen.
(The first rule of any bureaucracy is: protect the bureaucracy).
No, a void will be created and like any other aspect of physics, powers will rush to fill that void.
Your negotiators and leader are of a mind that the talks are progressing, and are doing so at a rate predetermined by the RLA and its conditions. This is rubbish. It is a lie. There is no reason why this contract could not have been done in six weeks (it took less than that for the Treaty of Versailles to be draughted), except for the fact that it would not have been perfect, and those bringing it to you do not want to be accused of allowing an imperfection to pass their muster. It is THEIR egos that are causing this process to linger and fester. Egos that are supported and fostered by this very "union". It WILL be an imperfect contract. If you don't think so, somebody else will.
As to Wendy's claim that "Just ask any Continental pilot and you will see why we had to use United's contract as a template" (the suggestion being that their work rules are so onerous), let me say this:
In questioning a Continental 737 captain with the same relative seniority in equipment and seat as myself (I fly the Airbus in NY, he was based in EWR) I found that he had more control of his schedule than I did, he worked fewer days per month than I did, he made more money than I did (quite a bit more). So tell me Wendy, to which one of these fabulous United work rules do you attribute this situation?
Anybody?
................................................I'm waiting...............................
Sunday, August 14, 2011
We live in the cockpit
It's not so different from an F-16 cockpit. It's a bubble. It's a small world. Limited horizons give rise to unrealistic comparisons. We say we want things as they were. At LEAST as good as contract 2000. We live in a dream world. Outside of our dreamworld is a country with 9.6% unemployment (the highest in living memory for most of you) and that's not counting the skew factor that does not account for the prematurely retired, the underemployed, those fully employed but at significantly lesser wages. On my block, an ex 200K+/per year contractor now works in the kitchen department at Loews for 38K a year. A one time top manager of the Virgin Megastore in Manhattan is still underemployed after two years. My wife just got laid off. I don't think my neighborhood is too different from yours.
Our tactics of holding a hard line is also compromised by the unemployed ranks of ex-USAir, Gemini, Polar, World, Champion, Sunjet and a host of other highly qualified pilots ready to jump into our job. They owe ALPA nothing. ALPA did nothing for them. Add to that the regional contenders who, thanks to ALPA embracing the "technology fo technology's sake" philosophy in pilot training are able to move straight into an Airbus in a matter of weeks, and you have a recipe for disaster. Remember, day one of a strike is as good as it gets. Management's position only strengthens with time, as code sharing, line crossing, hiring, all conspire to ease their pain.
So my point is: If the offer on the table is better than what we have now, let's look at it with an open mind instead of dismissing it out of hand. Most people I have spoken to have taken the union's word for how onerous an offer it is. Most people I have spoken to have not actually read it!
Read it. Urge your representatives to work with, as opposed to against their counterparts in management.
This is YOUR company. This is YOUR future. Don't screw it up.
Our tactics of holding a hard line is also compromised by the unemployed ranks of ex-USAir, Gemini, Polar, World, Champion, Sunjet and a host of other highly qualified pilots ready to jump into our job. They owe ALPA nothing. ALPA did nothing for them. Add to that the regional contenders who, thanks to ALPA embracing the "technology fo technology's sake" philosophy in pilot training are able to move straight into an Airbus in a matter of weeks, and you have a recipe for disaster. Remember, day one of a strike is as good as it gets. Management's position only strengthens with time, as code sharing, line crossing, hiring, all conspire to ease their pain.
So my point is: If the offer on the table is better than what we have now, let's look at it with an open mind instead of dismissing it out of hand. Most people I have spoken to have taken the union's word for how onerous an offer it is. Most people I have spoken to have not actually read it!
Read it. Urge your representatives to work with, as opposed to against their counterparts in management.
This is YOUR company. This is YOUR future. Don't screw it up.
Fuel Savings
"I don't give a damn!"
"I'll burn as much as I want!"
"It's all going into management's pocket anyway! They'll just pad their bonus' with it!"
This what I hear. This is what I see. It may be true. It may not be. We don't know and that's the truth of it. As I have said before: THIS IS OUR COMPANY. Not management's. So look after OUR company and if management DOES steal, we will try and expose it and hopefully throw them out if need be.
Now I'm not advocating the "Fuel to minimum level" advocated by some of our upwardly mobile mini-managers with their own self serving political agendas. It's not safe. It reduces options. It's too stressful. It creates inconvenience and hidden costs for which these so called managers are not held responsible. They should be. And speaking of costs, nobody to my knowledge has produced reliable data on future lost revenue incurred by passenger misconnects and other inconveniences associated with diversions. Those market research tools are carefully groomed to produce the results whatever particular management feifdom in charge at the time, wants.
Put on what you need to have contingencies and feel comfortable. Then try and save as much as you can. I add gas on about 90% of the flights I fly. I save on about 80% of those flights. i.e. come in under burn. I'm happy. My F/O's happy. The bean counters are happy. And the passengers get to where they are going.
I'm not out to impress anybody, but I will not be part of destructive belligerence on our part or management turf warfare on theirs. Neither is good for our company's future health.
And that is what secures your future.
"I'll burn as much as I want!"
"It's all going into management's pocket anyway! They'll just pad their bonus' with it!"
This what I hear. This is what I see. It may be true. It may not be. We don't know and that's the truth of it. As I have said before: THIS IS OUR COMPANY. Not management's. So look after OUR company and if management DOES steal, we will try and expose it and hopefully throw them out if need be.
Now I'm not advocating the "Fuel to minimum level" advocated by some of our upwardly mobile mini-managers with their own self serving political agendas. It's not safe. It reduces options. It's too stressful. It creates inconvenience and hidden costs for which these so called managers are not held responsible. They should be. And speaking of costs, nobody to my knowledge has produced reliable data on future lost revenue incurred by passenger misconnects and other inconveniences associated with diversions. Those market research tools are carefully groomed to produce the results whatever particular management feifdom in charge at the time, wants.
Put on what you need to have contingencies and feel comfortable. Then try and save as much as you can. I add gas on about 90% of the flights I fly. I save on about 80% of those flights. i.e. come in under burn. I'm happy. My F/O's happy. The bean counters are happy. And the passengers get to where they are going.
I'm not out to impress anybody, but I will not be part of destructive belligerence on our part or management turf warfare on theirs. Neither is good for our company's future health.
And that is what secures your future.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The blame game
Sir Joshua Reynolds, advisor and mentor to Thomas Edison , once said "There is no end to which man will not resort to avoid the true labour of thinking". Unfortunately this is all too true in our world, from the entitlement minded caucus that believes someone else should pay for their own responsibilities, to here at United where employees can reduce all ills to a convenient blame on management.
It's wrong. It's destructive. It's easy. And like all good lies, it's partly true.
How did we get here? How did we become infected with this cancerous desire to tear down the very institution that pays our salary?
It was I think, in part, a failing akin to that described by Reynolds. We were confronted with a complicated situation we did not understand, many years ago (the declining industry margins and therefore the need to cut costs/salaries). We blamed management. We fought and became obstructionist. This was reciprocated in kind by management and we were treated as pariahs. Adversaries who needed to be marginalized. We responded. (It did of course, not help, that our management culture was focussed on asset trading as opposed to operations, and so our importance was discounted by them). The cycle of distrust, hate, and mutual disrespect was in place and here we are today.
Lack of critical thinking on our part allowed us to ignore our part in constructing this state of affairs. Our collective ego allowed us to see it as a management plot, something to which they were archetypically predisposed, something they stayed up all night conceiving. It was ALL about us.
In fact, management 's duty is to the financial health of the company, and for better or worse, they will attempt to address that. An operation that is inefficient is not as attractive to a manager. Money must be made elsewhere. Assets shuffling. Financial arms that play with cash flow dollars and create secondary investments. Things that don't require, me, you, the worker, to be here.
Back in the 80s Continental was an odious place to work. Lorenzo had cobbled together a disparate group of tired, broken down airlines, fractious employee groups, bankruptcy detritus, and become the bane of the industry. The government called him out and for his deliberate asset stripping he was banished. Quite rightly. Bethune, a Boeing manager, was on the board of CAL specifically to look after Boeing's assets. He took charge and, the rest is history. Why did he not outsource, shrink, asset shuffle his way to profitability? Was he more noble than Frank or any of our past CEOs? I think not. He was a manager faced with an operation that COULD be profitable. Operationally profitable. Largely in part because even though the employees at Continental were at each other's throats, (and management's also) they were CHEAP. This incentivized him as an operations manager to concentrate on ......operations! This required instilling employee faith. This was done by growing the airline, creating forward motion in seniority and hence pay, increasing job security prospects, (e.g. buying in house commuter airlines) rewarding effort, punishing laziness and ineptitude, (i.e. demanding efficiency in response to financial incentive) and putting the company where it is today. It is that legacy that is managing us right now.
Unfortunately the new hires at Continental, over the last ten years, are largely ignorant of this culture and feel impervious to the consequences of disowning it. They, like us, fall easily into the jaded, lazy mindest of: "If I don't have it, it must be management's conspiratorial obsession with trying to screw me". They, like us, are inspiring management to look for other revenue sources. Ones that don't include you.
This is why we don't have a contract. It is a philosophical divide that I fear will not be bridged, and the consequences of that, as we all know, are not in our best interests.
We MUST, for our own sakes, offer management something that benefits THEM. I know what we want. I know what you want. What we must realize is what management wants, without resorting to the oft held platitudes of: they want to screw me/steal all they can/ruin the job. etc. etc. etc. Think for a second. If they want to RUN an airline, they need you. Don't marginalize yourselves and make them change their minds.
It's wrong. It's destructive. It's easy. And like all good lies, it's partly true.
How did we get here? How did we become infected with this cancerous desire to tear down the very institution that pays our salary?
It was I think, in part, a failing akin to that described by Reynolds. We were confronted with a complicated situation we did not understand, many years ago (the declining industry margins and therefore the need to cut costs/salaries). We blamed management. We fought and became obstructionist. This was reciprocated in kind by management and we were treated as pariahs. Adversaries who needed to be marginalized. We responded. (It did of course, not help, that our management culture was focussed on asset trading as opposed to operations, and so our importance was discounted by them). The cycle of distrust, hate, and mutual disrespect was in place and here we are today.
Lack of critical thinking on our part allowed us to ignore our part in constructing this state of affairs. Our collective ego allowed us to see it as a management plot, something to which they were archetypically predisposed, something they stayed up all night conceiving. It was ALL about us.
In fact, management 's duty is to the financial health of the company, and for better or worse, they will attempt to address that. An operation that is inefficient is not as attractive to a manager. Money must be made elsewhere. Assets shuffling. Financial arms that play with cash flow dollars and create secondary investments. Things that don't require, me, you, the worker, to be here.
Back in the 80s Continental was an odious place to work. Lorenzo had cobbled together a disparate group of tired, broken down airlines, fractious employee groups, bankruptcy detritus, and become the bane of the industry. The government called him out and for his deliberate asset stripping he was banished. Quite rightly. Bethune, a Boeing manager, was on the board of CAL specifically to look after Boeing's assets. He took charge and, the rest is history. Why did he not outsource, shrink, asset shuffle his way to profitability? Was he more noble than Frank or any of our past CEOs? I think not. He was a manager faced with an operation that COULD be profitable. Operationally profitable. Largely in part because even though the employees at Continental were at each other's throats, (and management's also) they were CHEAP. This incentivized him as an operations manager to concentrate on ......operations! This required instilling employee faith. This was done by growing the airline, creating forward motion in seniority and hence pay, increasing job security prospects, (e.g. buying in house commuter airlines) rewarding effort, punishing laziness and ineptitude, (i.e. demanding efficiency in response to financial incentive) and putting the company where it is today. It is that legacy that is managing us right now.
Unfortunately the new hires at Continental, over the last ten years, are largely ignorant of this culture and feel impervious to the consequences of disowning it. They, like us, fall easily into the jaded, lazy mindest of: "If I don't have it, it must be management's conspiratorial obsession with trying to screw me". They, like us, are inspiring management to look for other revenue sources. Ones that don't include you.
This is why we don't have a contract. It is a philosophical divide that I fear will not be bridged, and the consequences of that, as we all know, are not in our best interests.
We MUST, for our own sakes, offer management something that benefits THEM. I know what we want. I know what you want. What we must realize is what management wants, without resorting to the oft held platitudes of: they want to screw me/steal all they can/ruin the job. etc. etc. etc. Think for a second. If they want to RUN an airline, they need you. Don't marginalize yourselves and make them change their minds.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Obama will save us
Or that is a popular belief anyway. "Too big to fail!" is the cry. We can pull all the shenanigans we want, go on strike, and our very own Chicago machine politician will step in on his white charger, and send his henchmen in to make management get serious.
Right.
This is the same guy that has had the screaming success with the various TARPs. The job creation. The stengthening of the economy. Look, this is the same guy that, along with Timmy G., seem to be the only two people on the planet that think we don't have enough debt, and that our bonds are still Triple AAA. Ratings agencies you say? What do they know? Hey, they were wrong about Barnie Frank's little trashpits Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so why not now? I don't know. Maybe they LEARNED something?
So if you agree with Obie, go on smoking the crack. But reality WILL bite and O. will be nowhere to be found. (He'll be doing a road show flogging his memoirs.)
Right.
This is the same guy that has had the screaming success with the various TARPs. The job creation. The stengthening of the economy. Look, this is the same guy that, along with Timmy G., seem to be the only two people on the planet that think we don't have enough debt, and that our bonds are still Triple AAA. Ratings agencies you say? What do they know? Hey, they were wrong about Barnie Frank's little trashpits Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so why not now? I don't know. Maybe they LEARNED something?
So if you agree with Obie, go on smoking the crack. But reality WILL bite and O. will be nowhere to be found. (He'll be doing a road show flogging his memoirs.)
Your representatives' shakey footing
Ever tried to criticise one of your representative's positions? Try it sometime.
The first response is usually "It is the will of the MEC" Suggested is the idea that you voted them in so they represent you wishes, which is obviously not true or the conversation would not be happening.
Second is the response type "If you don't like it, get involved!" For those of us who have tried to drag this millstone of bureaucracy out of the tar pit, one can spend one's time more productively (by the way, what do you think this conversation is if not being involved?)
Third is the "Well it's all about you isn't it?" 'Scuse me mister rep, but, yes. YOU are supposed to represent MY interests. Each of our respective interests may differ, but each of us only expresses his/her singular viewpoint.
Finally the ace card is pulled out and it is suggested we seek help from our elected representatives (left-wing-entitlement-minded-job-killing-economy-crushing hacks) in Washington. Thanks mister rep but I can think for myself and apparently do a whole lot more diligent job of it than you.
Never does the defense of the position get addressed. After all, that's what this conversation was supposed to be about. Not the rep. Not me. It's the issue. The response always devolves into a personal attack, claiming selfish intentions and lack of involvement as causal factors. This would not be half as funny if they had not been addressing someone who has made significant sacrifices throughout his career for the greater good in the past.
But they weren't to know that. From their lofty perch in the holy-of-holies their view of the lesser minions was obscured. They were chanting their chant. Maybe if enough people get together, they reasoned, jump up and down and claim they can actually fly, they will take off, disappear into the ether. One can only hope. Our reps belief in their views are intractable, and so the dispensation of sanctimonious moralizing is the only avenue they may take.
The first response is usually "It is the will of the MEC" Suggested is the idea that you voted them in so they represent you wishes, which is obviously not true or the conversation would not be happening.
Second is the response type "If you don't like it, get involved!" For those of us who have tried to drag this millstone of bureaucracy out of the tar pit, one can spend one's time more productively (by the way, what do you think this conversation is if not being involved?)
Third is the "Well it's all about you isn't it?" 'Scuse me mister rep, but, yes. YOU are supposed to represent MY interests. Each of our respective interests may differ, but each of us only expresses his/her singular viewpoint.
Finally the ace card is pulled out and it is suggested we seek help from our elected representatives (left-wing-entitlement-minded-job-killing-economy-crushing hacks) in Washington. Thanks mister rep but I can think for myself and apparently do a whole lot more diligent job of it than you.
Never does the defense of the position get addressed. After all, that's what this conversation was supposed to be about. Not the rep. Not me. It's the issue. The response always devolves into a personal attack, claiming selfish intentions and lack of involvement as causal factors. This would not be half as funny if they had not been addressing someone who has made significant sacrifices throughout his career for the greater good in the past.
But they weren't to know that. From their lofty perch in the holy-of-holies their view of the lesser minions was obscured. They were chanting their chant. Maybe if enough people get together, they reasoned, jump up and down and claim they can actually fly, they will take off, disappear into the ether. One can only hope. Our reps belief in their views are intractable, and so the dispensation of sanctimonious moralizing is the only avenue they may take.
Positivity
Most all of the previous posts have started with the idea of why something is not achievable, not the effective way to go about things etc. A decided negativitiy is afoot. This is not my negativity, but the realization that things are not where they should/could be, and that there are factors at work among your representatives, who, propelled by popular concensus, are in the stagnant situation we all find so odious. So it's difficult to be positive. It's not even cool. Doesn't even sound smart. Much easier to throw a rock through a plate glass window than make a plate glass window. And so we fall, all of us, into this negative mindset. A comfortable paradigm of either helpless mutual feelgood or, when that doesn't do it, destructive anger.
We tend to view this management as our previous ones, and this is a mistake in my book. Our past management culture was one of Cut costs/keep it afloat 'til we can outsource it/virtualize it/sell it/leave. Successive CEOs demonstrated an unwavering belief in this design. This was not just Tilton. IT was Greenwald. It was Wolf. It was every CEO in the past 20 years. This was crime #1 at the board level. Smisek saw this three years ago and and told our guys to get lost when the first overtures were made. Only when contingent upon a gigantic housecleaning, followed by undisputed operational and financial control being granted, did he return to the table. Why? Because his agenda is different. He and his predecessors at Continental are in the business of running (read: perpetuating you job) an airline.
In the same period that we shrank to 60% our previous maximum size, Continental doubled. Their once paltry list of Foreign destinations now dwarfs ours. They turned profits while we posted losses. They are hiring while we still have 1400+ pilots on the street. They have hired a far greater percentage of employees than us in recent years. They have demonstrated a management culture that, while it may not be Santa-Claus-on-a bicycle, certainly has produced an environment that is more user/employee friendly than ours ever was.
This is what we trash on a daily basis. This what we berate, and in doing so we demonstrate our negativity. Our inability to break a mindset even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is this mindest we have to break if we are ever to have a chance at a decent future.
We need positivity within ourselves or we will truly get, as Wendy puts it "the contract we deserve".
We tend to view this management as our previous ones, and this is a mistake in my book. Our past management culture was one of Cut costs/keep it afloat 'til we can outsource it/virtualize it/sell it/leave. Successive CEOs demonstrated an unwavering belief in this design. This was not just Tilton. IT was Greenwald. It was Wolf. It was every CEO in the past 20 years. This was crime #1 at the board level. Smisek saw this three years ago and and told our guys to get lost when the first overtures were made. Only when contingent upon a gigantic housecleaning, followed by undisputed operational and financial control being granted, did he return to the table. Why? Because his agenda is different. He and his predecessors at Continental are in the business of running (read: perpetuating you job) an airline.
In the same period that we shrank to 60% our previous maximum size, Continental doubled. Their once paltry list of Foreign destinations now dwarfs ours. They turned profits while we posted losses. They are hiring while we still have 1400+ pilots on the street. They have hired a far greater percentage of employees than us in recent years. They have demonstrated a management culture that, while it may not be Santa-Claus-on-a bicycle, certainly has produced an environment that is more user/employee friendly than ours ever was.
This is what we trash on a daily basis. This what we berate, and in doing so we demonstrate our negativity. Our inability to break a mindset even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is this mindest we have to break if we are ever to have a chance at a decent future.
We need positivity within ourselves or we will truly get, as Wendy puts it "the contract we deserve".
The Company
Most often, when we use this term, we are referring to management. "The Company is not offering us this" or "The company wants to do that". This may seem an insignifcant misstep of semantics, but it actually demonstrates an inability to differentiate the two, and leads to actions that have undesirable consequences.
Example: Currently the "company" (management) we feel, is dragging their heels in the negotiating process. We respond by operating at less than peak efficiency to demonstrate to the "company" (management) our displeasure and then (so the logic goes) bring them to heel. The other day I picked up an airplane that had been previously refused a day or two earlier because "Captain's map light inop". Now there are at least five ways to illuminate a captain's map in the Airbus cockpit, so A map light being inop, while inconvenient, is far from being a real safety issue. No, we all know this act was commited to prove a point. Makes said captain look tough. Gives a rise to his friends when he tells the story. He's a hero. Here's the problem: Management shrugs its shoulders and passes it on. It is not even a blip on the radar. The COMPANY potentially suffers. Was that flight cancelled? Delayed? Did we have to call contract maintenance out at some outstation and wait 45 minutes to find we didn't have the lightbulb in stock? Were the passengers inconvenienced? Were that captain's fellow workers screwed because an ID got decimated? We don't know.We DO know that this kind of petulance has a greater effect on the bottom line of the corporation, and on the quality of life of fellow workers, than it does on the attitude of management. Management simply has not, in the past monitored the minutiae of operating expenses (unless it served a political end. Remember the Flap 3 landing fiasco in the Airbus? We save 2cents of fuel/demonstrable, therefore makes one suit look good, but burn up brakes and incur those costs/not demonstrable and therefore doesn't exist. Sound like anybody is minding the store there? ). United's management has been, historically, extremely poor when it came to managing operations. (Compare their numbers, don't take my word for it) They excelled at structuring, restructuring, buying and selling assets, voodoo accounting etc. but never paid much attention to running an airline. Now the new cadre from Continental have proven otherwise, always turning in better operational results than we did (ref: last quarter's numbers e.g.), so things may be changing and we should welcome that change. We should have an open mind and we don't. We assume they are more of the same. They are not. But we need to understand three things:
1. ANY management is peripatetic. They are Bedouins. They move on when the grass is greener.
2. You are tied to this lead balloon. You go down with the ship.
3. YOU are the company. Not management. So when you screw with the company, thinking you are "sending a message" to management, you are really screwing with me, yourself, and every other worker here.
Think of it this way: You are the guy in a small wooden boat, in the middle of a very deep, cold lake. You are angry at the boat renter because the oars he rented are too short. You have an axe and no repair kit. You decide to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat to demonstrate your dissatisfaction..
This is not a Pollyanna outlook of "we can save it guys, just give it the college try and we'll be OK", but pride in the quality of job that you do is healthy, mentally, and not learning from the past. repeating an action in the same manner only to expect different results is a clinical defintion of insanity.
This post is merely an observation of ineffective behavior and its unintended consequences. I think it wise that we say what we mean and mean what we say.
Example: Currently the "company" (management) we feel, is dragging their heels in the negotiating process. We respond by operating at less than peak efficiency to demonstrate to the "company" (management) our displeasure and then (so the logic goes) bring them to heel. The other day I picked up an airplane that had been previously refused a day or two earlier because "Captain's map light inop". Now there are at least five ways to illuminate a captain's map in the Airbus cockpit, so A map light being inop, while inconvenient, is far from being a real safety issue. No, we all know this act was commited to prove a point. Makes said captain look tough. Gives a rise to his friends when he tells the story. He's a hero. Here's the problem: Management shrugs its shoulders and passes it on. It is not even a blip on the radar. The COMPANY potentially suffers. Was that flight cancelled? Delayed? Did we have to call contract maintenance out at some outstation and wait 45 minutes to find we didn't have the lightbulb in stock? Were the passengers inconvenienced? Were that captain's fellow workers screwed because an ID got decimated? We don't know.We DO know that this kind of petulance has a greater effect on the bottom line of the corporation, and on the quality of life of fellow workers, than it does on the attitude of management. Management simply has not, in the past monitored the minutiae of operating expenses (unless it served a political end. Remember the Flap 3 landing fiasco in the Airbus? We save 2cents of fuel/demonstrable, therefore makes one suit look good, but burn up brakes and incur those costs/not demonstrable and therefore doesn't exist. Sound like anybody is minding the store there? ). United's management has been, historically, extremely poor when it came to managing operations. (Compare their numbers, don't take my word for it) They excelled at structuring, restructuring, buying and selling assets, voodoo accounting etc. but never paid much attention to running an airline. Now the new cadre from Continental have proven otherwise, always turning in better operational results than we did (ref: last quarter's numbers e.g.), so things may be changing and we should welcome that change. We should have an open mind and we don't. We assume they are more of the same. They are not. But we need to understand three things:
1. ANY management is peripatetic. They are Bedouins. They move on when the grass is greener.
2. You are tied to this lead balloon. You go down with the ship.
3. YOU are the company. Not management. So when you screw with the company, thinking you are "sending a message" to management, you are really screwing with me, yourself, and every other worker here.
Think of it this way: You are the guy in a small wooden boat, in the middle of a very deep, cold lake. You are angry at the boat renter because the oars he rented are too short. You have an axe and no repair kit. You decide to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat to demonstrate your dissatisfaction..
This is not a Pollyanna outlook of "we can save it guys, just give it the college try and we'll be OK", but pride in the quality of job that you do is healthy, mentally, and not learning from the past. repeating an action in the same manner only to expect different results is a clinical defintion of insanity.
This post is merely an observation of ineffective behavior and its unintended consequences. I think it wise that we say what we mean and mean what we say.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Critical thinking.
We often find ourselves criticizing our representative body, ALPA. Many of us have felt it has not reflected our wishes or represented our needs for many years. Yet we still (most of us) continue to wear the pin. Why?
A demonstration of unity in the face of an adversary is the most logical reason. Fear of being ostracized is another. But we continue to accept, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that our union is doing its best and has our best interests at heart.
Why?
"It's beyond my pay grade". "You gotta believe in SOMEBODY" are the platitudes I get handed. They don't wash. I'm sorry.
There is a real, fervent, military style mindset of "Don't dissent/follow orders/stick together" that deters people from asking the difficult questions, of demanding the appropriate action. It is, I think, a product of long term crisis management being the status quo. It works well under fire. In situations where there is no time to think, only react, and survival is at stake, it is the ONLY way to operate. But when strategy is being contemplated, and long term effects being considered, it is absolutely the wrong approach. For those of you who have been front line commanders in battle this is a major shift in mindset. For those of you who have not, this is simply a time to look inside yourself and make decisions you can live with personally. They may be decisions that do not conform to the prepared voice of the union, but that should not stop you.
What's the harm in treating it as a conflict situation all the time? The answer is wrong conclusions can be drawn, and irreparable damage done.
e.g. You are in a bad neighbour hood, at night. You are armed. A figure appears around the corner pointing a gun at you. You fire your weapon and kill the assailant. In a second scenario it is daylight and you have some cover when you see the figure 'rounding the corner. You have time to assess the situation. The figure turns out to be a child with a toy gun. A very different conclusion, and one that is much preferable to the first. But you acted out of a crisis management mindset and did absolutely the wrong thing in the first case. That's what we are doing now.
I walked the picket line at Eastern in 1989 for many, many months and believed myself and my fellow picketers brave, while the scabs were cowards. Little did I realize at the time that there were many people who crossed that line that did not do it out of the much touted self-serving, weak, opportunistic failings that ALPA members claimed, but did it out of conviction in their beliefs. Conviction that required far more bravery than I was displaying.
But this required a degree of individuality. Of critical thinking. The potential is obvious and explains ALPA's antipathy toward it. It weakens the union's stance if we don't stick together. We are at war. We must hold the line. Newsflash: we ARE NOT AT WAR. But to behave like we are grants our handlers the power to exercise their will over us, while we stand by and follow the orders. Charge the cannon when told.
Sorry but if I'm going down in flames I am doing it for a damned good reason. One that I can validate. And that means my representatives must explain themselves to my satisfaction. They do NOT issue orders. They are NOT my commanding officers.
So to my mind, the wearing of the pin is to acquiesce to the commands of individuals who fail to fully explain themselves or their motives. It is to grant them the power to inflict harm on me. It is to demonstrate belonging to a group that has demonstrated time and again that its goals are not mine, it is to hope for the best and keep my head down. It is to vehemently disagree and remain silent. It is to be a hypocrite.
The other side of the coin is that it is management that is trying to squeeze every last drop out of us until we croak, or become replaceable..........something that our ALPA reps are doing nothing to prevent, as every day we buy into an easier, more automated cockpit, we become more replaceable. Every day we demand non competitive wages for flying small airplanes, we encourage management to outsource, and we become more replaceable.
It's obvious from this state of affairs that there is a real possibilty for a stalemate. What do you do? Whom do you trust?
The answer lies in the motivating forces which are plain for all to see. It just takes a little effort, and a little humility. There is a win-win situation, as well as a win-lose, as well as a lose-lose.
Win-win: speedy signing giving management SOME extra profitabilty potential and us SOME extra pay.
Win-lose: One side gets all. Either we work for peanuts or the company goes broke.
Lose-lose: Strike. Bankruptcy. Furlough. Shrinkage. New careers at Home Depot.
This is not an advocacy of succumbing to every management wish. The ones to be seriously considered are the wishes they have that will promote more competitiveness, expansion and profits.
Remember: Expansion ALWAYS trumps attrition when it comes to forward advancement. The greatest pay raise all you first officers will ever get is when you move to the left seat. Many of you have been let down so badly, for so long, by our past management culture, that you can conceive of no other state of affairs than the present stasis. Forward movement seems simply a pipe dream, and that all management wants to do is replace you. I believe this was true. During '03 I believed that we would be lucky to see another five years. Management was making exactly the same mistakes that got us into bankruptcy, their arrogance and utter belief in infallibility was unmitigated. Tilton, having done a stellar job of reworking the company's finances at the outset became a believer in the "part-it-out-and-trade-the-assets" philosophy that has prevailed at United since the early 90s. He joined the club that has never had a long term viable view of this company. The operation was a shell game. We, the workers, were on borrowed time.
I do not believe the much maligned present CEO and his staff are of the same mindset. They may be chiselers. They may not have worker well being at the top of their list (although given the animosity they face it's not surprising), but I believe they WANT to run a company. To expand and grow by generating profits. That means you have a future and will see forward movement.
Unless you screw it up by buying into the stalemate situation your union is selling. That will result in a strike, furloughs, shrinkage, and you looking for a new career in an ever tougher job marketplace.
Yes, we are working under a post bankruptcy set of work rules and we want things to be restored to pre-bankruptcy conditions. But the economy, the market, the job front, are all vastly different than they were in 1999. They are all much worse and it must be realized in order for a realistic, achievable contract to be signed.
A demonstration of unity in the face of an adversary is the most logical reason. Fear of being ostracized is another. But we continue to accept, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that our union is doing its best and has our best interests at heart.
Why?
"It's beyond my pay grade". "You gotta believe in SOMEBODY" are the platitudes I get handed. They don't wash. I'm sorry.
There is a real, fervent, military style mindset of "Don't dissent/follow orders/stick together" that deters people from asking the difficult questions, of demanding the appropriate action. It is, I think, a product of long term crisis management being the status quo. It works well under fire. In situations where there is no time to think, only react, and survival is at stake, it is the ONLY way to operate. But when strategy is being contemplated, and long term effects being considered, it is absolutely the wrong approach. For those of you who have been front line commanders in battle this is a major shift in mindset. For those of you who have not, this is simply a time to look inside yourself and make decisions you can live with personally. They may be decisions that do not conform to the prepared voice of the union, but that should not stop you.
What's the harm in treating it as a conflict situation all the time? The answer is wrong conclusions can be drawn, and irreparable damage done.
e.g. You are in a bad neighbour hood, at night. You are armed. A figure appears around the corner pointing a gun at you. You fire your weapon and kill the assailant. In a second scenario it is daylight and you have some cover when you see the figure 'rounding the corner. You have time to assess the situation. The figure turns out to be a child with a toy gun. A very different conclusion, and one that is much preferable to the first. But you acted out of a crisis management mindset and did absolutely the wrong thing in the first case. That's what we are doing now.
I walked the picket line at Eastern in 1989 for many, many months and believed myself and my fellow picketers brave, while the scabs were cowards. Little did I realize at the time that there were many people who crossed that line that did not do it out of the much touted self-serving, weak, opportunistic failings that ALPA members claimed, but did it out of conviction in their beliefs. Conviction that required far more bravery than I was displaying.
But this required a degree of individuality. Of critical thinking. The potential is obvious and explains ALPA's antipathy toward it. It weakens the union's stance if we don't stick together. We are at war. We must hold the line. Newsflash: we ARE NOT AT WAR. But to behave like we are grants our handlers the power to exercise their will over us, while we stand by and follow the orders. Charge the cannon when told.
Sorry but if I'm going down in flames I am doing it for a damned good reason. One that I can validate. And that means my representatives must explain themselves to my satisfaction. They do NOT issue orders. They are NOT my commanding officers.
So to my mind, the wearing of the pin is to acquiesce to the commands of individuals who fail to fully explain themselves or their motives. It is to grant them the power to inflict harm on me. It is to demonstrate belonging to a group that has demonstrated time and again that its goals are not mine, it is to hope for the best and keep my head down. It is to vehemently disagree and remain silent. It is to be a hypocrite.
The other side of the coin is that it is management that is trying to squeeze every last drop out of us until we croak, or become replaceable..........something that our ALPA reps are doing nothing to prevent, as every day we buy into an easier, more automated cockpit, we become more replaceable. Every day we demand non competitive wages for flying small airplanes, we encourage management to outsource, and we become more replaceable.
It's obvious from this state of affairs that there is a real possibilty for a stalemate. What do you do? Whom do you trust?
The answer lies in the motivating forces which are plain for all to see. It just takes a little effort, and a little humility. There is a win-win situation, as well as a win-lose, as well as a lose-lose.
Win-win: speedy signing giving management SOME extra profitabilty potential and us SOME extra pay.
Win-lose: One side gets all. Either we work for peanuts or the company goes broke.
Lose-lose: Strike. Bankruptcy. Furlough. Shrinkage. New careers at Home Depot.
This is not an advocacy of succumbing to every management wish. The ones to be seriously considered are the wishes they have that will promote more competitiveness, expansion and profits.
Remember: Expansion ALWAYS trumps attrition when it comes to forward advancement. The greatest pay raise all you first officers will ever get is when you move to the left seat. Many of you have been let down so badly, for so long, by our past management culture, that you can conceive of no other state of affairs than the present stasis. Forward movement seems simply a pipe dream, and that all management wants to do is replace you. I believe this was true. During '03 I believed that we would be lucky to see another five years. Management was making exactly the same mistakes that got us into bankruptcy, their arrogance and utter belief in infallibility was unmitigated. Tilton, having done a stellar job of reworking the company's finances at the outset became a believer in the "part-it-out-and-trade-the-assets" philosophy that has prevailed at United since the early 90s. He joined the club that has never had a long term viable view of this company. The operation was a shell game. We, the workers, were on borrowed time.
I do not believe the much maligned present CEO and his staff are of the same mindset. They may be chiselers. They may not have worker well being at the top of their list (although given the animosity they face it's not surprising), but I believe they WANT to run a company. To expand and grow by generating profits. That means you have a future and will see forward movement.
Unless you screw it up by buying into the stalemate situation your union is selling. That will result in a strike, furloughs, shrinkage, and you looking for a new career in an ever tougher job marketplace.
Yes, we are working under a post bankruptcy set of work rules and we want things to be restored to pre-bankruptcy conditions. But the economy, the market, the job front, are all vastly different than they were in 1999. They are all much worse and it must be realized in order for a realistic, achievable contract to be signed.
Why Southwest is not a realistic comparison
I hear this all the time: "Well Southwest can do it....Why not us?" or "We should be paid what they get". All well and good. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.
A wise man once said you get paid what you can negotiate. Not what's "fair". Not what's "right". So given that our logic then devolves into a Beat chest/dig-heels-in/get angry mentality, and we go down a road with no negotiated end. We have stasis. But I digress. Assuming we WERE adept negotiators, why couldn't we get a Southwest contract? Answer, same reason Delta couldn't. Same reason American didn't. We have a different debt structure to Southwest, and as debt service is approximately one third of an airline's overhead, (labor and fuel making up the majority of the rest) a disparity in this number is a huge factor in overall financial health. (Anybody paying attention this week will note the corporate bond market is heading south along with the DOW and NasDaQ, and so our counterparts in management are being faced with a progressively more difficult economic future.)
Southwest began life as a by-product of the Wright Amendment, preventing any carrier operating out of Dallas-Love from flying to anywhere except a neighbouring state ( after American got suckered into the costs of building DFW, this was the bone they got thrown). Nobody was interested except Magic Herb and his merry band who seized the opportunity, cornered the market, and effectively began to operate in a micro regulated market. Very cheaply. Pilots didn't get paid much. No benefits. Costs were low. Promises (options) were high, and a belief by the troops in the management resulted in an airline that grew at a rate that kept its bonds cheap, its debt service low. It has always maintained this edge, parlaying its cash balance into lucrative fuel hedges. It has always been run well. It has never had labor strife to derail operations and alienate customers. It has always had a management that believed in profits from operations (not asset shuffling) and a workers that never tried to deliberately screw the company up to make a point.
To expect United to magically undo all of the mistakes of the last 40 years to obtain an equal footing and hence the ability to pay us comparably, is unrealistic.
But that won't stop you demanding it will it? Not if everyone around you feels comfortable with the mantra. Your union does not want you to think independently as it undermines their ability to control. This logic works fine in the military, but when freedom of choice is available, people require a good reason to do things. Any time I have questioned issues such as transparency in negotiations I received the same answer: "It is so because the MEC says it is so". Fine. I don't have to agree with it. I don't have to believe in it. And I don't have to remain quiet while our representatives steer us into the quagmire that is your future (it looks exactly like your past).
Only if we have realistic expectations will we move on from this present situation.
A wise man once said you get paid what you can negotiate. Not what's "fair". Not what's "right". So given that our logic then devolves into a Beat chest/dig-heels-in/get angry mentality, and we go down a road with no negotiated end. We have stasis. But I digress. Assuming we WERE adept negotiators, why couldn't we get a Southwest contract? Answer, same reason Delta couldn't. Same reason American didn't. We have a different debt structure to Southwest, and as debt service is approximately one third of an airline's overhead, (labor and fuel making up the majority of the rest) a disparity in this number is a huge factor in overall financial health. (Anybody paying attention this week will note the corporate bond market is heading south along with the DOW and NasDaQ, and so our counterparts in management are being faced with a progressively more difficult economic future.)
Southwest began life as a by-product of the Wright Amendment, preventing any carrier operating out of Dallas-Love from flying to anywhere except a neighbouring state ( after American got suckered into the costs of building DFW, this was the bone they got thrown). Nobody was interested except Magic Herb and his merry band who seized the opportunity, cornered the market, and effectively began to operate in a micro regulated market. Very cheaply. Pilots didn't get paid much. No benefits. Costs were low. Promises (options) were high, and a belief by the troops in the management resulted in an airline that grew at a rate that kept its bonds cheap, its debt service low. It has always maintained this edge, parlaying its cash balance into lucrative fuel hedges. It has always been run well. It has never had labor strife to derail operations and alienate customers. It has always had a management that believed in profits from operations (not asset shuffling) and a workers that never tried to deliberately screw the company up to make a point.
To expect United to magically undo all of the mistakes of the last 40 years to obtain an equal footing and hence the ability to pay us comparably, is unrealistic.
But that won't stop you demanding it will it? Not if everyone around you feels comfortable with the mantra. Your union does not want you to think independently as it undermines their ability to control. This logic works fine in the military, but when freedom of choice is available, people require a good reason to do things. Any time I have questioned issues such as transparency in negotiations I received the same answer: "It is so because the MEC says it is so". Fine. I don't have to agree with it. I don't have to believe in it. And I don't have to remain quiet while our representatives steer us into the quagmire that is your future (it looks exactly like your past).
Only if we have realistic expectations will we move on from this present situation.
Friday, August 5, 2011
To strike or not to strike.
I see a lot of you wearing your blue SPC pins. Fruit loops I call them. Unless of course you are an officer then you get WHITE SPC pin. Super-duper fruit loop. Hey, it's a free country (until O's communications czar yanks my blog) so we can all express ourselves. Why have I always been so down on the SPC? Because as an institution it fails by creating division. Because as a concept in strategy it tips our hand, and basically tells our adversaries what our intentions are. It telegraphs the punch. What does this pin actually say? It says "I am getting ready , preparing, for a strike". Are you really? Do you have any concept of what a strike is? For those of us who have been in protracted labor issues we know. The rest, you guess.
So allow me to illuminate: YOU QUIT YOUR JOB. Simple as that. You say, I don't want to work here any longer. Continental pilots have a long and ugly history of crossing picket lines. 55% of domestic flying is already done by regionals not bound by our contract and union, and we belong to the largest and most sophisticated international alliance on the planet. How long do you think it will take management to outsource or otherwise cover a significant proportion of the flying? And remember, day one is as good as it gets. Now you may say: This is undermining our efforts. Only true if you are living in a bubble and believe that management is not already aware of the weapons at their disposal. To believe that you have to believe you are much, much smarter than them. Right. That is why they write your paycheck . That's why you still subscribe to a representative body that has perpetually obstructed the free exchange of ideas and majority involvement. (I'm talking about virtual council meetings folks, and I don't buy the security issue)
The other side of the story is: (a) Management does not want to alienate its customer base (b) The government will not allow us to do it anyway because we are too big, and therefore our absence too great for the nation's overall welfare to tolerate. (c) Shareholders (short term) do not want the potential volatility caused by a strike (d) Bondholders don't want a downgrade.
But back to the pins. They really bother me. They represent fractionalisation. Division. Club-within-a-club. Clique. Hey we have 25 year pins, plain ones, battle stars ( I have two somewhere), big battle stars. half wings, fruit loops, super duper fruit loops, inverted. Which clique do YOU belong to? And this is the unity that will hold a line come strike day?? ALPA has done a bang up job of keeping the troops at each others throats. Opportunities to really unify (ESOP, 9/11, bankruptcy) have all been squandered in favor of playing politics and now the word is filtering down...."pssstt ....get ready. The day is coming".
One thing I DO believe is that we need a speedy resolution to the mire that out negotiators have entered. The tar pit that could easily be your future for several years given the ostentatious demands of "The RIGHT contract" (read: everything on the wish list or no dice). So let's get the NMB volume turned up. Let's get down to the wire. NOW. If we REALLY believe that we are at an impasse (it's been a year folks. That's an impasse. Don't let them kid you this is a "complicated process" may take years to conjure...sorry finish) It is true also that management could be playing a stalling game and allow this to drag on forever. We don't know because ALPA tells us squat. Maybe Jeff Smisek really DOES want to be Doug Parker. Who knows? But we need to find out, and find out NOW.
So allow me to illuminate: YOU QUIT YOUR JOB. Simple as that. You say, I don't want to work here any longer. Continental pilots have a long and ugly history of crossing picket lines. 55% of domestic flying is already done by regionals not bound by our contract and union, and we belong to the largest and most sophisticated international alliance on the planet. How long do you think it will take management to outsource or otherwise cover a significant proportion of the flying? And remember, day one is as good as it gets. Now you may say: This is undermining our efforts. Only true if you are living in a bubble and believe that management is not already aware of the weapons at their disposal. To believe that you have to believe you are much, much smarter than them. Right. That is why they write your paycheck . That's why you still subscribe to a representative body that has perpetually obstructed the free exchange of ideas and majority involvement. (I'm talking about virtual council meetings folks, and I don't buy the security issue)
The other side of the story is: (a) Management does not want to alienate its customer base (b) The government will not allow us to do it anyway because we are too big, and therefore our absence too great for the nation's overall welfare to tolerate. (c) Shareholders (short term) do not want the potential volatility caused by a strike (d) Bondholders don't want a downgrade.
But back to the pins. They really bother me. They represent fractionalisation. Division. Club-within-a-club. Clique. Hey we have 25 year pins, plain ones, battle stars ( I have two somewhere), big battle stars. half wings, fruit loops, super duper fruit loops, inverted. Which clique do YOU belong to? And this is the unity that will hold a line come strike day?? ALPA has done a bang up job of keeping the troops at each others throats. Opportunities to really unify (ESOP, 9/11, bankruptcy) have all been squandered in favor of playing politics and now the word is filtering down...."pssstt ....get ready. The day is coming".
One thing I DO believe is that we need a speedy resolution to the mire that out negotiators have entered. The tar pit that could easily be your future for several years given the ostentatious demands of "The RIGHT contract" (read: everything on the wish list or no dice). So let's get the NMB volume turned up. Let's get down to the wire. NOW. If we REALLY believe that we are at an impasse (it's been a year folks. That's an impasse. Don't let them kid you this is a "complicated process" may take years to conjure...sorry finish) It is true also that management could be playing a stalling game and allow this to drag on forever. We don't know because ALPA tells us squat. Maybe Jeff Smisek really DOES want to be Doug Parker. Who knows? But we need to find out, and find out NOW.
Why contract 2000 will not be revisited
Ask any United pilot when was the last time they can remember a job action, work slowdown, sickout etc etc gain the desired results, and most will reply with surety, "Contract 2000. The summer of love". This is a testament to the unfailing mega-egos we possess. We are always (ALWAYS!!) at the center of the plot. Just ask anybody. The sad truth is the summer of love succeeded only in alienating our passengers and driving us closer to the then unforseen bankruptcy. That's right guys, YOU helped us get there. WE may not be able to save an airline but we can sure as hell tank one if we try hard enough. But I digress.
Management offered us the undustry leading contract because:
IT WASN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT WAS WRITTEN ON.
The USAIR acquisition (dare I say ALPA approved?) was a money laundering scheme cooked up by Rono Duda, Stephen Wolf and Rakish Gangwald. They knew the resulting entity was bankruptcy-on-a-stick and so all contracts were out the window. If you don't believe me, perhaps a little history is in order.
In the 80s, USAir buys Piedmont. $750 million goes missing in "accounting anomalies"
Stephen Wolf (long time aircraft repainter and quick sale artist) sees this as CEO of United, and after selling the airline to the employees heads for the watering hole in Pittsburgh, along with trusty Tonto Gangwald who knows how to do some mean forensic accounting. They figure USAIR's arcane accounting system allows for access to some alternate financial universe, where, if enough money is passed through the system (like in a takeover), a substantial amount can disappear into the ether, to be collected by aircraft repainter schemologists and nefarious Indians alike.
The stage is set. The trial balloon floated in '95 (when we still had veto power) to test the waters.
Peterpaul is subsequently bought off giving management a free hand. In 1999, they get serious.
ALPA bends over and consents, receiving the shiny brand spanking new worthless contract as payment.
(sidenote: This all became apparent to me when Rono told Wall St. we were "buying USAIR to expand our route structure". I knew he was lying. How? Rono told me to my face two years before that "You absolutely do NOT buy an airline to expand route structure, but to duplicate it, thereby eliminating the competition". I thought the logic was wacky at the time but the little guy truly believed it. And these guys are one trick ponies. They refine, refine refine. They do NOT invent. They are not smart enough, just mean. So there must be another reason for the buyout, and then the old articles about the money loss with the USAIR/Piedmont deal came to mind. Then it all fell into place)
Anyway, It all goes to hell when the senator from Illinois blows the whistle and the deal's off.
2000 crash. 9/11. Bankruptcy. Enter Tilton.
Day one, first thing GT does is fire Rono. He kept boobs in rest of the upper management who wrote the playbook for our demise. Why pick on Rono? Now Rono at the time owned 300,000 shares, was COO and a board member. You don't just fire him. You engineer his departure by having the dirt on him. Tilton's no fool. He saw this. Tilton figured out the scam, probably realized it was potentially illegal, and wanted, quite rightly, to distance hiimself from it. Rono leaves unceremoniously.
Rono goes to work for The-Albama-Teacher's-Pension-Plan???? WTF?
A.h..but they are the LARGEST SHAREHOLDER IN USAIR. A h- ha. The Indian still has his fingers in the honey pot. He's still at it. (He is now in India running Air Sahara when I last heard, finally having given up the ghost)
And we had our contract. Problem is, we think we engineered it, when we had nothing to do with it, and so now we delude ourselves into thinking that we are more powerful than we are. This gives rise to the expectation that we can get management to cry "uncle" by pulling the same stunts again (Injunction notwithstanding), and that is a dangerous misconception that puts us in a precarious position, one that we need to avoid. It jeopardizes all our futures. You do not screw with the public with impunity. You pay.
The economic climate is much worse now than in 1999. It is becoming worse by the day. Obamanomics has failed. All positive effects of QE2 have been erased. Jobless rate is climbing and at the end of the year a whole slew of people lose their benefits and then it REALLY gets ugly.
So contract 2000 was nice while it lasted. Don't hold your breath waiting for its return no matter what your reps tell you.
Management offered us the undustry leading contract because:
IT WASN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT WAS WRITTEN ON.
The USAIR acquisition (dare I say ALPA approved?) was a money laundering scheme cooked up by Rono Duda, Stephen Wolf and Rakish Gangwald. They knew the resulting entity was bankruptcy-on-a-stick and so all contracts were out the window. If you don't believe me, perhaps a little history is in order.
In the 80s, USAir buys Piedmont. $750 million goes missing in "accounting anomalies"
Stephen Wolf (long time aircraft repainter and quick sale artist) sees this as CEO of United, and after selling the airline to the employees heads for the watering hole in Pittsburgh, along with trusty Tonto Gangwald who knows how to do some mean forensic accounting. They figure USAIR's arcane accounting system allows for access to some alternate financial universe, where, if enough money is passed through the system (like in a takeover), a substantial amount can disappear into the ether, to be collected by aircraft repainter schemologists and nefarious Indians alike.
The stage is set. The trial balloon floated in '95 (when we still had veto power) to test the waters.
Peterpaul is subsequently bought off giving management a free hand. In 1999, they get serious.
ALPA bends over and consents, receiving the shiny brand spanking new worthless contract as payment.
(sidenote: This all became apparent to me when Rono told Wall St. we were "buying USAIR to expand our route structure". I knew he was lying. How? Rono told me to my face two years before that "You absolutely do NOT buy an airline to expand route structure, but to duplicate it, thereby eliminating the competition". I thought the logic was wacky at the time but the little guy truly believed it. And these guys are one trick ponies. They refine, refine refine. They do NOT invent. They are not smart enough, just mean. So there must be another reason for the buyout, and then the old articles about the money loss with the USAIR/Piedmont deal came to mind. Then it all fell into place)
Anyway, It all goes to hell when the senator from Illinois blows the whistle and the deal's off.
2000 crash. 9/11. Bankruptcy. Enter Tilton.
Day one, first thing GT does is fire Rono. He kept boobs in rest of the upper management who wrote the playbook for our demise. Why pick on Rono? Now Rono at the time owned 300,000 shares, was COO and a board member. You don't just fire him. You engineer his departure by having the dirt on him. Tilton's no fool. He saw this. Tilton figured out the scam, probably realized it was potentially illegal, and wanted, quite rightly, to distance hiimself from it. Rono leaves unceremoniously.
Rono goes to work for The-Albama-Teacher's-Pension-Plan???? WTF?
A.h..but they are the LARGEST SHAREHOLDER IN USAIR. A h- ha. The Indian still has his fingers in the honey pot. He's still at it. (He is now in India running Air Sahara when I last heard, finally having given up the ghost)
And we had our contract. Problem is, we think we engineered it, when we had nothing to do with it, and so now we delude ourselves into thinking that we are more powerful than we are. This gives rise to the expectation that we can get management to cry "uncle" by pulling the same stunts again (Injunction notwithstanding), and that is a dangerous misconception that puts us in a precarious position, one that we need to avoid. It jeopardizes all our futures. You do not screw with the public with impunity. You pay.
The economic climate is much worse now than in 1999. It is becoming worse by the day. Obamanomics has failed. All positive effects of QE2 have been erased. Jobless rate is climbing and at the end of the year a whole slew of people lose their benefits and then it REALLY gets ugly.
So contract 2000 was nice while it lasted. Don't hold your breath waiting for its return no matter what your reps tell you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)