Vote on "Offer"
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take the Money
In my mind you have three choices -
1. take the money and be happy
2. take the money and start looking for somewhere else to go
3. take the money and keep fighting for more.
To turn this down and start CC? Weigh the possible up and down sides. How much do you have to gain?
We have turned down raises in the past. Terry Hayes' one regret was turning down the 5% the company offered. We never got it back. We have tried CC and that ended up with 49 guys out of a job, a few deaths, a few nervous breakdowns, many, many many stressed out pilots, ...
CC is best kept as a threat. It is all you really have to pressure the company with. You really can't expect too much more than what the company offered for pay alone, so why waste the only bullet you have?
1. take the money and be happy
2. take the money and start looking for somewhere else to go
3. take the money and keep fighting for more.
To turn this down and start CC? Weigh the possible up and down sides. How much do you have to gain?
We have turned down raises in the past. Terry Hayes' one regret was turning down the 5% the company offered. We never got it back. We have tried CC and that ended up with 49 guys out of a job, a few deaths, a few nervous breakdowns, many, many many stressed out pilots, ...
CC is best kept as a threat. It is all you really have to pressure the company with. You really can't expect too much more than what the company offered for pay alone, so why waste the only bullet you have?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ I don't believe this true--it assumes CC is the ONLY thing that will happen (i.e. that folks won't leave, recruiting targets will be met, and that folks can legally continue to fly when last minute changes to rosters induce sickness and fatigue). We are also bounded by FTL limitations and regulatory mandates (which don't favour the company) so there's an external regulatory limit as to how bad things can get.
It ALSO-and more importantly--assumes CC is a bluff or short term deal which it isn't. While there will be immediate effects, its real threat is in the longer term. Either pay and conditions are improved, or more people are hired (which offloads the burden on people currently at the airline to make up for them-something folks have been griping about anyway). At the end of the day in some fashion the airline WILL pay for it. The key point is that it is more efficient (and beneficial to both airline and pilots working there) to HAVE people go beyond their contract on an "on demand" or contingency basis without incurring the significant direct cost (and associated collateral costs) of more workers. I don't know that the airline fully appreciates this or understands it--it just assumes it can happen as a given and that (mostly irrational and unfounded) fear will motivate its workers to stay in line.
CC is a reduction in productivity caused by people refusing to do more than their contract requires. Nothing more. People working above and beyond have masked an ongoing manning problem at the company--such that the schedule can be perennially juggled to keep things working. Manning to the level required means hiring new people which means more money, benefits, housing, and training--it's costly. It also results in a contraction of labor to man capital assets (jets) which are very expensive when they are not making money--at a time where more deliveries are taken and the company faces pressures of market forces and its expansion plan. The training pipeline can't keep up as it is; now it has an additional loading of needing more qualified individuals to fly airplanes. This skilled labor doesn't come cheap (compared to some other career fields) and requires training, experience, and licenses. Market forces also constantly compete for this labor and there's no real way to "lock in" people to prevent them from leaving save either offer them working conditions and pay they like or exploit boundless fears of the unknown of going elsewhere.
CC can (and may well) run for months or even indefinitely. During this time the company will bleed cash (albeit maybe slowly) because it will realize the loss of productivity and be forced to spend more on assets--of some kind--to cover this. The effects of this may not be immediate, but absolutely will hurt the bottom line--the company will be paying much more than it has to to run the place. No one likes to see this happen (in a sane company workers profit when the company does)--but it's a regrettable situation caused by a power agenda rather than a profit agenda driving negotiations. There's no "team" effort which realizes everyone can gain. In time maybe this will be realized, but it WILL take time.
The pain to the flyers will be difficult rosters and a SOMEWHAT hostile work environment. Firing a few to intimidate others to keep in line won't work this time IMHO. This trick only works once. Difficult rosters can be managed too. And what is the big deal about some temporary pain ? --many flyers have fought in REAL wars and all have had much more adversity in life. There's nothing to be afraid of, but it would be better if we could have an offer which is genuine, keeps up with inflation, and doesn't have divisive strings attached.
What's the best solution ? A REAL pay adjustment that reflects not only inflation but also the increase in prevailing market value of pilots due to increasing demand for the skilled labour (and remember real inflation is often higher than a nation's declared inflation--especially in the US where the numbers are juggled to exclude food, energy, and other nondurables). As well as meaningful all to gain roster and ancillary condition improvements. Such an offer MUST be equitable ACROSS THE BOARD and not divisive in any way by nature.
All this is happening because we are facing an obstinate power (or positional) style of negotiation which assumes that something is given up if one acknowledges a need to adjust pay as living costs go up. It assumes that if any meaningful deal is reached (or that people are happy) somehow the company has lost and lost position and power (when in reality nothing could be further from the truth).
It really amazes me that a group of such well travelled individuals (who HAVE seen first hand living conditions in Mumbai, Manila, and many other places where people make a go of it under much harsher conditions than we have or ever will face) can be so afraid of resolutely making good decisions and doing the right thing.
The goal of CC is to demonstrate--by affecting the long term bottom line over time--that a reasonable pay rise and all to gain working conditions improvement is cheaper than hiring a bunch of people who wind up hating their jobs and where they work. The regrettable cost of this is the money lost by the company during it (which workers could share in the profits of) as well as the pain of the workers having to deal with unpleasant working conditions.
It ALSO-and more importantly--assumes CC is a bluff or short term deal which it isn't. While there will be immediate effects, its real threat is in the longer term. Either pay and conditions are improved, or more people are hired (which offloads the burden on people currently at the airline to make up for them-something folks have been griping about anyway). At the end of the day in some fashion the airline WILL pay for it. The key point is that it is more efficient (and beneficial to both airline and pilots working there) to HAVE people go beyond their contract on an "on demand" or contingency basis without incurring the significant direct cost (and associated collateral costs) of more workers. I don't know that the airline fully appreciates this or understands it--it just assumes it can happen as a given and that (mostly irrational and unfounded) fear will motivate its workers to stay in line.
CC is a reduction in productivity caused by people refusing to do more than their contract requires. Nothing more. People working above and beyond have masked an ongoing manning problem at the company--such that the schedule can be perennially juggled to keep things working. Manning to the level required means hiring new people which means more money, benefits, housing, and training--it's costly. It also results in a contraction of labor to man capital assets (jets) which are very expensive when they are not making money--at a time where more deliveries are taken and the company faces pressures of market forces and its expansion plan. The training pipeline can't keep up as it is; now it has an additional loading of needing more qualified individuals to fly airplanes. This skilled labor doesn't come cheap (compared to some other career fields) and requires training, experience, and licenses. Market forces also constantly compete for this labor and there's no real way to "lock in" people to prevent them from leaving save either offer them working conditions and pay they like or exploit boundless fears of the unknown of going elsewhere.
CC can (and may well) run for months or even indefinitely. During this time the company will bleed cash (albeit maybe slowly) because it will realize the loss of productivity and be forced to spend more on assets--of some kind--to cover this. The effects of this may not be immediate, but absolutely will hurt the bottom line--the company will be paying much more than it has to to run the place. No one likes to see this happen (in a sane company workers profit when the company does)--but it's a regrettable situation caused by a power agenda rather than a profit agenda driving negotiations. There's no "team" effort which realizes everyone can gain. In time maybe this will be realized, but it WILL take time.
The pain to the flyers will be difficult rosters and a SOMEWHAT hostile work environment. Firing a few to intimidate others to keep in line won't work this time IMHO. This trick only works once. Difficult rosters can be managed too. And what is the big deal about some temporary pain ? --many flyers have fought in REAL wars and all have had much more adversity in life. There's nothing to be afraid of, but it would be better if we could have an offer which is genuine, keeps up with inflation, and doesn't have divisive strings attached.
What's the best solution ? A REAL pay adjustment that reflects not only inflation but also the increase in prevailing market value of pilots due to increasing demand for the skilled labour (and remember real inflation is often higher than a nation's declared inflation--especially in the US where the numbers are juggled to exclude food, energy, and other nondurables). As well as meaningful all to gain roster and ancillary condition improvements. Such an offer MUST be equitable ACROSS THE BOARD and not divisive in any way by nature.
All this is happening because we are facing an obstinate power (or positional) style of negotiation which assumes that something is given up if one acknowledges a need to adjust pay as living costs go up. It assumes that if any meaningful deal is reached (or that people are happy) somehow the company has lost and lost position and power (when in reality nothing could be further from the truth).
It really amazes me that a group of such well travelled individuals (who HAVE seen first hand living conditions in Mumbai, Manila, and many other places where people make a go of it under much harsher conditions than we have or ever will face) can be so afraid of resolutely making good decisions and doing the right thing.
The goal of CC is to demonstrate--by affecting the long term bottom line over time--that a reasonable pay rise and all to gain working conditions improvement is cheaper than hiring a bunch of people who wind up hating their jobs and where they work. The regrettable cost of this is the money lost by the company during it (which workers could share in the profits of) as well as the pain of the workers having to deal with unpleasant working conditions.
Last edited by Shep69; 13th Sep 2014 at 17:48.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shep, some people will just never get it.
Those that think bases and freighter commands were taken "out of seniority" when they were offered to all, in seniority order, will just never get it.
The argument that the pay was lower so therefore it's "out of seniority" is not valid. Anyone who has ever worked at an airline with a REAL seniority system and different pay for different aircraft knows this.
The old "save the bullet for the real fight" has been heard time and time again. The bullet is not a bullet, it's a carrot.
Didn't we hear the same arguments before the LAST pay adjustment passed by a 75% vote? When was the bullet, that was promised to be used for FTLs, used?
My guess: the majority will roll over just like they always have and always will. The pilot group will be further divided, as intended.
Those that think bases and freighter commands were taken "out of seniority" when they were offered to all, in seniority order, will just never get it.
The argument that the pay was lower so therefore it's "out of seniority" is not valid. Anyone who has ever worked at an airline with a REAL seniority system and different pay for different aircraft knows this.
The old "save the bullet for the real fight" has been heard time and time again. The bullet is not a bullet, it's a carrot.
Didn't we hear the same arguments before the LAST pay adjustment passed by a 75% vote? When was the bullet, that was promised to be used for FTLs, used?
My guess: the majority will roll over just like they always have and always will. The pilot group will be further divided, as intended.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheep nice post, but you are mixing pay and RP as the overall solution.
That is what Cx wanted to do at the same time.
With this offer we have managed to get them to split it up. This works in our favour as we can take the pay offer and then work on RP for more money.
The longer CC goes on for the less effective it is! CC is not the silver bullet that some of you think it is.
That is what Cx wanted to do at the same time.
With this offer we have managed to get them to split it up. This works in our favour as we can take the pay offer and then work on RP for more money.
The longer CC goes on for the less effective it is! CC is not the silver bullet that some of you think it is.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frogman. Explain. Why would CC be LESS effective the longer it went on ? Considering the state of the operation as it currently stands, it would seem to me that CC would become more effective every day it was employed. As an example, during the 'Great Sick Out' of 1999, that became very effective and resulted in 26 jets being parked. CC is a similar tactic, effectively 'less' bodies doing the work, ergo, more jets 'parked'. Happy to hear why you think differently.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mole do not confuse a sick out with CC. They are very different actions. The 29 jets you are referring was due to a sickout not CC! In a sickout most of us do not go to work. In CC we don't help out on G days...not the same!
CC did not work in the past as we will always have people that will go and help out crew control. In the past Cx paid cash to individuals to man the aircraft, they also doubled up on reserve standby, they offered personal roster changes to commuters if they helped them out. The list of incentives goes on and on.
As you know, there will always be a guy that will accept the bribe out of self interest. The longer CC goes on the more guys will say it is too hard and accept their offers to help. That is why CC does not work on the long term.
CC did not work in the past as we will always have people that will go and help out crew control. In the past Cx paid cash to individuals to man the aircraft, they also doubled up on reserve standby, they offered personal roster changes to commuters if they helped them out. The list of incentives goes on and on.
As you know, there will always be a guy that will accept the bribe out of self interest. The longer CC goes on the more guys will say it is too hard and accept their offers to help. That is why CC does not work on the long term.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one likes to see this happen (in a sane company workers profit when the company does)--but it's a regrettable situation caused by a power agenda rather than a profit agenda driving negotiations. There's no "team" effort which realizes everyone can gain. In time maybe this will be realized, but it WILL take time.
An excellent point.....sums up their approach for the past 20 years....
Their strategy is now costing them and needs to change. It's time we were treated as members of the same team.
An excellent point.....sums up their approach for the past 20 years....
Their strategy is now costing them and needs to change. It's time we were treated as members of the same team.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: hong kong
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My grandfather fought in fought In WW1 , he'd be rolling in his grave listening to some of you
Shep another excellent post.
The powers that be must be laughing all the way to the bank with this hoodwink of a deal they have offered.
Shep another excellent post.
The powers that be must be laughing all the way to the bank with this hoodwink of a deal they have offered.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't read very well. Did the offer include proper BPP payment for FCN's, and compliance with the E/O? Also, how did we lose 4 months on our pay increment! We used to get raises Jan 1st.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you Seek and Follow Advice?
Pilots positioned in, lets say the centre 80% of the bell curve, arguably justifiably, like to think of themselves as logical thinking, intelligent, and decisive. This generally makes us cautious, through wary, towards defensive of the idea of seeking the advice of others. It's a failing.
Consider whether Branson, Trump etc make their own decisions or seek the opinion of others who are firstly better informed, but also on their side.
In the face of this decision, we are surrounded by "Noise" including our own; however, we actually have a ready made team of generally like-minded individuals with generally similar motivations who are genuinely on our side, not just paid to be - Lucky Huh?
Whilst I intend to continue listening to others opinions and do, as it were, the 'Due Diligence' before going firm on Yes/No, I am yet to find a reason why I should not regard as 'Best Practice' the counsel of the NC and GC who have lived and breathed this way more than I. I would aspire to the above mentioned character traits, but maybe rejecting the guidance of my 'experts' would be a little arrogant? Sure don't aspire to that.
Consider whether Branson, Trump etc make their own decisions or seek the opinion of others who are firstly better informed, but also on their side.
In the face of this decision, we are surrounded by "Noise" including our own; however, we actually have a ready made team of generally like-minded individuals with generally similar motivations who are genuinely on our side, not just paid to be - Lucky Huh?
Whilst I intend to continue listening to others opinions and do, as it were, the 'Due Diligence' before going firm on Yes/No, I am yet to find a reason why I should not regard as 'Best Practice' the counsel of the NC and GC who have lived and breathed this way more than I. I would aspire to the above mentioned character traits, but maybe rejecting the guidance of my 'experts' would be a little arrogant? Sure don't aspire to that.
Last edited by White None; 14th Sep 2014 at 09:35.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Never You Mind
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you that didn't bother to read the "recommendation":
"You must now decide on whether this Offer meets what you consider to be your worth to this Company" 10/9/14
Seems fairly straight forward.
"You must now decide on whether this Offer meets what you consider to be your worth to this Company" 10/9/14
Seems fairly straight forward.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! In a democracy the leadership makes recommendations but above all else respects the right of the masses who elected them to choose freely. They do however wholeheartedly recommend following their recommendations.
And I'm still doing due diligence, just trying to cut through the noise.
And I'm still doing due diligence, just trying to cut through the noise.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Crew bunk
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blowback wrote:
Okay the offer is derisory and insulting BUT my opinion is to take it
Tell the company that the membership is accepting it but under duress
there is absolutely nothing to stop us enacting contract compliance the next day and doing our own thing , With all the new aircraft arriving crew control is having an increasingly difficult time crewing flights so a well managed CC will be very effective , but it should have been done during the summer rush ,now fall is here it will not be as effective until Christmas and New Year
Unless you are all prepared to do something about G day workers the small minority will undermine the efforts of the majority
Okay the offer is derisory and insulting BUT my opinion is to take it
Tell the company that the membership is accepting it but under duress
there is absolutely nothing to stop us enacting contract compliance the next day and doing our own thing , With all the new aircraft arriving crew control is having an increasingly difficult time crewing flights so a well managed CC will be very effective , but it should have been done during the summer rush ,now fall is here it will not be as effective until Christmas and New Year
Unless you are all prepared to do something about G day workers the small minority will undermine the efforts of the majority
Is your keyboard broken, or are you just retarded? The kids that took the short bus to school knew more about punctuation and grammar than you do.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G day workers and folks answering phones/cutting deals can certainly detract from the effectiveness of CC, but how much ? Overtime costs money, G day pay costs money, shuffling schedules and delays costs money, and positioning people costs money. Off station reserve costs money and FTL clocks tick. Defensive reserve runs FTLs and if someone is used burns more hours as well as often overtime which is expensive. Shuffle and delays also start to induce FTL problems. Many are in overtime even without formal CC. High time flyers will time out by FTLs and have to sit. As long as there remains a strong baseline coalition I think it will be effective. If we were dramatically overmanned things might be different but we're not. Folks cheating might extend the time necessary to stay in CC but the loss of productivity will still be there. One never gets something for nothing.
Thanks and Cheers
Thanks and Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly everything there you have described, in your last post, can be discussed under RP's. So why blow "official" CC away on the pay offer. The cost of overtime etc they are quite happy with as it is still lower than the full cost of extra pilots!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who says "official" CC is blown while it is happening ? And that extended time in CC WHILE negotiating won't have effects that worsen down the road ? We've blown enough time already and what do we have to show for it ? The GFBA was largely a stall.
There are many facets of work to rule which can be implemented in stages at times and places of our choosing. In the US it took being in work to rule to start negotiations in earnest.
The only thing that would detract from entering CC while negotiating is if WE are unsure it would work or WE believe it to be a bluff.
CC IMHO isn't a "trump card" -- it's a process which well may take time and pave the way for follow on activities would they become appropriate. It can be turned off at any time when an acceptable deal or deals are reached. Or portions can be scaled back if there is definite progress (things like NO discretion becomes limited discretion). If the coalition can be held together (and here is the sticking point) it becomes more effective with time--and can serve as a great adjunct to force real negotiations in earnest.
In many insurgency wars, a force with limited resources meets a much larger force and prevails through a war of attrition--effectively attriting the other side's will to protract a conflict over time--fighting the conflict ends up costing too much. Although CC isn't the be all end all we would all agree straight up work-to-rule IS limited in its assets and scope. While these are significant, and costly over time, they aren't massive. They decrease productivity; not end it altogether.
A key point being while in CC WE become the ones driving the fight--not reacting to some 'offer.'
There are many facets of work to rule which can be implemented in stages at times and places of our choosing. In the US it took being in work to rule to start negotiations in earnest.
The only thing that would detract from entering CC while negotiating is if WE are unsure it would work or WE believe it to be a bluff.
CC IMHO isn't a "trump card" -- it's a process which well may take time and pave the way for follow on activities would they become appropriate. It can be turned off at any time when an acceptable deal or deals are reached. Or portions can be scaled back if there is definite progress (things like NO discretion becomes limited discretion). If the coalition can be held together (and here is the sticking point) it becomes more effective with time--and can serve as a great adjunct to force real negotiations in earnest.
In many insurgency wars, a force with limited resources meets a much larger force and prevails through a war of attrition--effectively attriting the other side's will to protract a conflict over time--fighting the conflict ends up costing too much. Although CC isn't the be all end all we would all agree straight up work-to-rule IS limited in its assets and scope. While these are significant, and costly over time, they aren't massive. They decrease productivity; not end it altogether.
A key point being while in CC WE become the ones driving the fight--not reacting to some 'offer.'
Last edited by Shep69; 14th Sep 2014 at 23:50.