Frontier Pilots Ready To Walk

Lindberg said:
Pilot's unions don't exist for passenger's comfort and safety any more than teacher's unions exist to educate students. But those subjects sure make for better press releases.
Click to expand...

Again, you haven’t flown as an airline Capt so you know not of which you speak. The union contract allows a Capt to make safety calls that benefit even protect passengers. Most of the time passengers aren’t even aware of what the Capt did. The Capt is protected by the language of the contract.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And I said I wouldn’t work where I didn’t trust the company not to retaliate without having union representation, so I guess we largely agree on what they do.
Click to expand...
If you want to be well compensated for flying large jets there are only a limited number of options. There are no perfect jobs. They all come with compromises.

We just solve the same problem differently.
Click to expand...
The difference, then, seems to be that you're criticising the way we solve the problem while we are happy to let you solve it however you see fit.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you need a union to protect you from your employer, how is the employer trustworthy?
Click to expand...

Exactly why we have unions, the employer/management aren’t trustworthy. If we didn’t have a contract protecting the pilots we’d be at the airport 7 days a week and zero days off. Think that’s unbelievable and extreme? Essentially reserve crews almost work a schedule like this, almost. The contract prevents it. And work rules are a big part of a contract, not just compensation.
 
Busflyer said:
If you had taken a job and never gotten a raise then by your opinion you shouldn’t ask for a raise but rather go somewhere else (after all, you knew what the pay was when you started). I dare say that’s not what most people would do, especially in an industry as seniority based as the airlines.
Click to expand...

No, most people would do exactly that, especially the good ones. I see that reaction, leaving, all the time in my occupation and friends in many other occupations. In fact leaving is often the way to make more money.

But then most people don't work in an industry as seniority based as aviation. In locked-in seniority system such as in aviation, then leaving is not as good an option. Leaving can be very harmful to your finances.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Zeldman said:
Years back I worked for a 135 commuter in Alaska that was power on nose diving into the ground. They cut pilot wages with the ploy of saving the company. Then a month later they cut every one else's wages. Someone got the idea to bring in a union.

Well, someone did just that. A union representative showed up asking questions and looking around. A week later we all got a letter telling us our company was too small for them and that the money would not be enough for them to "represent" us.

Years later at my first air ambulance job, I was working 14 on, 14 off. After a few years I was getting 4 weeks paid vacation a year. I usually took two weeks off and cashed in the other two weeks. But if I wanted to I could have had 10 straight weeks off.



Man, I would have loved to go to Clovis. I have friends in Muleshoe.
Click to expand...

For some reason, we haven’t had an opening there in a long time. Guess they finally found 4 pilots that like the area. Think they get an annual $12,500 stipend as well so that helps. Got 23 openings around the country right now.

Don’t think I’d like a 14 on 14 off. I’m in the middle of 13 on and my “fatigue management” is closely monitored by management. Not fatigued or anything but I don’t think I could do 14 in a row. I’ll take the easy overtime though. So far, 8 nights in and I’ve flown maybe 5 hrs. ;)
 
wayne said:
But then most people don't work in an industry as seniority based as aviation. In locked-in seniority system such as in aviation, then leaving is not as good an option.
Click to expand...
Yet my resume lists six airlines. Considering where I've ended up, leaving those five previous airlines has worked out very well for me.

What your argument misses is that pilots are constantly leaving their airlines for greener pastures. That's how we move up to the better ones and seniority doesn't prevent it. The turnover rates at the worst ones can be very high. Even so, as long as the airline remains in business, the pilot-group remains and has the right, under federal labor law, to negotiate for better conditions. That is what the Frontier pilot-group is doing--regardless of how many of them leave before the process is complete.

Under the RLA, it is the pilot-group that negotiates, not individual pilots. The entire pilot-group can not leave (strike) unless the very specific requirements of the RLA are met. Individual pilots leave all the time. When some pilots leave for better positions it does not remove the rights of the remaining pilot-group under the RLA.
 
Kritchlow said:
I will briefly try to illustrate the problem. Let’s say the airline has 10,000 pilots. They are opening two new crew bases and closing one. They are getting 777s for the first time, but getting rid of their 767s.
300 pilots want to stay a senior FO for schedule, while 1000 want to move to the new crew base for the 777. 2000 are displaced from their base, and 1/2 of them want to go fly the 737 in the new base.... on, and on, and on....

How is that jungle sorted out? The only way is by a seniority system. It’s figured out with the push of a button.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Graph Theory. These types of problems are well-served by many algorithms developed for situations like this. Oddly enough, the dating sites (match.com, etc) use these algorithms all the time. Just another push of the button.
 
Velocity173 said:
Our company (Part 135) is the largest air ambulance company in the world and we’re non-union.

We were solicited by unions a few years back but we never got signed up for union representation. I think they’re a joke. I’ve got friends in other companies under union rep and they make roughly the same pay, work conditions, benefits, etc. When their bases closes, they lose seniority and have to reapply through their union. My base closes (never happen) I’m in a new base the next day and keep seniority.

I laugh when they say they’ll improve my work conditions. Yeah, I sit around all day watching TV (when I’m not sleeping) and fly a whopping 150-175 hrs a year. Can take vacation anytime, always home every night, no pressure to fly, aircraft maint is impeccable and hardly ever hear from management unless it’s a pat on the back. Slave drivers I tell ya!
Click to expand...
If all employers were like yours, there would be a lot fewer that were unionized.
 
mscard88 said:
Exactly why we have unions, the employer/management aren’t trustworthy. If we didn’t have a contract protecting the pilots we’d be at the airport 7 days a week and zero days off. Think that’s unbelievable and extreme? Essentially reserve crews almost work a schedule like this, almost. The contract prevents it. And work rules are a big part of a contract, not just compensation.
Click to expand...
yea, let the union deal with bs from mgnt
 
Velocity173 said: ↑
Our company (Part 135) is the largest air ambulance company in the world and we’re non-union.

We were solicited by unions a few years back but we never got signed up for union representation. I think they’re a joke.
Click to expand...
who cares
Kritchlow said: ↑
98% of airlines are unionized.
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
Are you saying that you agree with what I wrote?
Click to expand...

I agree that "business owners are free to organize themselves into corporations, and employees are free to organize themselves into unions." I don't think anyone ever argued that point, which is precisely what I said. No one mentioned anything to the effect of employees not being free to organize into unions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the pilot's unions are completely worthless, I said unions (in general) are often self-serving, even when they've outlived their usefulness (UAW for example). Do I think airline pilots could do just fine without a union? Sure, but that isn't the case in the real world at the moment, and I seriously doubt we'll ever see that day come. I do think there are some caveats to being an airline pilot which are slightly different from other occupations, but certainly nothing that "requires" the existence of a union specifically.
 
No dog in the fight, but show me a non-union outfit in any occupation that offers a 15% B-fund. Honest Q, I'd love to have a backup when (not if) this flying airplanes for money shtick goes to hell. So far I got goose egg on that front, except for union part 121. Occam's Razor and all that jazz.....
 
Perfect example of the need for an airline pilot union or association.

32432FCF-FC03-40D9-944B-6A3F993801FD.jpeg
 
mscard88 said:
Frank Lorenzo - Eastern Airlines and others. Corporate raider, bastard, a few other names...
Click to expand...

Oh. He was the Continental dude. Story. 80's. Continental is in the news just about everyday with this incident or that. Stories of inexperienced pilots etc. It was during the union busting time and the pilots had given big concessions to keep the line flying. Like pay cuts and giving up pensions and stuff. So Continental ### is departing LAX on the Loop departure. It's a simple one, depart straight ahead and then reverse course to cross back over LAX at or above whatever altitude it was. Pilot times his own turn to do it. Plane looks like it's climbing a bit slow so the controller asks if he's gonna make the restriction. Pilot says yeah in so many words with a lot of attitude in his voice. Controller says it just seemed like you were climbing kinds slow and may not. Pilot, now with atitude in high gear says something like "if you know so much about how this plane flies then why are you down there and I'm up here." Controller says "well I would Captain but I don't want the pay cut." Controller ended up getting no pay for two weeks.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I agree that "business owners are free to organize themselves into corporations, and employees are free to organize themselves into unions." I don't think anyone ever argued that point, which is precisely what I said. No one mentioned anything to the effect of employees not being free to organize into unions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the pilot's unions are completely worthless, I said unions (in general) are often self-serving, even when they've outlived their usefulness (UAW for example). Do I think airline pilots could do just fine without a union? Sure, but that isn't the case in the real world at the moment, and I seriously doubt we'll ever see that day come. I do think there are some caveats to being an airline pilot which are slightly different from other occupations, but certainly nothing that "requires" the existence of a union specifically.
Click to expand...
i'd love to see something better than unions, regardless, it is what it is

if there was no need for unions, they wouldn't be around & something else would be in the game
 
Half Fast said:
That's your choice. It may be your best choice today. You probably had more options 25 years ago. Weigh all pros and cons and make your decision, but once you've decided live with your choice knowing that it was yours to make.

It seems to me that so many of these pilots want to be seen as victims. They are not. They are smart, educated people who entered a career of their own choosing, eyes wide open, knowing the historical issues. And no one is forcing them to stay in the industry.
Click to expand...
it seems to me they have options that if required, or even desire, they then pursue
 
Last edited:
vman said:
i'd love to see something better than unions, regardless, it is what it is

if there was no need for unions, they wouldn't be around & something else would be in the game
Click to expand...

Agreed. Although, it can be pretty difficult to get rid of a union once well-established, even if not truly "needed". UAW is an example I mentioned earlier, teacher's unions are another. Not really sure why the need to exist at this point, but they're here and unlikely to be dissolved.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Agreed. Although, it can be pretty difficult to get rid of a union once well-established, even if not truly "needed". UAW is an example I mentioned earlier, teacher's unions are another. Not really sure why the need to exist at this point, but they're here and unlikely to be dissolved.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm skeptical whenever anyone other than a member of a particular union claims that it's not needed.

Or do you think you know what's best for other people?
 
Cooter said:
Choosing an airline is kind of like choosing a bride. It’s not that you can’t leave, but there are heavy penalties for doing so. It’s best to try to work it out before you throw it all away and have to start over. That being said, their are some women you shouldn’t marry to begin with, so you shouldn’t be surprised when things don’t work out.
Click to expand...
Or you can choose not to get married and work for a non-union company; less stability but more flexibility... in both instances.
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I'm skeptical whenever anyone other than a member of a particular union claims that it's not needed.
Click to expand...

I understand that sentiment, but as one who has (and currently) worked with companies which have both union AND non-union employees, it's easier to see the disparities between the two and their effects on the overall business. Not all unions are the same, and not every company handles them in an identical manner.

Palmpilot said:
Or do you think you know what's best for other people?
Click to expand...

Interesting comment. I haven't once dictated that I know "what's best" for anyone. I have maintained fairly neutral ground on the matter, despite my belief that most unions are likely unnecessary. No need to get your panties in a bunch. There isn't a line in the sand, unions are a grey area and there is research out there that supports either side.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Interesting comment. I haven't once dictated that I know "what's best" for anyone. I have maintained fairly neutral ground on the matter, despite my belief that most unions are likely unnecessary. No need to get your panties in a bunch. There isn't a line in the sand, unions are a grey area and there is research out there that supports either side.
Click to expand...
Stating that most unions are likely unnecessary is "fairly neutral ground"? o_O
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Stating that most unions are unnecessary is "fairly neutral ground"? o_O
Click to expand...
Geez, Palm. If you are going to quote him, at least do it accurately. Sooner said “are LIKELY unnecessary”. Besides, that statement was made AFTER his other posts, which WERE pretty neutral.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Geez, Palm. If you are going to quote him, at least do it accurately. Sooner said “are LIKELY unnecessary”.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I fixed it.

Besides, that statement was made AFTER his other posts, which WERE pretty neutral.
Click to expand...

They didn't seem so to me.
 
I know several people that work in different non-aviation jobs. The state says it is not required to join the union, but the union says if they want to work here they will pay union dues. Since they are not union, they get no union privileges.

I always thought that was just extortion.
 
Zeldman said:
I know several people that work in different non-aviation jobs. The state says it is not required to join the union, but the union says if they want to work here they will pay union dues. Since they are not union, they get no union privileges.

I always thought that was just extortion.
Click to expand...

That’s called Agency Shop.
 
Zeldman said:
I know several people that work in different non-aviation jobs. The state says it is not required to join the union, but the union says if they want to work here they will pay union dues. Since they are not union, they get no union privileges.

I always thought that was just extortion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe. But do you really think it is fair to reap the benefits that the union brings to the employee group without contributing?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, maybe. But do you really think it is fair to reap the benefits that the union brings to the employee group without contributing?
Click to expand...

From what they tell me, that is the problem. This is a right to work state by name. They did not join, they get NO union benefits, but still are required to pay union dues to remain employed. One friend is a nurse. She is one of the head nurses, don't remember her title. She is in charge when on duty. She is the only one not union. She quit the union several years ago when they were told to go on strike. She lost a several thousand dollars of pay that took many years to make up. Not worth it.

Why is it fair to be able to collect dues from non union members and not give them the benefits.?? Still extortion.

She is a federal employee working at the Indian Health Services hospital, that might have something to do with it. But still, right to work means not having to be forced to be union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top