unionisation discussions...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unionisation discussions...
So, I was just reading the Ryanair strike thread and it seems to me that there's an awful lot of talk about BALPA being the panacea and a lot of counter talk of BALPA being impotent to do anything about it.
One of the key 'for BALPA' points on the Ryanair thread was the distinction that BALPA (or indeed any other union - IALPA, REPA etc) isn't an autonomous organisation that fights the good fight as they see it needs to be fought, but more an organisation to support the needs of the pilots in the organisation under question (in this case, Ryanair).
One of the key "against BALPA" points is that there isn't visibility on their successes/campaigns and so on. I would personally suggest that trumpeting your victories and showing how useful the union can be makes it a considerably easier sell.
However, there seems to be - through a large number of threads, a kind of "bullying" of people to join the organisation. A lot of "if you don't join [even though you don't understand what benefit you get] you have no say". It strikes me - admittedly from a deeply uninformed position - of the 70s car industries, albeit without the strikes!
So, rather than getting lost in the mire of a thread ostensibly about something else, I thought it might be nice to have a thread dedicated to why pilots of any airline should - or should not - be a member of a union.
From my perspective, I can see the point that BALPA does what's it's members want it to do within the respective organisations, but surely there are common goals that need fighting for? I'm only recently qualified and not flying professionally yet - but I see no pressure from BALPA to cap the costs of training (as they spiral upwards towards £100k for the basic CPL/ME/IR), I see no pressure to raise entry requirements (even to just 5 * GCSE A-C), I see no pressure to prevent line training, or even SSTR.
Surely a lot of the ills that affect all pilots from those with the freshest of blue books to the most ancient of green books can be addressed by BALPA pressuring the CAA for the good of the industry - for example [and purely as a discussion point] how about regs that you can only undertake a TR for commercial purposes if you have a job offer on that type ('ending' speculative TR courses). How about regs stating that "only employees of the company, paid a commensurate wage can operate commercial flights.....line training can be offered, but must at all times be accompanied by two training captains"....which would make it virtually commercially unviable to sell line training hours. Can these things not be lobbied for on behalf of the industry as a whole by the body that's supposed to represent the industry?
Sure - airline specifics rely on the employees to air their gripes and what they want changed, but surely there are wider implications on the industry that HAVE to be fought for by a common body across ALL in the industry - otherwise we become a group of employees that work as individuals, across many different companies.....division and conquering becomes incredibly easy then....
Surely some visible fighting of the common ills would help to get people signing up....
discuss...[waiting to get crucified....]
One of the key 'for BALPA' points on the Ryanair thread was the distinction that BALPA (or indeed any other union - IALPA, REPA etc) isn't an autonomous organisation that fights the good fight as they see it needs to be fought, but more an organisation to support the needs of the pilots in the organisation under question (in this case, Ryanair).
One of the key "against BALPA" points is that there isn't visibility on their successes/campaigns and so on. I would personally suggest that trumpeting your victories and showing how useful the union can be makes it a considerably easier sell.
However, there seems to be - through a large number of threads, a kind of "bullying" of people to join the organisation. A lot of "if you don't join [even though you don't understand what benefit you get] you have no say". It strikes me - admittedly from a deeply uninformed position - of the 70s car industries, albeit without the strikes!
So, rather than getting lost in the mire of a thread ostensibly about something else, I thought it might be nice to have a thread dedicated to why pilots of any airline should - or should not - be a member of a union.
From my perspective, I can see the point that BALPA does what's it's members want it to do within the respective organisations, but surely there are common goals that need fighting for? I'm only recently qualified and not flying professionally yet - but I see no pressure from BALPA to cap the costs of training (as they spiral upwards towards £100k for the basic CPL/ME/IR), I see no pressure to raise entry requirements (even to just 5 * GCSE A-C), I see no pressure to prevent line training, or even SSTR.
Surely a lot of the ills that affect all pilots from those with the freshest of blue books to the most ancient of green books can be addressed by BALPA pressuring the CAA for the good of the industry - for example [and purely as a discussion point] how about regs that you can only undertake a TR for commercial purposes if you have a job offer on that type ('ending' speculative TR courses). How about regs stating that "only employees of the company, paid a commensurate wage can operate commercial flights.....line training can be offered, but must at all times be accompanied by two training captains"....which would make it virtually commercially unviable to sell line training hours. Can these things not be lobbied for on behalf of the industry as a whole by the body that's supposed to represent the industry?
Sure - airline specifics rely on the employees to air their gripes and what they want changed, but surely there are wider implications on the industry that HAVE to be fought for by a common body across ALL in the industry - otherwise we become a group of employees that work as individuals, across many different companies.....division and conquering becomes incredibly easy then....
Surely some visible fighting of the common ills would help to get people signing up....
discuss...[waiting to get crucified....]
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Up't North
Age: 50
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I agree with you on a number of points. But there are some big hurdles that need to be overcome to reach that situation. There are a lot of guy in the industry who feel that they have been let down by BALPA in the past, this has caused a large amount of resentment to BALPA (very justified in some cases), add to that, that most pilots have memories akin to elephants when they have felt wronged in the past and appealing to these will be nigh on impossible.
BALPA still suffers hugely on the image that it is BA union. Different airlines experience different services from BALPA and often it is down to the individuals that are working on the company council to do the recruiting as well as manage all of the individual airline issues. With this being the case, it is often that the recruitment drive is done on the basis of a safety net or on individual company need and the CC past performance.
I fear that we have lost forever the notion of airlines paying for training from the start. With the international competitiveness of the industry and the way market forces now work, no airline with exception to the well established legacy majors will consider it as the cost they are willing to bare.
BUT…. by no means do I want to be sounding as if I am putting the nail in to the BALPA coffin, they are fighting over various issues with regulators and trying to protect the industry T+C’s and for this they deserve our support, however as the industry has evolved and so must BALPA, they need to be more open about what they are fighting for, evolve members more and review the way they communicate so that we can stop any further reduction in our industry conditions.
BALPA still suffers hugely on the image that it is BA union. Different airlines experience different services from BALPA and often it is down to the individuals that are working on the company council to do the recruiting as well as manage all of the individual airline issues. With this being the case, it is often that the recruitment drive is done on the basis of a safety net or on individual company need and the CC past performance.
I fear that we have lost forever the notion of airlines paying for training from the start. With the international competitiveness of the industry and the way market forces now work, no airline with exception to the well established legacy majors will consider it as the cost they are willing to bare.
BUT…. by no means do I want to be sounding as if I am putting the nail in to the BALPA coffin, they are fighting over various issues with regulators and trying to protect the industry T+C’s and for this they deserve our support, however as the industry has evolved and so must BALPA, they need to be more open about what they are fighting for, evolve members more and review the way they communicate so that we can stop any further reduction in our industry conditions.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Depressionville
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA, has suffered in years past for its stigma of being a British Airways Association, though all reasoned professionals this day know that is no longer the case. Of course BA is important to them as is any flag carrier to its national association. But they have changed and evolved with the times and they are genuinely represetative now of the wider industry.
BALPA have made mistakes when judged against the hard light of retrospect, but hasn't everyone.
Yes some will be grieved at a mistake BALPA has made in the past. And will no longer have any dealings with them. That is their perogative.
I made a similar stance with Airtours holidays some years ago, after the holiday from hell. But I bet it wasn't like that for most Airtours passengers most of the time.
They will even tell you themselves they have made mistakes.
But they are not the genie in the bottle neither do they have a magic wand for bleeting sheep. In partnership with pilots they make recommendations that don't always work out. Just like the best stockbroker, sometimes it goes the other way, But in the vast overwhelming majority they get it right, in my opinion as they have this very week with the financially precarious BA
And this is written purely on the basis of T&C's, BALPA have much wider advantages than merely T&C's.
What those of us in Ryanair are seeing, is the usual "union busting" agenda, of spreading mis-information and lets be candid here, lies.
They constantly try to make the association that BALPA is a 3rd party who will tell you what to do, as the management currently do, that is far from true, as the current BA talks have proved, BALPA as a professional organisation, look objectively at the facts, look for the best solution that fits both the aspirations of the individual and the business case of the employer, and they then offer their professional "recommendation", based on the full picture, but is merely a recommendation. It is the Pilots who will vote, it is the pilots who decide in their careers. Much of a pilots career is in his/her hands and those of their fellow pilots.
BALPA merely facilitates both sides of the picture and uses its professional industry understanding, to help parties to reach workable solution that benefit BOTH employee and employer. Which is certainly not the current case in Ryanair.
BALPA are not some headmaster telling what to do, they are more like the mortgage advisor, they don't offer you onew product on a "take it or leave it", they give you all the options with their "recommendation" but they still leave and entrust the actual decision to you and your ballot.
With a union YOUR future is in YOUR HANDS.
Without one YOUR future is NOT in your hands but at the whim of your bosses.
A good reason for those bosses to try and lie and belittle that professional umbrella, under which your make the descions and they don't just dictate.
The very same bosses, ie MOL, (the others are just his lapdogs). Who directly lost or "cost" the company 100's of millions in calmitous and gung ho business decisons that cost dealy. His ego and midas touch delusions led to some schoolboy economic decisions and bungling gambles that back fired spectaularly. How he managged to stave off the sack with such gross financial negligence, is beyond most and wouldn't happen elsewhere.
And rather than admit it or pay back his excursions of ego, he sends those lapdogs to recoup the money from the companies employees. The pilots who actually delivered the company to trading proftiability, (Fuel hedging and failed Aer lingus attempt asside), in the same year it was all wiped out as the CEO blew the shareholders cash and delivered heavy losses.
Hmmmm No brainer.
BALPA have made mistakes when judged against the hard light of retrospect, but hasn't everyone.
Yes some will be grieved at a mistake BALPA has made in the past. And will no longer have any dealings with them. That is their perogative.
I made a similar stance with Airtours holidays some years ago, after the holiday from hell. But I bet it wasn't like that for most Airtours passengers most of the time.
They will even tell you themselves they have made mistakes.
But they are not the genie in the bottle neither do they have a magic wand for bleeting sheep. In partnership with pilots they make recommendations that don't always work out. Just like the best stockbroker, sometimes it goes the other way, But in the vast overwhelming majority they get it right, in my opinion as they have this very week with the financially precarious BA
And this is written purely on the basis of T&C's, BALPA have much wider advantages than merely T&C's.
What those of us in Ryanair are seeing, is the usual "union busting" agenda, of spreading mis-information and lets be candid here, lies.
They constantly try to make the association that BALPA is a 3rd party who will tell you what to do, as the management currently do, that is far from true, as the current BA talks have proved, BALPA as a professional organisation, look objectively at the facts, look for the best solution that fits both the aspirations of the individual and the business case of the employer, and they then offer their professional "recommendation", based on the full picture, but is merely a recommendation. It is the Pilots who will vote, it is the pilots who decide in their careers. Much of a pilots career is in his/her hands and those of their fellow pilots.
BALPA merely facilitates both sides of the picture and uses its professional industry understanding, to help parties to reach workable solution that benefit BOTH employee and employer. Which is certainly not the current case in Ryanair.
BALPA are not some headmaster telling what to do, they are more like the mortgage advisor, they don't offer you onew product on a "take it or leave it", they give you all the options with their "recommendation" but they still leave and entrust the actual decision to you and your ballot.
With a union YOUR future is in YOUR HANDS.
Without one YOUR future is NOT in your hands but at the whim of your bosses.
A good reason for those bosses to try and lie and belittle that professional umbrella, under which your make the descions and they don't just dictate.
The very same bosses, ie MOL, (the others are just his lapdogs). Who directly lost or "cost" the company 100's of millions in calmitous and gung ho business decisons that cost dealy. His ego and midas touch delusions led to some schoolboy economic decisions and bungling gambles that back fired spectaularly. How he managged to stave off the sack with such gross financial negligence, is beyond most and wouldn't happen elsewhere.
And rather than admit it or pay back his excursions of ego, he sends those lapdogs to recoup the money from the companies employees. The pilots who actually delivered the company to trading proftiability, (Fuel hedging and failed Aer lingus attempt asside), in the same year it was all wiped out as the CEO blew the shareholders cash and delivered heavy losses.
Hmmmm No brainer.
Last edited by Fightback Fred; 24th Jun 2009 at 23:09.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmm, interesting thoughts FBF,
I can't help but agree that RYR is in desperate need of unity - as the management continue to show callous disregard for it's employees. Speaking as a general industry manager, one of the key facets of successfully governing a business is that you HAVE to have your staff 'onside'. If they are against you, it's almost impossible to deliver quality - and through that, profitability (where "quality" = whatever the company's stated goals are, not necessarily "the best")
However, one of the things that continues to concern me about unionisation discussions - in ANY industry - is that STILL people have little grasp on the realities of managing a business. The best evidence of this is anyone that's ever stepped up from "shop floor" to management role - it really is akin to moving from single engine piston flying to high powered complex flying (jet?). THIS is why management (not RYR particularly here) are nervous about unionisation discussions. What those being represented fail to understand is that sometimes T and C degradation is necessary for survival. Of course, the key to understanding here is in two parts - a) how that message is put across ("we need to cut costs or we're going to the wall, but the CEO is still taking a 7 figure bonus" doesn't cut it...) and B) relies on "sensible" people applying liberally common sense. Of course, "common" sense, isn't all that common....and those that seek to represent on unions are all too often of the ilk of Bob Crowe, who would happily see a company destroyed to preserve unrealistic ideals....
Anyway, just a random collection of thoughts.
For me personally, I think BALPA or other unified presence is absolutely essential, but the biggest single trick is being missed. The whole reason RYR (for example) can get away with what they're doing is that there's a huge queue of people waiting to join - and they can't afford NOT to, having spent a huge amount to get that opportunity.
BALPA representing ANY pilots on a company by company basis is great, but misses the continual undercutting of the moral high ground they occupy by ever increasing difficulties in getting into the industry.
Lets' face it, can we be suprised that train drivers, garbage collectors etc can earn more than pilots, when there isn't even any base qualification standards? BALPA, in my opinion desperately needs to start fighting for those that CAN'T fight back - those who are qualified but have no airline employer, those that are trying to get into the industry.
The bottom line is that ALL of the arguments for and against come down to "I'll do what helps me personally the most"....those that support unionisation believe that it will protect what they already have and indeed enhance it. Those that are against it, believe it will aggravate a notorioulsy aggressive management into spiteful degradation of conditions.
Therefore, one could summise that protecting the base of the pyramid, naturally protects the top....but this seems to be missed almost daily, as a concept....
Interesting to see more thoughts, suprised this thread hasn't had more responses....
I can't help but agree that RYR is in desperate need of unity - as the management continue to show callous disregard for it's employees. Speaking as a general industry manager, one of the key facets of successfully governing a business is that you HAVE to have your staff 'onside'. If they are against you, it's almost impossible to deliver quality - and through that, profitability (where "quality" = whatever the company's stated goals are, not necessarily "the best")
However, one of the things that continues to concern me about unionisation discussions - in ANY industry - is that STILL people have little grasp on the realities of managing a business. The best evidence of this is anyone that's ever stepped up from "shop floor" to management role - it really is akin to moving from single engine piston flying to high powered complex flying (jet?). THIS is why management (not RYR particularly here) are nervous about unionisation discussions. What those being represented fail to understand is that sometimes T and C degradation is necessary for survival. Of course, the key to understanding here is in two parts - a) how that message is put across ("we need to cut costs or we're going to the wall, but the CEO is still taking a 7 figure bonus" doesn't cut it...) and B) relies on "sensible" people applying liberally common sense. Of course, "common" sense, isn't all that common....and those that seek to represent on unions are all too often of the ilk of Bob Crowe, who would happily see a company destroyed to preserve unrealistic ideals....
Anyway, just a random collection of thoughts.
For me personally, I think BALPA or other unified presence is absolutely essential, but the biggest single trick is being missed. The whole reason RYR (for example) can get away with what they're doing is that there's a huge queue of people waiting to join - and they can't afford NOT to, having spent a huge amount to get that opportunity.
BALPA representing ANY pilots on a company by company basis is great, but misses the continual undercutting of the moral high ground they occupy by ever increasing difficulties in getting into the industry.
Lets' face it, can we be suprised that train drivers, garbage collectors etc can earn more than pilots, when there isn't even any base qualification standards? BALPA, in my opinion desperately needs to start fighting for those that CAN'T fight back - those who are qualified but have no airline employer, those that are trying to get into the industry.
The bottom line is that ALL of the arguments for and against come down to "I'll do what helps me personally the most"....those that support unionisation believe that it will protect what they already have and indeed enhance it. Those that are against it, believe it will aggravate a notorioulsy aggressive management into spiteful degradation of conditions.
Therefore, one could summise that protecting the base of the pyramid, naturally protects the top....but this seems to be missed almost daily, as a concept....
Interesting to see more thoughts, suprised this thread hasn't had more responses....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching this with interest and thought it had potential but then came the reality check.
Our management stooge here is now saying everybody should take pay cuts in order for airlines to continue selling tickets at unsustainable prices in other words subsidize the ticket price on the back of my t&c's.
ye right
What those being represented fail to understand is that sometimes T and C degradation is necessary for survival.
ye right
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns - More than a little harsh....read up on my background, why don't you, instead of jumping to, frankly, baseless and uneducated guesswork ...in fact I'll save you the effort...
I'm recently graduated from flight school (Dec 08) having spent 14 years since graduating from uni in management positions for some of the largest companies in the world. I worked fffff....lipping hard to earn enough to pay for my training outright. I have no debt, but at the same time due to some seriously bad timing on my part, neither do I have a flying job - hence I'm back in management, in my old job earning more than most captains do. I am NOT some wannabe management monkey that THINKS they know about management...it is how I [currently - and against my wishes] make my living and have done for years. Neither am I affiliated to any particular airline, union or other grouping. My concerns for the "bottom of the pyramid" comes from the fact that this is where I am.
I DID apply to Ryanair, I DID get an interview and I ffffff...lipped it up spectacularly. You won't find me bitching that they didn't offer me a position - they were absolutely right not to, based solely on my performance that day. Likewise, neither - right now - will you find me wailing and gnashing my teeth about it. The recruitment at RYR has - in my opinion- taken a dangerous [in context of the prospects of those about to spend £30k + getting a TR with them] twist and I'm actually bloody glad I'm not having to face that decision now.
I have no love for Ryanair whatsoever. I do think MO'L is a very shrewd - if deeply unethical - operator. I also think he's missing a very large trick in that if you continually stretch anything, eventually it snaps. Treating your staff like crap is a very, very odd thing to my mind and I'm pretty sure at some point he will get bitten back hugely and that it will cost him dearly.
However, if you are really so myopic that you believe that Ts and Cs should spiral ever upward regardless of the economic environment, then you old friend are living in cloud fecking cuckoo land. If you believe that anyone that disagrees with your blinkered opinion is a "management stooge" for RYR, then god help us all. God forbid a balanced and unbiased viewpoint - for it may actually allow progress and we wouldn't want that, would we?
BUSINESSES - which, much as we may not like to admit it, is what airlines are - need to do whatever it takes to survive.
Opinion like that you apparently have (that anyone suggesting sometimes things have to go down before they can go up) is what makes unions dangerous. It is WHY managers like O'Leary are so loathe to sit down and talk to them....because you are clearly - or at least "apparently" given your reflux at my previous post - incapable of seeing that negotiating in a downturn may require different objectives - and with kid gloves to boot - than negotiation in an upturn.
So, for the avoidance of any doubt - what I was trying to illustrate is not that people should take a pay cut just because it is a downturn, but that you should consider the oft mentioned example of Thomson.... sometimes people have to take a small degradation in Ts and Cs to preserve something else - i.e. the jobs of others in your org, the org itself. The Thomson pilots are to be applauded for recognising this. Businesses should NOT continue to offer an unsustainable product by simply reducing the terms of it's employees, but by the same token, unions should not seek to force a less competitive situation, when businesses are failing anyway.
One of the difficulties I'm trying to point out is that unions OFTEN fail to recognise this - Bob Crowe being a prime example....he would have battered Thomson with threats of industrial action into giving them all a payrise, five days more a year off AND keeping them all on....as a result, we quite possibly would have seen the business go to the wall. How does that benefit anyone? It doesn't, but apparently you would see this as a good thing.
Further, for the avoidance of any doubt - if pay cuts -or similar- are necessary to ensure long term survival, then certainly it should not be purely across one group of employees. If the pilots are required to endure a loss of income, then sure as hell O'Leary et al should not be taking bonuses. And here in lies the necessity for representation in RYR - clearly MO'L, PB and the others in his management team won't be enduring the downturn in their conditions they seek others to accept.
But thanks for the kind thoughts, safety. An unthought out, ill informed knee jerk reaction that has summed up nicely a lot that is wrong with this industry.
What is it they say "walk a mile in another mans shoes, before judging him"....
I'm recently graduated from flight school (Dec 08) having spent 14 years since graduating from uni in management positions for some of the largest companies in the world. I worked fffff....lipping hard to earn enough to pay for my training outright. I have no debt, but at the same time due to some seriously bad timing on my part, neither do I have a flying job - hence I'm back in management, in my old job earning more than most captains do. I am NOT some wannabe management monkey that THINKS they know about management...it is how I [currently - and against my wishes] make my living and have done for years. Neither am I affiliated to any particular airline, union or other grouping. My concerns for the "bottom of the pyramid" comes from the fact that this is where I am.
I DID apply to Ryanair, I DID get an interview and I ffffff...lipped it up spectacularly. You won't find me bitching that they didn't offer me a position - they were absolutely right not to, based solely on my performance that day. Likewise, neither - right now - will you find me wailing and gnashing my teeth about it. The recruitment at RYR has - in my opinion- taken a dangerous [in context of the prospects of those about to spend £30k + getting a TR with them] twist and I'm actually bloody glad I'm not having to face that decision now.
I have no love for Ryanair whatsoever. I do think MO'L is a very shrewd - if deeply unethical - operator. I also think he's missing a very large trick in that if you continually stretch anything, eventually it snaps. Treating your staff like crap is a very, very odd thing to my mind and I'm pretty sure at some point he will get bitten back hugely and that it will cost him dearly.
However, if you are really so myopic that you believe that Ts and Cs should spiral ever upward regardless of the economic environment, then you old friend are living in cloud fecking cuckoo land. If you believe that anyone that disagrees with your blinkered opinion is a "management stooge" for RYR, then god help us all. God forbid a balanced and unbiased viewpoint - for it may actually allow progress and we wouldn't want that, would we?
BUSINESSES - which, much as we may not like to admit it, is what airlines are - need to do whatever it takes to survive.
Opinion like that you apparently have (that anyone suggesting sometimes things have to go down before they can go up) is what makes unions dangerous. It is WHY managers like O'Leary are so loathe to sit down and talk to them....because you are clearly - or at least "apparently" given your reflux at my previous post - incapable of seeing that negotiating in a downturn may require different objectives - and with kid gloves to boot - than negotiation in an upturn.
So, for the avoidance of any doubt - what I was trying to illustrate is not that people should take a pay cut just because it is a downturn, but that you should consider the oft mentioned example of Thomson.... sometimes people have to take a small degradation in Ts and Cs to preserve something else - i.e. the jobs of others in your org, the org itself. The Thomson pilots are to be applauded for recognising this. Businesses should NOT continue to offer an unsustainable product by simply reducing the terms of it's employees, but by the same token, unions should not seek to force a less competitive situation, when businesses are failing anyway.
One of the difficulties I'm trying to point out is that unions OFTEN fail to recognise this - Bob Crowe being a prime example....he would have battered Thomson with threats of industrial action into giving them all a payrise, five days more a year off AND keeping them all on....as a result, we quite possibly would have seen the business go to the wall. How does that benefit anyone? It doesn't, but apparently you would see this as a good thing.
Further, for the avoidance of any doubt - if pay cuts -or similar- are necessary to ensure long term survival, then certainly it should not be purely across one group of employees. If the pilots are required to endure a loss of income, then sure as hell O'Leary et al should not be taking bonuses. And here in lies the necessity for representation in RYR - clearly MO'L, PB and the others in his management team won't be enduring the downturn in their conditions they seek others to accept.
But thanks for the kind thoughts, safety. An unthought out, ill informed knee jerk reaction that has summed up nicely a lot that is wrong with this industry.
What is it they say "walk a mile in another mans shoes, before judging him"....
Last edited by clanger32; 25th Jun 2009 at 10:35.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clanger32
I’ve worked for a heavily unionised (over 90%) airline for twenty years and counting.
Being unionised does not mean continuously spiraling costs for the company…far from it. I served on our CC for a number of years and I know through first hand experience that working in partnership with the management gives rise to potentially huge benefits to the company and the workforce.
I have seen adversarial negotiations lead to poor company performance and a ballot for strike action from the pilots, to the partnership approach we now have leading to new ideas and successful working practices.
Managers like all human beings run out of ideas and get a blinkered view of the problem with an inability to step back and see the problem for what it is. I have seen many ideas for the way forward being suggested by our CC and being adopted by management who then admit to it being the right way forward.
It is in no-ones interest for the company that pays all our wages to go bust. In fact we pilots due to the seniority system are more likely to have a vested interest in the airlines survival. Most pilots have longer service at their respective airlines than the managers who come and go every few years.
Pilots tend not to be militant. We all had to work bl**dy hard to get qualified. We tend as a group, to have a very good work ethic. That includes going beyond normal working practices to get the job done, rather than just downing tools and going home.
Pilots want negotiated T’s & C’s that suites the pilots and the company, nothing more and nothing less.
Union recognition is not some evil and certainly nothing to be frightened of.
I’ve worked for a heavily unionised (over 90%) airline for twenty years and counting.
Being unionised does not mean continuously spiraling costs for the company…far from it. I served on our CC for a number of years and I know through first hand experience that working in partnership with the management gives rise to potentially huge benefits to the company and the workforce.
I have seen adversarial negotiations lead to poor company performance and a ballot for strike action from the pilots, to the partnership approach we now have leading to new ideas and successful working practices.
Managers like all human beings run out of ideas and get a blinkered view of the problem with an inability to step back and see the problem for what it is. I have seen many ideas for the way forward being suggested by our CC and being adopted by management who then admit to it being the right way forward.
It is in no-ones interest for the company that pays all our wages to go bust. In fact we pilots due to the seniority system are more likely to have a vested interest in the airlines survival. Most pilots have longer service at their respective airlines than the managers who come and go every few years.
Pilots tend not to be militant. We all had to work bl**dy hard to get qualified. We tend as a group, to have a very good work ethic. That includes going beyond normal working practices to get the job done, rather than just downing tools and going home.
Pilots want negotiated T’s & C’s that suites the pilots and the company, nothing more and nothing less.
Union recognition is not some evil and certainly nothing to be frightened of.
Last edited by max_cont; 25th Jun 2009 at 12:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max_cont.
I think, if I may be so bold, that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my point here...Certainly I do not think unions are evil, wrong or indeed have no part to play. I am absolutely agnostic on the subject....done well, a union has an exceedingly important part to play in successful running of a business and can offer perspectives the management either can't see by virtue of job role, or perhaps just missed through human nature.
I have absolutely no axe to grind with any union - except that as powerful a force for good as a GOOD union can be, a bad union can be utterly destructive.
The only reason that I mentioned any of the negative aspects was in response to the suggestion I'm some form of management stooge. I am not, never was and never will be - save that sometimes someone has to present "the other side of the argument" - decision (opinion) without perspective and knowledge is tremendously dangerous - for example, would you divert to another airfield without reading the plates, getting the ATIS first and ensuring it has sufficient LDA? God, I hope not! Knowledge of what your 'opponents' - if I can use that word without implication there is necessarily a different set of objectives between workers and managers- see as the problems are key to resolution.
My point on unions - or perhaps better phrased as my perspective - is that I understand the good they CAN bring, but I don't see a huge amount of evidence as to what good they DO bring. In this instance we're talking of BALPA - so I will continue to use that example.
When I talk about spiralling costs - I refer solely to basic training - up to CPL/ME/IR....these are the costs that are rapidly approaching £100k and in my view BALPA SHOULD be acting for the good of the airline industry - as a whole - in trying to stop this ever increasing cost base. In my view, BALPA SHOULD be lobbying the CAA really bloody hard to make it virtually impossible for airlines to sell line training hours, with no job at the end. In my view BALPA SHOULD be seeking to make it impossible for someone to buy a speculative type rating - you should only be able to buy a TR if you can prove a use for it afterwards....i.e. you own an aircraft of that type, or have a legal document giving you the right to fly one.
But these are the things that BALPA DOESN'T do...things which, IMO the industry is desperately crying out for. Perhaps it's the nature of the point that "BALPA is you, the pilots" which means that those that don't fall into a grouping of significant numbers, like the newly graduated, those about to start, those unemployed but experienced aren't getting the representation they so dearly need - but in my opinion above everything else, it's the undercutting of the base of the pyramid that leads to the erosion at the top of it.
My original point was that if BALPA shouted more about the success at Thomson, similar successes elsewhere, if they stood up for those without a voice (me - and those in my position for whatever reason - and yes, I am already a member) then it would be easier to persuade those in the situation of the RYR pilots to join up...
hope that clears up any misunderstanding
I think, if I may be so bold, that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my point here...Certainly I do not think unions are evil, wrong or indeed have no part to play. I am absolutely agnostic on the subject....done well, a union has an exceedingly important part to play in successful running of a business and can offer perspectives the management either can't see by virtue of job role, or perhaps just missed through human nature.
I have absolutely no axe to grind with any union - except that as powerful a force for good as a GOOD union can be, a bad union can be utterly destructive.
The only reason that I mentioned any of the negative aspects was in response to the suggestion I'm some form of management stooge. I am not, never was and never will be - save that sometimes someone has to present "the other side of the argument" - decision (opinion) without perspective and knowledge is tremendously dangerous - for example, would you divert to another airfield without reading the plates, getting the ATIS first and ensuring it has sufficient LDA? God, I hope not! Knowledge of what your 'opponents' - if I can use that word without implication there is necessarily a different set of objectives between workers and managers- see as the problems are key to resolution.
My point on unions - or perhaps better phrased as my perspective - is that I understand the good they CAN bring, but I don't see a huge amount of evidence as to what good they DO bring. In this instance we're talking of BALPA - so I will continue to use that example.
When I talk about spiralling costs - I refer solely to basic training - up to CPL/ME/IR....these are the costs that are rapidly approaching £100k and in my view BALPA SHOULD be acting for the good of the airline industry - as a whole - in trying to stop this ever increasing cost base. In my view, BALPA SHOULD be lobbying the CAA really bloody hard to make it virtually impossible for airlines to sell line training hours, with no job at the end. In my view BALPA SHOULD be seeking to make it impossible for someone to buy a speculative type rating - you should only be able to buy a TR if you can prove a use for it afterwards....i.e. you own an aircraft of that type, or have a legal document giving you the right to fly one.
But these are the things that BALPA DOESN'T do...things which, IMO the industry is desperately crying out for. Perhaps it's the nature of the point that "BALPA is you, the pilots" which means that those that don't fall into a grouping of significant numbers, like the newly graduated, those about to start, those unemployed but experienced aren't getting the representation they so dearly need - but in my opinion above everything else, it's the undercutting of the base of the pyramid that leads to the erosion at the top of it.
My original point was that if BALPA shouted more about the success at Thomson, similar successes elsewhere, if they stood up for those without a voice (me - and those in my position for whatever reason - and yes, I am already a member) then it would be easier to persuade those in the situation of the RYR pilots to join up...
hope that clears up any misunderstanding
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clanger32…yep clearer now.
I agree, the training side of things has got way out of hand. Schools are only interested in selling training and the dream. Can you blame them for that? Should BALPA seek to curtail pilot training in any sort of free society? I don’t believe they should. I would however agree totally with your position regarding a TR and line training.
It is the industries fault along with successive governments that there has been zero planning for pilot training and it continues.
What I find bemusing is the fact that a certain airline charges for interviews etc. I do sometimes wonder what those not in aviation who defend this practice, on this site and others, would do if all employers started to follow suite…I’d predict blood on the carpet.
IMO what we are seeing is the worst aspects that competition brings to the table. I find it incredible that there are those in aviation who cannot see beyond their own short term gain. A few years ago the association chairman told me it was “easier to herd cats than organise pilots” So it proves…especially with the newcomers.
I do agree that BALPA should parade Thomson Airways as an example of what can be achieved with the right approach. It’s not all sweetness and light, and like any partnership, there is a robust and frank exchange of views. But like any marriage, compromise is usually the way forward.
I agree, the training side of things has got way out of hand. Schools are only interested in selling training and the dream. Can you blame them for that? Should BALPA seek to curtail pilot training in any sort of free society? I don’t believe they should. I would however agree totally with your position regarding a TR and line training.
It is the industries fault along with successive governments that there has been zero planning for pilot training and it continues.
What I find bemusing is the fact that a certain airline charges for interviews etc. I do sometimes wonder what those not in aviation who defend this practice, on this site and others, would do if all employers started to follow suite…I’d predict blood on the carpet.
IMO what we are seeing is the worst aspects that competition brings to the table. I find it incredible that there are those in aviation who cannot see beyond their own short term gain. A few years ago the association chairman told me it was “easier to herd cats than organise pilots” So it proves…especially with the newcomers.
I do agree that BALPA should parade Thomson Airways as an example of what can be achieved with the right approach. It’s not all sweetness and light, and like any partnership, there is a robust and frank exchange of views. But like any marriage, compromise is usually the way forward.
Originally Posted by Clanger32
sometimes T and C degradation is necessary for survival.
If BALPA is to be judged by its performance in dispute with BA over Open Skies, then it is toothles. However, even its toothles jaw can make pretty expensive damage to RYR's pilots relationship model.
I do think MO'L is a very shrewd - if deeply unethical - operator. I also think he's missing a very large trick in that if you continually stretch anything, eventually it snaps.
Neither Borman nor Lorenzo walked away from ruins of Eastern with much distress. And union played its part till the end and picked up all the blame.
Dear Clanger32, I sincerely hope you get your dream job very soon.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ye very clear. The know it all uni kid has an issue and feels hurt cos BALPA didn't do anything for him. Then he comes on here about unions being destructive in a totally one sided diatribe about nothing.
Let me wake you up clanger. Bad management is at least as destructive as a bad union if not more so. And another thing before you go and whistle elsewhere, even a bad union, even if misguided, was trying to improve things for everyone. Bad management were only trying to line their own pockets.
wake up for christs sake
Let me wake you up clanger. Bad management is at least as destructive as a bad union if not more so. And another thing before you go and whistle elsewhere, even a bad union, even if misguided, was trying to improve things for everyone. Bad management were only trying to line their own pockets.
wake up for christs sake
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Safety, bottom line here is that you made a bad snap judgement and got called for it. You don't even have the grace to acknowledge that. Your response is to come out being frankly, bloody rude.....or is it just you had a second bowl of stupid for breakfast today?
Let me try and answer your wonderful prose such that you may understand, as clearly you don't understand reasoned argument
The reason I posted this thread was to start a discussion around what [BALPA] could do to, that would encourage those undecided to join. What they could or perhaps SHOULD do to help the industry as a whole. To discuss why they're not worth joining. any/all of the above. Instead, I get barely literate insults from someone that clearly has never sat in the seat of management and had to understand the very unique challenges that brings.
Safety, bottom line here is that you made a bad snap judgement and got called for it. You don't even have the grace to acknowledge that. Your response is to come out being frankly, bloody rude.....or is it just you had a second bowl of stupid for breakfast today?
Let me try and answer your wonderful prose such that you may understand, as clearly you don't understand reasoned argument
- Hardly. It's called "providing context for your opinion". I'm nothing special, but I do have management experience. Would you call a 20000 hour captain "know it all" for offering an opinion on aviation....no, didn't think so. And, pray tell, at which point did I say anything about uni having ANYthing to do with it? Oh, that's right - I didn't...just thought you'd take a cheap shot, didn't you? As an aside, I'm guessing you didn't got to uni....often betrayed by the sneering attitude to those that did....I'm guessing the words "I went to university of life, din' I *sniff*" are lurking not too far behind..."know it all uni kid".
- . Not in the slightest. BALPA owe me nothing at all. Nor do I seek anything from them. What I was saying is that perhaps fighting for those at the lower end of the food chain, would stop the rot at the top of the chain. If you really can't understand that concept, then there is no help for you. It is rather too late for me to benefit from any fight any organisation may choose to have in favour of those at the lower end - yet I still think it worthwhile...it's called foresight, it may help preserve conditions if I were to eventually attain a command...try it sometime, it's illuminating. Further worthy of note - if people see an organisation actively defending their industry, they're more likely to believe it can help them. This would probably help "sell" the cause to those, for example, in Ryanair right now."feels hurt cos BALPA didn't do anything for him"
- . Well, good grief! An almost accurate statement! Yes, "bad management" is at least as damaging as unions - no, actually, there is nothing as corrosive as bad management. But that's never been in question. Neither has the benefit of a "good" union. But something you seem to have missed - at no point have I said that unions are bad. The only, ONLY point I made that could even close be construed to relating to "bad" unions is that historically sometimes unions have to understand that - as per the Thomson example - you CAN'T preserve the status quo and some unions are bad at doing this - pushing a business into more pressure."Bad management is at least as destructive as a bad union if not more so. And another thing before you go and whistle elsewhere, even a bad union, even if misguided, was trying to improve things for everyone. Bad management were only trying to line their own pockets"
The reason I posted this thread was to start a discussion around what [BALPA] could do to, that would encourage those undecided to join. What they could or perhaps SHOULD do to help the industry as a whole. To discuss why they're not worth joining. any/all of the above. Instead, I get barely literate insults from someone that clearly has never sat in the seat of management and had to understand the very unique challenges that brings.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clanger you are dropping one. Your postings are heavily biased as highlighted by
If you seek a proper discussion stop lecturing on why employees should take a pay cut
relies on "sensible" people applying liberally common sense. Of course, "common" sense, isn't all that common....and those that seek to represent on unions are all too often of the ilk of Bob Crowe, who would happily see a company destroyed to preserve unrealistic ideals....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max_Cont:
Bob Crowe - Bob Crow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He really is the archetypal "let the company go to the wall" man who would be cheering the demise of a company and all the job losses that go with it, rather than take a compromise. Admittedly, pure conjecture on my part, no facts to back that up - but I defy anyone to seriously say they believe he'd do any differently
Safety.
I'm sorry, but you really do seem to have taken one point, of one of my posts and obsessed on it. At no point have I said I believe anyone should take a pay cut. Nor have I said Unions are bad.
What I have said - and stand by - is that sometimes, concessions may need to be made to safeguard the greater good, rather than fighting tooth and nail to "prove a point". I have even given Thomson as an example of what I mean - this is great unionism...not because they took a pay cut, before you infer that, but because they worked with the company to safeguard all. Union officials like Bob Crowe (above) do no good for anyone - my comments were to illustrate this - not a general statement that people should drop their pants because an economic downturn is here.
If we consider RYR, then the underlying business is profitable - so a union is a good idea in that it provides a collective voice to say it's not right, when the business is profiting, to drop Ts and Cs. If...IF...IF the underlying business was in danger of closing, then yes, I'd advocate the collective considering options such as job share, voluntary leave or even a temporary salary reduction to safeguard the business and the jobs of those in it. I fail to understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
Bob Crowe - Bob Crow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He really is the archetypal "let the company go to the wall" man who would be cheering the demise of a company and all the job losses that go with it, rather than take a compromise. Admittedly, pure conjecture on my part, no facts to back that up - but I defy anyone to seriously say they believe he'd do any differently
Safety.
I'm sorry, but you really do seem to have taken one point, of one of my posts and obsessed on it. At no point have I said I believe anyone should take a pay cut. Nor have I said Unions are bad.
What I have said - and stand by - is that sometimes, concessions may need to be made to safeguard the greater good, rather than fighting tooth and nail to "prove a point". I have even given Thomson as an example of what I mean - this is great unionism...not because they took a pay cut, before you infer that, but because they worked with the company to safeguard all. Union officials like Bob Crowe (above) do no good for anyone - my comments were to illustrate this - not a general statement that people should drop their pants because an economic downturn is here.
If we consider RYR, then the underlying business is profitable - so a union is a good idea in that it provides a collective voice to say it's not right, when the business is profiting, to drop Ts and Cs. If...IF...IF the underlying business was in danger of closing, then yes, I'd advocate the collective considering options such as job share, voluntary leave or even a temporary salary reduction to safeguard the business and the jobs of those in it. I fail to understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clanger32…Doha I was racking my brain to put a face to the name and was quite understandably failing miserably.
I think most pilots do not want, nor agree with the militant 70’s style union that some people believe BALPA is. Nothing could be further from the truth as you know. It’s just a shame the rabid anti union sentiments that are posted by some on this site appear to be firmly rooted in that bygone era.
I bet if offered the T&C’s that say a Thomson pilots get, the vast majority of those that decry Balpa would be first in the queue. That is what a collective bargaining agreement is really about, not "all out bruvvers" 1970’s style.
Odd though, that more and more F/O’s fighting to get into a company with good T&C’s find excuses not to join the very association that negotiated those desirable employment terms in the first place…bizarre I say, others just call them free loaders.
I think most pilots do not want, nor agree with the militant 70’s style union that some people believe BALPA is. Nothing could be further from the truth as you know. It’s just a shame the rabid anti union sentiments that are posted by some on this site appear to be firmly rooted in that bygone era.
I bet if offered the T&C’s that say a Thomson pilots get, the vast majority of those that decry Balpa would be first in the queue. That is what a collective bargaining agreement is really about, not "all out bruvvers" 1970’s style.
Odd though, that more and more F/O’s fighting to get into a company with good T&C’s find excuses not to join the very association that negotiated those desirable employment terms in the first place…bizarre I say, others just call them free loaders.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pro union
Clanger, personally I think your points are well made and you're quite right that terms and conditions are being eroded from the bottom but it is affecting the whole industry but is being driven by one company in particular and BALPA needs to recognise that it's principal job is to slow or stop that erosion. This will only be possible if it demonstrates its focus is wider than protecting those at the top of the industry to everyone in the industry.
I remain strongly pro-union for the simple reason that an individual can never stand up to the might of management. History demonstrates that whenever one side has far greater power than the other, the result is never equitable and to the victor fall the spoils. You can think of wars such as the might of Germany stampeding through Europe in 1939 and the human misery this caused the ordinary man if it helps. The only thing that stopped Germany was the allies getting their act together and showing they were equally powerful and determined. The only way an individual has of standing up to unreasonable management is through unionisation. This equalises the power gradient somewhat and forces management to take unionised workers views seriously which is exactly why Michael O'Leary hates the idea of it.
It seems BALPA has negotiated a pretty good result for BA pilots this week, and Thomson some months ago. They're doing and continue to do much to improve matters in my own firm too and they are the ones who keep us abreast of all the current company issues affecting us via a comprehensive monthly newsletter (the company don't tend to do this half as well). When you add in the fact they will stand by you if you ever get into a situation requiring tea and biscuits then frankly for £20 a month it's a bargain!
Come to think of it, with his blitzkreig mentality could O'Leary be some bizarre reincarnation of Hitler?
Desk-pilot
I remain strongly pro-union for the simple reason that an individual can never stand up to the might of management. History demonstrates that whenever one side has far greater power than the other, the result is never equitable and to the victor fall the spoils. You can think of wars such as the might of Germany stampeding through Europe in 1939 and the human misery this caused the ordinary man if it helps. The only thing that stopped Germany was the allies getting their act together and showing they were equally powerful and determined. The only way an individual has of standing up to unreasonable management is through unionisation. This equalises the power gradient somewhat and forces management to take unionised workers views seriously which is exactly why Michael O'Leary hates the idea of it.
It seems BALPA has negotiated a pretty good result for BA pilots this week, and Thomson some months ago. They're doing and continue to do much to improve matters in my own firm too and they are the ones who keep us abreast of all the current company issues affecting us via a comprehensive monthly newsletter (the company don't tend to do this half as well). When you add in the fact they will stand by you if you ever get into a situation requiring tea and biscuits then frankly for £20 a month it's a bargain!
Come to think of it, with his blitzkreig mentality could O'Leary be some bizarre reincarnation of Hitler?
Desk-pilot
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clanger
Interesting points.
In brief:
Thomson is, I believe, a great example of unions and management working together to preserve the viability of a business during a downturn.
However, the relationship of pilots to mangers in thomson bears zero similarity to the situation at Ryanair. At Ryan, the profitabilty of the business bears absolutely no relation to the health of pilots T&Cs, other than in a negative slant, ie even when the company was making profits inthe region of 400m euro, the management were doing their level best to suppress remuneration.
Any pilot group that was vulnerable was targeted for reduction in pay. Recently it was first officers on permanent contracts, who were in a minority compared to permanent captains. A small (below inflation) rise was offered to capts, paid for by a reduction in F/o pay. In turn, those same F/os have been hit by a unanounced slaughter of basic pay (even though the company is basically profitable, having declared a loss solely due to a disastrous foray into aer lingus shares) as they come up for command, because the company now thinks they can get away with it in the current market.
This type of manouvering has been repeated several times over the last few years, with the net result that your average ryanair captain is about 20,000 down against inflation compared to where they were 8 or 9 years ago. i hate to think what has happened to F/o pay, in fact i can't, it's too depressing!!
Truth is, in Ryan, pilots are just a cost to be minimised, no more, no less. Loyalty is demanded but not given, there is no negotiation, just take it or leave it below inflation pay offers with loopholes, and breaches of contract are routine (speaking from my experience).
In a nutshell, this is why a group of pilots has said enough is enough, and is pushing for a union. Sure it's not the best time, but they feel there is now not a lot to lose.
I have to agree.
Interesting points.
In brief:
Thomson is, I believe, a great example of unions and management working together to preserve the viability of a business during a downturn.
However, the relationship of pilots to mangers in thomson bears zero similarity to the situation at Ryanair. At Ryan, the profitabilty of the business bears absolutely no relation to the health of pilots T&Cs, other than in a negative slant, ie even when the company was making profits inthe region of 400m euro, the management were doing their level best to suppress remuneration.
Any pilot group that was vulnerable was targeted for reduction in pay. Recently it was first officers on permanent contracts, who were in a minority compared to permanent captains. A small (below inflation) rise was offered to capts, paid for by a reduction in F/o pay. In turn, those same F/os have been hit by a unanounced slaughter of basic pay (even though the company is basically profitable, having declared a loss solely due to a disastrous foray into aer lingus shares) as they come up for command, because the company now thinks they can get away with it in the current market.
This type of manouvering has been repeated several times over the last few years, with the net result that your average ryanair captain is about 20,000 down against inflation compared to where they were 8 or 9 years ago. i hate to think what has happened to F/o pay, in fact i can't, it's too depressing!!
Truth is, in Ryan, pilots are just a cost to be minimised, no more, no less. Loyalty is demanded but not given, there is no negotiation, just take it or leave it below inflation pay offers with loopholes, and breaches of contract are routine (speaking from my experience).
In a nutshell, this is why a group of pilots has said enough is enough, and is pushing for a union. Sure it's not the best time, but they feel there is now not a lot to lose.
I have to agree.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp, schmokin, thankyou. Sincerely.
I had begun to wonder if I'd been typing in Klingon again!
Fully agree that ryr desperately needs a decent mechanism of feeding back to mgmt and some 'fairness'. Also fully agree with max cont that most pilots dont want rabid 1970's style unionisation. All I would seemto point out is that the 1970s style union is what managers instinctively fear when 'union' is mentioned. Even if that's not fair! Understanding that you cant always go negotiating for a pay RISE is a good start point! I think the sensible posters here recognize that!
I had begun to wonder if I'd been typing in Klingon again!
Fully agree that ryr desperately needs a decent mechanism of feeding back to mgmt and some 'fairness'. Also fully agree with max cont that most pilots dont want rabid 1970's style unionisation. All I would seemto point out is that the 1970s style union is what managers instinctively fear when 'union' is mentioned. Even if that's not fair! Understanding that you cant always go negotiating for a pay RISE is a good start point! I think the sensible posters here recognize that!
