PDA

View Full Version : ATTENTION B767/A340 CREWS!


Stuka
3rd Sep 2001, 03:34
This a post to all B767 and A340 pilots that have answered a call for a short term contract from global aircraft delivery inc. If you take this contract you will be crossing picket lines against a large southamerican carrier pilot union. You will be endangering 400 jobs, and you will be blacklisted in all Ifalpa lists. Plus you might suffer legal consecuences with the country federal authorities. This call was made to avoid negotiating legally with the union. There will be nothing positive for you out of this contract. We thank you for your support.

Pete Otube
3rd Sep 2001, 19:39
How dare you try and restrict the activities of other pilots? What law says you cannot pass so called "picket lines"?

fullforward
3rd Sep 2001, 20:16
Dear Pete,

It seems that Stuka is only giving a good advice. To follow it or not is just a case of decency, dignity or self respect.

jtr
3rd Sep 2001, 21:05
Stuka, thanks for the info. To be honest I am looking at the moment, and are 340 endorsed, (had enough of my current) but hadn't come across that contract.
At least now I can save myself the bother.

As for you Mr Tube.... I think were we to do a survey of Airline pilots worldwide, and ask them to scale scabs from gutter licking spineless pieces of pond sludge, up to apostle, we can rest assured they would score highly in the former category.

iflyboeing747
3rd Sep 2001, 22:42
Pete Otube

Caution now, please..!
Just to make it clear:
Imagine yourself being one of the poor 400 colleaques down there in South America trying to sort out their conflict with the company - and some guy e.g. Pete Otube came around saving the company by flying for them..?

Wouldn't you be very angry with this guy destroying your carreer and maybe also jeopardizing your family economy..?

It is not nice to "go for any job at any cost" - sometimes one need to know the consequenses.

Good info STUKA..!

Best of luck to the guys in the airline indicated..! Hopefully they will come to some agreement with their employer..

Cisco Kid
3rd Sep 2001, 22:54
Thanks for the info Stuka, Surely in our increasingly globalised environment,it is in all our interests not to "scab" for any pilots in dispute with their airline;no law against it of course,except the law of ethics,which some people,particilarly in employment agencis & airline management find hard to grasp.

Pete Otube
4th Sep 2001, 18:54
What law of ethics?

What is the difference in the ethics of a striking pilot, inconveniencing other employees, passengers and shareholders for personal financial or lifestyle gains and
the strike-breaking scab who incoveniences strikers for personal financial or lifestyle gains?

Roadtrip
4th Sep 2001, 21:07
Scabs almost always are abandoned by their new employers after grand promises and assurances. They always wind up being pariahs among the profession. The quickest way to ruin an aviation career is to scab.

Stuka
7th Sep 2001, 05:12
Dear Mr. Otube.
I have been following your posts for some time, so I'm not surprised with your last one. How dare you talk about ethics? I remember your post in the salary thread. Please take my advice and look for a frustrated beancounter forum. You might find some simpathy there. This is a proffessional pilot forum and for the looks of it we all have similar concerns, ethics and dignity no matter where we are from. We are not on strike for starters, we are counteracting hostile tactics by management, and besides the right to strike is give to people by law, or are you above the law? Don't even mention lifestile because at the moment we have none. You don't spend 18 nights a month away from your family. But what can I say to about family, by the looks of your posts you are the kind that eats his children. To all the other colleages in this thread I once again thank you for your support.

Pete Otube
7th Sep 2001, 13:42
Stuka

Thank you for following my posts - I am amazed that anyone would actually bother! I didn't bring up ethics - I asked a question. No, of course no-one is above the law - but there is also a right to work freely just as there is a right to strike when the correct procedures have been followed. Beancounter yes, frustrated no, did 25 years of being away from home down route so I do understand lifestyle problems.

Finally, I do love kids - I just couldn't eat a whole one!

fightson
7th Sep 2001, 14:44
It's scum like the above mentioned AS**#LE who make it bad for all of us hard working pilots who have faught long and hard for decent contracts. I'm willing to bet my life on it that this BELL SHAPED CURVED head idiot is a former SCAB. Get a life looser :mad:

Dogma
7th Sep 2001, 15:30
Mr Otube,

Sir you are obtuse, agressive and frankly the very kind of self-serving, righteous individual the world of aviation could do without. It is hard to imagne you are actually an airman. Though I gather you are retired, a small mercy.

Stuka, you would do well to confine your posts to the facts and reality. It is unfortunatly not illegal to scab nor is a scab likely to suffer from any legal ramifications.

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Dogma ]

Pete Otube
7th Sep 2001, 15:49
Dogma - steady on -I don't really eat children.
People have many different human rights - one is to work and support a family (rather a large one, in my case)and another is to withdraw his labour. My grudge is with people who exercise the latter feeling it is their right to stop others exercising the former.
I support your right to strike - you must support my right to work.

Harry Erman
7th Sep 2001, 16:06
It is unfortunatly not illegal to scab nor is a scab likely to suffer from any legal ramifications.

Serious question - why has no country ever made it illegal? Dogma, any suggestions?

upperecam
7th Sep 2001, 16:20
Pete Otube sounds/reads very like The Guvnor albeit the handle is perhaps too aviation technical for NR..............? :eek:

Pete Otube
7th Sep 2001, 16:46
Upperecam - I can assure you that I am not NR, though I have met him on one occasion which will set him thinking when he reads this..
Furthermore, the following are not the Guv either: Joyce Tick, Pete Ohete, Lee Dingedge Guy Devane and Bourbon-on-the-rocks and .....

Mapshift
7th Sep 2001, 16:48
More specifics stuka please...who are the airplanes being flown/delivered on behalf of, and how is this work being classified as struck work..and to pete otube, well there are no laws...but just imagine once that if a company is willing to dump on their own pilots, what will they eventually do to you, and who will support your cause? take a walk in their own shoes...ignore if you must the "scab" label, and the threats...just be realistic about it....why is this work in dispute, and why jump into the middle of another man's dispute?

Pete Otube
7th Sep 2001, 17:04
Mapshift - I agree with you, why jump into another man's dispute? No-one would, or I think does, unless they themselves have a desperate need to work. If a job is vacated by a disgruntled employee then it's going to be eyed up by the hungry unemployed..
Strikes unfortunately don't turn lousy employers into good ones - it just makes them look for the next chance to get their own back.
It is very sad when just one group of workers ignore the other groups within the same company and decide to bring it to it's knees. Who fights for all the other employees who are not so disgruntled and want to stay working? (and I am not suggesting the scabs do)

The Guvnor
7th Sep 2001, 17:49
I always find it rather amusing that unionists - who on the one hand are so insistent on their 'rights' - at the same time seek to deny those same rights to others.

They have the right to withdraw their labour, fine.

But what about the passengers that have entrusted their fares, travel plans - and ultimately their lives - with the carrier? Don't they have rights?

Or the shippers of cargo that could be affecting the lives of hundreds - or even thousands - of people? Don't they have rights?

Or the owners of the company - the shareholders - who have invested their hard earned money and want a decent return on their investment? Don't they have rights?

Sorry, people, but wake up and smell the coffee here. Not only do they all have rights - but management has rights as well - the right to source alternative personnel (whether short term or permanent) to replace those that are not working. Those replacement workers have the right not to be intimidated - and I trust that if intimidation does take place, then the perpetrators of such intimidation will feel the full force of the law.

If an employer is genuinely awful, then it will find good employees very hard to find. If, on the other hand, the action is simply one where the union is out to get its members a bigger slice of the cake (something which strangely in most airlines I've seen is usally at the expense of other employee groups - so much for brother/sisterhood, eh, comrades? :D) then they will get replacements - and pretty easily as well. Look at the Cathay situation!

Sabena too is a perfect example of a company where one union - BeCA - with its unilateral action (opposed by all the other unions) has put management into a position where they are close to putting the company into administrative receivership (Chapter 11).

Plus, of course, in South America you have Aerolineas Argentinas where the unions made continual demands, expecting management to keep backing down - but at the end they, too, were forced into receivership.

Pilots are allegedly professionals. The reality, unfortunately, is that many appear to be more militantly blue collar than Arthur Scargill and his NUM bully boys. :mad: :mad:

Pete Otube
7th Sep 2001, 18:00
Hey Guv, no-one's going to believe me now.. (do you want to borrow a flak-jacket?)

OneWorld22
7th Sep 2001, 18:08
Watch yourself Stuka and others, you have no right to try and exclude this forum to anybody who is not a "profesional pilot." It says so in black and white and has been re-stated time and time again by the moderators.

Everyone has a right to speak on this forum and I think it's extremely beneficial to hear opinions from those outside the profession. Just keep to the goddamn debate without getting personal. :mad:

The Guvnor
7th Sep 2001, 18:09
Thanks Pete Otube - I understand rumour has it I have Kevlar balls! :D :D :D

Dropp the Pilot
7th Sep 2001, 18:29
Don't many pilots out there find the faith in the mystical powers of the 'IFALPA ban' touching, if a bit sad?

I feel duty bound to point out that there are tens of thousands of pilots out there who would see any 'strike' in these terms: a group of pilots has declined to do their job for the pay offered. Having declined to do their job, the company has found people to replace them. There is no tragedy or moral outrage here. Too bad the strikers weren't a tad more aware though, as now their dependents have to suffer for their greed and hubris.

Your 'struck work' and 's**b' claptrap is about sixty years out of date.

Does whoever started this shrill thread (and about 90% of those and the Fragrant Harbour forum) REALLY believe that there are pilots out there who, in the face of mortgage payments and school fees, would hesitate for a nano-second in taking one of these jobs?

Cute, in a way. Like belief in Santa Claus...

Mapshift
8th Sep 2001, 13:13
I agree with you Dropp the pilot...that the union threats are an anachronism the unions need to dispose of...yes guv...the biggest loosers are the passengers, and ultimately the employees once the pax abandon the carrier....taking a job vacated by another eg the aussie dispute '89, is not scabbing...they quit...but crossing an active legal picket line is a bit foolhardy....even if the dispute is for selfish reasons...as is most often the case...my 27+ year career ended at eal when we went on a sympathy strike for the most selfish sobs in the industry..the IAM...what a mistake...and some of my co-workers got labeled as scabs by alpa national, even though we were ordered back to work by our local mec...so ignore the rhetoric, the labels and threats...just sort out the facts and reasons for any labor dispute....look before leaping..

crazy_max
8th Sep 2001, 15:10
Apparently there are certain things that never change, and jackasses like The Guv and Pete will always be around, not much we can do about that. But then again trust me guys there is justice at the end. They can come here and just say all they want, and the rights of the passenger, and the poor stockholders, and the cargo. Well I can almost cry, but in the end it is about one thing; guys like the Guv and Pete never made it. So the idea of crossing a picket line is so great to them because they can go in and destroy the lifes of real pilots and real people with real families. Now they can say they are something, and they are but not in the way they think. I know it is frustrating to come here and read posts like those, but they are free to do so I suppose. Just ignore them, apparently most people have ignored them before in their lives.
Stuka, thanks for the info, espero que al final todo salga bien. Calma.

deconehead
8th Sep 2001, 15:42
1988/1989 Australian pilots strike many uk airlines had loads of aircraft over there making loadsa money and we didn't cry shame then either.

RightsFlyer
8th Sep 2001, 16:39
I just want to find out from the pro-management types on here, can we safely assume that all pilot industrial action is "greedy, selfish, and irresponsible", and that whatever management action, or inaction, precipitated the pilot action is by definition " considerate, responsible, and justified."
Once we have that sorted, we would have to say that all employees should accept whatever is doled out by these altruistic and benevolent managements,without question, and continue to give their dedicated service as a matter of obligation to their customers, fellow employees and company shareholders.

I may have to modify my view that 90% of industrial strife is caused by inflexible, intransigent, and uncaring management seeking to maximise returns at any cost, not least employee health, safety, and welfare.

Like Guvnors constant bleating about level playing fields in route rights, there is a parallel with pilot employment, in that immigration, licencing and other barriers ensure that pilots are not a commodity freely tradeable on the world market, and therefore the pilot market is an uneven playing field at least as unfair as Guvnors.

I think I have to seek a quiet retreat somewhere where I can work on my submission gratitude and humility.

I will engage Guvnor, 411A, Pete O'Tube and others as tutors so that I can learn my lesson well.

Pete Otube
8th Sep 2001, 16:42
Crazy max - now you've got me mad! I have flown the best the military has to offer and I have thousands of hours on Boeing's finest EFIS aircraft. A nationally approved training captain, airtester and examiner and currently involved in the third party training of airlines worldwide - I think I've made it. I've seen moaning minnies like you come and go, while the true professionals are still all around.

Now, who exactly are you? and what have you achieved in your little life? A PPL? an ATPL?

RightsFlyer
8th Sep 2001, 16:57
Ahaaa....public bragging rights contest.
Thing is Pete ,old boy, how did you achieve all this, by undercutting the competition when their backs were turned, or the "ethical" route?
Alls fair in jobs and war, right?


Your humble submissive servant RF

edited to give comfort to Pete Otube

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: RightsFlyer ]

Harry Erman
8th Sep 2001, 17:07
RightsFlyer - my cards on the table, I am just another "management type".

But that does not automatically mean "pro-management" as you assume in your sectarian attitude. Management make errors and so do pilot bodies but the problem that airline management have is that the highest paid part of the workforce seems to be the one that is always crying poverty and hardship. Most pilots, quite rightly, earn more than most management but there are some pilots in the industry who are underpaid for the work they do. But is industrial action, which affects innocent people, the way to solve it?

Pete Otube
8th Sep 2001, 17:14
RF - no need to be so humble - getting a PPL takes a lot of dedication and hard work.
And I notice the use of "rights" in your handle and "rights" before "contest", whatever that means. You got some hang up with "rights"?

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Pete Otube ]

Paterbrat
8th Sep 2001, 17:48
Been management been a worker. The right to withold ones service due to grievience is matched by the employers right to seek others who will work for what is being offered. The use of abuse against those who will work coupled with emotive use of language about destroying others lives is nothing but abusive blackmail. You either accept the conditions or find another job. It's a tough life if if you can't hack it don't hang around and make it tough on everyone else. Everyone has to try and make a living and there are mechanisms that have evolved to deal with disputes in a reasonable manner. Abuse is not reasonable. "Scab" is an abusive term. It denotes a departure from reason. Unreasonable people are generaly the biggest pissers moaners and trouble makers and loudest shouters, abuse one of their tactics. Abusive, loud, disatisfied, pissers and moaners will always unfortunately be around I guess we simply have to put up with them.

RightsFlyer
8th Sep 2001, 18:29
Pete,
Ref PPL (or ATPL for that matter)you're right no need for humility there, they are merely minor tests on the way to becoming a professional, but if you are the consummate professional you claim to be, you should know that.
My humility is actually due to the awe with which I am smitten when in the presence of the wisdom of airline management people, who can almost never get the sums right, but always know that any shortfall is clearly the fault of the greedy pilots.

The Guvnor
8th Sep 2001, 18:44
Rights Flyer - there are times when industrial action is indeed permissible such as when there are very real - and genuine, demonstrable safety issues at stake. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could provide examples of your view "that 90% of industrial strife is caused by inflexible, intransigent, and uncaring management seeking to maximise returns at any cost, not least employee health, safety, and welfare." The only dispute I can think of that would be reasonably connected with that is the current CX one.

What I would object to is the blackmailing tactics of one party where they have agreed to certain terms and conditions - and now wish to rewrite those terms and conditions. I've used the term 'party' advisedly as that in my view also agrees to management making unilateral changes.

If I employ you as a pilot and we agree that you'll be paid £x per annum with an annual increase of y% then that, as far as I am concerned is it. You willingly agreed to that - I did not hold a gun at your head and make you sign the contract. If you didn't like the terms of the agreement, you had the option to walk away.

To strike for improved terms and conditions is therefore a breach of that agreement - and from a management perspective I'd say that you have effectively resigned as you have, by definition, said that you no longer want that contract to apply. I am therefore free to take whatever sanction may be open to me in the agreement - and of course to replace your services with those of someone else.

I'm most interested to see that you attribute "mmigration, licencing and other barriers ensure that pilots are not a commodity freely tradeable on the world market, and therefore the pilot market is an uneven playing field" - the reality is that the only thing preventing the free movement of pilots around the world is the anachronistic and outdated seniority system - which is largely maintained in force by union pressure. Certainly, airline managements would be only to happy to get rid of it tomorrow!

There are of course good and bad management teams - the best around at the moment, I'd say, are probably at CO and WN. But it's a tough job and at the very top the CEO has to make decisions that will affect the lives of hundreds - or thousands - of people.

Whilst the "greedy pilots" might not be to blame for many problems, I'd like to refer you to Delta Air Lines, where the recent pay settlement with DALPA has created an additional burden of US$500 million per annum to the company's already high overhead. That amount is more than the cumulative profits made throughout the last boom period - how on earth do you think they are going to be able to keep paying it, especially during a deep recession? They can't - which means one of two things: either layoffs will be required in which case those people will be the formerly highest paid people in the unemployment office; or the entire company goes bust (unlikely perhaps in the case of Delta - but that's what they said about Pan Am and TWA 15 years ago!) affecting everyone involved.

Paterbrat - agree 110%!

crazy_max
8th Sep 2001, 19:15
Hey Pete!!!
Thanks Man, you made my day!
Wow!!! Amazing stats about yourself, you actually helped me even more to make my point with your reply to my post.
ATPL, PPL? Who cares? I know what I am, I know what I do, and I truly don't need to honk my own horn in here like you did.
Thanks, and have a great day.
:D

Pete Otube
8th Sep 2001, 19:29
That's my pleasure Crazy, call me again if you want even more amazing facts - I was just warming up in my last one!

You have a peaceful day too.

Sir Kitt Braker
8th Sep 2001, 21:27
The selfish way to improve your pay and conditions is to screw everyone else, no matter how innocent, and go on strike. The unselfish way is to find another job.
Strikers are the real scab in this world.

RightsFlyer
8th Sep 2001, 22:25
Guv,
I agree that to seek to change a contract in mid-stream is "welching", but my observation is that contracts expire, sometimes by years, and it is in the negotiation of a new contract that drags on for months and months that frustration sets in and pilots become erratic.
It is often the case that the company will attempt to reinterpret many areas of the agreement during it's currency, notably in work rules. Is this acceptable?
When you sign a contract for three years there is no expectation or obligation that it will be renewed without change on expiry.
Surely once one joins an outfit one is not expected to work until you drop under the same terms and conditions that may have been agreed twenty or thirty years ago.

What about the "give-backs" of a few years ago, the unions thought that they would have some say on how this capital was deployed, but found out that the same mistakes that had caused the losses were allowed to continue.
When profits came back, there was no noticeable rush to share with those who had sacrificed.

You seem to think that pilots should be willing to work cheap so that air travellers can travel cheaply, but I don't see many doctors who work for peanuts so that all patients,rich or poor, can have access to first class medical care. The rich get firstclass medical care, the poor get what's left.
I don't know many lawyers who are willing to work for peanuts so that the downtrodden can have a fair shake in the courts. The quality of justice available to the impecunious is well known.
So are pilots to be held to a different standard of philanthropy?

Over the years the cost of air travel in real terms has constantly declined. It is now much cheaper to fly than thirty years ago, all and sundry swan off to exotic corners of the world, their standard of living has obviously increased, but you grudge pilots the same facility.
Shame on you , you rich capitalist oppressor Guvnor!! :D :D

RightsFlyer
8th Sep 2001, 22:49
Pete,
I just edited my "rights" post for suitable emphasis, but it ocurred to me that with a handle like yours you should not really want to start a "psychoanalysis of handles" war... you know.... glass houses, stones, etc. perhaps you did not realise, but "Peter" "Tube" could have connotations. :eek: :D :D

Pete Otube
9th Sep 2001, 00:18
RF- You got me beat about connotations so I think I better explain. Pete Otube is just a straight play on Pitot tube, and Pete O'Hete is a straight play on pitot heat. My other names are Guy Devane and Lee Dingedge but I guess you will be able to work those out now! It's all in good fun and I try hard to balance out all those who take this anonymous rumour forum seriously!

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 01:07
Pete O'Tube - you mean you've got more than one identity? Shock, horror!! Don't let Who? hear that or he might cyberstalk you too! :eek: :rolleyes: :eek:

I suspect that Comrade RightsFlyer meant that your nick could be misconstrued as an, ahem, 'rogering'. :D

Cheers! - or as Capt Claret would say, "Bottums Up!!" :D :D

The rich capitalist oppressor Guvnor

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

Pete Otube
9th Sep 2001, 01:16
Guv - I pride myself in that I'm currently running 12 idents. You ain't lived unless you've had the opportunity to argue against,or support, yourself-and folks still take this forum seriously!

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Pete Otube ]

RightsFlyer
9th Sep 2001, 01:30
Shock!Horror! :eek:
How many of the posters on pprune are schitso..... skitzo,...scytso...dammit , multiple posters. :eek: :eek:

Danny, your registration numbers are being severely distorted, the truth is out, there are probably hordes of them out there bickering to and fro amongst themselves.
Guvnor is probably Who?'s alter ego.
This could get really complex.

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 01:39
I admit it. I'm really RightsFlyer. Or he's me. Or whatever! :D :D :D

Damn, now we're doing what I just accused my old buddy Notso Fantastic (who is also me, btw) of doing - 7500-ing a thread! Back to unions, scabs, and filthy capitalist pig management please lads!! :D :D :D

RightsFlyer
9th Sep 2001, 01:53
Roger Guvnor, code 7500 observed, what are your intentions?

Who is the airline that is under threat of outsourcing? Is it possible for contract pilots to get work permits and validations in the country in question?

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 02:01
The airline is Lan Chile - and as I understand it the airline will provide work permits etc. On the original post, Stuka said that there could be a government backlash but I'd doubt it - perhaps he could provide more information on that?

RightsFlyer
9th Sep 2001, 02:29
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my experience with these deals is that the company is usually quite willing to pay foreigners far more than they were paying nationals to do the same job.
So that blows the argument of greedy pilots seeking selfish interests, if the company pays scabs more to do the same job, there is more at stake than pilot pay.
So what's the deal Stuka?

Notso Fantastic
9th Sep 2001, 02:44
Blow me down, I try to read something intelligent, and here he is again. Pontificating away, following me around the web spouting opinions on the works. It's not as if he's an expert (on anything!). You'd think so- he should pass 3000 posts in 2 weeks....all here! Read about him. What word springs to mind........ [URL=http://flytristar.tripod.com/article/art06.html]
Let's see....dreamer? charlatan? Walter Mitty? Failure? Disappointer? Of course I wouldn't use any of those names myself- just trying to help you form ideas. You'd think with getting on for 3000 opinions on everything aviation, he should be Stephen Wolf, Lord King, Carty. Instead it's someone who promises all so much......we're still waiting Buddy!

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Notso Fantastic ]

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 03:08
Good grief, Notso Fantastic - not only are you trying to hijack the Air Transat thread - and seemingly now this one - but you apparently either have a massively overinflated ego or cannot speak English properly - how can I be "following you around the web" when I was here already? :eek: :rolleyes: :eek: Grow up and get a life.

Right, back to the subject at hand...

RightsFlyer - usually what happens in these cases is that the carriers will take replacement crews on a short term basis; and yes, they will often pay them substantially more than the people they are replacing. It's normally done as a negotiating tactic rather than as a permanent move - frankly few airlines want to throw away their (very substantial) investment in their people. At the same time, they need to ensure that the company keeps operating with a minimum of inconvenience to the passengers and shippers - otherwise you have the same situation as is currently developing at Sabena where the company is beyond recovery. Brinksmanship, to the max!

Stuka
9th Sep 2001, 10:57
Dear Guvnor, pete, Dropp etc...
Right, I see I've started a bizantine discussion. To get things straight first you would have to understand my country's labor laws. Well for starters workers in any field have no rights whatsoever, all laws are disigned to favor the shareholders or owners/politicians.Anyone can come from another country and take my job, if he'll do it cheaper. However there's no chance I can get a job in UK or US as a pilot since the law does not allow it.
However due to the nature of our jobs the only people who has any leverage to negotiate in this country are pilots, doctors and people who work in the mines. Believe me I'm not against the basic laws of offer and demand. It's just that LanChile management in its paranoid crusade against any kind of organized labor movement will go to such extent as paying market wages(way above ours) for short term contracts in order to crush the current pilot union. It has paid millionare dividends to anyone who will quit the union. Do you think that a U$ 4000 a month pilot expects a 100 % increase? We just want our legal right to negotiate in order to improve our poor quality of life before we are all replaced by even cheaper pilots, who , believe me, are not being screened the way we were. It doesn't matter the background of the pilot as far as he's cheap. We know they all hold a license but... when you are going to be treated by a doctor, you don't care who he is as far as he holds license, or, would you rather check his background, experience and education?. Managers in LanChile have salaries thirteen times greater than a senior captain, and believe me, a lot more than what the guvnor and pete make, they don't have that much time to spend surfing the web. Don't you think it would be fair for us to even half what the world market pays.For your information LanChile had more profits last year than United, and they got a 30% increase, and you don't even give us the right to negotiate fair and square. I know that god created all men equal, but some are more equal than others.theythey

Pete Otube
9th Sep 2001, 11:49
Stuka - I'm signing off this thread- I wish you a good job at a fair wage. All the best and let us know the outcome when it's all settled.

RightsFlyer
9th Sep 2001, 17:50
Right on, Stuka.
In fact, I would expect a US $4,000 a month Captain to seek more than a 100% increase, since in the open market, the job is worth $8,000 to $10,000.
The fact that the company claims it cannot afford to pay you more merely indicates that you are subsidising the company to the tune of $4,000 to $6,000 per month.
You may choose to accept their statement at face value, but without access to their books they may be fooling you.
If you accept that they genuinely can't pay more, then you have to discuss how they want to treat your input of $4,000 to $6,000 per month. You could do anything from a straight commercial loan to low cost benefits like travel, etc.
The fact is, there is a going rate for everything, fuel, aircraft, insurance, etc, etc, and labour is just another commodity. If the company is getting the going rate for it's product (tickets) you should look to see why it can only survive with the subsidy on labour from the employees.
It must be paying over the going rate for something, or is being managed inefficiently.
Neither of these two options is your fault, so you must receive some recognition for your generous input into keeping the company going.

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 18:16
Sorry, I disagree - there's no such thing as a 'global pay rate' except for some very rare and sought-after people. Salary levels are determined by local conditions - and it's a lot cheaper to live in Santiago than it is in London, for example.

In my opinion, I'd put a well qualified Captain's salary at the equivalent of that paid to a GP (doctor), accountant or solicitor. How much are those categories paid in Chile, Stuka? Those pay levels are not dissimilar to those found elsewhere in developing nations - and frankly are considerably better than many.

If the company is as profitable as you say - then why not go into some sort of profitsharing agreement? It works very well at Singapore Airlines, where staff last year had a bonus equivalent to over six months worth of pay!

If all else fails, there's always the option for Lan Chile pilots to work elsewhere. There are plenty of airlines looking for highly qualified B767 or A340 drivers - especially in Asia.

By the way, who owns Lan Chile these days - isn't it SAS and Continental?

Incidentally, changing the subject somewhat, I understand from a colleague that New Zealand regards an ATPL as a qualification equivalent to a BSc - and a CPL as an equivalent to an A level - for its immigration procedures.

Stuka
9th Sep 2001, 20:20
Folks:
First I thank you pete otube for getting my point, It shows that you are open minded when given proper arguments. To the others I once again thank you for your support, and to the guvnor, I think your doubts are valid, so I'll elaborate a little bit. Cost of living in Santiago is similar to the US, Education is more expensive, food is similar, cars are more expensive, housing is cheaper etc... And by all means I will never make as much as a doctor, not even half of it...This is a country of fenitians, did I spell it right? If you are educated in trade or slave management, then you are paid extremely well. As I stated before a manager in LanChile can make thirteen times as much as a senior captain, which I think is a bit overinflated by any world standard. As of profit sharing, LanChile has not paid them in 4 years, even though every employee of the company is entitled to it by the law thanks to some thecnicalities. And believe you me...they have made money. Finally, unfortunately chileans are not like saxons, we don't like to leave our country, most chileans die where they are born, not that I like it, but that's the way it is, and besides why should I leave a company where I invested 14 years of my life, just because management wants to screw me up?.
And one point I wanted to stress... as a passenger, who would you rather fly with?, a pilot who's a member of the union...whatever ills might that come with, and was selected by the usual selection process, and who is standarized to company procedures with a known proffessional history, or some scab with an obscure past, brought in in a hurry in order to replace me ?

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 21:33
Stuka - I see where you're coming from and I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for you and your colleagues.

However, you have said that there is a legal - rather than contractual or moral - duty on the part of the company to pay profit share - why can't the union take them to court to enforce that?

Cost of Living in Santiago:

One litre bottle of mineral water: Ch$800 (US$1.20)
33cl bottle of beer: Ch$600 (US$0.90)
36-exposure colour film: Ch$1500 (US$2.25)
City-centre bus ticket: Ch$200 (US$0.30)
Adult football ticket: From Ch$4000 (US$6.00)
Three-course meal with wine/beer: From Ch$8000 (US$12.00)

Cost of Living in London:

One-litre bottle of mineral water: £0.70 (US$1.02)
33cl bottle of beer: £0.99 (US$1.40)
Financial Times newspaper: £0.85 (US$1.30)
36-exposure colour film: £3.99 (US$5.10)
City-centre bus ticket: £1 (US$1.45)
Adult football ticket: £20-40 (US$28.90 - 57.80)
Three-course meal with wine/beer: From £17 (US$25)

Cost of Living in New York:

One-litre bottle of mineral water: US$2
33cl bottle of beer: US$2
Financial Times newspaper: US$4.50
36-exposure colour film: US$6.50
City-centre bus ticket: US$1.50
Adult football ticket: US$35-75
Three-course meal with wine/beer: From US$30

RightsFlyer
9th Sep 2001, 23:06
Guvnor,
Why don't we take an index of how many days weeks, or months pay, are needed to buy consumer durables in the relative countries.
Items like cars, refrigerators, stoves, TV Stereo, etc.
You could include rent and food too, using the same yardstick.
In other words we are using relative dollars not absolute dollars.
But hang on, if fares are in absolute dollars and costs are in relative dollars, who pockets the considerable difference? Surely no consultants here, Guv?? :confused:
:D :D

SunSeaSandfly
9th Sep 2001, 23:26
Guvnor,
The very mention of consultants wakes me from my torpor!
However, on the matter of compensation, the reason pilots are not happy with profit sharing is that it depends on the skill(and honesty) of management to produce and honestly report profits to be shared.
Pilots produce in a predictable measurable and regular way, managers do not.
Let the managers pay be totally performance related, their job is to manage, let them be judged by the results.If they get it all wrong, they don't get paid.
Fair enough?

The Guvnor
9th Sep 2001, 23:56
SeaSunSandFly - I was wondering how long it would take you to sniff out the 'c' word! :D :D :D I'd suspect that in Chile things work pretty much the same as they do in your neck of the woods - consultancy fees and fat brown envelopes all round!

I agree completely with you though - management (including chief pilots :D ) should receive a decent basic salary and bonuses based on results. In fact, you could even have it structured in such a way that management receieved a pay cut in the event of losses, which I think would focus their minds tremendously!

This would have the happy benefit of being able to make profit sharing of all staff viable as honest figures would have to be produced by management to justify their own bonuses. An ESOP means that all staff have to be shareholders and under UK law (no idea what the law is in Chile) all shareholders are eligible to receive a copy of the accounts and attend the AGM where they can ask embarrassing questions of management, should it merit it.

RightsFlyer - I agree ... in fact I was looking earlier for a website I had (but seem to have midlaid) that gave such a comparison between all the world's cities - an index compaing the cost of living related to salaries so if you lived in, say, London and moved to Tokyo you'd need to earn 286% of your current salary - that sort of thing. I'll keep looking.

Bear in mind that with lower labour costs (though judging from Stuka's posts management seems to make up for that) lower fares will be possible, which is often the case in developing nations.

As fo consultants, I believe that a US carrier (Continental, I think - though I stand subject to correction here) is indeed charging fairly astronomical consultancy fees for its expertise.

brokepilot
9th Sep 2001, 23:56
Guvnerd.
your a funny little man!

Stuka
10th Sep 2001, 04:57
Guvnor and the rest:
I see you do your homework, however you are not playing fair, NYC is not US standard, I would rather use MIA, which is more like the rest of the country, to get an Idea I spend roughly U$ 750 a month in schooling for two kids, roughly 20% of my salary, I will not mention retirement, which by what I've seen posted here, large companies contribute to it, the only thing that LanChile contributes to us is a party a year and our stress levels. As for legal action, we might spend years on it with no results, see what happened with Pinochet, this country is owned by the wealthy and the poweful. Forget about profit sharing, every time wev'e tried something like that they've screwed us over, and that includes every employee, not just pilots. In a letter to all employees critizising our union, the CEO stated " you cannot expect one world wages and working conditions, because this is Chile, latin america, not a developed country". It means we must be supermen, since we have to work more hours, in worse conditions for less money. Curious is that he enjoys a developed world standard of living.I guess being this a third world country, slavery is allowed

GlueBall
10th Sep 2001, 05:51
Senior Stuka:
After 13 years with LAN, a well to do airline, Wide Body Capt pay could be higher, although USD 4,500/month is a comfortable salary in Chile, even more so if you were to live outside Santiago. Even in the city, you can get a live-in maid for USD 150/month. A real luxury that is not affordable in MIA. And the food prices at your Jumbo are about the same as they are at Miami's Publix.

You didn't say how many hours you fly or how many days per month you spend away from home. It's always a battle to negotiate higher pay, but it may be easier meanwhile to negotiate improved scheduling practices for optimum time off to improve your life style. Crew scheduling efficiency wouldn't cost the company money but it could help you spend fewer days at work. :cool:

[ 10 September 2001: Message edited by: GlueBall ]

RightsFlyer
10th Sep 2001, 06:20
Glueball,
If food is the same as MIA, it is unlikely that that cars and appliances are anything less than in MIA, and probably considerably higher, there is only housing that might be less than MIA, so are we saying that the facility of having a live-in maid for $150 is worth $4,000 to $6,000 a month?
I suspect if you gave them the $4,000 they would do without the maid.
In any event would anyone want to go to Chile to work for $4,500 a month?
Those who might want to go would expect a lot more than that.
Perhaps if I put it a different way. How would US pilots, or UK pilots, feel if at the stroke of a pen a bunch of East Europeans, or Africans, or South Americans replaced them when they started to agitate for a raise. Right now they have strong barriers to prevent that from happening, but few third world countries protect their own.

GlueBall
10th Sep 2001, 07:30
RightsFlyer:
Correct, cars and appliances are more expensive in Chile. But a daycare center at MIA costs four times as much as a live-in maid in Chile. And a maid can cook and clean and babysit and do your laundry. And if you were to live at SCL you wouldn't really need a car; the Metro is very efficient. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages, and I wouldn't want to live in SCL just as Stuka probably wouldn't want to live at MIA. But my point is that $4500 per month affords a well to do lifestyle in Chile, especially if one were to live outside the overpriced, smoggy metropolis of SCL.
:cool:

aluminum ovcst
10th Sep 2001, 07:46
I'm glad the thread has finally returned to its original purpose, more or less, after the gross digression caused by various multiple-personality and "I-like-to-call-myself-after-flight-instruments" contributors who rarely have any unbiased opinions to share. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, which is Stuka's fair warning to pilots around the world to accept any offers for a contract based in Santiago. Let's lay down some FACTS:

1. Guv's info on expenses in Santiago are quite outdated. Add 50% to the values for film, bus and football ticket, and at least that much for a meal at a decent restaurant.
RF's proposal of using relative dollars would make much more sense anyway. (The question is not about $ anyway, as following points intend to prove).

2. LanChile (and the companies in the holding) have a virtual monopoly in the local airline industry. This means that a pilot who falls in disfavor of management is most likely forced into self-exile to be able continue his/her career. Yes, there may be jobs available in Asia, Middle East, etc., but I think even the Guv must agree that anybody's first preference would be to remain in their homeland.

3. I'm not aware of the length of the contracts offered, but I can almost guarantee that no working permit will be issued. Currently about 30 Ecuadorian pilots are working contracts for Lan (through a third party) and have been issued neither residency nor work permits. They are allegedly reluctantly waved through immigration checks when they state that their work permit is "being processed". In addition, their salary was arbitrarily reduced to less than half what a local makes in a "take it or leave it" deal. Being unemployed, they didn't have much choice, I agree, but are you contract pilots out there willing to deal with THIS management scum?

4. LanChile is fully privatized since 1995, neither SAS nor CAL have any stake whatsoever. The majority shareholder is a congressman and possible future presidential candidate. You want to learn about power and economic/political leverage, you talk to this guy.

5. Conditions for pilots at Lan would be much worse if it weren't for the union. Take as an example the contract the pilots at the other companies in the holding have recently signed (basically a 0% increase over inflation in a 4 year deal). Believe me when I say that the LanChile pilot's union is the only thing that is holding this thing together. If the current management has it's way, they will be destroying the profession known as airline pilot in this country. Given the relative shortage of applicants available, they will certainly not be stimulating young people to start a carrer as a commercial pilot, either, i.e. they will end up shooting their own foot.

6. The proft sharing thing IS in court, and has for months now. However, given Lan's owner's political power, it will be years before we see any of that cash, if at all.

7. Scabbing is a MAJOR ethics issue (Re: Pete Otube's posts). Put yourself in the shoes of a career pilot at any airline, who has invested years at the company, with the hopes of upgrading to the left seat, switch to a larger, more modern fleet, attain a better standard of living, or whatever, and having those dreams betrayed by mercenaries who have no place to call home. You decide if what you're doing is morally right.

Stuka
10th Sep 2001, 08:11
Dear Glueball:
Ovbiously you've been in SCL and you got obsessed with live in maids just as any foreigner does but let me tell you, however that for starters we make U$ 4000 and diminishing every day since the peso devaluates about 20% a year. I don't have a live in maid because I won't leave my children alone with someone I don't know and finally I don't know where you lived in SCL but there's no way you can live in Santiago without a car. And I would love to live in MIA. And finally I fly about 90 hours a month, spend 16 to 18 nights away and I get 3 weeks vacation a year If they'll give them to me since the company gives them to you when it fits them, not me. My roster is seldom kept as it was published. Anyway if you keep the proportions I doubt my lifestyle, buying power, quality of the job, retirement, prospects etc. will never get even close to what one of my US colleages have. And...you want me to live away from homebase without a car? You sure you are not one of the LanChile managers based in MIA?

Ignition Override
10th Sep 2001, 08:58
During a US strike years ago, it was also within US law to photograph (up close and personal) former Boeing factory pilots at a Seattle (SEA) FBO, which allowed public access, and follow them home while noting license plates, counties..., in order to list their home addresses and document them as scabs, even if only paid for aircraft maintenance ferry flights (paint shop etc).

Scab name lists never disappear: they are stored on hard copies in case the hard drives fail. What a way to begin or further a career (or shamefully supplement retirement pay from the military or a manufacturer).

Highly-acclaimed Southwest Airlines ("imitated" around the world) has been heavily unionized for many years and is highly successful. Historically, the most profitable US airlines have always been unionized.

If someone has information to the contrary, then show us.

Mapshift
10th Sep 2001, 10:42
Labor disputes by unionized employees cost airlines millions of dollars.....disputes happen because of bad management....SW to date has had neither....good labor relations=good profits..which goes to show employees make airlines successful, good management makes happy employees which makes good airlines which makes profits....a rare event these days...but even when times are thin...Mr Kelleher has proven it can be done.....so who's next?

GlueBall
10th Sep 2001, 17:46
Stuka:
I am not connected with LAN in any way. My wife is a Chilena, La Reina area. :cool:

Stuka
10th Sep 2001, 19:28
Good point map shift, actually the most succesful airlines worldwide( and also the safest ) are heavily unionized. If you you want to fly as a passenger, I'm sure you'd rather have a pilot who's had a trayectory with the company, and not someone you don't know anything about. The problem with this country is that unions are portrayed as an obstruction to growth, truth is that the average LanChile employee makes about U$ 500 so I would say that the problem are not the unions but rather the management. They make salaries that are world standard and won't let the rest of the employees on a fair share of the cake.

CargoOne
10th Sep 2001, 21:02
Stuka,

Regarding pilot vs senior manager salary in your company. Just keep in mind - senior managers do not have clear instructions what to do. There are no airplane manuals, flight operation manuals etc in their live. They deciding themselves. And airline profit and reputation fully depends of their work. Senior airline management is a very specific profession, and it is very hard to find really good managers. Lan Chile is doing good as far as I remember from latest reports - that's an achievement of your managers.

aluminum ovcst
11th Sep 2001, 00:30
S*it, Cargo One,

Anyone can set up a boxer short factory, lock up the workers for 16 hours, pay them minimum wage while threatening to fire them if they try to form a union, and have them pump out product at minimal cost while you sell the stuff at market price and pocket all the cash.

Agreed, the LanChile admin may be very skilled, but the working conditions of their employees are sadly reminiscent of those in certain parts of Africa and Asia. It's time to change this medieval mentality.

CargoOne
11th Sep 2001, 14:44
aluminum ovcst,

Just tell me - what is the AVERAGE salary you have in SCL, including these boys in McDonalds, including maintenence and handling staff at Lan Chile, including clerks, teachers etc?

HUSTLER
15th Sep 2001, 07:19
Remember, There's no such thing as a "FORMER SCAB"

HUSTLER

aluminum ovcst
15th Sep 2001, 07:50
Damn straight!

Check out related thread. (http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=015522)

Sir Kitt Braker
15th Sep 2001, 11:24
Hustler- as with almost everything said out of HK - you are wrong. I am a former scab and have worked successfully, untroubled by anyone anywhere, ever since 1990. I know scores of others with the same history. I've given jobs to both former scabs and former strikers - life moves on with only a few pilots dwelling in the past, unable to forget their individual industrial dispute that happened years ago. Their memories are even more irrelevant now, as we try and find any work at all if the doom merchants are right as to the consequences of this week. May God have mercy on all those who are suffering in America today.

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Sir Kitt Braker ]

aluminum ovcst
15th Sep 2001, 22:34
Well, aren't you proud of yourself, "Circuit Breaker"!!

I must agree with HUSTLER on this one. You are not a FORMER scab as you attempt to describe yourself. You forever remain one. The fact that you deny to accept that reality is another matter. I completely understand that you would offer jobs to other scum like yourself. The fact that thousands of pilot jobs may be lost due to this weeks events in no way justifies that you go after them. In any case, real airlines hire back their furloughees first. Do not compare apples and oranges -- strikebreaking is condemned by all organized pilot groups around the world. If you choose not to be a part of a group, do not kid yourself, you forever remain a mercenary, immoral and undignified.

desert_knight
15th Sep 2001, 22:40
Boy oh Boy what a bunch of hard done by people!

I assume you became pilots because:

a) You like flying

b) It looked like a nice little earner!

If it hasn't worked out for you then do something else, quit moaning about how tough you have it (although God knows 95% of the working population would like to have it that tough!)

I would be interested how you fair minded chaps would react if, say, the Mechs went on strike (for their fair share of that 'huge', never ending cake), threatened the viability of the company you work and your livlihoods?

Would you be calling the people drafted in to get you off the ground 'scabs', refuse to fly in solidarity and at the same time happily wave goodbye to your job?

Sir Kitt Braker
15th Sep 2001, 23:30
Al ovcst - boy, do you have a problem! You carefully ignore that part of my sentence that says I have given jobs to strikers and scabs alike because it suits your narrow argument and you cannot understand how anyone could have a balanced approach to life. I have this image of you, eyes crossed, legs apart and a great big chip, not on your shoulder, but right up your....

By the way old chap, improperly conducted strikes are illegal in most civilised societies, and scabbing is legal in all countries. Add that fact to your chip...

And just to prove you wrong again - I will always be a scab, not just a former one, so there - I do admit it. (and will continue to lose no sleep over it)

Just to end on a congratulatory note, well done for working out the "circuit breaker" bit, although it was meant as a joke, not a puzzle!

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Sir Kitt Braker ]

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Sir Kitt Braker ]

AwarePlayer
16th Sep 2001, 05:39
SKB you any relation to 411A?
You know, TIA, SKB, 411A, just surmising, mind you.

Sir Kitt Braker
16th Sep 2001, 11:04
No- none of those - try some others...

AwarePlayer
16th Sep 2001, 13:37
Sorry, SKB I just thought the location, SKB, was more than coincidental with 411A and Tropical International , but that would have meant L-1011/DC-10, not 737.
737 jocks pretty rare on SKB, though. :D :D

AACE
17th Sep 2001, 09:11
Now that's better.......back to slagging each other off.
I'm happy now. :cool: :cool: :cool:

Once a SCAB, always a SCAB.

ess jay
17th Sep 2001, 09:30
Beware to all crews world wide as a great number of sc**s have just been retrenched in Ansett and will be coming your way to take your jobs soon.

arheal
17th Sep 2001, 16:04
I was for a long time seriously considering investing the time and dosh to 'go professional'. The final factor which convinced me not to do so was the neolithic labour relations enjoyed(?) by the airline industry world-wide.
On one side, protectionist unions seemingly stuck in the 60's, intent on protecting incompetents at all cost. On the other side, less than stellar management competency inflamed by unionist tactics considered obselete by coal miners.
I have been now a contractor for 10 years, paid to be competent and that alone. I can be sacked on 24 hours notice - anytime my current employer feels that they can do without me - and am happy this way. Anytime they annoy me I can leave in a minute and find another job tomorrow. My employer knows I am working for him because I want to and visa-versa.
Contrast this situation to the standard seniority driven situation within an airline. An unhappy pilot cannot pull up stakes and move to another airline because they would 'lose seniority'. Similarly, an airline cannot easily get rid of troublesome or unneccesary pilots without risking a ruckus. The pilot must live with the knowledge that perhaps the airline does not REALLY want him, and the airline must accept that some (or all) of their pilots would rather work somewhere else....

Harry Erman
17th Sep 2001, 17:32
ess jay - when is a job "yours" and when is it not "yours"?