So, a non-flying question...I know people have avoided a lot of questions about labor relations at UA, but from my vantage as a casual observer it doesn't seem like the union has had any degree of confidence in UA management in the last 20 years. However, I saw a couple comments that some pilots feel merging with another airline like Delta or CAL might result in UA getting better management. What is the basis for that sentiment?[/QUOTE
Well, the basis is most United employees (I can't say all since there are always those who might disagree) have little confidence in this management group. They show no want nor desire to grow or run an airline. So, instead of just dying slowly ala Eastern or Pan Am, many employees are willing to take a chance in a merger with new management, someone that wants to run an airline.
It's a shame that since Pat Paterson as CEO a long time ago, United has been saddled with CEO's who never worried about it's long term growth or survival. Ferris wanted to do everything but run an airline. Steven Wolfe at least try to make United a strong company before he tried to sell it off by buying planes and getting some routes, but after him we've really just had CEO's who worried about short term increases in stock prices and thus bonuses for them without worrying about long term effects on the company. Even with the lowest employee costs in the industry among the major carriers, we are still outmanaged and outperformed by other carriers who didn't undergo bankruptcy and lose their pensions.(ala Continental and American).
I could go on, but I don't want this thread to really devolve into a union/management thread. I'd be glad to talk about this stuff on a different thread though
1) Do pilots put their pants on one leg at a time?
2)Do you guys buy dinner for the whole crew or just for the young hotties?
3)Seriously though,I am a CO FA and we have been through hell and back,as most in the industry know and obviously Bethune and Kellner brought us back from the brink.Now that Kellner is in the drivers seat and if there is a merger between CO and UA,do you think the bad blood between mgmt and labor would disappear quickly or would the animosity sink the combined carrier?We have our share of issues too (The grass is greener syndrome) and how do you think the pilot integration would work,(career expectations,longevity etc) I see the USAir/AMwest pilot messand certainly would hate to see the relative peace we have now erode away.
Do pilots have foreign bases like the FAs do, or are all cockpit crews ALPA and based out of the US?
At United we don't have foreign pilot domiciles. We used to have Miami which I guess is close (just kidding). We used to have some overseas many years ago, but the alliances with foreign carriers makes more international flying less likely within Europe by us. There was talk of a 767 pilot domile out of Narita recently, but nothing has come of it that I know of.
I know CAL has a domicile out in Guam, but that's the only pilot international domicle for passenger carriers. The cargo guys have several overseas sites I believe. I know Atlas is in Stansted, England, and UPS is sending all new pilots to Anchorage.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
1) Do pilots put their pants on one leg at a time?
2)Do you guys buy dinner for the whole crew or just for the young hotties?
3)Seriously though,I am a CO FA and we have been through hell and back,as most in the industry know and obviously Bethune and Kellner brought us back from the brink.Now that Kellner is in the drivers seat and if there is a merger between CO and UA,do you think the bad blood between mgmt and labor would disappear quickly or would the animosity sink the combined carrier?We have our share of issues too (The grass is greener syndrome) and how do you think the pilot integration would work,(career expectations,longevity etc) I see the USAir/AMwest pilot messand certainly would hate to see the relative peace we have now erode away.
Thanks in advance for your answers
1) No, I put both legs in at the same time and jump around. Doesn't everyone?
2) To be honest, it is rare for the whole crew to go out for dinner anymore. At United, the FA's and pilots rarely are on the same schedule or at the same hotel, so I haven't eaten out with the FA's in about 7 months right now. If we do eat out, I buy the first round. I used to buy some dinners but that was before the 60% paycut I'd love it if with the new carrier the management wasn't worried about labor actually getting along and thus trying to keep us apart.
3) Look at how CAL used to be under their old management. They were where United is now, low morale, horrible service, ugly paint job, looking like a creaking legacy carrier. All it took was a motivated CEO to come in and make changing the the morale priority # 1. Bethune said take care of and motivate the employees and good service will follow. Wow, what rocket science.
The employees at United have low morale due to Tilton and gang, not due to disliking our airline or job. Once those folks are gone, I see morale improving immediately if we have good management. I know most pilots I talk to are ready for a merger if it gets rid of Tilton and other United management. Because both pilot groups are ALPA, I think integration would be much easier than the US Air debacle, those guys are radical extremists. There are rumors of US Air wanting to marry up with United again and I know I don't want that. United needs to merge with a good successful carrier to help pull us up, not one that's even worse than we are.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
This isn't a question to a pilot, but I think it's relevant to much of the conversation that's gone on here.
I saw Dr Jeffrey Pfeffer, Stanford Business School Professor of Organizational Behavior, speak at the Churchill Club yesterday. He's a vastly entertaining and insightful speaker (if you'd like to get my take on his presentation, I blogged about it).
He discussed the issue of labor costs and noted that labor costs have two components: pay and output (i.e., productivity). He said that higher pay can be offset by extra effort on the part of the employee. His example: Southwest and United.
Southwest, he said, pays pilots well above average, but is the most profitable company in the industry because the pilots work extra hard.
He went on to say that a friend of his is a former United pilot who is now a senior executive at JetBlue. She told him that disgruntled pilots can significantly raise costs for an airline while not doing anything out of rules. He said she cited two examples: (1) refusing to fly a plane when an unimportant bulb is burned out; and (2) taxiing the plane out to the runway with the brakes applied (!) to raise fuel consumption.
I'm not criticising United pilots who, in my experience, seem extremely capable and friendly. But his examples had the ring of truth, and it made me think about the cost of management/employee discord.
1) No, I put both legs in at the same time and jump around. Doesn't everyone?
2) To be honest, it is rare for the whole crew to go out for dinner anymore. At United, the FA's and pilots rarely are on the same schedule or at the same hotel, so I haven't eaten out with the FA's in about 7 months right now. If we do eat out, I buy the first round. I used to buy some dinners but that was before the 60% paycut I'd love it if with the new carrier the management wasn't worried about labor actually getting along and thus trying to keep us apart.
3) Look at how CAL used to be under their old management. They were where United is now, low morale, horrible service, ugly paint job, looking like a creaking legacy carrier. All it took was a motivated CEO to come in and make changing the the morale priority # 1. Bethune said take care of and motivate the employees and good service will follow. Wow, what rocket science.
The employees at United have low morale due to Tilton and gang, not due to disliking our airline or job. Once those folks are gone, I see morale improving immediately if we have good management. I know most pilots I talk to are ready for a merger if it gets rid of Tilton and other United management. Because both pilot groups are ALPA, I think integration would be much easier than the US Air debacle, those guys are radical extremists. There are rumors of US Air wanting to marry up with United again and I know I don't want that. United needs to merge with a good successful carrier to help pull us up, not one that's even worse than we are.
I couldn't agree with you more. The next leader of UA (or whatever the combined airline is called) needs to be charasmatic, approachable by both employees and customers. UA has become a faceless company in eyes of many - cartoon advertising, India call centers, electronic check in devices, run down club rooms. It really all boils down to the leader - someone who gets out there and tells his/her loyal customers they they care about them and the employees. I'm not seeing any of that at UA.
This isn't a question to a pilot, but I think it's relevant to much of the conversation that's gone on here.
I saw Dr Jeffrey Pfeffer, Stanford Business School Professor of Organizational Behavior, speak at the Churchill Club yesterday. He's a vastly entertaining and insightful speaker (if you'd like to get my take on his presentation, I blogged about it).
He discussed the issue of labor costs and noted that labor costs have two components: pay and output (i.e., productivity). He said that higher pay can be offset by extra effort on the part of the employee. His example: Southwest and United.
Southwest, he said, pays pilots well above average, but is the most profitable company in the industry because the pilots work extra hard.
He went on to say that a friend of his is a former United pilot who is now a senior executive at JetBlue. She told him that disgruntled pilots can significantly raise costs for an airline while not doing anything out of rules. He said she cited two examples: (1) refusing to fly a plane when an unimportant bulb is burned out; and (2) taxiing the plane out to the runway with the brakes applied (!) to raise fuel consumption.
I'm not criticising United pilots who, in my experience, seem extremely capable and friendly. But his examples had the ring of truth, and it made me think about the cost of management/employee discord.
There is a fallacy to what you are saying here. Yes, you can overcome higher labor costs with higher productivity, but that is a management function, not a labor one. It has nothing to do with how hard employees work, but how they are utilized. Let's take SWA as you said. Their pilots don't work harder than United pilots, in fact they work fewer days and fewer hours a day than United pilots do, they are just utilized much better by their management. A typical SWA pilot might fly 4 legs in a day, and be done in 6-8 hrs of work and off to the hotel. A United pilot will fly 4 legs in his 737 or Airbus, will work a 13 hour day due to sits at the hubs or outstations, fly less and make 60% less than the SWA pilots.
My schedule is built with 14 days off and 85 hrs pay typically. My buddy at SWA gets 19 days off and essentially 90 hrs of pay. Which employee is working harder? Which employee is giving more time to their employer? Whose responsibility is it to use assets to make the most money they can?
SWA is profitable for 3 reasons. 1) They have a lot of fuel hedged down around $55/barrel still while all the other airlines either have no hedges or fuel at $70/barrel and without hedges over $90/barrell. THAT is the main reason they are profitable. 2) They fly one airplane type and only domestic flying. They have minimal training costs compared to a legacy carrier, and no added expense of International flying and associated maintenance costs and overseas stations. 3) They actually treat their employees well and thus get maximum effort and support from them.
Reasons 1 and 2 make the profit margin for SWA, Reason # 3 keeps it. If they let #3 go downhill like other airlines, then as you said, they can start affecting profitability reasons 1 and 2.
Disgruntled employees can drive up the costs of their airline, but any company can have its costs driven up by disgruntled employees. It's not just a pilot issue; mechanics, FA's, even CSR's, can drive costs upwards if they want to quit helping the airline out. I had to laugh when you said taxi to the runway with the brakes applied, I've never seen nor heard that before and since you burn very little fuel taxiing, that wouldn't be much of fuel cost. Now, if I really wanted to burn extra fuel, there are so many better ways from flying lower, to flying with the gear down, to taking longer routes, to doing so many things I couldn't list them all. Just saying that taxiing with the brakes applied doesn't do anything and doesn't burn more fuel per se.
Dr. Pfeffer had part of the equation right, but ultimately whether a company is profitable or not rests on those running it, and that is management.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
I've got some questions that probably will sound insulting, but I do not mean them to be; I am genuinely curious.
Why did union pilots agree in the distant past to some of the things that now have them largely hamstrung? Why would they agree to a strict seniority system that requires them to start over at the very bottom if they were to switch to another airline? Isn't that just handing a giant club to management that you can't take away, and the situation just gets worse the older you get?
As I understand it, UA pilots (please correct me if I misread something) were sort of blindsided when they lost their chunks of their pensions and pay during bankruptcy but management got some kind of guaranteed "secret" pension. Why was this not foreseeable to the pilots' lawyers, and steps not taken to forestall it in the contract?
As I say, I am not trying to be tendentious; I really would like to know.
Location: Nearly equidistant from EWR and PHL. Stranger in a strange land - a Devils fan in Phlyers country.
Programs: PWP Chief of Les Clefs d':rolleyes:, Sarcasm Diamond, Stupidity Hater Titanium, CO Silver
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmos M
That climb looked like more than 1.9G's to my untrained eye... sheesh! I guess the RAF 757 has tougher certs than a tyical UA 757? Intersting!
I'd love to hear from someone more informed on the subject, but I think it can fly like that because it's a "troop and VIP" transporter. RNZAF has 2 of those 757's, and they are attached to a C-130 squadron. I'm willing to bet that it has nowhere close to a full seating configuration, and on those show jobs likely no one in the back. A lightly loaded interior and no screaming in the cabin does wonders for being able to climb like that, but that's just my hypothesis...regardless, still a hell of a clip to watch.
__________________
The UDU is an African drum originated by the Igbo people of Nigeria. An EUA is an upgrade.|My FM|Our FM
I've got some questions that probably will sound insulting, but I do not mean them to be; I am genuinely curious.
Why did union pilots agree in the distant past to some of the things that now have them largely hamstrung? Why would they agree to a strict seniority system that requires them to start over at the very bottom if they were to switch to another airline? Isn't that just handing a giant club to management that you can't take away, and the situation just gets worse the older you get?
As I understand it, UA pilots (please correct me if I misread something) were sort of blindsided when they lost their chunks of their pensions and pay during bankruptcy but management got some kind of guaranteed "secret" pension. Why was this not foreseeable to the pilots' lawyers, and steps not taken to forestall it in the contract?
As I say, I am not trying to be tendentious; I really would like to know.
Thank you.
I'll take a stab at this. First the seniority thing. ALPA is an Association, not a national trade union. So think of it as each airline has their own union, and then they are in Association with the National ALPA. There is no National Seniority List, only individual ones at each airline. Even non-union airlines use seniority, it helps keep the only promote the company men to a minimum. While I would like a National Seniority List on one hand, it does penalize one pilot for making a smart decision and another for maybe not. Take for instance United and US Air. Both ALPA. If we had been a National Seniority List, let's say that some pilots were hired by both and one chose United and the other US Airways. US Air ends up in the dumper so the US Air pilots decide to leave and go over to United who's hiring. They get to come in and move up in front of the United pilots who helped United succeed. Would that be fair? I think it would go over like a lead balloon. Of course, you also have ALPA representing regional pilots. Does that also mean if a guy signs with Mesa before me, that he can now have seniority over me to come take my job at a major airline? There would just be so many land mines to this to make work now. That's just my opinion of course.
The United pilots weren't blindsided by losing our pensions, most of us knew that they would probably be gone once we went into BK. Hard to get banks to loan you money when you show billions in pension liability on paper. In BK, the laws are set up for the corporation, labor has very little say in what goes on unless you get a labor friendly judge (which we did not, in fact our judge is now in trouble for accepting bribes in another BK case). The contract the United pilots are under was forced on us by gunpoint and was not a negotiated contract. While I have my problems with how ALPA handled the bankruptcy (I personally wish they had been fighting more and gone to the judge a couple times), there really is so much you can do from a labor standpoint. You can't just not sign a contract, in CH 11 the judge can just impose one on you, so it is better to come to an agreement with the company.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
Last edited by aluminumdriver; Jan 25, 08 at 10:36 pm.
Why did union pilots agree in the distant past to some of the things that now have them largely hamstrung? Why would they agree to a strict seniority system that requires them to start over at the very bottom if they were to switch to another airline?
Because nobody's come up with a better system.
Don't blame seniority on unions. Seniority is used because it's the only system that works for large airlines (anything more than a dozen, or so, airplanes). Non-union airlines use seniority too.
1. On a LAX to LAS flight late Nov, the winds bounced us around and the the FA's had to remain seated for the entire flight. I was surprised when we were told that the airport closed shortly after our flight landed. Who makes the call to shut down an airport because of weather, and at what point?
2. Pardon if you don't find this question appropriate, but I'm curious if there is ever any "extracurricular activity" in the cockpit between a FA and F/O if Capt. goes to the lav, between Capt. & F/O, or ...?. If caught, is it just a slap on the wrist or are there stiff penalties?
I have read through most of the thread and didn't see this addressed anywhere. That is, is a pilot severely limited in the amount of pay they can ultimately earn if the don't want to move up to the larger planes? By that I mean, does a 737 captain with X number of years of experience earn the same as a 747/777 captain with the same number of years.
I was talking with a pilot one day while waiting for a plane to arrive and he mentioned that he was a very senior 737 captain. He chose to stay on the 737 because, as he told me, he would make more take off and landings in a 3 day trip than a 747 captain would make in a month and that was what was enjoyable to him. Not sitting for hours crossing the Atlantic on autopilot (or something to that effect). Was he giving up a lot of pay in order to stay on this airplane? I seem to remember that pay scales go up with years of experience and the size of the airplane flown.
I'd love it if with the new carrier the management wasn't worried about labor actually getting along and thus trying to keep us apart.
The next leader of UA (or whatever the combined airline is called) needs to be charasmatic, approachable by both employees and customers. UA has become a faceless company in eyes of many - cartoon advertising, India call centers, electronic check in devices, run down club rooms. It really all boils down to the leader - someone who gets out there and tells his/her loyal customers they they care about them and the employees. I'm not seeing any of that at UA. 
