How unions devastate the airline industry

[DBT]

It is a fantasy that strikes devastate the economy. Strikes are very rare, they have always been rare and they are almost disappearing. They can't even be called a nuisance. Since 1990 on average the US has lost 0.016% of total workdays per year to strikes. This is about 20 minutes per worker per year. Compare this to the average number of sick days that workers in the US take, 4.9 days per worker per year.

From 1948 to 1990 the number of workdays lost in the US never exceeded ½% of the annual workdays, about 1 day per worker per year, and averaged less than 0.1%, less than two hours per worker per year.

No, the problem that we have with unions has nothing to do with strikes. The problem is that unions increase wages and decrease profits. Since the nation's economy is now being run to increase profits and to decrease wages to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer unions no longer fit in with our national purpose.

I think that's a good summary. There is self interest on both sides of course, but the balance of power leans heavily on the side of big business and the Governments that support the interests an agendas of big business. They are the one's with the means of easy access to media, self promotion and the means to shape public perception.

 

[Petrel]

I don't believe any union requires that entry-level jobs be underpaid, nor that the most junior people be overworked. I don't even believe any union mandates that the bulk of the staff be underpaid, overworked juniors. All they say is that if you survive 25 years in that crazy job and still have all your marbles, you get paid as much as the junior sales manager. $180,000 is hardly 'a mint' - as, say, compared the CEO (zero danger; no absences from family, no night work) at $1,800,000. The $300,000 figure is a rare exception for pilots.... though quite common for surgeons, who only have to be responsible for one person at a time.

You can refuse to believe it but that doesn't make it so.

And I didn't say it was the majority, I said the commuter pilots were underpaid and overworked to the point that it's a safety problem.

Safety problem, now, not devastating the airline industry? And it's the senior pilots' fault, or the union's faults, or the FAA's fault - or anybody's fault, except that of the people who actually make decisions about hiring and scheduling.
From knowledgeable responses here, and this guy, http://www.businessinsider.com/capt-sullenberger-stop-cutting-pilot-pay-or-next-time-plane-will-crash-in-river-2009-2, who is one of those senior pilots "making a mint", I'd say you were barking up the wrong tree.

 

[travc]

In reality-based news...
U.S. airline union takes aim at regionals, not JetBlue
Note the date... April 25, 2014

PS: Please do watch those Frontline episodes "Flying Cheap" and "Flying Cheaper" if you've never seen them. Very relevant and illuminating.

 

[Petrel]

Aaaaaawwwwkkkk!!

Quick, somebody shut down PBS! It's devastating American business.

On the other hand, I'm so glad we don't fly anywhere anymore.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

‘Pilot shortage’ tied to low wages, GAO report finds - City & Region - The Buffalo News

Despite an outcry over a much-reported “pilot shortage” that airlines blame for service cuts around the country, there appears to be an ample supply of aviators to fill the nation’s cockpits – although they may not be willing to work for the low wages the regional airlines are offering.

That’s the key takeaway from a Government Accountability Office report on the pilot workforce that the investigative agency is set to release this morning.

That's the real world: business leaders whining about "labor shortages" rather than make the sacrifices necessary to attract employees. I say "real world", because it is different from the sort of capitalist utopia that capitalism apologists like to posit when they want to win arguments.

Furthermore, their lack of objection to claims of "labor shortage" suggests that they agree with such claims and that they agree with wanting governments to bail out such businesses. They never get outraged, they never indignantly denounce the leaders of such businesses as having a huge sense of entitlement, and they never say that those leaders must abide by the rules of the marketplace.

Agreed--they're paying the top guys so much there isn't the money to pay reasonable amounts to the low guys.

 

[fromderinside]

1. They are operating within the rules. 2. The rules don't consider the effects of deadheading, they don't consider the effects of poor environments that disturb one's sleep.

Wow do your goalposts ever move. There they go from senior pilots to pilots, to schedulers, to company operating within the rules to consideration of likely impacts on schedules ..... with not a viable answer to any of them. So once again I have to set the record straight while still awaiting a decent answer to why you insist senior pilots are the blame for corporate stockholder shortfalls. Below I close more doors for the lame excuses that wander from hither to yore.

1. Operating within the rules clawed down to what Airlines will accept is not a suitable set of rules. They certainly don't adhere unless you accept all the hand fakes airlines proffer when they attempt to proffer excuses for apparent rule breakage.

2. Sure they do. Scheduling produces much of the deadheading and airlines provide for military, FAA, and aircraft engineering staff, in their schedules at major hubs where such corporations, facilities and activities exist. I know this as a former evaluating member of both Boeing and before that McDonnell-Douglas flight deck design and evaluation teams, as an adjunct FAA expert, and as a former Navy officer. So please I'd prefer you don't pile on board your OP hit piece any more unless you actually know of which you speak.

bonus: Then there's this attack piece from the other side of the aisle: Airline Employees Are Not Reporting Violations Because They Lack Adequate Whistle blower Protection: Are You Ready for Takeoff? http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2227&context=vulr

 

[fromderinside]

Agreed--they're paying the top guys so much there isn't the money to pay reasonable amounts to the low guys.

You still haven't explained why 7% of airline budgets are industry killers when they have 16% available for advertising*..... hmmmmmnnnn

*^{_{http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...airline-industry&p=25540&viewfull=1#post25540}}

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Agreed--they're paying the top guys so much there isn't the money to pay reasonable amounts to the low guys.

You still haven't explained why 7% of airline budgets are industry killers when they have 16% available for advertising*..... hmmmmmnnnn

*^{_{http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...airline-industry&p=25540&viewfull=1#post25540}}

Because it's irrelevant. What percent the pilots get has no bearing on the problem. The problem is caused by the pilots getting whatever profit the airline makes. Tickets go up, the airlines take in more, pilot pay would go up and the airlines would still go bankrupt when the economy turns down.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is a fantasy that strikes devastate the economy. Strikes are very rare, they have always been rare and they are almost disappearing. They can't even be called a nuisance. Since 1990 on average the US has lost 0.016% of total workdays per year to strikes. This is about 20 minutes per worker per year. Compare this to the average number of sick days that workers in the US take, 4.9 days per worker per year.

From 1948 to 1990 the number of workdays lost in the US never exceeded ½% of the annual workdays, about 1 day per worker per year, and averaged less than 0.1%, less than two hours per worker per year.

No, the problem that we have with unions has nothing to do with strikes. The problem is that unions increase wages and decrease profits. Since the nation's economy is now being run to increase profits and to decrease wages to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer unions no longer fit in with our national purpose.

I think that's a good summary. There is self interest on both sides of course, but the balance of power leans heavily on the side of big business and the Governments that support the interests an agendas of big business. They are the one's with the means of easy access to media, self promotion and the means to shape public perception.

I neglected to quote a reference for my post. Here it is, I took the statistics out of a paper entitled "Strikes" by John Kennan of the University of Wisconsin and the NBER, the National Bureau of Economic Research.

It is an interesting paper, asserting that strikes were usually caused by faulty information about the size of uncommitted funds available to fund wage increases and that the drop in strikes is a result of more transparency in corporate financial reporting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is a fantasy that strikes devastate the economy. Strikes are very rare, they have always been rare and they are almost disappearing. They can't even be called a nuisance. Since 1990 on average the US has lost 0.016% of total workdays per year to strikes. This is about 20 minutes per worker per year. Compare this to the average number of sick days that workers in the US take, 4.9 days per worker per year.

From 1948 to 1990 the number of workdays lost in the US never exceeded ½% of the annual workdays, about 1 day per worker per year, and averaged less than 0.1%, less than two hours per worker per year.

No, the problem that we have with unions has nothing to do with strikes. The problem is that unions increase wages and decrease profits. Since the nation's economy is now being run to increase profits and to decrease wages to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer unions no longer fit in with our national purpose.

I think that's a good summary. There is self interest on both sides of course, but the balance of power leans heavily on the side of big business and the Governments that support the interests an agendas of big business. They are the one's with the means of easy access to media, self promotion and the means to shape public perception.

I neglected to quote a reference for my post. Here it is, I took the statistics out of a paper entitled "Strikes" by John Kennan of the University of Wisconsin and the NBER, the National Bureau of Economic Research.

It is an interesting paper, asserting that strikes were usually caused by faulty information about the size of uncommitted funds available to fund wage increases and that the drop in strikes is a result of more transparency in corporate financial reporting.

Except the problem with the airlines is that the pilots demand wages consistent with the expected airline revenue and in reality sometimes revenue is less than expected.

 

[Petrel]

Plus this, again:

Airline CEO Total Salaries
In the United States, top airline CEO total compensation is worth several million dollars. For example, in 2008 one airline CEO saw his total salary exceed $17.4 million. In 2009, the top-10 U.S. airlines paid CEO salaries that ranged from $1.4 million to $8.4 million annually. The major U.S. airlines paid CEO salaries in 2011 that ran from $707,000 to more than $8.8 million annually.

http://work.chron.com/average-ceo-salary-airline-industry-9706.html
It really isn't about the pilots.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a fantasy that strikes devastate the economy. Strikes are very rare, they have always been rare and they are almost disappearing. They can't even be called a nuisance. Since 1990 on average the US has lost 0.016% of total workdays per year to strikes. This is about 20 minutes per worker per year. Compare this to the average number of sick days that workers in the US take, 4.9 days per worker per year.

From 1948 to 1990 the number of workdays lost in the US never exceeded ½% of the annual workdays, about 1 day per worker per year, and averaged less than 0.1%, less than two hours per worker per year.

No, the problem that we have with unions has nothing to do with strikes. The problem is that unions increase wages and decrease profits. Since the nation's economy is now being run to increase profits and to decrease wages to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer unions no longer fit in with our national purpose.

I think that's a good summary. There is self interest on both sides of course, but the balance of power leans heavily on the side of big business and the Governments that support the interests an agendas of big business. They are the one's with the means of easy access to media, self promotion and the means to shape public perception.

I neglected to quote a reference for my post. Here it is, I took the statistics out of a paper entitled "Strikes" by John Kennan of the University of Wisconsin and the NBER, the National Bureau of Economic Research.

It is an interesting paper, asserting that strikes were usually caused by faulty information about the size of uncommitted funds available to fund wage increases and that the drop in strikes is a result of more transparency in corporate financial reporting.

Except the problem with the airlines is that the pilots demand wages consistent with the expected airline revenue and in reality sometimes revenue is less than expected.

How many pilot strikes have occurred in the past ten years? Twenty?

 

[DBT]

Except the problem with the airlines is that the pilots demand wages consistent with the expected airline revenue and in reality sometimes revenue is less than expected.

What about the CEO and board? Are their rewards for service rendered to the business always in line with company revenue? Are they willing to forgo a part of their salary, their perks and their bonuses and reduce their high incomes in order to help keep the cost of running the business down?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except the problem with the airlines is that the pilots demand wages consistent with the expected airline revenue and in reality sometimes revenue is less than expected.

What about the CEO and board? Are their rewards for service rendered to the business always in line with company revenue? Are they willing to forgo a part of their salary, their perks and their bonuses and reduce their high incomes in order to help keep the cost of running the business down?

Everyone is so obsessed with what the top guys make--you're interested in destroying them, not in what actually works.

 

[nogods4me]

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported that 815.3 million scheduled passengers traveled on U.S. airlines and on foreign airlines serving the United States in 2012. This is a 1.3 percent increase from 2011

Yeah, they're devastated.

Load Factor and Capacity
Despite a 2.4 percent rise in revenue passenger-miles, a 1.2 percent increase in capacity, measured in available seat-mikes, resulted in a 0.9 point rise in load factor to 82.5, the highest annual load factor on record for U.S.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts016_13

 

[ksen]

Except the problem with the airlines is that the pilots demand wages consistent with the expected airline revenue and in reality sometimes revenue is less than expected.

What about the CEO and board? Are their rewards for service rendered to the business always in line with company revenue? Are they willing to forgo a part of their salary, their perks and their bonuses and reduce their high incomes in order to help keep the cost of running the business down?

Everyone is so obsessed with what the top guys make--you're interested in destroying them, not in what actually works.

Deflection noted.

Odd how any increase in regular wages is met with arguments talking about destroying businesses and the economy but the same people making those arguments give a collective "meh" when you start talking about the incredible rise in executive salaries.

 

[fromderinside]

Agreed--they're paying the top guys so much there isn't the money to pay reasonable amounts to the low guys.

You still haven't explained why 7% of airline budgets are industry killers when they have 16% available for advertising*..... hmmmmmnnnn

*^{_{http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...airline-industry&p=25540&viewfull=1#post25540}}

Because it's irrelevant. What percent the pilots get has no bearing on the problem. The problem is caused by the pilots getting whatever profit the airline makes. Tickets go up, the airlines take in more, pilot pay would go up and the airlines would still go bankrupt when the economy turns down.

It is relevant. So income doesn't go up, shareholders need return. Airline reduces advertising expenses, becomes more efficient, negotiates with terminals, improves maintenance infrastructure, to pay them and/or to make a small profit. No going broke here at all. Besides the airlines agreed to their contracts with the pilots so its not the pilot's fault anyway.

Your one trick pony is made of straw, man.

 

[SimpleDon]

Once again, negotiating industry wide wages for a category of worker is the only way to eliminate wages as a competitive factor in pricing and in profits. If everyone in the industry has to pay the same wages that eliminates the pressure for any one company to push wages down in their company to gain an advantage over other companies. They have to compete in other areas to earn business.

It also reduces friction between the management and the workers in a company if wages are negotiated industry wide.

It is not just wages, it is working conditions. Employers are reluctant to, for example, reduce the work week or to increase vacation time because of competitive pressures. If the changes are industry wide this problem is eliminated. Reducing the work week is an obvious solution for under employment and for the displacement from automation.

 

[lpetrich]

Everyone is so obsessed with what the top guys make--you're interested in destroying them, not in what actually works.

Loren Pechtel, I suggest that you reread your OP. You went on record as complaining about how much some pilots were making, with the clear implication that they were being grotesquely overpaid. Now you are claiming that there's a class of people in a business who should never be considered overpaid no matter how much pay they get for themselves.

 

[SimpleDon]

The main reason that an airline that is unionized has trouble making a profits is because they have to compete with the non-union airlines who pay lower wages. This is why we have eliminate wages as a competitive advantage.