I want to share my views with you on the much touted logic that "if we work less, management will need to hire more pilots" and why this is demonstrably untrue.
This logic has given rise to terrible divisiveness within our ranks, people's names being brandished, almost as scabs, if they accepted a junior manning assignment. The action of our union engaging in non voted side letters preventing us from making money. For instance, the original TED contract had no pay cap. Your union closeted a little side letter that turned the 95-max flight hrs/month onto 95 max pay hrs/month. Arguable as inconsequential until split IDs with deadheads start showing up and you are prevented by your union from capitalizing on soft time trips that would have brought your pay over 95 but kept the flight time below that number. All done in the spirit of egalitarianism I suppose. Or that's what they would have you believe. Pay caps are reduced further when our pilots are on the street, supposedly to force management into bringing them back sooner than they otherwise would. Work rules negotiated that were deliberately inefficient for the same reason. It's the "Create Busy Work" scenario.
Work less=Management must hire more.
But this not true.
Basically, if we work less, we drive the cost per hour of our services up. We make ourselves more expensive. Bean counters take one look at an increasing expense and do what they are programmed to do and reduce the expense. They cut flying. They do not increase the expense more by adding to the payroll. To expect this behaviour presupposes that the block hours are constant, and were that true, popular (ALPAs) logic would indeed follow. Management would have ot hire more pilots.
It is not true. They don't.
Block hours are variable. Projections get changed on a monthly basis based on market conditions. So block hours can be cut at the management's behest. Sounds counter intuitive but that is largely because the brainwashing of the last 20 years has served to curtail critical thinking to a large extent. It's politically sellable. Think about it: In order to be a supporter, and one of the team, all you have to do is.....nothing. Unfortunately what you do by engaging in this obfuscation is actually counter productive, having an effect opposite to the one intended.
A few examples:
Blue Skies agreement: Pilot costs reduced>>>block hours subsequently increase
Beginning of ESOP: Pilot costs reduced>>>> block hour flying increases dramatically
Beginning of Shuttle contract: Pilot costs reduced>>>>block hours increase
End of Shuttle contract: Pilot costs increased>>>>block hours decrease
End of ESOP/Contract 2000: Pilot costs increased>>>> block hours decrease
LCC contract: Pilot costs reduced>>>>block hours increase
These are six instances where the correlation is documented. Once or twice could be a coincidence. Six, to me, is proof.
Just think of this next time you engage in a practise that drives up costs. Of any kind. (For the record...I do NOT believe in a Pollyanna world where "we can save the company". I DO believe we can destroy it if we try hard enough. I DO believe you can incentivize management to ousource if you become too expensive, and I DO believe you can incentivize management to increase the flying on the property by being more efficient)
I do not believe you are helping yourselves in acting out a flawed strategy. It is particularly apparent to management bean counters when the direct employee cost is the one on the table, instantly visible, and ripe for surgery.
Continental's pilots, even though they get paid considerably more than we do, are cheaper for management to operate than us because of their greater flexibility and less "QOL" work rules in their contract. The expansion in the merged company is being seen almost exclusively on the Continental side.
They are hiring
We have 1400+ on furlough.
Any questions?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The underemployed
Us. The lower lineholders. The reserves.
Much has been made of the houly rate issue in our current contract negotiations but little has been said about the fact that many of us cannot make a decent paycheck because there is not enough work (or thanks to PBS, the senior lineholders can collect 90+hours per month and leave the rest swinging in the breeze). Our counterparts at Continental do not see this vast disparity. Only in our precious United culture do we see this. But that's bye the bye. Taking pot shots at those who have the opportunity to make money is a little disingenuous (kind of like ALPA members berating those who accept junior manning assignments). The fact is, the problem would not occur if management were incentivized to expand the airline. i.e. By knowing what their future costs were going to be. By having us locked in a contract. By creating more work, your 70 hr/month paycheck becomes a 90/hr /month paycheck, and with proper work rules that can be achieved in the same days (Remember the shuttle??). That's a 28.57% pay raise without touching the hourly rate. Now, given that management's original offer (I don't know if it's still on the table, after two years maybe they rescinded it) was what amounted to a 22% pay raise, a combination of these increases amounts ot a 54% pay raise. That's for YOU. The junior lineholders. The reserves that would become lineholders. As you can see, the United element of the "New United" has not seen any expansion since the merger, so don't expect any changes until a contract is signed.
So to all of you who are in this position, I say Make Yourselves Heard! You have a right to the opportunities that are being offered, and you owe nothing to those who would stifle those opportunities.
Much has been made of the houly rate issue in our current contract negotiations but little has been said about the fact that many of us cannot make a decent paycheck because there is not enough work (or thanks to PBS, the senior lineholders can collect 90+hours per month and leave the rest swinging in the breeze). Our counterparts at Continental do not see this vast disparity. Only in our precious United culture do we see this. But that's bye the bye. Taking pot shots at those who have the opportunity to make money is a little disingenuous (kind of like ALPA members berating those who accept junior manning assignments). The fact is, the problem would not occur if management were incentivized to expand the airline. i.e. By knowing what their future costs were going to be. By having us locked in a contract. By creating more work, your 70 hr/month paycheck becomes a 90/hr /month paycheck, and with proper work rules that can be achieved in the same days (Remember the shuttle??). That's a 28.57% pay raise without touching the hourly rate. Now, given that management's original offer (I don't know if it's still on the table, after two years maybe they rescinded it) was what amounted to a 22% pay raise, a combination of these increases amounts ot a 54% pay raise. That's for YOU. The junior lineholders. The reserves that would become lineholders. As you can see, the United element of the "New United" has not seen any expansion since the merger, so don't expect any changes until a contract is signed.
So to all of you who are in this position, I say Make Yourselves Heard! You have a right to the opportunities that are being offered, and you owe nothing to those who would stifle those opportunities.
Monday, February 20, 2012
On the attitude of ageing pilots
This is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but the truth needs to be heard.
But first, let me take you back to the summer of '91 when I was an LCA on the 727 panel at Pan Am. Things were not going well. We were selling routes. The BIG cherry just picked was the European operation (Frankfurt hub/A-310s) and the NY shuttle (LGA hub/727s) going to Delta. Delta wanted the crews they were prepared to take already trained in seat and type. So to accomodate the senior folk ALPA, the FEIA and management REBID the airline. Those who would have been saved from the inevitable collapse (like me) by going to Delta were now looking down both barrels at unemployment, furlough notice in hand and 90 days to figure out what to do. Yeah, my union was looking out for me again god bless 'em. So when I get called into the office and told in effect "You will be training your replacements" (the 747 F/Es who were bidding back to the 727 panel) I was at a loss for words. A thousand emotions flew across my mind.
But I was still collecting a paycheck and as far as I was concerned, I had entered into an agreement with the company to provide services in exchange for it. I had no aspirations at a management slot or salvation of some other kind, I was just keeping my word. A working stiff. Moreover, I knew the history of the replacements. Many had suffered long furloughs, were pushing 60 with little retirement, this was their shot at a day in the sun. I was no spring chicken (late thirties, a couple of airline failures already under my belt, no retirement to speak of, a newborne baby.....the usual story) but I recognized their situation was more dire than my own. I did the checkrides, got them all through (some needed work) and felt good about being able to help when called on. December '91 I was back to flying boxes around in a Cessna 310 for 20K a year.
Fast forward now to 2007 and the brouhaha about raising the retirement age is in full swing. Young pilots rabid about the potential for stifled growth because the old guys won't leave. United ALPA took a vote and it was about 70-30 against raising the age limit. Of course the rest of the world was going to do it, The US government was going to do it, and so ALPA national rolled over and acquiesced to it. But had it depended on a straw vote it would have failed, and age 60 would have remained the law. Never at any time did I hear a younger pilot express anything except WHAT PERSONALLY BENEFITTED HIM. The greater good, others needs, the ultimate benefit to him monetarily, all were ignored. It was me, me , me like a broken record. Not vey impressive from an ethical standpoint. Pretty poor.
Unfortunatley it gets worse.
There are many turning 60 now (like me) who are aware that their presence was, by and large, not wanted on the property. (If we were to assume that everyone over 55 voted to extend retirement age, and that the age demographic from 35 to 55 is roughly constant, then we see a shocking 7:1 vote within the 35 -55 age group against raising the age limit.). The majority had spoken.
Well, they, the old guys, are on the property. They are not going anywhere.
And so when you look for unity, when you look for someone over the age of 60 to put their job on the line for your benefit, for your future, for your "quality of life", for your scope protection, remember this:
You didn't want him to have that job or that vote in the first place. He is already an outcast in his mind. Had you had your way he would be unemployed right now thanks to you.
It's nothing personal, just business.
But first, let me take you back to the summer of '91 when I was an LCA on the 727 panel at Pan Am. Things were not going well. We were selling routes. The BIG cherry just picked was the European operation (Frankfurt hub/A-310s) and the NY shuttle (LGA hub/727s) going to Delta. Delta wanted the crews they were prepared to take already trained in seat and type. So to accomodate the senior folk ALPA, the FEIA and management REBID the airline. Those who would have been saved from the inevitable collapse (like me) by going to Delta were now looking down both barrels at unemployment, furlough notice in hand and 90 days to figure out what to do. Yeah, my union was looking out for me again god bless 'em. So when I get called into the office and told in effect "You will be training your replacements" (the 747 F/Es who were bidding back to the 727 panel) I was at a loss for words. A thousand emotions flew across my mind.
But I was still collecting a paycheck and as far as I was concerned, I had entered into an agreement with the company to provide services in exchange for it. I had no aspirations at a management slot or salvation of some other kind, I was just keeping my word. A working stiff. Moreover, I knew the history of the replacements. Many had suffered long furloughs, were pushing 60 with little retirement, this was their shot at a day in the sun. I was no spring chicken (late thirties, a couple of airline failures already under my belt, no retirement to speak of, a newborne baby.....the usual story) but I recognized their situation was more dire than my own. I did the checkrides, got them all through (some needed work) and felt good about being able to help when called on. December '91 I was back to flying boxes around in a Cessna 310 for 20K a year.
Fast forward now to 2007 and the brouhaha about raising the retirement age is in full swing. Young pilots rabid about the potential for stifled growth because the old guys won't leave. United ALPA took a vote and it was about 70-30 against raising the age limit. Of course the rest of the world was going to do it, The US government was going to do it, and so ALPA national rolled over and acquiesced to it. But had it depended on a straw vote it would have failed, and age 60 would have remained the law. Never at any time did I hear a younger pilot express anything except WHAT PERSONALLY BENEFITTED HIM. The greater good, others needs, the ultimate benefit to him monetarily, all were ignored. It was me, me , me like a broken record. Not vey impressive from an ethical standpoint. Pretty poor.
Unfortunatley it gets worse.
There are many turning 60 now (like me) who are aware that their presence was, by and large, not wanted on the property. (If we were to assume that everyone over 55 voted to extend retirement age, and that the age demographic from 35 to 55 is roughly constant, then we see a shocking 7:1 vote within the 35 -55 age group against raising the age limit.). The majority had spoken.
Well, they, the old guys, are on the property. They are not going anywhere.
And so when you look for unity, when you look for someone over the age of 60 to put their job on the line for your benefit, for your future, for your "quality of life", for your scope protection, remember this:
You didn't want him to have that job or that vote in the first place. He is already an outcast in his mind. Had you had your way he would be unemployed right now thanks to you.
It's nothing personal, just business.
Expansion
The other day I got into a conversation with a Chicago F/O who was miffed about the potential for CAL opening a 737 base at ORD, and that we may open a 320 base at IAH. "The flying's gotta come from somewhere" he opined. They gain, we lose! "I'm gonna have guys 10 years junior to me takin' my flying!" I know many of you share this view. Ultimately this is what's going to happen, and an integration of seniority based on equality of relative % will happen; so unless you want our current situation for the rest of your careers, I suggest you get with the program.
The problem is, most of you can see no upside, and little wonder. You have spent your careers at United under a variety of managements, none of which cared about operations or expansion. They were all about trading assets, off balance sheet accounting, tax breaks, alliances, fuel hedges.....anything that didn't include YOU.
So along comes the Continental culture; one of expansion and growth. Efficiency and competition. They don't treat their employees with kid gloves, true. But they pay better, offer more opportunities and expand while our culture contracts and decays into dust. And you cannot believe it. To you, it's more of the same, a zero sum game at best.
It's not. These guys want to grow and our union (with your sanction) is doing its best to prevent it by obstructing every single move.
The opening of new crew bases should be welcomed as a sign of growth, but instead small minded partisan nitpicking can be heard like broken glass in a peppermill as we wring our hands and shake our heads at "them".
The problem is, most of you can see no upside, and little wonder. You have spent your careers at United under a variety of managements, none of which cared about operations or expansion. They were all about trading assets, off balance sheet accounting, tax breaks, alliances, fuel hedges.....anything that didn't include YOU.
So along comes the Continental culture; one of expansion and growth. Efficiency and competition. They don't treat their employees with kid gloves, true. But they pay better, offer more opportunities and expand while our culture contracts and decays into dust. And you cannot believe it. To you, it's more of the same, a zero sum game at best.
It's not. These guys want to grow and our union (with your sanction) is doing its best to prevent it by obstructing every single move.
The opening of new crew bases should be welcomed as a sign of growth, but instead small minded partisan nitpicking can be heard like broken glass in a peppermill as we wring our hands and shake our heads at "them".
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Our sacrifices
They are many. They are vast. The sacrifices we have made to keep this company afloat are a testament to our commitment to its continued existence. They were noble, valourous acts worthy of historical note.
Or were they?
Did we have an option? Yes, we could have quit and found other jobs.
Did we? No.
Why? This was obviously the best option.
Did we do this to save the company?
No. We did it for ourselves.
So this moral high ground we think we inhabit is in actual fact a self indulged sham.
The truth is this: We get what we can negotiate, not what we conceive of being morally worth.
Which brings me to the economic thrust of this post. Something I think you all need to hear and many are carefully avoiding.
We are in an industry with declining margins and ever increasing competition. True, as of late with the two big mergers underfoot there has been a temporary respite, but the nature of these mergers only serves to underscore the historic trend. As I have said before, we today,will make less than our predecessors. We will make more than those who follow us. This is a trend that is determined not by our management but by intractable market forces and public demands. To have an offer on the table such as we have had sitting there for the last year and to discount it out of hand is foolish and short sighted, and shows no evidence of having learned anything from history.
We should accept it, as a short term contract, making sure the RJs are on the property at competitive rates, and look to the future where growth and market dominance can attempt to reverse the historic trend and give us more of the pie.
To claim "We want it back" is like demanding your youth back. It's never going to happen. Let's get real.
Or were they?
Did we have an option? Yes, we could have quit and found other jobs.
Did we? No.
Why? This was obviously the best option.
Did we do this to save the company?
No. We did it for ourselves.
So this moral high ground we think we inhabit is in actual fact a self indulged sham.
The truth is this: We get what we can negotiate, not what we conceive of being morally worth.
Which brings me to the economic thrust of this post. Something I think you all need to hear and many are carefully avoiding.
We are in an industry with declining margins and ever increasing competition. True, as of late with the two big mergers underfoot there has been a temporary respite, but the nature of these mergers only serves to underscore the historic trend. As I have said before, we today,will make less than our predecessors. We will make more than those who follow us. This is a trend that is determined not by our management but by intractable market forces and public demands. To have an offer on the table such as we have had sitting there for the last year and to discount it out of hand is foolish and short sighted, and shows no evidence of having learned anything from history.
We should accept it, as a short term contract, making sure the RJs are on the property at competitive rates, and look to the future where growth and market dominance can attempt to reverse the historic trend and give us more of the pie.
To claim "We want it back" is like demanding your youth back. It's never going to happen. Let's get real.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Life outside the bubble
Last week the government proclaimed the wonderful news that the jobless rate fell from 8.3% to 8.2%. Great. What they didn't tell you was that to achieve that statistic they simply stopped counting 1.2 million unemployed who have dropped off the radar and atre simply not working/not looking for work/effectively disappeared. There are fewer working now than last month. That's the ugly truth. There are fewer working now than in 2008. Plans by corporations for job cuts are up 28% from last year.
And your union is holding out for a better deal?
What's wrong with this picture?
And your union is holding out for a better deal?
What's wrong with this picture?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)