31 replies to this topic

[pieterjan456]

I know, but it just reminded me of it

[89-LX]

Cactus, on 29 September 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Not only do the regulations state that you are expected to self-assess your physical fitness for duty, but as a professional pilot, you are obligated to abide by these rules. You make a sweeping generalization that, as a result of an individual pilot advising crew scheduling he is fatigued, that somehow, without any due process or regard for safety, the government will be notified and "step in" - and further, that the "pilot group" will somehow have sanctions placed against them. Such generalizations, although emotional, would suggest a very poor understanding of the responsibilities governed by an approved Fatigue Risk Management Program (14 CFR Part 121). Your fatigue book-off, supported by a fatigue report into the airline's FRMP, does not equate to industrial action.

On the other side of the coin - an airline can provide the average number of book-offs during any given day or month. Let's say this happens to double or triple during a time of labour unrest, so instead of looking at 20 pilots calling in sick on a normal day, we're dealing with an unprecedented 40 to 60 book-offs. Furthermore, this pilot is unable to produce a valid doctor's note to his/her Base Manager, and is not willing to produce or submit a valid fatigue report. You can believe whatever you want, but yes, this amounts to unauthorized industrial action by the pilot group. It is not an unfair expectation to request a doctor's note if an employee has booked off sick.

You ask why people don't actually stand up for themselves, and yet you indicate that your fellow pilots are willing to intentionally violate federal regulations and thus jeopardize the safety of their passengers. Why not start with exercising better responsibility and judgement as employees and professional pilots?

As I said before, the pilot group was threatened during DAL BK that calling in sick would result in action against them. Not everyone goes to the doctor when they are sick, as it can take a few days to even get in and you feel better by then. This was action by the UNITED STATE GOVERNMENT against the pilot group.

Independence76, on 29 September 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

I'm merely defending Crandall. It's not my fault if you wish to accept his words with a thorough and mature opinion. This has nothing to do with oil.

Bankruptcy isn't pretty. As far as I know, the economy isn't getting any better. Raising the pilots wages and cutting management bonuses will not magically fix the whole problem. That will only be a marginal change.

I have little confidence in current management, but it's rational to believe that this union sickout is only making things worse as opposed to better (FOR EVERYONE).

The pilot's union is having a partial UNAUTHORIZED strike. This is where the line gets drawn between "justified union" and "selfish union."


I have no other point to present. Cactus seems to have put any other argument forth that I would want to make.

This somewhat does have to do with oil - as I stated, fuel costs are a big part of airline expenses. I will say this to you as you seem to not get it:

THE PILOT GROUP IS NOT LOOKING FOR HIGHER WAGES. THEY ARE ASKING FOR FAIR WAGES, FAIR WORK RULES, FAIR CONTRACT, AND JOB SECURITY. The contract that the company is trying ti impose is substandard, even for a commuter airline. Getting rid of minimum guarantee? You can work 5 hours one month, 120 the next. You cannot budget a life with that. Loosing scope will kill jobs in the industry.

Let me ask you, what do you do? Are you in the airline industry? Nope? Then you have no say in the matter as you have no clue on how an airline actually work and what goes on behind the scenes. You have no clue on REAL operations outside of what you read. Until you are on the line, you will see. Its not all shiny jets, and glamorous life style that FSX makes it out to be.

Edited by 89-LX, 30 September 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Independence76]

89-LX, on 30 September 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

This somewhat does have to do with oil - as I stated, fuel costs are a big part of airline expenses. I will say this to you as you seem to not get it:

THE PILOT GROUP IS NOT LOOKING FOR HIGHER WAGES. THEY ARE ASKING FOR FAIR WAGES, FAIR WORK RULES, FAIR CONTRACT, AND JOB SECURITY. The contract that the company is trying ti impose is substandard, even for a commuter airline. Getting rid of minimum guarantee? You can work 5 hours one month, 120 the next. You cannot budget a life with that. Loosing scope will kill jobs in the industry.

They are the highest paid in the US for the industry as it is. At least $100,000 a year minimum for 737-800 Captains (enough to handle a family of 4 quite well).

Quote

Let me ask you, what do you do? Are you in the airline industry? Nope? Then you have no say in the matter as you have no clue on how an airline actually work and what goes on behind the scenes. You have no clue on REAL operations outside of what you read. Until you are on the line, you will see. Its not all shiny jets, and glamorous life style that FSX makes it out to be.

I talk with pilots every week, both based here and visiting. Some are commuter, some are domestic, and some are international. I can tell the good, thankful, and tolerable apples from the complaining, condescending bad apples. From your claims and refusal to accept the idea of a "middle ground" in this conflict within AA, then you're certainly leaning towards the latter.

I've heard both luxury stories from the 1970's and horror stories from the 2000's. Times have changed. I have no shame in believing that regional pilots should get paid more than $30,000 a year, but when people like you complain about never get a big enough paycheck and call in sick out of rebellion (and holding up multiple flights), it gives me a very sour opinion of your thoughts and actions behind your motivations and rationality.

Regardless of you or I, this topic is about Crandall's letter, in which he has more experience in airline management than many people in this country. If you don't agree with anything he says simply because it "doesn't defend a pilots union in unanimous support," then you aren't exactly a reasonable or rational individual to discuss the letter with.

Edited by Independence76, 30 September 2012 - 10:01 PM.

[89-LX]

Independence76, on 30 September 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

They are the highest paid in the US for the industry as it is. At least $100,000 a year minimum for 737-800 Captains (enough to handle a family of 4 quite well).

Once again, lets take a look at this. Highest paid in the industry? Lets compare something here:

Year.......AA........Delta.......SWA
..5........$157.......$179.......$200
..7........$159.......$181.......$205
10........$163.......$186.......$212

Now lets also take a look at this. Most junior captain at American Airlines has a 1993 hire in date. That means that you can be at that company for 20 years now, and still be a first officer. And your pay is under that of the of the competition. SWA is currently is contract negotiation, and Delta pay rates for the next 2 years will go up for a 5 year captain to current SWA rates. So your highest paid in the industry is gone and out the window.

Independence76, on 30 September 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

I talk with pilots every week, both based here and visiting. Some are commuter, some are domestic, and some are international. I can tell the good, thankful, and tolerable apples from the complaining, condescending bad apples. From your claims and refusal to accept the idea of a "middle ground" in this conflict within AA, then you're certainly leaning towards the latter.

So you "talk" to pilots, I guess that makes you an expert on aviation? Pilots are their own worst enemy. Pilots will do stuff that hurt the industry for a long time without even realizing what they are doing. What AMR is offering is NOT a middle ground. I am thinking realistically that allowing a more relaxed scope is bad for the industry by reducing pilot seats at higher paying major carriers to pilots in the future. I am realistic that b-grade pay scales on same equipment hurts the industry. I am realistic when I would like to know a minimum amount of money I will make per month with a minimum guarantee is a good thing as I can budget then. These are just a few things. If you think relaxing scope is a good thing, then you need to stay out of this industry. And for anyone else that thinks that too, they have no clue on what relaxed scope does to the industry.

Independence76, on 30 September 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

I've heard both luxury stories from the 1970's and horror stories from the 2000's. Times have changed. I have no shame in believing that regional pilots should get paid more than $30,000 a year, but when people like you complain about never get a big enough paycheck and call in sick out of rebellion (and holding up multiple flights), it gives me a very sour opinion of your thoughts and actions behind your motivations and rationality.

Times have changed, so we should all work the crappiest work rules that can be thrown onto us possible? I make much more than $30,000 a year. I make a little less than I think I should make, but I do work for a major airline doing major routes in and out of hubs. I think I should be in the $60,000 range, but I'm not unless I work a lot. With the work I put in to get near that, I should be in the $75,000 range if you compare to the same equipment type at a major (jetBlue).

But the actions of these pilots are simple: They don't want the industry to continue the downward spiral of less jobs and seats in the future with bad work rules and contracts.

Independence76, on 30 September 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Regardless of you or I, this topic is about Crandall's letter, in which he has more experience in airline management than many people in this country. If you don't agree with anything he says simply because it "doesn't defend a pilots union in unanimous support," then you aren't exactly a reasonable or rational individual to discuss the letter with.

Lets take a look at 2 parts of that letter since that's what this is about.

Quote

If American is to succeed in the years ahead, it must pay wages and benefits, and operate using work rules, which produce labor costs equivalent to or – while American gets itself back on track  –  lower than those of its major competitors. In the long run, no successful service company can offer compensation and working conditions that are materially different than those of its competitors.

American is already offering different than their competitors. What they are asking on the latest 1113C term sheet is downright disgusting. Are you familiar with what the company is trying to impose with the 1113C term sheet?

Quote

Here’s the bottom line on “Respect”.  Every employee – from fleet service to chairman – deserves the respect of every other employee. Respect requires courtesy, and any employee, or any employee group that speaks ill of another renounces their own claim to either. And finally, respect implies a willingness to settle disputes within the context of the protocols of law and process that free societies from the grip of anarchy.

Well where is the company respect for the pilots? From the 1113C term sheet, its complete disrespect of the pilot group as a whole (Not just AA). You believe pilots are wrong when they start to write up the planes more and disrupt the flight schedules?

https://public.allie...nce-Issues.aspx

Now I'm an not saying that its ok to call in sick, but on the flip side, these senior guys that have sick time could be losing it soon. So they say why not use it before they lose it?

How familiar are you with the 1113C term sheet that has been proposed? Have you even looked at the flip side of the coin? You're sitting here defending management at all costs, but have you seen what this will do to the 121 industry? If not, its not very reasonable or rational to even have this conversation. Saying that you speak to pilots also does NOT put you into this field. You still never answered my question on what you do? You cannot simply stand here and judge one group or another unless you are in the field (pilot or management) yourself as you're just an outsider looking in.

You also sit here and say that you have no shame in saying a pilot should be paid more than $30,000, but you promote what AMR is trying to impose on the pilot group which will increase the number of those $30,000 paying jobs. AA has a very senior pilot group, so you need to put yourself in their shoes. You have a pension that is about to get taken away soon. Your retirement is about to dwindle down a lot, along with your pay. You have a self interest in looking out and protecting yourself at this point. I'm sure Crandall's pension of high pay isn't in jeopardy of going anywhere.

Edited by 89-LX, 01 October 2012 - 05:36 AM.

[Independence76]

89-LX, on 01 October 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

Once again, lets take a look at this. Highest paid in the industry? Lets compare something here:

Year.......AA........Delta.......SWA
..5........$157.......$179.......$200
..7........$159.......$181.......$205
10........$163.......$186.......$212

Now lets also take a look at this. Most junior captain at American Airlines has a 1993 hire in date. That means that you can be at that company for 20 years now, and still be a first officer. And your pay is under that of the of the competition. SWA is currently is contract negotiation, and Delta pay rates for the next 2 years will go up for a 5 year captain to current SWA rates. So your highest paid in the industry is gone and out the window.

Not sure where you're getting your information (you fail to cite your source). Not to mention, Horton claimed AA was paying "more than any other US airline in labor costs each year." So, are you telling me the new CEO of a top US airline would just outright lie to everyone the moment he becomes #1?

It's extremely rare to be with AA for 20 years and never hold the position of Captain. So, you're certainly ###### that.

Quote

So you "talk" to pilots, I guess that makes you an expert on aviation? Pilots are their own worst enemy. Pilots will do stuff that hurt the industry for a long time without even realizing what they are doing. What AMR is offering is NOT a middle ground. I am thinking realistically that allowing a more relaxed scope is bad for the industry by reducing pilot seats at higher paying major carriers to pilots in the future. I am realistic that b-grade pay scales on same equipment hurts the industry. I am realistic when I would like to know a minimum amount of money I will make per month with a minimum guarantee is a good thing as I can budget then. These are just a few things. If you think relaxing scope is a good thing, then you need to stay out of this industry. And for anyone else that thinks that too, they have no clue on what relaxed scope does to the industry.

Let me say this again:

Crandall (who wrote the letter above) knows more than you, I, or MANY people in this nation about commercial aviation management. If you refuse to listen to his words, I doubt you'd listen to anybody's but your own.

Considering what the pilots tell me when I "talk" to them, it means you're just a liar to win another argument against some "expert in aviation" as you sarcastically insist.

If you want a middle ground you DO NOT ground dozens of flights because you disagree with your yearly salary.

Quote

Times have changed, so we should all work the crappiest work rules that can be thrown onto us possible? I make much more than $30,000 a year. I make a little less than I think I should make, but I do work for a major airline doing major routes in and out of hubs. I think I should be in the $60,000 range, but I'm not unless I work a lot. With the work I put in to get near that, I should be in the $75,000 range if you compare to the same equipment type at a major (jetBlue).

But the actions of these pilots are simple: They don't want the industry to continue the downward spiral of less jobs and seats in the future with bad work rules and contracts.

"Crappiest work rules?" Considering AA's pilot union policy of requiring 777 international flight crews to have at least one First Class seat available for relief crew, I don't consider it the "crappiest" when UA's 777 international flight crews are required to either stand-up in the forward galley or sit in an F/A's seat.

Quote

Lets take a look at 2 parts of that letter since that's what this is about.



American is already offering different than their competitors. What they are asking on the latest 1113C term sheet is downright disgusting. Are you familiar with what the company is trying to impose with the 1113C term sheet?



Well where is the company respect for the pilots? From the 1113C term sheet, its complete disrespect of the pilot group as a whole (Not just AA). You believe pilots are wrong when they start to write up the planes more and disrupt the flight schedules?

https://public.allie...nce-Issues.aspx

Now I'm an not saying that its ok to call in sick, but on the flip side, these senior guys that have sick time could be losing it soon. So they say why not use it before they lose it?

How familiar are you with the 1113C term sheet that has been proposed? Have you even looked at the flip side of the coin? You're sitting here defending management at all costs, but have you seen what this will do to the 121 industry? If not, its not very reasonable or rational to even have this conversation. Saying that you speak to pilots also does NOT put you into this field. You still never answered my question on what you do? You cannot simply stand here and judge one group or another unless you are in the field (pilot or management) yourself as you're just an outsider looking in.

You also sit here and say that you have no shame in saying a pilot should be paid more than $30,000, but you promote what AMR is trying to impose on the pilot group which will increase the number of those $30,000 paying jobs. AA has a very senior pilot group, so you need to put yourself in their shoes. You have a pension that is about to get taken away soon. Your retirement is about to dwindle down a lot, along with your pay. You have a self interest in looking out and protecting yourself at this point.

The link not only does not provide information on WHEN those accidents happened specifically, but also it does not follow-up on when these issues were fixed or how quickly it was done. It provides very little information to give you the impression that management somehow is lazy with maintenance and attempts to pin the blame on them (in other words, whatever the Union wants you to believe). Considering the FAA has not created a bombshell of violation fees once again, it's difficult to say these were "AA maintenance failures" and not that they were "common failures."

I am not defending management - I am defending Crandall's viewpoint on the union sickout and its damaging effect on the company as a whole. This union is at fault for the cancellations and therefore puts even more pressure on their paychecks. It's not hard where to put the blame.

My "pilots paid more than $30,000" comment was mainly referring to Regional pilots who often get paid less than $20,000 a year and are given (if lucky) extremely sub-par benefits. The amount of exploitative journalism done on the life of these pilots is large, and the crash of Continental Express 3407 clearly got the attention of the FAA when it came to operating hour limits, fatigue, and lack of flight training on Fly-By-Wire aircraft like the Q400.

Well, the first step to making sure that your benefits don't dwindle along with everything else promised is attempt to reduce the costs and losses of the airline - which these pilots calling in sick are not doing. You're not going to earn money from the top if you block the flow of it getting into the company at all.

What do I do? I work at the American Airlines C.R. Smith Museum (which is next-door to the Pilot Academy). I have lunch at the Pilot's Academy twice a week and talk to many pilots who travel from many bases who train/fly anything from Embraer's to 777's. Some are also visiting from other airlines outsourcing them to 727 or F-100 simulator training which AA still provides. The culture you are in and the culture in AA are clearly different, but you refuse to accept that idea and immediately condemn Crandall's letter without question.

Quote

I'm sure Crandall's pension of high pay isn't in jeopardy of going anywhere.

It's bankruptcy - everybody hurts.

[divemaster08]

I have to say, if thats the salaries, then dam no wonder there are soo many pilots trying to get those seats!

Those figures are ridiculous! I mean wow, thats a lot of cash..... I don't know this but would anybody know what a CEO salary would average at????

I still stand by labour costs being too high at AA, even if you think they are not the most paid out there.

For example, let me link you to a FO who does blogs and use to be an FO for AA on the 757/767 (for a long time) and the only way to jump to the left seat was to go to the MD-80.
http://www.gadling.c...pit-chronicles/

Anyway back to a point that they talk about in one of his videos is on a flight back from GIG (i think) to JFK.
http://www.gadling.c...w-its-prepared/

In this video she says they have had a 4 day layover in Brazil. flight is 10 hours overnight, leaves JFK around 1030pm, arrives 9am Brazil time.

Now 4 day layover sounds extreme to me. That means that AA is having to pay for at least 9 crew to remain in Brazil (going on at least 3 up front, 6 in cabin.... it could be more) for at least 3 nights!!! if that flight is daily, you soon have probably the whole floor of a hotel taken by AA staff. That means that AA is paying for them to have a short holiday down there. a 6 day trip is overkill.

I don't know what the actual layover minimum times are, but a crew that flies a 737 down here to overnight I know need 12 hours rest. Im not saying that they go strict and reduce to that, but surely 2 nights only would be sufficient??

That means after arriving around 9 am, they spend 2 nights, and then leave 9pm..... that would be 60 hours between actual flights. I think that is very generous and would love to have that kind of time off between a 10 hour shift that I have to pull some nights at my job! (our minimum rest period for that is 24 hours btw.... this is ATC)

I think that the layover cant be FAA law, but a Union taking the airline for what it has.

Also in one of his other blogs, he talks about other friends at AA who do write about sights they see on their travels, and it looks like they are living the dream! They just don't want it to go away now!

[Cortez]

You're all noobs.

[pieterjan456]

The fact is, also here with Brussels I hear pilots complaining about their wages not being the industry standard. But at the same time they earn 2-3 times as much as someone who has the same age and has a master in engineering and works at the airline.
Same as the Ryanair example I gave. For the starting wage that a F/O gets I'd have to work 72 hours a week in the Middle East for a Belgian ship company 6 days on 7 and in theory (I've heard that it's more in real life) 12 hours a day.
The wages at AA may be bad if you compare it to other airlines. But are the wages at AA too low or the wages at other airlines too high? If you ask me, and if I see the pilots over here complaining about a starting wage someone with a master degree at a university will not have after 5-10 years into their carreer, I think it's the latter.

Edited by pieterjan456, 03 October 2012 - 12:44 AM.

[THBatMan8]

89LX,

Usually I respect your input on this forum, but I believe you are being just as biased as those you're debating against. You're looking at this strike through the pilots prospective, and others are looking at it from managements prospective. Just because you're a pilot doesn't mean you can run an airline. I respect the fact that pilots want more money. Heck, we all do. But keeping things realistic here, where is AA going to get the money from? Last time I checked, they were broke and filed bankruptcy. The downward spiral for AA continues, and pilots are now helping the company go under. Like you said, pilots are their own worst enemy.

Also, reducing oil costs per barrel won't do squat to what you pay for refined fuel.

[89-LX]

Independence76, on 01 October 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Not sure where you're getting your information (you fail to cite your source). Not to mention, Horton claimed AA was paying "more than any other US airline in labor costs each year." So, are you telling me the new CEO of a top US airline would just outright lie to everyone the moment he becomes #1?

It's extremely rare to be with AA for 20 years and never hold the position of Captain. So, you're certainly ###### that.

Information comes directly from pilots themselves, along with airlinepilotcentral.com which receives its information direct from the pilots themselves also.

http://www.airlinepi...y/american.html

That shows pilot wages, along with:

Most junior captain hired: Mar 1992 (MD80/LGA)

Independence76, on 01 October 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Let me say this again:

Crandall (who wrote the letter above) knows more than you, I, or MANY people in this nation about commercial aviation management. If you refuse to listen to his words, I doubt you'd listen to anybody's but your own.

If you knew anything about management, you would know that someone in the position of CEO/COO/CFO/etc doesn't need to know anything about aviation at all. All they need to know is business. Perfect example, Alan Mulally went from Boeing (aviation) to Ford (automotive).

Independence76, on 01 October 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

"Crappiest work rules?" Considering AA's pilot union policy of requiring 777 international flight crews to have at least one First Class seat available for relief crew, I don't consider it the "crappiest" when UA's 777 international flight crews are required to either stand-up in the forward galley or sit in an F/A's seat.

Making them stand up for hours, where do you hear this? Your aviation friends? Cause you are sorely wrong with that. But as you said to me, since you're not citing sources, you're a liar.

Independence76, on 01 October 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

The link not only does not provide information on WHEN those accidents happened specifically, but also it does not follow-up on when these issues were fixed or how quickly it was done. It provides very little information to give you the impression that management somehow is lazy with maintenance and attempts to pin the blame on them (in other words, whatever the Union wants you to believe). Considering the FAA has not created a bombshell of violation fees once again, it's difficult to say these were "AA maintenance failures" and not that they were "common failures."

Seat failure: http://www.usatoday....-seats/1610189/
Landing gear failure: http://seattletimes....htdiverted.html

All from yesterday.

Independence76, on 01 October 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

I am not defending management - I am defending Crandall's viewpoint on the union sickout and its damaging effect on the company as a whole. This union is at fault for the cancellations and therefore puts even more pressure on their paychecks. It's not hard where to put the blame.

The pilots aren't just doing a sick out, they are also writing up more problems with the airplanes. This is another big factor for flight cancellations. Are the pilots wrong for doing that too? I said I don't condone a sickout, but on the flip side, they pilots are about to lose everything (including accrued sick time), so they are getting what they can while they can.

divemaster08, on 02 October 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Those figures are ridiculous! I mean wow, thats a lot of cash..... I don't know this but would anybody know what a CEO salary would average at????

In this video she says they have had a 4 day layover in Brazil. flight is 10 hours overnight, leaves JFK around 1030pm, arrives 9am Brazil time.

Now 4 day layover sounds extreme to me. That means that AA is having to pay for at least 9 crew to remain in Brazil (going on at least 3 up front, 6 in cabin.... it could be more) for at least 3 nights!!! if that flight is daily, you soon have probably the whole floor of a hotel taken by AA staff. That means that AA is paying for them to have a short holiday down there. a 6 day trip is overkill.

AA has the highest labor costs because they have the most senior pilot group out of most of the airlines. As for the current CEO salary, I'm guessing he makes at least $3,500,000 in compensation a year.

As far as the scheduling goes - that's management, Pilots have no say on that. We bid or what the company offers. Those are things that they can change right there to save money without imposing crap onto people.

THBatMan8, on 03 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

89LX,

Usually I respect your input on this forum, but I believe you are being just as biased as those you're debating against. You're looking at this strike through the pilots prospective, and others are looking at it from managements prospective. Just because you're a pilot doesn't mean you can run an airline. I respect the fact that pilots want more money. Heck, we all do. But keeping things realistic here, where is AA going to get the money from? Last time I checked, they were broke and filed bankruptcy. The downward spiral for AA continues, and pilots are now helping the company go under. Like you said, pilots are their own worst enemy.

Also, reducing oil costs per barrel won't do squat to what you pay for refined fuel.

Oil costs per barrel has a lot to do with the cost in aviation. I wish I had the link again for what every $1 rise in oil costs the airlines every year, but if I recall, every $1 in the rise of oil per barrel, is about $1.5 billion more a year for the airlines.

http://www.nytimes.c...inery.html?_r=0

On average, fuel accounts for about a third of an airline’s operating costs, a share that has been rising for much of the last decade.....These rising fuel costs have forced painful restructurings for airlines in recent years, helping to push many of them into bankruptcy and spurring consolidations across the industry.

As I said over and over again, the pilot group is not asking for more money. They are protesting the fact of what they are losing and how they are going to hurt aviation all together. So I will explain this all over again time after time because no one here is looking at the big picture.


Scope gone. What this means is that AMR can outsource any of their flying to low paying regional carriers. What this will lead to is low paying aviation jobs and no movement in the industry. So routes that used to be flown by AA, can now be flown by smaller carriers with lower costs, and lower pay. So instead of having a job that will pay a good salary, we will have more of those sub-par $30,000 a year jobs to be a pilot.

No minimum guarantee. This means the company may work you 125 hours one month, and then 20 hours the next month, 5 hours the month after, 0 the next, 50 the next, etc. You have no clue what your pay is, so you cannot budget living as you may make $10,000 one month, and $1,000 the following.

No duty rig. The company will use this to their advantage to work you 14 hours on the clock, but only fly you one or two hours. What this results in is less days off, as you will need to work more days to get the hours up.


pieterjan456 - Didn't quote you, sorry. But comparing salaries is hard to someone that works in engineering. Factor in for pilots that we are typically gone 1/3-1/2 of the month. Of in other terms, gone 6 months out of the year on the road, away from family and home. We also have to deal with the constant pressure changes on our body, time zone changes, sleeping in different beds every night, odd work schedules (0618 duty in one day and then 1330 the day after), etc.

Everyone is so caught up on the actual pay part, but they are forgetting to look at the complete whole picture. All I keep hearing is pay pay pay, but nothing about the rest of the 1113C imposed terms upon the pilot group. As I stated before, AA has one of the oldest seniority groups in the industry. There is a lot of senior pilots that will be retiring soon, being filled with much lower paying pilots. If crap work rules, and crap pay is imposed upon them, what will happen is the new guys that come in and reduce costs at the current rates will actually come in at much lower rates, thus making them bring the industry down even more. I know pilots that want to go to AA, but they are refusing if they get this imposed on them. So what happens then? They are still short on pilots to fill those slots and the same problem they are having now will happen then. Once these senior guys retire, AMR's costs will drop significantly.

I may sound like I am being a union person, but I am being an aviation person as a whole. If you want to hurt the industry, support the 1113C TS that AMR is trying to impose upon the pilot group.

[Independence76]

89-LX, on 03 October 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Information comes directly from pilots themselves, along with airlinepilotcentral.com which receives its information direct from the pilots themselves also.

http://www.airlinepi...y/american.html

That shows pilot wages, along with:

Most junior captain hired: Mar 1992 (MD80/LGA)

Thank you for providing a source.

But now the argument lies with the question "are they being paid too much as it is?"

Quote

If you knew anything about management, you would know that someone in the position of CEO/COO/CFO/etc doesn't need to know anything about aviation at all. All they need to know is business. Perfect example, Alan Mulally went from Boeing (aviation) to Ford (automotive).

The good airline CEOs are the ones with a passion, the ones who care. I do not believe AA management fits this profile, and as a result, does not aggressively compete as they should. There have been more changes to AA in bankruptcy in the past 10 months than the entire airline has had in the past 5 years.

Airline management is only made "easy" by those who don't actually try. The aviation market is very fragile and anything can happen (for example, 9/11) that could change the entire economy or public perception of flying.

Quote

Making them stand up for hours, where do you hear this? Your aviation friends? Cause you are sorely wrong with that. But as you said to me, since you're not citing sources, you're a liar.

So, because two AA 777 crew members told me a lie, that makes me the liar?

I don't talk to "aviation friends" and write anything the say off as true. I talk to people who actually fly the real deal for this airline.

Quote

Seat failure: http://www.usatoday....-seats/1610189/
Landing gear failure: http://seattletimes....htdiverted.html

All from yesterday.

The seat failure was an interesting development. I talked to the NBC5 news crew yesterday who were present at that interview (just across the street) before the story went live. NBC5 reported on Monday that the maintenance records disproved TWU's claim about it "solely being a consequence of outsourcing." The records faxed to AA maintenance in DFW stated that both UNION AND OUTSOURCED employees were at fault for the seat installation issues.

The landing gear situation could have been anything. From the lack of information in the article, none of us have enough proof to make a claim as to what or whom is to blame.

Quote

The pilots aren't just doing a sick out, they are also writing up more problems with the airplanes. This is another big factor for flight cancellations. Are the pilots wrong for doing that too? I said I don't condone a sickout, but on the flip side, they pilots are about to lose everything (including accrued sick time), so they are getting what they can while they can.

That's still not an excuse.

I think it's logical to think that it's the perfect time for the MD-80's to be replaced. They're not "deathtraps" as some in the media like to scream about, but they're outdated and don't easily compete against carriers like Delta or Alaska. The AA Pilot Academy has ads all over the place about "The nation's youngest fleet in 5 years." It's clear they're trying to develop a newer image in the pilot's minds.

Quote

AA has the highest labor costs because they have the most senior pilot group out of most of the airlines. As for the current CEO salary, I'm guessing he makes at least $3,500,000 in compensation a year.

As far as the scheduling goes - that's management, Pilots have no say on that. We bid or what the company offers. Those are things that they can change right there to save money without imposing crap onto people.

Like I said before (and for the third time): I do not agree certain actions of management.

A $3.5mil payoff in bankruptcy is ridiculous, and if I were suddenly in Horton's shoes, I would take a 75% paycut for the next 3 years until a firm record of profitability is sustained.

But, such a paycut alone will not fix the problem. The sickout will only make it worse.

Edited by Independence76, 03 October 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[Cactus]

89-LX, on 01 October 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

Well where is the company respect for the pilots? From the 1113C term sheet, its complete disrespect of the pilot group as a whole (Not just AA). You believe pilots are wrong when they start to write up the planes more and disrupt the flight schedules?

https://public.allie...nce-Issues.aspx

This is an interesting article which I had overlooked. I fully agree with the importance of documenting all technical defects - in fact, all too often will pilots pass information anecdotally between operating crews or discuss items with maintenance and then fail to properly document the snag.

However, I cannot help but wonder what motive the Allied Pilots Association has by making such statements like "American Airlines pilots continue to encounter a large number of serious maintenance-related issues" and "Due to recent FAA fines and American’s ongoing financial struggles, the FAA has stepped up its scrutiny of the carrier’s maintenance procedures"

Does the APA not recognize that any negative public perception and loss of customer business is only going to hurt the bottom line of their membership and further exacerbate the situation? If they are going to champion themselves as an important voice in safety, then painting the operations of their membership in an unsafe light would seem rather counter-productive. I understand that the actual mechanical work might be contracted out or performed by the IAMAW, but when you think about it, if it wasn't for those other organizations than the APA would not even have reason exist.