PDA

View Full Version : jmc pilots role over and accept pay deal?


standby1
11th Jul 2001, 19:38
Well the result is in, 50.3% Accepted, 49.7% rejected. They fell at the first.

Wasps
11th Jul 2001, 19:46
Did all pilots get to vote on the pay offer or only BALPA members?

standby1
11th Jul 2001, 19:49
Only BALPA members voted. The others didn't want to play.

flap_actuator
11th Jul 2001, 20:30
Shocking result considering the amount of negative feeling about the pay offer. I would really love to know where the yes votes came from! Everyone that I spoke to was extremely against the deal and thought that it was a total insult!

So much for BALPA flexing their muscles and doing something for their supporters. They didn't have a chance. I guess there must have been a pro managment group, meeting behind closed doors and deciding that jmc do not deserve to have pay increases in line with inflation.

SHOCKED!!!!!!!!

Flaps..
:confused:

onetogo
11th Jul 2001, 20:34
Flaps,
dont forget that BALPA recommended acceptance of this mediocre offer.....

Sinnik
12th Jul 2001, 02:00
I guess that if their role was over they might roll over and take what was on offer.

A sign of the times, perhaps?

shlittlenellie
12th Jul 2001, 02:03
It's a very similar story to Britannia's recent pay shenanigans. BALPA bent over backwards to recommend it to the members. The second recommendation prior to the second ballot contained a worrying amount of patronising exhortations as to how stupid we were not to recognise the outstanding benefits (the deal had not been improved in the "improved" offer). In Britannia,it's becoming increasingly difficult to see the wood for the trees in respect of management and BALPA.

Apologies for being off the thread slightly, it's odd that the BALPA line is consistent through different company councils.

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: shlittlenellie ]

The Guvnor
12th Jul 2001, 09:06
Flap_Actuator - a 3% pay increase is above the rate of inflation! Considering the state of the economy, my personal observation is that I think it was a sensible thing to do. Any hardline attitude where it's 30% or nothing would almost certainly have resulted in a flurry of P45s. Now is most certainly not the time to be adding costs to the bottom line in an industry where every cent counts - especially in companies like Just Might Collapse.

tunturi
12th Jul 2001, 09:40
Guvnor
don't talk total b****ks all of the time, have a day off now and then, perhaps today?
There is as much chance of JMC collapsing as there is of you ever starting a proper airline.

takeoffallgreen
12th Jul 2001, 10:26
Guvnor,

you seem to enjoy referring to JMC as "Just Might Collapse" - why?

How should we refer to the company you claimed to be starting - A Sad Sharade?

(Yes I know the spelling is not right but ASS seemed appropriate)

tailscrape
12th Jul 2001, 12:10
I am disappointed-yes I am. But once again.....WHY ARE WE WASHING OUR DIRTY KECKS IN PUBLIC?

Shouldn't we discuss this in our private forum instead of in public? :mad:

Bus429
12th Jul 2001, 14:23
How much do you think the engineers maintaining your fleet are worth? 3% of 37000 isn't much compared with the salaries you lot pull for 10% of the work.

GREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :confused:

lowflyer
12th Jul 2001, 14:49
Bus,
As an ex- engineeer who is now flying, I can tell you that your comments are crap.
Without fear of contradiction when it comes to who works hardest,and social disruption etc, its no contest, and incidentally for a lot less than your 37k !
Biggest moan i used to hear amongst my Engineer colleagues, was a lack of respect.
Now i wonder why??? When you have done both jobs then you can give us a balanced view !
Your comments are a little rich for a "conehead" !!
:p

Notso Fantastic
12th Jul 2001, 17:47
Oh how depressing to see yet another thread where Guvnor, and Bus429 ('the pilots friend' oh yeah!)have to stick their unwelcome oars in. Guys, this is 'Pprune' (for pilots!). You have nothing to say that is relevant or interesting, and you are wasting my modem time. Why doesn't the engineer take his crap to an engineering forum- isn't it a bit sad you have so much time to go poking fun to amuse yourself? And Guvnor.....who are you? Are you a frightfully important airline executive running big companies? Not!

Wino
12th Jul 2001, 19:16
Tailscrape,

Not all pilots have access to the JMC forum.

The other problem, is that if you have the discussions always in private, you don't get reality checks by compairing to your peers. That is usally the problem with independant unions, the only people they have their reality checks with are management, and as a result they get taken advantage of. That can happen with any group however.

That being said, if you get your 3 percent EVERY year, you would eventually do as well as United and Delta as they hadn't had a raise since the very early 90s. so 3 times 7 years or so would be a 21 percent raise over the same time period. The problem is next year they repaint the aircraft again and piss away another 200,000,000 pounds in yet another "rebranding" and then say they need money from you. Then you never catch the big boys.

And as another display of poor managment, a 50.1 percent deal LOOKS great to the bean counters, but do you really want fully half your workforce feeling slighted? Especially in a service industry? Way to rally the troops! Yessiree building that team!

Cheers
Wino

[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: Wino ]

Magnus Picus
13th Jul 2001, 00:06
The pay and conditions of every UK airline is as a direct result of British Airways falling back over the last decade or so.

If BA pilots stand together (with BALPA's support) and make their new entrant rates considerably more attractive then these companies will have to follow suit. Otherwise they will lose many of their workforce over the next 5 years to BA.

BA's pay offer negotiations 2001 are the most important round of talks for UK pilots for a long time.

rightstuff
13th Jul 2001, 00:29
Notso Fantastic.Some of your comments are way off line PPrune was originally set up as a pilots forum,but if you read the home page it is now open to Air Traffic Controllers,Cabin Crew,Operations,Rostering staff and anyone involved in proffesional aviation.
I think the point Bus was making concerning the JMC pay award was why should pilots recieve a far greater percentage on a basic wage which compared to some staff in the airline is two or three times the ammount.
I had a glance at your profile and see that your interests in this order are money,money and money.What about job satisfaction and cosideration for your fellow workers,or are you of the opinion that if a person doesn't fly aircraft for a living they are not entitled to a decent living.I also find your expression engineering crap quite offensive.is that all engineers are to people like yourself.I suggest to go into Jet blast and read the thread concerning names for pilots.Comments like yours do not help in good working practices.To other aviators please dont think my opinion of all flight crew are as such I have always had the upmost resepct for all my fellow workers no matter what position they hold within the industry but a will not tolerate blatant arrogance. :mad:

Bus429
13th Jul 2001, 04:15
Lowflyer,

If you are who I think you are.... B@"@s! I know you are on more than I ever was @ JMC.

zzz
13th Jul 2001, 14:34
Pay is all about supply and demand, and the fact is we are entering a period of great demand for pilots. When this is combined with the poor payrises/pay freezes over the last few years then I think we will see some large rises in the near future. Pilots pay HAS decreased, relative to the national average pay rise over the last five years.
With regard to United, whilst their pay was frozen for a number of years they were offered alternatives, such as stock options and pilot seats on the board.
Bus,I have no problem with you getting a large salary increase if you can achieve it. Why do you have a problem?

cheers zzz

Bus429
13th Jul 2001, 15:49
zzz,

You guys seem to want everything!! :o

lowflyer
13th Jul 2001, 15:51
Bus,
if you know me, come and have a chat over a beer, if you can afford one.
Dont forget to bring your pay slip !

The Guvnor
13th Jul 2001, 17:15
zzz - I fail to see how we can be "entering a period of high demand for pilots" when there are pilots being fired and laid off left, right and centre!

The reality is that the pilot hiring market is hitting a brick wall at the moment - airlines just aren't hiring. Those that are are being much more creative about the way in which they are doing it, especially in regard to contract duration/renewal; training and bonding issues; utilisation and deployment, etc.

As for those plonkers like Notso Fantastic that think that the world revolves around themselves - and their bank balances - I've got news for you. It doesn't. An airline is a team of people, all of whom are equally important to the overall operation. Take away one of those groups, and everyone else is affected; yet it's the pilots that are demanding the highest pay increases!

Personally, I'd say that there are far more deserving groups, such as the ground engineers (who have the ultimate safety responsibility for the aircraft); the cabin crew (who have the ultimate safety responsibility for the passengers); and let's not forget the air traffic controllers without whom you'd all be in very serious trouble!

That's not forgetting the back room people - reservations and marketing staff, without whom you'd have no pax to fly; commercial/accounts staff without whom you wouldn't get paid; operations without whom you'd never be assigned an aircraft; and senior management without which you wouldn't have an airline to fly for.

When it comes to pay increase issues, I'd say that the fairest way for everyone is to link pay to company results. Profits go up 50% - pay goes up 50%. Conversely, if profits fall 50%, then you should also be prepared to accept a 50% pay cut. If things worked that way, it would focus everyones' minds superbly ... there are companies (such as WN) that have never made a loss. If they can do it, there's no reason why the rest of us can't.

LAVDUMPER
13th Jul 2001, 18:07
Guvnor,

Your assertion that linking pay to company performance is the "best" way to do things is somewhat flawed - perhaps from management's perspective...

This is a common management trick. What exactly is "profit"? Profit, in actuality, is an "opinion" because it can be MANIPULATED in so many ways. The company can decide to conduct a restructuring on a whim and add a significant charge to its income statement - and thereby reduce taxable income/profit. Management can decide to accelerate depreciation on a large asset - and that excess depreciation charge cuts into profits. These business decisions could be legitimate and savvy in nature, but the pilots would be adversely affected - despite any benefits accrued by the company in general. Say bye bye to any pay increases tied to profits in that case.

I believe Continental Airlines had it right when it started to link pay to certain operational performance metrics like "on-time departures" and "customer-complaint counts". That way, everyone is aligned in their goals and striving to reach operational excellence. Employees are then focusing on a set number of operational goals that directly impact customer service and customer opinion.

Pay tied to profit alone is a recipe for future upset feelings.

Cheers

Psr777
13th Jul 2001, 18:47
If I read the thread rightly, JMC is offering the flight crew a 5% increase (backdated, of course), which is above the rate of inflation.

I don't understand why you are all unhappy with it, bearing in mind that all ground staff and cabin crew got was a 3.5% increase, on basic pay and flight duty pay, take it or leave it!!

Is it that you think you should have had more than the rest of us? If so, why?

I was of the understanding that JMC flight crew are paid more or less the same as most other charter airline flight crew. (please correct me if I have been given duff info!!! which I am sure you will hehehe!)

Seriously though, what is it you were expecting? To discuss company budgets etc, though maybe this should be continued in the jmc forum?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

mcrit
13th Jul 2001, 18:53
Psr
The pay rise will be 3.5% for pilots. The same everyone else. :rolleyes:

TARFU
13th Jul 2001, 18:58
WINO, wi u no stay in contact with your old charter buds?

flap_actuator
13th Jul 2001, 19:00
You wrote "I don't understand why you are all unhappy with it, bearing in mind that all ground staff and cabin crew got was a 3.5% increase, on basic pay and flight duty pay, take it or leave it!!"

Sorry we have only been given 3.5% as well (Don't know where 5% came from!). Its the same deal everyone else was given. We also recieved a contractional duty agreement starting in 2002. If you ask me, I don't think thats worth a damn as it can still be broken with authorization from the Director flt ops.

:(

The Guvnor
13th Jul 2001, 19:35
Lavdumper - obviously, any profit related pay scheme would have to be transparent. The easiest way to do it is based on operating profits - that's the figure before administration charges, depreciation, interest and extraordinary charges and earnings are taken into account.

It's a result that's a lot harder to manipulate, as well - although the various overhead charges would need to be apportioned (easiest way in an airline is to take the aircraft type and divide costs by utilisation).

No one seems to have answered the question why flight deck think they deserve higher pay increases than anyone else? ;) :confused:

Wino
13th Jul 2001, 23:34
Guv,

There is no way that you could do that as many of the expenses that an airline incurs are negotiated on a confidential basis. Opening the books in a manner that would allow your scheme, would remove many of the competitive edges that a good managment team might develope.

Sounds good though, of course so does all holding hands and singing Koombaya. So what happens when management takes the profits that I earned for the company a uses it to buy another decrepit company that was so badly run it couldn't make money if they were hauling cocaine?

Cheers
Wino

PS. yep I still stay in contact with some of my charter buds. Try and play golf in the UK atleast once or twice a month. Contact Greg or Tony for a tee time.
:cool:

[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: Wino ]

lowflyer
14th Jul 2001, 20:59
Guv
perhaps we could use your pay scales in comparison to see if we being just plain greedy, as you have infinite knowledge and wisdom in the sector, where can i find them ? :p

The Guvnor
14th Jul 2001, 22:09
http://www.celticairways.com/empl02.html

Who?
14th Jul 2001, 22:39
Sorry Guvnor, but please enlighten us as to what airline management experience you've actually had?

Captain Jumbo
15th Jul 2001, 00:45
There was a time up to very recently Guv, where I actually thought you knew a little about this game, where I believed you spoke pretty well the truth, or at least common sense.

The reason we pilots are worth more than anyone else in the airline business, NOW, in terms of pay rises is simple, we have been generically restricted over the last five for sure, and probably more like ten years. Cathay currently, Lufty last week, Iberia this week, and BA later this year is purely an example of management sowing the wind etc.

If there is any example we might be (unfairly) said to be copying, it is that of the the Kings, the Marshalls. the Aylings, the Eddingtons of this world. Lets see a pay rise /time graph for all of them, overlaid with productivity results. Now let's compare that with an AVERAGE pilots graph for the same, then all sit back stupefied.

I'm with BRAL/BRYMON, not lucky enough to be BA. However, I recognise that BA mainline set the standard for the whole UK industry. Currnetly, my mega profitable little company is being shafted by our management, and it all cost costs costs given as the reason. And its bollocks.


So please, all of us, lets not lose sight of the objective. If BA , Cathay etc achieve a thumping good rise, then it will trickle down to everyone else in good time. What we must avoid is the backbiting encouraged by the likes of the Guvnor, or our Antipodean friends. Both for different reasons, neither for reasons that I, at any rate, can understand.

The Guvnor
15th Jul 2001, 07:06
Captain Jumbo - personally, I agree with you regarding the huge pay awards made to certain airline CEOs. As I said earlier, it's a team effort - and that applies from the top down. Given that the buck should stop with the CEO, I'd say that they should do what Herb Kelleher has done on occasions and have nil pay and profit share. Now that's putting your money where your mouth is!

I'm currently in Atlanta, and had a very interesting discussion this evening in a restaurant near the airport with several DL pilots about their recent pay award; their working conditions and their external business interests.

In my opinion, productivity should be the yardstick against which performance is judged. Look at the Southwest (and Ryanair) people - they manage many more rotations (and correspondingly hours in the air) than their equivalents in the likes of BA. FR crews are, apparently, amongst the best paid crews today. I have no problems with that at all - they work damn hard for it! However, there are other carriers where that isn't the case - especially on long haul flights. How much time, in each flight, is actually spent hands-on flying the aircraft? Not a lot. Pilots today are largely systems monitors - and to state otherwise is naive. The safety of the aircraft, frankly, rests with the cabin crew and the air traffic controllers - both of whom are remarkably poorly paid.

Like it or not, we are in an economic downturn/recession and that means that all costs need to be cut to the bone.

And for those of you out there that think that they can blackmail their employer into caving in to excessive pay demands, I have two words:

Aerolineas Argentinas.

There, the pilots thought that they could force the management into paying them more; so they struck. A couple of days later, the company was out of cash - so it folded. Those pilots went from having a job (albeit one that was not, in their opinion, paying enough) to having no job at all. Rather more seriously, none of their colleagues have jobs, either.

Do you really want that on your conscience?

mcrit
15th Jul 2001, 12:26
Guv you really are a prat. ‘Pilots are only systems operators’ The ‘real safety of the a/c lies with Cabin Crew and ATC’. No wonder that the nearest you get to a real airline is when you toss yourself off in bed at night and dream of some virtual carrier with you as CEO ! Go away and grow up. :rolleyes:

Stan Woolley
15th Jul 2001, 13:18
Guvnor

I think you'll find that BA pilots work a lot harder than you think,the basic problem being the same one as every other airline with personnel problems.

The working conditions have changed hugely for the worse in the past number of years.Its been one way traffic all the way and people are getting fed up with it.For the majority it's not so much about money, its about feeling valued and having pride in your work.

Your statement above is insulting,it lets you down, it does prove beyond doubt that you are indeed a modern 'manager'!

Bally Heck
15th Jul 2001, 13:37
Guv.

As we are "largely systems monitors" I have an idea for a TV show. Put an airline pilot in charge of a nuclear power plant for a week and vice versa and lets watch the results. Just don't do it on my planet. :eek:

The Guvnor
15th Jul 2001, 16:29
Look, all that I'm trying to do - obviously not very well - is put things in context a bit.

1) Pilots are systems monitors. Anyone want to argue against that?

2) Airline flying is a team effort.

3) From the safety point of view, after getting the aircraft down in (more or less) one piece, the flight deck are out of there as quickly as possible. The pax are the responsibility of the cabin crew - who also have to put up with air rage incidents - and who consequently are at greater risk. This has been shown by the deaths of a number of cabin crew in various incidents, helping to rescue pax.

4) Does anyone here seriously think that they could fly LGW-FRA (for example) if there was no ATC? I don't think so!

standby1
15th Jul 2001, 16:56
Actualy ,no ATC would make it a lot easier. (more dangerous but easier
Anyway guv stop hijacking my jmc threads and steering them off track. We are supposed to be moaning about the lack off initiative/[email protected] of some jmc pilots to try and improve pilots pay and conditions.

tunturi
15th Jul 2001, 17:17
Guvnor
"pilots are systems monitors, anyone want to argue with that"
Yes I will take the bait but it is almost too easy. Pilots ARE system monitors for MOST of the flight and that is as it should be. However, try and "monitor the systems" during approach with wind speeds in excess of 50kts when the A/P just can't cope with associated turbulence. And no I don't even mean as a crosswind which will beyond most pilot limits never mind the usual 25kts A/P limit an Yesy I do know the L1011 as well other types.Why do yoy think pilots have higher limits than the auto systems? These conditions are quite common in the UK in winter/spring never mind te tropics.

How well the the United PILOTS monitor the systems on a stricken aircraft and bring off a very succesful outcome under "IMPOSSIBLE" conditions at Sioux City? Now without any (and I really do mean that) disrespect to the cabin crew or ATC who all did a wonderful job in their own areas, how did they DIRECTLY affect the "landing" of that aircraft?

Finally, we are all a team and all equal in God's eyes are we? So what do think of an "employer" who proposes to pay Captains $8,000; F/Os $5,500; F/Es $6,000; and Cabin Crew $1,200 (+$500/750 for Pursers and CSDs)per month? Not very equal, especially for the cabin crew who are "totally" responsible for safety. Oh you think that's ok. You would have to wouldn't you because these figures are all from your very own website for your "airline". By the way the maintenance engineer figures aren't even't quoted, so they can't be very important can they. :confused:

The Guvnor
15th Jul 2001, 17:30
Airboeing - so you agree then that as far as non-system monitoring productivity is concerned, you're earning your money doing the (undeniably hard/risky) part - landing the aircraft. How many minutes in total does that add up to?

As far as salaries are concerned, I've never said that they should be the same for all tasks - what I have said is that pay increases should be equal and across the board.

lowflyer
15th Jul 2001, 21:58
Hey Guv,
next time we get an engine failure, ill get the (valued) purser in to deal with it and i'll go serve some tea, sounds a fair swap
to me...gosh what a clever bloke you are!
By the way i'm tristar rated, can i have a job? where can i look forward to flying to?
How about some of your drivers letting us know how they feel about your comments???
whoops....... :p

tunturi
16th Jul 2001, 03:34
Guvnor: So your economics theory is to pay the pilots pro rata for the time spent during landing the aircraft only. You just go from strength to strength in your ludicrous and jaundiced view of pilots. But still and all I will sign up for this scheme as long as you promise that senior managers will be paid according to their profitabilty but measured by my standards not theirs i.e. NOT on the backs of everyone else. Note the words THEIR profitability, not mine.
But in the meantime remember these words,? "Personally, I'd say that there are far more deserving groups, such as the ground engineers (who have the ultimate safety responsibility for the aircraft); the cabin crew (who have the ultimate safety responsibility for the passengers); and let's not forget the air traffic controllers without whom you'd all be in very serious trouble". So put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is and pay these very people the going rate for the job. Oh, you are? Exactly, that's what it is all about.(Its ok I don't think you have control over ATC yet)

Name just one airline that has gone belly up due to pilots's salaries and I will name 100 that have done so due to incompetent management. Then there's the ones that never even got started, hint hint. Need a clue? Answer, probably due to exhorbitant pilot demands eh? Certainly not at your going rate of $4,000 for a captain whilst under training. You need a reality check. No don't tell me you have a stack of CVs just waiting, I know. ;)

The Guvnor
16th Jul 2001, 08:12
Airboeing - over 300 CVs at the last count, thank you.

I reiterate that whilst there are different rates of pay for different jobs, I don't see any reason whi - and no one has been able to provide such a reason on this, the BA or any other thread - why pilots should receive a greater % increase than the rest of their colleagues.

When it comes to pay, I have no problems at all with paying high (but reasonable) levels to pilots, as our website shows.

Incidentally, I agree with you re management pay. It's management's responsibility to make sure that they have the right assets (people, aircraft etc) in place to maximise both revenues and profitability. That doesn't stop it being a team effort though!

Perhaps you should do what I did and go get yourself a copy of Nuts! - Herb Kelleher and Southwest's biography.

Now that's how you run an airline! :D :D :D

TARFU
16th Jul 2001, 17:55
Guvnor, why don't you set up your own forum? you could call it "the Guvnor's way or else" or " Know it all don't ask" if anyone has anything to add about the JMC dont dare upset the boat appraoch to flying then let's get back to the issue at hand.

So endeth the lesson.

tunturi
16th Jul 2001, 20:34
Guvnor
"I reiterate that whilst there are different rates of pay for different jobs, I don't see any reason whi - and no one has been able to provide such a reason on this, the BA or any other thread - why pilots should receive a greater % increase than the rest of their colleagues"

I'll have one more go at answering your question but that is it. Whatever you reply this my lot (I think !)

I don't believe pilots are in fact asking for a greater % increase than any other staff per se. What they are after and are disappointed in is the size of the pay increase full stop. If we/they could achieve a significant increase in the order that we believe is reasonble then I for one, and I suspect everone else, would be quite happy for all to have that same increase. But I am not here to bat for them, that is their job.
It so happens that JMC awarded(imposed) a 3.5% increase to(on) all other staff BEFORE pilot negotiations were anywhere near complete. Therefore when the pilots were eventually awarded 3.5% and had the temerity to express disatisfaction at this you and others accuse thenm of wanting more than the other staff. That is not the case. Do you see?
What if the company had not imposed any increase on the others until after the pilots settled and the pilots had achieved, say 6% (I wish !!) then it is obvious to me that this is what the other troops would have received also. Why do you think management tell non represented staff what they are getting in the first place? Quite a clever move really because they can forsee people like you immediately jumping on the band wagon protesting when the pilots tried to up that figure. Get it? :p

Who?
16th Jul 2001, 22:30
Guvnor, what I'd like to know is how you can claim to be an airline exec?
Care to share with us what airlines you've managed, and when? (Oh, and try to only include one's that had aluminum aircraft not FS2000 ships) :p

samson
16th Jul 2001, 23:03
Guvnor= typical frustrated old f/e! :rolleyes:

:cool: :cool: :cool: ;)

Wasps
16th Jul 2001, 23:08
We seem to have drifted away from the original topic here chaps...... :confused:

The Guvnor
16th Jul 2001, 23:18
Airboeing thanks very much for that insight into the situation at jmc. It certainly does help to have the whole picture now a lot of things make more sense.

Still, a bit more solidarity amongst the troops wouldn't go astray!