The pandemic has caused a lot of working persons to rethink their jobs, if want to return to them, to take jobs where can work from home or have a short commute, regular 9-5 hours Monday thru Friday, not have to deal with the growing numbers of unruly customers, still not seeing real raises and terrible management. I suspect with AA, it is also from issues long before the pandemic including serious management issues.

Remember, under the RLA, the NMB a government body subject to political power, has to let airline workers strike. That’s half the reason for no strikes, plus the periodic meltdowns caused by recession, 9/11, SARS, etc. ALPA gets great contracts in good times and gives a lot back in bad times.

@FlyingElvii - I echo @AA94's sentiment and must say I can appreciate your descriptions of the industry and the empathy you have for the various labor groups in our industry. It's unfortunate that the stereotypes (that some Dunning-Kruger types here on the forums latch on to and rail against) apparently can't be dispelled.

AA94 wrote:

I'm a more junior employee, and I've never been more concerned about the "brain drain." In my department, senior folks are leaving faster than they can pass knowledge to the rest of us, and we're having to come to grips with the fact that eventually that knowledge will cease to exist. I'm too young and too junior to be so jaded, but I can't help but feel pangs of dread at what's to come.

I have observed this DIRECTLY and am amazed how obvious it has become but not dare be spoken out loud: Replacing aircraft, aircraft parts and paying lawsuits is clearly a better business practice compared to retaining experienced pilots to largely prevent such things. We already see this commonly in the 3rd world flying, and where it balances out, I can't predict. Browse Aviation Herald and read about some of the incidents/accidents occurring and those are just the ones that come to light.

Mind you, I am not blowing my own horn - I fully recognize that some of my most critical skills were directly derived by observation of very experienced aviators I flew with, traded stories with, and so on. That has become lost because transfer of these experiences in a meaningful way are a function of time, and that seems to the one thing managements can't (or won't) wrap their heads around. They think they can solve this problem with technology (and there is potential) but, ironically, the higher tech requires yet ANOTHER skill set to go along the historically necessary skill set and we now see pilots crashing airplanes because they mismanage the automation on a perfectly flyable jet.

While some here seem to relish the idea that us pilots will get our comeuppance from high tech, those of who actually operate these machines understand that it is a long way off and in the mean time we will watch various managements stumble along, trying various schemes to make up for their mismanagement of retaining experience and underestimating the skillset required to operate very expensive machines in a highly technical and dynamic environment. That's why those of us "in the know" can just shake our heads and roll our eyes at those who predict our imminent demise.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Well, I can't argue if 14 hour flight requires additional 14 hours of work. I could see how a string of flights 14 hours long altogether, could require 14 or more hours of extra work. But this is actually small potatoes, compared to the bigger point you are making.

You say that "next round" of job losses to automation in pilot profession is imminent. If true... Well, than it's up to the pilot unions to make sure to secure their position. Kinda, "making hay while the sun shines". Securing best terms and long-term job security, for example. Rather than accepting short-term handouts. No?

Go at it.
...

Not a pilot. It's their fight. However, if you are right with automation cutting numbers in the cockpit, down the line... Then of course it's the correct time for the pilots to bring out the sandbags, so to say.
They should secure best possible conditions for the long-term, rather than taking a few bucks short-term, and expect a slaughter later. No?

Phosphorus wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Well, I can't argue if 14 hour flight requires additional 14 hours of work. I could see how a string of flights 14 hours long altogether, could require 14 or more hours of extra work. But this is actually small potatoes, compared to the bigger point you are making.

You say that "next round" of job losses to automation in pilot profession is imminent. If true... Well, than it's up to the pilot unions to make sure to secure their position. Kinda, "making hay while the sun shines". Securing best terms and long-term job security, for example. Rather than accepting short-term handouts. No?

Go at it.
...

Not a pilot. It's their fight. However, if you are right with automation cutting numbers in the cockpit, down the line... Then of course it's the correct time for the pilots to bring out the sandbags, so to say.
They should secure best possible conditions for the long-term, rather than taking a few bucks short-term, and expect a slaughter later. No?

I dont think you understand.

Aviation is a high capex, low return business where your entire business is at the mercy of staff. I have seen airlines that were on the death bed yet employees asked for more. Look at Air India, South African. It was Alitalia and not long ago there was a BA strike because the airline had been making profits and they wanted more of it.

The main reason why these airlines want to automate is simple, it gets rid of more staff that they would rather not pay. If people and unions were reasonable, management better at long term planning, these issues would be rare. Getting rid of people in the cockpit, low cost carriers even going as far as discouraging passenger to check in at the airport.....all of these were driven by tech and automation. It used to be that you needed to go to a travel agent to get a ticket and today, they are becoming a dying breed.

The reasoning that is let us secure the bag now is pure nonsense too. It is how businesses end up having bloated wage structures and being unable to compete in the short term. In that case, you hear unions blaming management for some decisions like taking too much leverage, not paying down debt and forgetting that they are part of the freaking problem. Airlines go bankrupt, slim down, slash costs, jobs are lost. So to whose benefit is this? Well, the union, they make a percentage and the best way to expand that share is to ensure they are constantly agitating for more.

My brother always says one thing, and that is that unionization comes with benefits, but it is up to the union to know when to stop pushing and when to yield. When to be tough and when to make concessions and to remember that these are employees, not shareholders who should control the destiny of a company.

Peak periods are flanked by low season, would pilots want to take say 70% pay during lean months when profits from peak periods shield the business somewhat? Or is this the we think we can get away with it and if not the business will look bad. That is a horrible way of looking at employment, and I have worked for employers who were worse than what I read here, and each day, as the employer and management messed, we showed up and tried to hold it together best we could. How pilots think that they are an outlier is beyond me; show up to work, give your best and leave the drama to the actors.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Go at it.
...

Not a pilot. It's their fight. However, if you are right with automation cutting numbers in the cockpit, down the line... Then of course it's the correct time for the pilots to bring out the sandbags, so to say.
They should secure best possible conditions for the long-term, rather than taking a few bucks short-term, and expect a slaughter later. No?

I dont think you understand.

Aviation is a high capex, low return business where your entire business is at the mercy of staff. I have seen airlines that were on the death bed yet employees asked for more. Look at Air India, South African. It was Alitalia and not long ago there was a BA strike because the airline had been making profits and they wanted more of it.

The main reason why these airlines want to automate is simple, it gets rid of more staff that they would rather not pay. If people and unions were reasonable, management better at long term planning, these issues would be rare. Getting rid of people in the cockpit, low cost carriers even going as far as discouraging passenger to check in at the airport.....all of these were driven by tech and automation. It used to be that you needed to go to a travel agent to get a ticket and today, they are becoming a dying breed.

The reasoning that is let us secure the bag now is pure nonsense too. It is how businesses end up having bloated wage structures and being unable to compete in the short term. In that case, you hear unions blaming management for some decisions like taking too much leverage, not paying down debt and forgetting that they are part of the freaking problem. Airlines go bankrupt, slim down, slash costs, jobs are lost. So to whose benefit is this? Well, the union, they make a percentage and the best way to expand that share is to ensure they are constantly agitating for more.

My brother always says one thing, and that is that unionization comes with benefits, but it is up to the union to know when to stop pushing and when to yield. When to be tough and when to make concessions and to remember that these are employees, not shareholders who should control the destiny of a company.

Peak periods are flanked by low season, would pilots want to take say 70% pay during lean months when profits from peak periods shield the business somewhat? Or is this the we think we can get away with it and if not the business will look bad. That is a horrible way of looking at employment, and I have worked for employers who were worse than what I read here, and each day, as the employer and management messed, we showed up and tried to hold it together best we could. How pilots think that they are an outlier is beyond me; show up to work, give your best and leave the drama to the actors.

Ah yes, it is the employee’s fault for wanting to eat more of the pie when the C-Suite are taking extra stock bonuses and buying vacation homes.

Your management potential is stellar!

Don’t blame the poor performance of management on “greedy” employees trying to put their kid through college.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Not a pilot. It's their fight. However, if you are right with automation cutting numbers in the cockpit, down the line... Then of course it's the correct time for the pilots to bring out the sandbags, so to say.
They should secure best possible conditions for the long-term, rather than taking a few bucks short-term, and expect a slaughter later. No?

I dont think you understand.

Aviation is a high capex, low return business where your entire business is at the mercy of staff. I have seen airlines that were on the death bed yet employees asked for more. Look at Air India, South African. It was Alitalia and not long ago there was a BA strike because the airline had been making profits and they wanted more of it.

The main reason why these airlines want to automate is simple, it gets rid of more staff that they would rather not pay. If people and unions were reasonable, management better at long term planning, these issues would be rare. Getting rid of people in the cockpit, low cost carriers even going as far as discouraging passenger to check in at the airport.....all of these were driven by tech and automation. It used to be that you needed to go to a travel agent to get a ticket and today, they are becoming a dying breed.

The reasoning that is let us secure the bag now is pure nonsense too. It is how businesses end up having bloated wage structures and being unable to compete in the short term. In that case, you hear unions blaming management for some decisions like taking too much leverage, not paying down debt and forgetting that they are part of the freaking problem. Airlines go bankrupt, slim down, slash costs, jobs are lost. So to whose benefit is this? Well, the union, they make a percentage and the best way to expand that share is to ensure they are constantly agitating for more.

My brother always says one thing, and that is that unionization comes with benefits, but it is up to the union to know when to stop pushing and when to yield. When to be tough and when to make concessions and to remember that these are employees, not shareholders who should control the destiny of a company.

Peak periods are flanked by low season, would pilots want to take say 70% pay during lean months when profits from peak periods shield the business somewhat? Or is this the we think we can get away with it and if not the business will look bad. That is a horrible way of looking at employment, and I have worked for employers who were worse than what I read here, and each day, as the employer and management messed, we showed up and tried to hold it together best we could. How pilots think that they are an outlier is beyond me; show up to work, give your best and leave the drama to the actors.

Ah yes, it is the employee’s fault for wanting to eat more of the pie when the C-Suite are taking extra stock bonuses and buying vacation homes.

Your management potential is stellar!

Don’t blame the poor performance of management on “greedy” employees trying to put their kid through college.

If you ever went to an economics class, you would know that C suite guys are the ones that are held accountable by shareholders. That is why they get paid what they get paid.

What shareholder is going to be talking to pilots? None. They talk to the C-Suite. Now, the current management environment isn't that great, but guess what, management has always been paid more. That is the cost of accountability and it has nothing to do with my future management potential.

I would never give them stock options or base their pay on stock performance. Show up to work and get paid, get some bonuses when some targets are met and show what the long term vision. If you want to become a shareholder, buy shares at market price like everyone else.

Notice how it is not employees are wrong and management are getting off free.

Look at UA under the pilot-driven ESOP plan. Pilots “bought” the airline then squeezed it so hard they put the business they theoretically owned in bankruptcy. Rick Dubinsky, look him up and his idea of squeezing the golden goose.

I'm torn on this. I mean, I get alot of the pilots are beat down and tired. So are the other work groups. But man, 150 to 200%? Where do I sign up?

I really hope AA can get it together soon.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at UA under the pilot-driven ESOP plan. Pilots “bought” the airline then squeezed it so hard they put the business they theoretically owned in bankruptcy. Rick Dubinsky, look him up and his idea of squeezing the golden goose.

It is a repeat of what happened in Yugoslavia where workers that had some ownership in a company made decisions on how the company was run and not the wider shareholding group. Management boards were set up for this very reason and the only way of getting in was via a vote.

Guess what those who wanted to lead these boards did! They promised higher wages every time and in no time, businesses were spending most of their reserves on employee wages and not some C-Suite guys as is always posted here. Instead of reducing wages, what did these populist boards do? They increased prices to try and better deal with enormous cost base and this cost inflation did not only hit employees, they hit businesses. Bankruptcies followed.

I am not a fan of the Wall St. led focus on short term gains that most companies follow. Even airlines that are deep in debt want to compete with companies like Microsoft or Apple that have huge cash reserves and little debt when it comes to stock buy backs. Are they in the same business environment? Do they share synergies? No.

Now what is possibly the weakest airline in the big 4 is bribing employees to come to work and they are stating that they want even more before a consideration is made. If you state that it is madness or sheer folly, you have a bright management future, or you desire to be a pilot and that is why you plane spot. It is almost as if we have not gone through this time and again: the boom - bust cycles, the restructuring of business if it is salvageable, the job losses. Today, some of these problems are alleviated by metal neutral JV's, and even here, some airlines find it cheaper to make money if someone with a lower cost base, and mainly more efficient aircraft is doing that flying. You have scope in CBA's too and we do not even ask why all these things and many more are in play.

We debate with a very dishonest people.

When it comes to United, pilots sabotaged their own company

F9Animal wrote:

I'm torn on this. I mean, I get alot of the pilots are beat down and tired. So are the other work groups. But man, 150 to 200%? Where do I sign up?

I really hope AA can get it together soon.

I hope so too. There will always be employees who put their own finances above everything else but they have a union to represent them and APA says don’t do it. If the pilots don’t follow the guidance from their union, the union has no value. I respect the APA for taking a stance.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

N353SK wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Can I ask as an Aussie we don’t have the same commuter culture here, there are a few but no match for the US numbers. What happens in the US if you don’t make your trip because you didn’t get there in time, cancellations, full flights etc. In AU you would simply be considered to not show up for work - and face disciplinary action and potential loose your job. But it seems there is a different approach more leniency in the US?

Almost all US carriers have a “commuter clause” in their labor contracts. The commuter clauses generally stipulate that a pilot needs to try for at least two flights to get to domicile before his/her trip report time. Usually if a pilot can show that he/she got bumped from two flights due to unavailability of seats/jumpseats (usually by saving the “standby” boarding cards as proof of showing up) that would have arrived before the trip the pilot will not be disciplined. Each airline’s commuter clause is a little different, but that’s generally how things work.

It may seem odd, but remember that in the US pilots are not hired into specific domicile cities. They then bid for positions (domicile, aircraft, and seat) in accordance with their seniority, but as a new hire they basically get sent wherever the company needs them. For example, a pilot in new hire training at American Airlines might get based in New York or Los Angeles initially even though he lives in Dallas. As his seniority advances he has the chance to bid for a DFW position in future bids.

That and don’t a few carriers allow positive space tickets in some cases?

Rumor is delta is doing that now for all pilots all the time for commuting and has been for months. Not sure if true but it’s been posted here once and on another forum as well

ltbewr wrote:

The pandemic has caused a lot of working persons to rethink their jobs, if want to return to them, to take jobs where can work from home or have a short commute, regular 9-5 hours Monday thru Friday, not have to deal with the growing numbers of unruly customers, still not seeing real raises and terrible management. I suspect with AA, it is also from issues long before the pandemic including serious management issues.

This has a lot of truth in it. People realizing, after being forced to be home a lot, that they WANT to be home a lot. That spending their whole lives at work isn't the end all be all of living. Plus the reassessing priorities in the face of impending doom, even if it was overblown by a few factors for most working age people.

I think this is especially true for parents with two incomes that didn't really need two incomes.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at UA under the pilot-driven ESOP plan. Pilots “bought” the airline then squeezed it so hard they put the business they theoretically owned in bankruptcy. Rick Dubinsky, look him up and his idea of squeezing the golden goose.

It is a repeat of what happened in Yugoslavia where workers that had some ownership in a company made decisions on how the company was run and not the wider shareholding group. Management boards were set up for this very reason and the only way of getting in was via a vote.

Guess what those who wanted to lead these boards did! They promised higher wages every time and in no time, businesses were spending most of their reserves on employee wages and not some C-Suite guys as is always posted here. Instead of reducing wages, what did these populist boards do? They increased prices to try and better deal with enormous cost base and this cost inflation did not only hit employees, they hit businesses. Bankruptcies followed.

I am not a fan of the Wall St. led focus on short term gains that most companies follow. Even airlines that are deep in debt want to compete with companies like Microsoft or Apple that have huge cash reserves and little debt when it comes to stock buy backs. Are they in the same business environment? Do they share synergies? No.

Now what is possibly the weakest airline in the big 4 is bribing employees to come to work and they are stating that they want even more before a consideration is made. If you state that it is madness or sheer folly, you have a bright management future, or you desire to be a pilot and that is why you plane spot. It is almost as if we have not gone through this time and again: the boom - bust cycles, the restructuring of business if it is salvageable, the job losses. Today, some of these problems are alleviated by metal neutral JV's, and even here, some airlines find it cheaper to make money if someone with a lower cost base, and mainly more efficient aircraft is doing that flying. You have scope in CBA's too and we do not even ask why all these things and many more are in play.

We debate with a very dishonest people.

When it comes to United, pilots sabotaged their own company

Obviously compensation and buyback strategies need to be aligned with operating environment and risk. In many cases they are not - but perception is equally important and airline management do not often handle workgroup perception well.

Case in point is that the Big 4 were overall on decent footing in 2019, then the pandemic hit. Then came the government rescue packages. The time for negotiating and ensuring realistic perceptions was early in the crisis, not now. There was a lot of commentary here that it would take years for market recovery, that many specialists like pilots and technicians would have to retool or seek alternative income. C-suite were hedging their bets on reopenings and were not really talking that way except with efforts to convince the government to pony up.

Aaron747 wrote:

Obviously compensation and buyback strategies need to be aligned with operating environment and risk. In many cases they are not - but perception is equally important and airline management do not often handle workgroup perception well.

Case in point is that the Big 4 were overall on decent footing in 2019, then the pandemic hit. Then came the government rescue packages. The time for negotiating and ensuring realistic perceptions was early in the crisis, not now. There was a lot of commentary here that it would take years for market recovery, that many specialists like pilots and technicians would have to retool or seek alternative income. C-suite were hedging their bets on reopenings and were not really talking that way except with efforts to convince the government to pony up.

There are organizations that are owned and operated by workers. Look at the cooperative movement, and possibly the best run for years is the Mondragon Corporation. It is workers having a clear definition what ownership is and understanding that the enterprise needs to be run as a business first and foremost.

In Mondragon, highest paid executive makes 8 times the salary of the lowest paid employee and when things are thick,it is the employees themselves that decide to take wage cuts, and stop dividend payments. Could you accomplish this at an airline? No! You couldn't, and if you gave employees ownership, different groups would compete for dominance and run it to the ground, and that is what some of the pilots who are always commenting here cannot ever begin to understand, more so those with great seniority.

Management is also a mess, no two ways of saying otherwise. If everyone made sacrifices and worked for the long term success of these airlines, they would be more stable, they would have better buffers in place for harsh times, try and eliminate leverage, and not always hit the debt market.

The government did not help either. The best thing to happen to companies that have been reckless is that there is a restructuring with everyone getting a haircut. What government did was effectively delay that. Bad habits that should have been dealt with right now are still there, and if it takes longer term recovery, these airlines are going to have more metal than they need. What does that do to profits? It kills that with airlines lowering prices trying to fill as many seats as possible.

"We have gotten to the point where we like other businesses will have good years and bad years, but the bad years will not be cataclysmic. They will just be less good than the good years."

https://skift.com/2016/06/14/american-airlines-ceo-says-industry-may-never-again-lose-money/

That was Doug Parker making these statements in 2016. This man did not think that airlines would make a loss again, so he piled on debt. Some of these airlines that bought back shares are now selling stock to try and raise capital.......amateur hour. Pilots who would need to sacrifice for things to run better, get these companies off debt want even more, the executives that got these companies to this point are still there.

American that said they had too much money, needed to buy back stock is now taking even more leverage and telling investors that they need to increase equity to try and secure the balance sheet. If things get really bad, this is probably the first airline to crash, and should that happen, the others will follow suit within a short period. So, were these airlines in good footing or were they compounding mistakes at a time when there was money to be made?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Obviously compensation and buyback strategies need to be aligned with operating environment and risk. In many cases they are not - but perception is equally important and airline management do not often handle workgroup perception well.

Case in point is that the Big 4 were overall on decent footing in 2019, then the pandemic hit. Then came the government rescue packages. The time for negotiating and ensuring realistic perceptions was early in the crisis, not now. There was a lot of commentary here that it would take years for market recovery, that many specialists like pilots and technicians would have to retool or seek alternative income. C-suite were hedging their bets on reopenings and were not really talking that way except with efforts to convince the government to pony up.

There are organizations that are owned and operated by workers. Look at the cooperative movement, and possibly the best run for years is the Mondragon Corporation. It is workers having a clear definition what ownership is and understanding that the enterprise needs to be run as a business first and foremost.

In Mondragon, highest paid executive makes 8 times the salary of the lowest paid employee and when things are thick,it is the employees themselves that decide to take wage cuts, and stop dividend payments. Could you accomplish this at an airline? No! You couldn't, and if you gave employees ownership, different groups would compete for dominance and run it to the ground, and that is what some of the pilots who are always commenting here cannot ever begin to understand, more so those with great seniority.

Management is also a mess, no two ways of saying otherwise. If everyone made sacrifices and worked for the long term success of these airlines, they would be more stable, they would have better buffers in place for harsh times, try and eliminate leverage, and not always hit the debt market.

The government did not help either. The best thing to happen to companies that have been reckless is that there is a restructuring with everyone getting a haircut. What government did was effectively delay that. Bad habits that should have been dealt with right now are still there, and if it takes longer term recovery, these airlines are going to have more metal than they need. What does that do to profits? It kills that with airlines lowering prices trying to fill as many seats as possible.

"We have gotten to the point where we like other businesses will have good years and bad years, but the bad years will not be cataclysmic. They will just be less good than the good years."

https://skift.com/2016/06/14/american-airlines-ceo-says-industry-may-never-again-lose-money/

That was Doug Parker making these statements in 2016. This man did not think that airlines would make a loss again, so he piled on debt. Some of these airlines that bought back shares are now selling stock to try and raise capital.......amateur hour. Pilots who would need to sacrifice for things to run better, get these companies off debt want even more, the executives that got these companies to this point are still there.

American that said they had too much money, needed to buy back stock is now taking even more leverage and telling investors that they need to increase equity to try and secure the balance sheet. If things get really bad, this is probably the first airline to crash, and should that happen, the others will follow suit within a short period. So, were these airlines in good footing or were they compounding mistakes at a time when there was money to be made?

I didn't say they were all on good footing financially - that's more often than not a house of cards in this industry - but investors know that. I meant that travel was growing in all sectors and opportunities for revenue capture were growing, not contracting.

As for employee groups pitting themselves against one another, you're spot-on. At the end of the day, your mention of disrespect pilots perceive has a number of sources. Chief among them is that they are often asked to take a big haircut first, by virtue of being a large and expensive labor pool, before the C-suite makes sacrifices. You mentioned earlier that executives are held accountable, but pilots are delivering value every day - in a sense, they, the frontline staff, and technicians *are* the product - getting you safely from A to B. Everything else is just details and competitive fluff. Particularly in the US, where executives often get a generous contractual exit package even when results are poor whereas frontline staff get layoffs, this guarantees an adversarial relationship. That's a hard nut to crack.

gaystudpilot wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I don't know anyone whom I consider to be knowledgeable about this industry that thinks pilot compensation would be what it is without unions.

Compensation is, and always has been driven by supply and demand, in the end. For the foreseeable future, demand will outstrip supply. And as we have all have seen proof of recently, that can inverse in a flash. Asian Recession, 9/11, 2008, 2020, etc.

CEO compensation is not based on supply and demand. Sure, that’s what HR executives and boards will tell you. It is a good old boys club racket. Nothing more.

Pilot compensation would be in a different place without unions.

Yes and people who aren’t in a union wish they were so they bash people who are. For people who are such fanboys of pilots aviation in general the venom comes when unions are mentioned.

kiowa wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

I'm torn on this. I mean, I get alot of the pilots are beat down and tired. So are the other work groups. But man, 150 to 200%? Where do I sign up?

I really hope AA can get it together soon.

I hope so too. There will always be employees who put their own finances above everything else but they have a union to represent them and APA says don’t do it. If the pilots don’t follow the guidance from their union, the union has no value. I respect the APA for taking a stance.

Hopefully the pilots who decide to make some serious cash over the holidays don't get blowback from their union and fellow union members. Many years ago a former colleague of mine got his car vandalized because he did "too much work" and consistently reduced other peoples opportunities for overtime. This was of course the Teamster's Union.

Aaron747 wrote:

I didn't say they were all on good footing financially - that's more often than not a house of cards in this industry - but investors know that. I meant that travel was growing in all sectors and opportunities for revenue capture were growing, not contracting.

As for employee groups pitting themselves against one another, you're spot-on. At the end of the day, your mention of disrespect pilots perceive has a number of sources. Chief among them is that they are often asked to take a big haircut first, by virtue of being a large and expensive labor pool, before the C-suite makes sacrifices. You mentioned earlier that executives are held accountable, but pilots are delivering value every day - in a sense, they, the frontline staff, and technicians *are* the product - getting you safely from A to B. Everything else is just details and competitive fluff. Particularly in the US, where executives often get a generous contractual exit package even when results are poor whereas frontline staff get layoffs, this guarantees an adversarial relationship. That's a hard nut to crack.

1. When you are a company that has been through bankruptcy before, the easiest thing to do is always have lower debt and more cash reserves. It is that simple, even in the good times. This is what Mary Barra was doing at GM before some silly shareholders thought she was holding too much cash and agitated to have a cap on that.

2. The people who earn the most get a haircut first anytime there are problems. This is normal in each and every company; in fact, there are companies where if they run into issues, the lowest paid always get their salary while those better paid get less or nothing for some time. It is just common sense to pay the most vulnerable first and ask for concessions from them last.

The C-Suite fellows ought to be the first to make that sacrifice before anyone else is asked to do similar. You should not as a leader ask employees/or those of lower rank than you to do what you yourself are not doing. Kazuo Inamori did not take a salary for three years at JAL, and they ended up losing 1/3 of their employees with the rest taking a 30% reduction, pensions being reworked. Haruka Nishimatsu cut his salary to less than what pilots were earning.......this was great leadership.

3. You are the product, you deliver every day, but you are not accountable things like strategy, planning or holding others accountable. Management even in coop's are paid better to answer those questions and it has been like this for millennia so long as there is a hierarchy in place. Those up top will get compensated better, how else could one justify taking that type of responsibility?

As I said, we debate with a very dishonest lot, who if given the chance would do greater harm to companies than C-Suite ever have. What they lack is opportunity, and when they had it as in United, they did not understand what it means to own a company. Are these the best placed to be making the necessary decisions? Do you honestly think that pilots need to be bribed to put in more work? Or that this is the best time to be agitating for even more pay and have that baked into their contract with the American Airlines is taking even more debt and trying to issue stock? All of this coming at a time when we have had a pandemic.

This is how companies that are struggling collapse. Was the United go slow a success? It wasn't. They took a pay cut and got equity, then started agitating for more and sabotaged the airline. It led to a collapse where they not only lost equity, but had to take wage cuts to guarantee jobs even as some were lost. It was comedy hour because someone thought they could flex. You see similarities of that here, and it is silly to the extreme.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I didn't say they were all on good footing financially - that's more often than not a house of cards in this industry - but investors know that. I meant that travel was growing in all sectors and opportunities for revenue capture were growing, not contracting.

As for employee groups pitting themselves against one another, you're spot-on. At the end of the day, your mention of disrespect pilots perceive has a number of sources. Chief among them is that they are often asked to take a big haircut first, by virtue of being a large and expensive labor pool, before the C-suite makes sacrifices. You mentioned earlier that executives are held accountable, but pilots are delivering value every day - in a sense, they, the frontline staff, and technicians *are* the product - getting you safely from A to B. Everything else is just details and competitive fluff. Particularly in the US, where executives often get a generous contractual exit package even when results are poor whereas frontline staff get layoffs, this guarantees an adversarial relationship. That's a hard nut to crack.

1. When you are a company that has been through bankruptcy before, the easiest thing to do is always have lower debt and more cash reserves. It is that simple, even in the good times. This is what Mary Barra was doing at GM before some silly shareholders thought she was holding too much cash and agitated to have a cap on that.

2. The people who earn the most get a haircut first anytime there are problems. This is normal in each and every company; in fact, there are companies where if they run into issues, the lowest paid always get their salary while those better paid get less or nothing for some time. It is just common sense to pay the most vulnerable first and ask for concessions from them last.

The C-Suite fellows ought to be the first to make that sacrifice before anyone else is asked to do similar. You should not as a leader ask employees/or those of lower rank than you to do what you yourself are not doing. Kazuo Inamori did not take a salary for three years at JAL, and they ended up losing 1/3 of their employees with the rest taking a 30% reduction, pensions being reworked. Haruka Nishimatsu cut his salary to less than what pilots were earning.......this was great leadership.

3. You are the product, you deliver every day, but you are not accountable things like strategy, planning or holding others accountable. Management even in coop's are paid better to answer those questions and it has been like this for millennia so long as there is a hierarchy in place. Those up top will get compensated better, how else could one justify taking that type of responsibility?

As I said, we debate with a very dishonest lot, who if given the chance would do greater harm to companies than C-Suite ever have. What they lack is opportunity, and when they had it as in United, they did not understand what it means to own a company. Are these the best placed to be making the necessary decisions? Do you honestly think that pilots need to be bribed to put in more work? Or that this is the best time to be agitating for even more pay and have that baked into their contract with the American Airlines is taking even more debt and trying to issue stock? All of this coming at a time when we have had a pandemic.

This is how companies that are struggling collapse. Was the United go slow a success? It wasn't. They took a pay cut and got equity, then started agitating for more and sabotaged the airline. It led to a collapse where they not only lost equity, but had to take wage cuts to guarantee jobs even as some were lost. It was comedy hour because someone thought they could flex. You see similarities of that here, and it is silly to the extreme.

I welcome examples of leadership, such as the JAL CEO cutting his pay, but at least in the US, the equity that CEOs have access to means that they are just going without the fixed portion of their income for a while. It may be a sacrifice, but it’s hardly one that brings tears to your eyes. You also constantly refer to accountability, and responsibility. I just don’t see it. Too often the poor performers take a nice chunk of the company’s equity, and move on to another company in a similar position. Compare that to the commander of a Navy warship. Mismanagement results in termination of command, and usually long term career damage. Boeing provides a good example. Who stands indicted for the Max debacle? Who is facing accountability?

11C wrote:

I welcome examples of leadership, such as the JAL CEO cutting his pay, but at least in the US, the equity that CEOs have access to means that they are just going without the fixed portion of their income for a while. It may be a sacrifice, but it’s hardly one that brings tears to your eyes. You also constantly refer to accountability, and responsibility. I just don’t see it. Too often the poor performers take a nice chunk of the company’s equity, and move on to another company in a similar position. Compare that to the commander of a Navy warship. Mismanagement results in termination of command, and usually long term career damage. Boeing provides a good example. Who stands indicted for the Max debacle? Who is facing accountability?

I said pay these guys a salary, and a bonus dependent on them meeting some performance targets. Those performance targets should not be linked to stock price, and they should not be remunerated using stock options either. If they want equity, let them buy shares just like any other investor. Similarly link pay to medium term and long term goals and track milestones.

This would force management into long term thinking as opposed to the short term mindset we see today. It would be rough in the near and medium term, but in few years, the airline would be on its way to being solid. This is something that needs an ownership or enough shareholders that care about long term health as opposed to short term gains.

As is, everyone is on a short term thought process from the employees who would willingly sabotage the company to force its hand, to management that makes dumb decisions on dividends and stock buy backs, to shareholders who only care about riding the stock price wave instead of a laser focus on strong fundamentals.

When the storm comes, employees lose more money compared to what they were agitating for, their ranks are somewhat decimated as the business restructures. Shareholders are wiped out. If things are done right, management that brought about this mess is not allowed to continue masquerading as a viable solution; they are out of a job.

All three parties are caught up in a losing game, and when worst comes to worst, even these union contracts that some pilots praise on here go to the bin and employees are levels lower than where they thought they would be.

That said, this is the US, a country where mediocrity, especially in aviation is rewarded.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

11C wrote:

I welcome examples of leadership, such as the JAL CEO cutting his pay, but at least in the US, the equity that CEOs have access to means that they are just going without the fixed portion of their income for a while. It may be a sacrifice, but it’s hardly one that brings tears to your eyes. You also constantly refer to accountability, and responsibility. I just don’t see it. Too often the poor performers take a nice chunk of the company’s equity, and move on to another company in a similar position. Compare that to the commander of a Navy warship. Mismanagement results in termination of command, and usually long term career damage. Boeing provides a good example. Who stands indicted for the Max debacle? Who is facing accountability?

I said pay these guys a salary, and a bonus dependent on them meeting some performance targets. Those performance targets should not be linked to stock price, and they should not be remunerated using stock options either. If they want equity, let them buy shares just like any other investor. Similarly link pay to medium term and long term goals and track milestones.

This would force management into long term thinking as opposed to the short term mindset we see today. It would be rough in the near and medium term, but in few years, the airline would be on its way to being solid. This is something that needs an ownership or enough shareholders that care about long term health as opposed to short term gains.

As is, everyone is on a short term thought process from the employees who would willingly sabotage the company to force its hand, to management that makes dumb decisions on dividends and stock buy backs, to shareholders who only care about riding the stock price wave instead of a laser focus on strong fundamentals.

When the storm comes, employees lose more money compared to what they were agitating for, their ranks are somewhat decimated as the business restructures. Shareholders are wiped out. If things are done right, management that brought about this mess is not allowed to continue masquerading as a viable solution; they are out of a job.

All three parties are caught up in a losing game, and when worst comes to worst, even these union contracts that some pilots praise on here go to the bin and employees are levels lower than where they thought they would be.

That said, this is the US, a country where mediocrity, especially in aviation is rewarded.

I’ll just stipulate (although I don’t necessarily agree) that mediocrity is rewarded in the US, but I would argue it is because we just can’t agree on what constitutes greatness.

ltbewr wrote:

The pandemic has caused a lot of working persons to rethink their jobs, if want to return to them, to take jobs where can work from home or have a short commute, regular 9-5 hours Monday thru Friday, not have to deal with the growing numbers of unruly customers, still not seeing real raises and terrible management. I suspect with AA, it is also from issues long before the pandemic including serious management issues.

This.... 100% this.

I am a flight attendant. Prior to COVID, I was a high-time flyer. I loved the paychecks associated with 130 hours or more a month. For YEARS, anytime the company offered time and a half to pick up extra flying.... I jumped on it.

Then COVID hit and I took a year off from flying.

During that year, I discovered how nice it was to be home more.... to spend time with my family....to not have to spend one of my days off doing laundry, packing a suitcase and food bag.... to not spend multiple nights a week in a hotel room.

I've seen my company offer time and a half and double time for extra flying over the past six months.... but I haven't taken advantage of it once. I learned that being home with my family is a lot more important than the extra money.

I think a lot of other people in this industry did, too.

OldB747Driver wrote:

While some here seem to relish the idea that us pilots will get our comeuppance from high tech, those of who actually operate these machines understand that it is a long way off and in the mean time we will watch various managements stumble along, trying various schemes to make up for their mismanagement of retaining experience and underestimating the skillset required to operate very expensive machines in a highly technical and dynamic environment. That's why those of us "in the know" can just shake our heads and roll our eyes at those who predict our imminent demise.

Whenever there's a software update to fix one error, at least one other is introduced. So for those pilots who've been around a long time, an update was the source of anxiety while awaiting the discovery of the new flaw.

In other words, we're still a long way from automated - pilot less - flights. Software and automated systems just don't have the foolproof integrity that some here believe. How many urgent software updates have there been for your laptop, phone or tablet?

American has been in negations with its pilots since 2019? I mean, I guess the time honored management tactics of slow rolling sometimes ISN'T in the best interest of the shareholders? Management loves to share they are here to do the big thinker stuff, and the pilot's job is to drive the bus. Except when their cleverly laid plan to keep concessionary contracts going in perpetuity causes a five alarm fire, then it's "those darn pilots!"

Then during COVID pursuing a furlough strategy that the pilot union specifically told management would result in an exodus of LCAs and instructors, thus making reconstitution even more difficult? There are ways to force people to fly. You can't force people to LCA, especially when it's a hit to paychecks and QOL.

11C wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

11C wrote:

I welcome examples of leadership, such as the JAL CEO cutting his pay, but at least in the US, the equity that CEOs have access to means that they are just going without the fixed portion of their income for a while. It may be a sacrifice, but it’s hardly one that brings tears to your eyes. You also constantly refer to accountability, and responsibility. I just don’t see it. Too often the poor performers take a nice chunk of the company’s equity, and move on to another company in a similar position. Compare that to the commander of a Navy warship. Mismanagement results in termination of command, and usually long term career damage. Boeing provides a good example. Who stands indicted for the Max debacle? Who is facing accountability?

I said pay these guys a salary, and a bonus dependent on them meeting some performance targets. Those performance targets should not be linked to stock price, and they should not be remunerated using stock options either. If they want equity, let them buy shares just like any other investor. Similarly link pay to medium term and long term goals and track milestones.

This would force management into long term thinking as opposed to the short term mindset we see today. It would be rough in the near and medium term, but in few years, the airline would be on its way to being solid. This is something that needs an ownership or enough shareholders that care about long term health as opposed to short term gains.

As is, everyone is on a short term thought process from the employees who would willingly sabotage the company to force its hand, to management that makes dumb decisions on dividends and stock buy backs, to shareholders who only care about riding the stock price wave instead of a laser focus on strong fundamentals.

When the storm comes, employees lose more money compared to what they were agitating for, their ranks are somewhat decimated as the business restructures. Shareholders are wiped out. If things are done right, management that brought about this mess is not allowed to continue masquerading as a viable solution; they are out of a job.

All three parties are caught up in a losing game, and when worst comes to worst, even these union contracts that some pilots praise on here go to the bin and employees are levels lower than where they thought they would be.

That said, this is the US, a country where mediocrity, especially in aviation is rewarded.

I’ll just stipulate (although I don’t necessarily agree) that mediocrity is rewarded in the US, but I would argue it is because we just can’t agree on what constitutes greatness.

As I've said before, in a country with no consequences for failure, there can be no metrics for success.

If you look at the pockets of competency and capability in the US, it Venn overlaps to about 98% with accountability.

MDC862 wrote:

I am amazed that guys who only work 10-15 days a month, scream about "quality of life" which means max days off and sitting at home, choose to live in other parts of the Country or world and commute, are paid an exorbitant salary for 1,000 hours working max a year, get per diem money, free travel for them n family, chose this profession praying they would get picked up by a major carrier because they would be set for life with A&B funds, trained mostly in military under tax payer footing the bill, yet non-stop complain how difficult they have it and want more.

Enjoy it while you can. It is only a matter of time before pilot less travel becomes a reality. We have fought 2 wars with the technology and Airbus is incorporating part of it in next system upgrades. Maybe then the complaining will stop.

You just sound mad, to be frank.

Do we want people taking care of hundreds of lives while flying to really hate their jobs and feel under-appreciated and unfulfilled?

gatibosgru wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

I am amazed that guys who only work 10-15 days a month, scream about "quality of life" which means max days off and sitting at home, choose to live in other parts of the Country or world and commute, are paid an exorbitant salary for 1,000 hours working max a year, get per diem money, free travel for them n family, chose this profession praying they would get picked up by a major carrier because they would be set for life with A&B funds, trained mostly in military under tax payer footing the bill, yet non-stop complain how difficult they have it and want more.

Enjoy it while you can. It is only a matter of time before pilot less travel becomes a reality. We have fought 2 wars with the technology and Airbus is incorporating part of it in next system upgrades. Maybe then the complaining will stop.

You just sound mad, to be frank.

Do we want people taking care of hundreds of lives while flying to really hate their jobs and feel under-appreciated and unfulfilled?

Sour grapes are a full bag in almost any industry. 'Exorbitant' salary description was the disqualifying element of that comment - every professional pilot is ostensibly not only a specialized equipment operator (see crane, longshoremen, etc) but also a program manager (flight planning and aircraft systems) in this day and age. And both categories routinely pay experienced folks six figures. Just the nature of the beast.

I think the pilots are short sighted if they want to push to get a contract soon, during this uncertainty. They should drag it out until recovery and profitability are back in view. They are trying to negotiate during a period of weakness, gives them little leverage. Pre Covid all I heard were talks where moving very well, much better than last time. Then covid hit and obviously neither party probably wanted to do much at that time. I guess they could go for a quick 2-3 year bridge contract to try and get through the next few years and hope the industry returns to profitability but they can't do that unless they make settle for less than what all they have on their list currently.

Pi7472000 wrote:

Just avoid flying American or Southwest. Delta and United are good choices as they have not faced this cancellation chaos due to staffing shortages.

Easier said than done.

FlyingElvii wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at UA under the pilot-driven ESOP plan. Pilots “bought” the airline then squeezed it so hard they put the business they theoretically owned in bankruptcy. Rick Dubinsky, look him up and his idea of squeezing the golden goose.

To be fair, there was a bit more to it than that.

The Asian recession.
The introduction of fractional jet ownership.
The Western Pacific Debacle.
9/11.
They all played a part.

Pilots sabotaged the airline with their go slow. That killed the entire thing and they lost even more than they bargained for.

Equity was wiped out, jobs lost and well, pay went down. It was stupidity of the highest order.

Internal factors more often than not lead to collapse of businesses more than ajything else.

F9Animal wrote:

I'm torn on this. I mean, I get alot of the pilots are beat down and tired. So are the other work groups. But man, 150 to 200%? Where do I sign up?

I really hope AA can get it together soon.

That's not the issue. The pilots know the current schedule is not realistic. The schedule is the issue, its so unrealistic the pay isnt worth it.

It's going to be just like halloween and AAs other meltdowns. Many on reserve didnt even get used or get hours since crew scheduling was such a mess. So many were stuck in random cities and could not get a hold of crew scheduling. AA has done nothing to improve the situation. Yes a small amount of more staff but also more flights and same crew scheduling. Its not worth the money, AA is just trying to take in as much cash as possible, and not solving the issue. AA needs a realistic schedule to be able to pull of a tailspin. They literally have no slack in the schedule for any kind of weather or atc delay or gate full or maintenance issue, it's just not realistic when running an airline. Look at the Halloween meltdown it was a true meltdown at a pretty low travel demand time. They couldn't even recover when they had seats to rebook passengers. The pilots are right to be setting off the alarm now before the airline runs alot of peoples holidays. It's not good for passengers or the employees to not adjust the schedule

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at UA under the pilot-driven ESOP plan. Pilots “bought” the airline then squeezed it so hard they put the business they theoretically owned in bankruptcy. Rick Dubinsky, look him up and his idea of squeezing the golden goose.

Pilots (human beings) never stop justifying and rationalizing "more for me." Every single worker in this country thinks they deserve $350,000 per year. The difference is, mainline pilots in the US can actually use leverage to extract that type of money. Certain doctors can also.

Back in the industry, I conversed with pilots, mechanics, baggage handlers, you name it as an HQ staffer. You mention pay cut strife, they will say "I have two kids and college. I have a vacation house. I need high pay." Well, every human who ever lived wants and in some sense, deserves high pay. The question is, can your skills command it from paying customers, patients, clients. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In those days, my pay was quite low, so I didn't quite follow the sense of entitlement that grows within some people.

I think that, with leverage, a sense of entitlement grows to use that leverage. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

If the airline goes out of business, do pilots lose retirement benefits? They don't.

I'm sure this is news to thousands of TWA, PANAM, Eastern, Delta, USAir and American pilots.

I'm all for AA's pilots fighting for themselves but they don't seem to know how to balance that vs the customer experience.

stlAV8R wrote:

I'm all for AA's pilots fighting for themselves but they don't seem to know how to balance that vs the customer experience.

The customer experience a passenger receives from any pilot is a safe flight.

The pilots cannot be held responsible for schedules, especially when they are built outside the bounds of reality.

American could have negotiated quickly with its pilots and not have any labor issues at all. Now, it seems that the pilots are responsible for American management's negotiation sloth and the lack of foresight for crew resource planning?

FlapOperator wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

I'm all for AA's pilots fighting for themselves but they don't seem to know how to balance that vs the customer experience.

The customer experience a passenger receives from any pilot is a safe flight.

The pilots cannot be held responsible for schedules, especially when they are built outside the bounds of reality.

American could have negotiated quickly with its pilots and not have any labor issues at all. Now, it seems that the pilots are responsible for American management's negotiation sloth and the lack of foresight for crew resource planning?

And it's that short sighted thinking that I'm talking about. Perception alone is enough to cause negative sediment with passengers and we all know the media will sensationalize the perils of air travel over these next 2 major holidays. Small news stories like this with the pilots will turn into days long news cycles and it won't help either side of the table especially if there's any sign of a hiccup. As a matter of fact I just saw a headline about AA flight attendants going on strike at CLT. It's PT and it's not an official strike but that's not what the headline said. And it's right on time for Thanksgiving.

stlAV8R wrote:

And it's that short sighted thinking that I'm talking about. Perception alone is enough to cause negative sediment with passengers and we all know the media will sensationalize the perils of air travel over these next 2 major holidays. Small news stories like this with the pilots will turn into days long news cycles and it won't help either side of the table especially if there's any sign of a hiccup. As a matter of fact I just saw a headline about AA flight attendants going on strike at CLT. It's PT and it's not an official strike but that's not what the headline said. And it's right on time for Thanksgiving.

The unions cannot compel management to value goodwill, preserve brand appeal and manage crew resources effectively.

For anyone, especially management not to get it was AA management slow rolling negotiations for years that AA finds itself where it does.

Instead, AA management did the easy wrong move over and over. Which Christmas is the right Christmas for the PDT flight attendants to strike, even if they are allowed to? Why does airline management and public feel uniquely entitled to compel labor from groups that have been in negotiations for years?

FlapOperator wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

And it's that short sighted thinking that I'm talking about. Perception alone is enough to cause negative sediment with passengers and we all know the media will sensationalize the perils of air travel over these next 2 major holidays. Small news stories like this with the pilots will turn into days long news cycles and it won't help either side of the table especially if there's any sign of a hiccup. As a matter of fact I just saw a headline about AA flight attendants going on strike at CLT. It's PT and it's not an official strike but that's not what the headline said. And it's right on time for Thanksgiving.

The unions cannot compel management to value goodwill, preserve brand appeal and manage crew resources effectively.

For anyone, especially management not to get it was AA management slow rolling negotiations for years that AA finds itself where it does.

Instead, AA management did the easy wrong move over and over. Which Christmas is the right Christmas for the PDT flight attendants to strike, even if they are allowed to? Why does airline management and public feel uniquely entitled to compel labor from groups that have been in negotiations for years?

So what you're saying is AA should just accept whatever the union presents however egregious that may be to speed things along with a blatant disregard for the company itself. I can't say I know for sure exactly what the union proposed but I'm sure it was similar to a wish list. It's a negotiation and a whole pandemic happened in-between. I don't know what sympathy you expect people to have.

And to your point about unions and their members having nothing to do with goodwill, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do I think PT FAs should be valued so low? No, but as a former union member, and a member of the negotiating party, I can tell you that, much like all negotiations, somebody agreed to screw the lowest on the totem pole to provide gains for the ones higher up. It's the nature of the beast. Unions hate to admit it but they operate like management. Ask the union leaders who get paid from the union and the company simultaneously while another FA is eligible for food stamps. Not everybody is making that low of a dollar amount. And let's not talk about how the work rules favor those with the most seniority so they cause the lowest to suffer the most. That applies across all the unions for the covered workgroups. So, no Christmas is a good Christmas until the union has a fair and balanced approach to its own members. It's all greed at the end of the day.

stlAV8R wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

And it's that short sighted thinking that I'm talking about. Perception alone is enough to cause negative sediment with passengers and we all know the media will sensationalize the perils of air travel over these next 2 major holidays. Small news stories like this with the pilots will turn into days long news cycles and it won't help either side of the table especially if there's any sign of a hiccup. As a matter of fact I just saw a headline about AA flight attendants going on strike at CLT. It's PT and it's not an official strike but that's not what the headline said. And it's right on time for Thanksgiving.

The unions cannot compel management to value goodwill, preserve brand appeal and manage crew resources effectively.

For anyone, especially management not to get it was AA management slow rolling negotiations for years that AA finds itself where it does.

Instead, AA management did the easy wrong move over and over. Which Christmas is the right Christmas for the PDT flight attendants to strike, even if they are allowed to? Why does airline management and public feel uniquely entitled to compel labor from groups that have been in negotiations for years?

So what you're saying is AA should just accept whatever the union presents however egregious that may be to speed things along with a blatant disregard for the company itself. I can't say I know for sure exactly what the union proposed but I'm sure it was similar to a wish list. It's a negotiation and a whole pandemic happened in-between. I don't know what sympathy you expect people to have.

And to your point about unions and their members having nothing to do with goodwill, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do I think PT FAs should be valued so low? No, but as a former union member, and a member of the negotiating party, I can tell you that, much like all negotiations, somebody agreed to screw the lowest on the totem pole to provide gains for the ones higher up. It's the nature of the beast. Unions hate to admit it but they operate like management. Ask the union leaders who get paid from the union and the company simultaneously while another FA is eligible for food stamps. Not everybody is making that low of a dollar amount. And let's not talk about how the work rules favor those with the most seniority so they cause the lowest to suffer the most. That applies across all the unions for the covered workgroups. So, no Christmas is a good Christmas until the union has a fair and balanced approach to its own members. It's all greed at the end of the day.

Correct!

I said that we debate with a very dishonest lot here and sometimes we do not even debate in good taste. If the airline is struggling, it is last in, first out. Who benefits? Those with seniority, and the union because the highest paid are retained. Things like scope, or getting paid more because of the type of aircraft you fly despite long haul pilots working less for their flight hours.........in every case, there is someone being screwed.

Whether we like it or not, this is something that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those with lower seniority, and they are stuck for years because upgrading is dependent on expansion or retirements. They similarly cannot just leave to go to another airline because they start at the bottom of the pile. You then have a union that keeps telling them that someone else in management is the problem. They do not question.

The car industry used to be like this. A workplace where management was told that if they did not pay up, the business would not produce anything. They automated where they could, and when they had an opportunity, they moved production to countries where labor was cheaper. In aviation, I think that we are going to have more automation in the cockpit. We are also going to see JV partners with lower cost structures doing more flying; not long ago Delta pilots were crying about the airline doing less flying compared to JV partners........no shit Sherlock.

stlAV8R wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Dreamflight767 wrote:

Asking for a permanent contract is just that. Asking for a permanent contract and nothing more. They (Union/Pilots) may very well agree to keep things status quo so long as there is a binding understanding/agreement and the work force knows what to expect of their management team. Since there are many, many parts of/to a contract (I'm sure you're aware) - not just pay - maybe they'd agree for minimal pay raise in exchange for something else.

Besides, what's wrong with negotiating a pay bump when expenses in life (especially this year) are increasing? It's management's fault if they enter an agreement the company can't afford - I mean it is AA's CEO who said AA would never loose money again, right? He set the precedence. Having said that, he (management) already failed building a schedule they can't staff.

There are times you ask for raises. This is not one of them.

LCDFlight wrote:

The pilots want a permanent increase. Otherwise, the airline can expect an operational meltdown in December. That was the pilots' response. It is definitely about money... be serious.

What airline is swimming in cash right now? Sometimes employees have this weird flex. This is as strange as United employees owning majority of the airline and sabotaging it, or Delta going through chapter 11 and pilots threatening to go on strike, which would have killed the airline.

It's like they walk around with self-sabotage blinders on. Geez. They don't get their instant gratification and it's like somebody stole from them.

The pilots demand pay increase until they can see and feel that the airline will be at the brink of collapse and liquidation. That is when they stop. Airlines have really 2 missions - carry passengers safely, and enrich the pilots. In terms of bargaining power, the pilots own the airlines.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

The unions cannot compel management to value goodwill, preserve brand appeal and manage crew resources effectively.

For anyone, especially management not to get it was AA management slow rolling negotiations for years that AA finds itself where it does.

Instead, AA management did the easy wrong move over and over. Which Christmas is the right Christmas for the PDT flight attendants to strike, even if they are allowed to? Why does airline management and public feel uniquely entitled to compel labor from groups that have been in negotiations for years?

So what you're saying is AA should just accept whatever the union presents however egregious that may be to speed things along with a blatant disregard for the company itself. I can't say I know for sure exactly what the union proposed but I'm sure it was similar to a wish list. It's a negotiation and a whole pandemic happened in-between. I don't know what sympathy you expect people to have.

And to your point about unions and their members having nothing to do with goodwill, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do I think PT FAs should be valued so low? No, but as a former union member, and a member of the negotiating party, I can tell you that, much like all negotiations, somebody agreed to screw the lowest on the totem pole to provide gains for the ones higher up. It's the nature of the beast. Unions hate to admit it but they operate like management. Ask the union leaders who get paid from the union and the company simultaneously while another FA is eligible for food stamps. Not everybody is making that low of a dollar amount. And let's not talk about how the work rules favor those with the most seniority so they cause the lowest to suffer the most. That applies across all the unions for the covered workgroups. So, no Christmas is a good Christmas until the union has a fair and balanced approach to its own members. It's all greed at the end of the day.

Correct!

I said that we debate with a very dishonest lot here and sometimes we do not even debate in good taste. If the airline is struggling, it is last in, first out. Who benefits? Those with seniority, and the union because the highest paid are retained. Things like scope, or getting paid more because of the type of aircraft you fly despite long haul pilots working less for their flight hours.........in every case, there is someone being screwed.

Whether we like it or not, this is something that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those with lower seniority, and they are stuck for years because upgrading is dependent on expansion or retirements. They similarly cannot just leave to go to another airline because they start at the bottom of the pile. You then have a union that keeps telling them that someone else in management is the problem. They do not question.

The car industry used to be like this. A workplace where management was told that if they did not pay up, the business would not produce anything. They automated where they could, and when they had an opportunity, they moved production to countries where labor was cheaper. In aviation, I think that we are going to have more automation in the cockpit. We are also going to see JV partners with lower cost structures doing more flying; not long ago Delta pilots were crying about the airline doing less flying compared to JV partners........no shit Sherlock.

Blah, blah, blah….
I get it, unions bad. Management good. The end.

11C wrote:

Blah, blah, blah….
I get it, unions bad. Management good. The end.

Not always but in this case, definitely. Because when the airline files for BK it's not the guys making well into the six figures that will be hurting.

LCDFlight wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

There are times you ask for raises. This is not one of them.

What airline is swimming in cash right now? Sometimes employees have this weird flex. This is as strange as United employees owning majority of the airline and sabotaging it, or Delta going through chapter 11 and pilots threatening to go on strike, which would have killed the airline.

It's like they walk around with self-sabotage blinders on. Geez. They don't get their instant gratification and it's like somebody stole from them.

The pilots demand pay increase until they can see and feel that the airline will be at the brink of collapse and liquidation. That is when they stop. Airlines have really 2 missions - carry passengers safely, and enrich the pilots. In terms of bargaining power, the pilots own the airlines.

OK, let's play compensation devil's advocate: what do you surmise a fair salary range would be for airline pilots, since they are so overpaid and unduly 'enriched', according to you..?

11C wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

So what you're saying is AA should just accept whatever the union presents however egregious that may be to speed things along with a blatant disregard for the company itself. I can't say I know for sure exactly what the union proposed but I'm sure it was similar to a wish list. It's a negotiation and a whole pandemic happened in-between. I don't know what sympathy you expect people to have.

And to your point about unions and their members having nothing to do with goodwill, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do I think PT FAs should be valued so low? No, but as a former union member, and a member of the negotiating party, I can tell you that, much like all negotiations, somebody agreed to screw the lowest on the totem pole to provide gains for the ones higher up. It's the nature of the beast. Unions hate to admit it but they operate like management. Ask the union leaders who get paid from the union and the company simultaneously while another FA is eligible for food stamps. Not everybody is making that low of a dollar amount. And let's not talk about how the work rules favor those with the most seniority so they cause the lowest to suffer the most. That applies across all the unions for the covered workgroups. So, no Christmas is a good Christmas until the union has a fair and balanced approach to its own members. It's all greed at the end of the day.

Correct!

I said that we debate with a very dishonest lot here and sometimes we do not even debate in good taste. If the airline is struggling, it is last in, first out. Who benefits? Those with seniority, and the union because the highest paid are retained. Things like scope, or getting paid more because of the type of aircraft you fly despite long haul pilots working less for their flight hours.........in every case, there is someone being screwed.

Whether we like it or not, this is something that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those with lower seniority, and they are stuck for years because upgrading is dependent on expansion or retirements. They similarly cannot just leave to go to another airline because they start at the bottom of the pile. You then have a union that keeps telling them that someone else in management is the problem. They do not question.

The car industry used to be like this. A workplace where management was told that if they did not pay up, the business would not produce anything. They automated where they could, and when they had an opportunity, they moved production to countries where labor was cheaper. In aviation, I think that we are going to have more automation in the cockpit. We are also going to see JV partners with lower cost structures doing more flying; not long ago Delta pilots were crying about the airline doing less flying compared to JV partners........no shit Sherlock.

Blah, blah, blah….
I get it, unions bad. Management good. The end.

Only that I dont think management is good.

airbazar wrote:

11C wrote:

Blah, blah, blah….
I get it, unions bad. Management good. The end.

Not always but in this case, definitely. Because when the airline files for BK it's not the guys making well into the six figures that will be hurting.

Are you saying that the holiday pay issue is what will lead AA to file for bankruptcy? Given their balance sheet, debt, etc, I think blaming the APA for AA’s finances is a very weak argument.

11C wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

So what you're saying is AA should just accept whatever the union presents however egregious that may be to speed things along with a blatant disregard for the company itself. I can't say I know for sure exactly what the union proposed but I'm sure it was similar to a wish list. It's a negotiation and a whole pandemic happened in-between. I don't know what sympathy you expect people to have.

And to your point about unions and their members having nothing to do with goodwill, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do I think PT FAs should be valued so low? No, but as a former union member, and a member of the negotiating party, I can tell you that, much like all negotiations, somebody agreed to screw the lowest on the totem pole to provide gains for the ones higher up. It's the nature of the beast. Unions hate to admit it but they operate like management. Ask the union leaders who get paid from the union and the company simultaneously while another FA is eligible for food stamps. Not everybody is making that low of a dollar amount. And let's not talk about how the work rules favor those with the most seniority so they cause the lowest to suffer the most. That applies across all the unions for the covered workgroups. So, no Christmas is a good Christmas until the union has a fair and balanced approach to its own members. It's all greed at the end of the day.

Correct!

I said that we debate with a very dishonest lot here and sometimes we do not even debate in good taste. If the airline is struggling, it is last in, first out. Who benefits? Those with seniority, and the union because the highest paid are retained. Things like scope, or getting paid more because of the type of aircraft you fly despite long haul pilots working less for their flight hours.........in every case, there is someone being screwed.

Whether we like it or not, this is something that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those with lower seniority, and they are stuck for years because upgrading is dependent on expansion or retirements. They similarly cannot just leave to go to another airline because they start at the bottom of the pile. You then have a union that keeps telling them that someone else in management is the problem. They do not question.

The car industry used to be like this. A workplace where management was told that if they did not pay up, the business would not produce anything. They automated where they could, and when they had an opportunity, they moved production to countries where labor was cheaper. In aviation, I think that we are going to have more automation in the cockpit. We are also going to see JV partners with lower cost structures doing more flying; not long ago Delta pilots were crying about the airline doing less flying compared to JV partners........no shit Sherlock.

Blah, blah, blah….
I get it, unions bad. Management good. The end.

Nobody where you quoted said management is good but it's your default rebuttal. Why? Most people in "management" have zero control over a contract are just there for support or enforcement when need be. That's not a defense of management but just to point out how ridiculous it sounds. And if you meant upper management like C suite, than you should know how buddy buddy your upper union leaders are with them. You should consider how their pay is similar and when bankruptcy occurs (hopefully not), they won't miss out on pay either. Just trying to give you perspective. The union is a business. It's not your friend. It's intended to protect you and to an extent, it does but it's not for the individual. Never forget that.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

stlAV8R wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

The unions cannot compel management to value goodwill, preserve brand appeal and manage crew resources effectively.

For anyone, especially management not to get it was AA management slow rolling negotiations for years that AA finds itself where it does.

Instead, AA management did the easy wrong move over and over. Which Christmas is the right Christmas for the PDT flight attendants to strike, even if they are allowed to? Why does airline management and public feel uniquely entitled to compel labor from groups that have been in negotiations for years?

So what you're saying is AA should just accept whatever the union presents however egregious that may be to speed things along with a blatant disregard for the company itself. I can't say I know for sure exactly what the union proposed but I'm sure it was similar to a wish list. It's a negotiation and a whole pandemic happened in-between. I don't know what sympathy you expect people to have.

And to your point about unions and their members having nothing to do with goodwill, let's just say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Do I think PT FAs should be valued so low? No, but as a former union member, and a member of the negotiating party, I can tell you that, much like all negotiations, somebody agreed to screw the lowest on the totem pole to provide gains for the ones higher up. It's the nature of the beast. Unions hate to admit it but they operate like management. Ask the union leaders who get paid from the union and the company simultaneously while another FA is eligible for food stamps. Not everybody is making that low of a dollar amount. And let's not talk about how the work rules favor those with the most seniority so they cause the lowest to suffer the most. That applies across all the unions for the covered workgroups. So, no Christmas is a good Christmas until the union has a fair and balanced approach to its own members. It's all greed at the end of the day.

Correct!

I said that we debate with a very dishonest lot here and sometimes we do not even debate in good taste. If the airline is struggling, it is last in, first out. Who benefits? Those with seniority, and the union because the highest paid are retained. Things like scope, or getting paid more because of the type of aircraft you fly despite long haul pilots working less for their flight hours.........in every case, there is someone being screwed.

Whether we like it or not, this is something that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those with lower seniority, and they are stuck for years because upgrading is dependent on expansion or retirements. They similarly cannot just leave to go to another airline because they start at the bottom of the pile. You then have a union that keeps telling them that someone else in management is the problem. They do not question.

The car industry used to be like this. A workplace where management was told that if they did not pay up, the business would not produce anything. They automated where they could, and when they had an opportunity, they moved production to countries where labor was cheaper. In aviation, I think that we are going to have more automation in the cockpit. We are also going to see JV partners with lower cost structures doing more flying; not long ago Delta pilots were crying about the airline doing less flying compared to JV partners........no shit Sherlock.

Exactly. And somebody agreed at Delta to let the JV do that much flying from the union side. Complain but you got what you wanted at the time. Somebody in that union convinced the members that it was the best thing for them until they needed a new fight. It's a vicious cycle.