More to consider than unions and maintenance

0 Kudo

Add Reply New Topic

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

hotscape

More to consider than unions and maintenance

Lead

[-]

Posts: 1

(04/06/08 15:48:49)

Tags : None

I disagree with a lot of what has been said on the "fear of flying" forum. While I agree that unions can be helpful, the lack of one does not mean an airline will be less safe.
For example, American Airlines is a long establisted company that has both a pilots union, and they do all of their own maintenance. He would lead you to believe that these two things make American Airlines safer than it's competitors...they do not.

American Airlines (which now owns TWA also) has had more accidents than any other airline in the USA. Even before they were the largest airline, they had a poor safety record. Having strict pilot work rules and in-house maintenance is important, but they are not the only factors that determine airline safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_accidents

TWA has had the second most accidents of any airline in the USA, and they are now wholly owned by American Airlines. That means that the current American Airlines is made up of the two companies with the worst safety records in the history of US aviation.
I'm not trying to bash American Airlines, I am just commenting that the "big established company with a union and in-house maintenance" logic isn't always correct.

Furthermore, having a pilots union can be helpful, but it is all too often used as a crutch. A pilots union ensures that seniority is the ONLY method used to upgrade copilots to captains. This can be a very bad practice. Even if a pilot is not ready to upgrade, or he is not the best candidate to be a captain, he is automatically upgraded to the captain position when they reach his seniority number, often in front of better qualified, more capable candidates. Many other airlines without unions use a combination of seniority and recommendations from other captains who can attest to the candidates' readiness for upgrade.

Unions can also often be used to preserve the job of an employee who has acted in an unsafe or irresponsible manner. If a pilot is unsafe and his job is threatened, he can appeal to the union representatives to prevent the company from firing him. If he has been arrested for drunk driving, his job may be saved by appealing for protection from the pilot's union and attending an alcohol abuse seminar. Other airlines without a union might have fired the offending pilot for driving while intoxicated; this helps to ensure that it won't happen again.

I am not against airlines having pilots unions, usually it is a good thing for the pilots, but not always a good thing for the entire company. I am simply stating that having a union does not necessarily make an airline safer than one without a union. There are many other contributing factors that make one company safer than another. Most of those factors are out of your control such as weather conditions, passenger actions, luck, and timing. Not coincidentally, out of all the airlines in the country, the ones with the most crashes are the largest ones, and they all have pilot's unions.

If you really want to determine which airline fits your safety needs, I suggest you ask multiple sources, not just one person who is obviously biased toward pilot unions.

Here is a list of US airlines with the highest number of accidents in order of most to least.

1. American Airlines (currently union)
2. TWA (out of business)
3. Pan Am (out of business)
4. United Airlines (currently union)
5. US Air (currently union)
6. Eastern Airlines (out of business)
7. Delta Airlines (currently union)
8. Northwest Airlines (currently union)

teenadie

what about

[-]

Posts: 4

(04/06/08 16:16:39)

I don't see Continental on your list--is it #9, 10 11???

OneAnt

[-]

Posts: 616

(04/07/08 12:20:08)

Not coincidentally, out of all the airlines in the country, the ones with the most crashes are the largest ones, and they all have pilot's unions.

Not coincidentally, the airlines in that list which are still in business also have the highest number of flights. If you want to make a list that means anything, do it by percentage.

Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW

[-]

Posts: 2190

(04/07/08 12:40:18)

I hear your disagreement. But lack of a union certainly does make an airline less safe.

At a non-union airline

pilots who make waves get fired, so they don't;
pilots who object to poor maintenance get fired, so they don't;
pilots work an extreme schedule producing extreme fatigue and dangerous operations, such as the pilots of the non-union who fell asleep and flew past their destination. See this link.

You say American is not safer. You are looking at history, not the current situation. Historically ALL major airlines did their own maintenance. Now, AA is the ONLY airline still doing that.

Also, you are not looking at how many flights AA has done. AA has done 25,000,000 while Continental has done 10,000,000, so of course there is a difference.

Since you mention correct logic, you can't get correct logic without considering the amount of flying done. Though Qantas is cited as having a perfect safety record, it means very little because Qantas has only done 1,000,000 flights.

Regarding your comment about unions: nothing you said in the entire three paragraphs about unions even approaches factual information.

You object to the seniority list. The seniority list REMOVES company politics from the upgrading process. Letting airline politics determine who upgrades is just asking for trouble. I would rather fly with a good pilot than a good politician any day.

No one upgrades who isn't ready because of the testing done during the upgrading process. No one gets upgraded who does not deserve to be upgraded.

Your comments that unions protect pilots who should be fired is uninformed. Unions represent pilots just as attorneys represent lawyers when an issue arises, hopefully to see that the issue is resolved fairly.

Capn Steve

Unions, etc.

[-]

Posts: 457

(04/07/08 17:22:19)

Hotscape --

You are so full of crap, the whites of your eyes are probably a deep brown --

Just where do you get your "information," anyway. I notice that you cite Wikipedia, which can be "edited" by ANYONE.

Unionized pilots are NOT "automatically upgraded to the captain position": when their seniority numbers permit it. They are OFFERED the chance to upgrade, if they so choose (and many do not). They must make the grade during upgrade training, or they are returned to being F/Os.

They may try again subsequently. That's only fair. (Would even you admit that?)

In fact, at AA, if a pilot doesn't make Captain in a certain amount of time (variable, according to conditions), he/she is TERMINATED. AA is the only airline that I know of who has this policy. (There. Are you happy now?)

The airlines with the most number of crashes are the largest ones, you say. And they all have pilots' unions. Well, Duh. They're also the ones who have had the most number of flights. And the ones who have been around since the 1920s. Statistically, what else would one expect?

I suspect you're a Troll from one of the anti-union "fear of flying" (so-called) sites.

Steve

hotscape

[-]

Posts: 2

(05/10/08 21:16:40)

Capn Steve,
Ok, if you think my facts are wrong, disprove any one of those American Airlines accidents posted on Wikipedia...I challenge you to disprove that a single one of the American Airlines accidents didn't happen. Go on...you talk big, now act big.
I'm not sure why you would even say that I'm full of crap; everything I said is true. You seem to be the one misleading people. In fact, all airline pilots from every 121 US airline are held to a seniority list and union pilots are indeed automatically offered the captain upgrade when their seniority number comes up. Even some non-union airlines use this method for upgrading captains.
Yes, it is up to the captain candidate to pass or fail training, but even pilots at non-union airlines must pass the same training, so I fail to see your point.
Regardless, union pilots are still offered the captain upgrade based solely on seniority number. At some non-union airlines, seniority is just one of the many factors used to upgrade pilots to captain. Co-worker recommendations, safety, flying ability, and seniority are all taken into consideration.
Yes, some captain candidates may turn down the captain upgrade, but that has nothing to do with this argument either. If they refuse an upgrade, is almost always because the candidate wants to keep his current work schedule or doesn't want to relocate to another base which is often required after you upgrade to captain; it has nothing to do with his ability. I'm not even sure why you mentioned that, it does nothing for your argument.
My point isn't that a union or non-union airline is any better than the other. My point is that you cannot say an airline is safer just because it has a pilot's union; history has proven otherwise. Many non-union airlines also have strict work rules that prevent pilots from being overworked and many non-union airlines also have impeccable safety records.
In addition, some union airlines are the worst offenders of safety and overworking pilots. Just look at Mesa Airlines, GoJet Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines...they all have pilot's unions, and they all hire the least experienced pilots in the industry and they overwork them often.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "troll" from an anti-union "fear of flying" website. I came across this thread from a professional pilot's forum. One of this website's users had come to that forum seeking advice because he was afraid to fly. He posted links to Captain Bunn's pro-union postings and almost every professional pilot on that forum disagreed with Captain Bunn's opinions, even the pro-union pilots.
See for yourself, check out these sites and ask some of the pilots there yourself. www.airlinepilotcentral.com or www.flightinfo.com
Don't fall for pro or anti-union rhetoric. There are far more factors than that which account for an airline's safety record. Check it out for yourself.

sparrow

Unions etc.

[-]

Posts: 7

(05/11/08 13:04:48)

Hotscape, You undermine your case by ignoring the strongest arguments in favor of unions, made by Captain Tom in his post. One of these arguments is that with union protection pilots can refuse to fly unsafe planes or in unsafe conditions without fear of losing their jobs.
For example, last December a pilot for Gulfstream International Airlines, an un-unionized airline, was fired because he refused to fly a plane without a functioning anti-collison avoidance system. Because the pressurization system also wasn't functioning, he would have had to fly at a lower-altitude in clouds through a student-training area where a fatal mid-air collusion has just ocurred two days before. After the firing, do you think any pilots at that airline will be refusing to fly unsafe planes?

xetere

[-]

Posts: 3

(05/12/08 07:49:13)

Ok, if you think my facts are wrong, disprove any one of those American Airlines accidents posted on Wikipedia...I challenge you to disprove that a single one of the American Airlines accidents didn't happen. Go on...you talk big, now act big.

huh? What is this high school?

At first I was inclined to believe that while a pilot's union was important, it is possible for a non-unionized airline to be as safe as a unionized one, after all, negative publicity of a crash can and has put an airline out of business, and pilots at large non-unionized airlines (like, say jetBlue) seem to be pretty good. But I don't know. I don't know if there is more pressure at jetBlue to fly in marginal conditions that at American.

But, hotscape, if you are an exemplar of that argument, well, I am going to listen to the people who don't write like they are looking for a fight.

Last Edited By: xetere 05/12/08 07:53:04. Edited 1 times.

Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW

[-]

Posts: 2235

(05/12/08 08:17:35)

Re: "My point is that you cannot say an airline is safer just because it has a pilot's union; history has proven otherwise."

If you look at the statistics, non-union airlines have had a far worse safety record. Accidents by these airlines are often overlooked because they change their name or they go out of business, or are merged into an airline that does have a union, and the accident gets assigned to the unionized airline.

Instead of doing the statistics, people only point to airlines with no accidents which are so small they have flown only a fraction of the amount an established large airline has flown. If Delta, for example, has one accident in 5,000,000 flights and several fly-by-night airlines have NO accidents each in 100,000 flights, the anti-union people point this so-called excellent accident-free record. It means nothing until those marvelous airlines fly 5,000,000. None ever do.

There are several reasons why a unionized airline is far safer. One is, since pay, working conditions, and retirement are far better at the unionized airlines, the pilots naturally will choose a unionized airline. No only is pay better in general, but it is only at the unionized airlines that any pilot has a chance to fly the large airplanes, which pay more. Since a pilot can expect to earn twice as much at a unionized airlines as a non-unionized airline in his or her career, it makes sense that the more qualified pilots will go to the unionized airlines, and the less qualified elsewhere.

Re: " . . . almost every professional pilot on that forum disagreed with Captain Bunn's opinions . . . ."

Pilots have big egos, and pilots who fly at non-union airlines are no exception. They The protest when hearing that the pilots at non-union airlines are not the pick of the litter, but it is as true as day follows night that supply-and-demand always places more talented people where the money is.

Re: "Many non-union airlines also have strict work rules that prevent pilots from being overworked . . . ."

Not true. The Federal regulations are inadequate, and the non-union airlines simply meet the Federal regs IF THAT. I have been told by non-union pilots that if they invoke the Federal regs to cancel a flight, they are at risk of being fired.

Capn Steve

[-]

Posts: 483

(05/13/08 18:13:28)

Capn Steve,
Ok, if you think my facts are wrong, disprove any one of those American Airlines accidents posted on Wikipedia...I challenge you to disprove that a single one of the American Airlines accidents didn't happen. Go on...you talk big, now act big.>>

You mean, all those DC-3 accidents that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s? And that have NO relevance to today's flying? No, I don't deny that they occurred.

I am quite aware of many the airline accidents that have occurred over many years. In fact, when I was a kid, I used to study my Dad's (A retired UAL Captain) CAB Accident Reports, which he kept in a notebook.

But why are you trying to show that these accidents, many occurring well over 60 years ago, when flying was a lot more primitive than it is now, and safety tools now available to the flight crews were non-existent, somehow "prove" just how "unsafe" AA and other major airlines are now?

<<everything I said is true.>>

No, everything you said is NOT true.

You said, and I quote --

(Just read your own post) --

<<Even if a pilot is not ready to upgrade, or he is not the best candidate to be a captain, he is automatically upgraded to the captain position when they reach his seniority number, often in front of better qualified, more capable candidates.>>

Totally, TOTALLY, untrue. As I pointed out.

A friend, and former classmate of mine years ago, was unable to qualify as Captain. He was recently discharged. I will give the Company credit -- they kept him on the seniority list as long as they could. (NOT as a Captain, or even as an F/O, but using medical leave, in which case he wasn't even an active pilot, which I think was a very compassionate thing to do.)

<<At some non-union airlines, seniority is just one of the many factors used to upgrade pilots to captain. Co-worker recommendations, safety, flying ability, and seniority are all taken into consideration. >

Flying ability, recommendations, blah, blah, blah.

"Flying ability" is a very subjective thing. Even if a pilot does a VERY fine job, the person judging or checking him/her can, if they want to, find SOMETHING on which to grade him/her down. And, rest assured, Flight Management will do exactly that, if they want to. Say, the pilot has come out publicly critical of the Company management. (Oh, God! Not That!!)

You can bet that the Company Management will do everything it can to sink that pilot.

You think I'm exaggerating? Nope. Not at all.

Look, the airlines borrowed the seniority system from the railroads. The railroad workers of the early 20th Century knew good and well that promotions, if left solely up to Management discretion, would result in the ass-kissers and sycophants getting top priority. That's why they insisted, in their labor contracts, that seniority prevail.

And -- my personal feeling about seniority is -- like democracy -- it has its faults. But no better system has been established.

<<Yes, some captain candidates may turn down the captain upgrade, but that has nothing to do with this argument either. If they refuse an upgrade, is almost always because the candidate wants to keep his current work schedule or doesn't want to relocate to another base which is often required after you upgrade to captain; it has nothing to do with his ability.>>

I never said differently.

<<I'm not even sure why you mentioned that, it does nothing for your argument.>>

Why did YOU mention it? Does even less for yours.

You clearly have something against legacy, unionized, airlines. I still haven't figured out just what it is. (Because, logically, it's not justifiable. And just why did it take you well over a month to respond to my last post? Because you knew that you truly don't have a leg to stand on?)

Again -- it appears that you are a "troll" from an anti-union forum. You are welcome to prove me wrong. But you have a long way to go to do that.

Cheers. (Sort of.)

Cap'n Steve

But their

hotscape

[-]

Posts: 3

(05/20/08 18:54:09)

Capn Steve,
The reason it took me so long to respond is because I never received a notice that I had received a response to my original post. I don't use this website, therefore I do not check it very often. As you'll see, I've never used it before I typed this thread. I only came on here because one of Cpt. Bunn's pupils came on a website that I frequent asking for help and he told us all about Capt Bunn's theories, so I decided to check this site out. The vast majority of pilots who replied on the other forum disagreed with Capt. Bunn's theory. Even the pilots who are in unions disagreed with his theory.
If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. www.airlinepilotcentral.com
Some other good ones are flightinfo.com, pprune.com, jetcareers.com, willflyforfood.cc, aviationinterviews.com and there are many more.
Go to any of them and ask about Capt Bunn's theories. It will prove to you that most pilots don't feel a non-union airline is necessarily less safe than a union airline.

I don't dislike unions, not at all. I think they definitely have their benefits, but I don't think they guarantee more safety than non-union airlines, and according to the professional pilot forums, neither do most pilots. I think that unions do a great job helping to increase pilot salaries and benefits, except for recent years, but there were definitely uncommon circumstances recently. I hope that my airline gets a union someday; it will probably mean I'll get paid more, have longer response times, and get more vacation days each year.

Some very good examples of unionized airlines creating more risk for their passengers just happened last month. Southwest, American, and Delta Airlines all had to cancel hundreds of flights to inspect and maintain aircraft that had exceeded their maintenance inspection dates. Many other airlines (union and non-union alike) had already completed those inspections on-time without violating any federal regulations. This was a huge example that proves union airlines aren't always safer.
Either way, I suppose you'll continue to do what you want. I didn't expect I could change everyones mind, but at least I've given an opposing viewpoint. If you really want the truth, I suggest you listen to the professional opinion of more than just one retired airline captain.
If flying only union airlines makes you feel like you're being safer, then go right ahead and continue to do so. I'll leave you alone now, so you can continue your discussion without any opposing argument, I can tell it makes you uncomfortable. I'm going back to my professional pilot forums; if anybody wants to hear opinions from a variety of pilots, you are welcome to come say hello.

sunsfan

[-]

Posts: 59

(05/21/08 12:35:23)

thanks for the comments hotscape I believe we should be able to express our opinions wether agreed to or not without being insulted.

Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW

[-]

Posts: 2248

(05/21/08 16:38:15)

Hotscape, as Capt Steve suggested, it does indeed sound like you are a troll. Now, in this post, we learn -- apparently that you are a pilot -- since you say you would get paid more if your airline had a union. My guess is that you are neither a pilot nor employed by an airline. A professional pilot would most certainly not make the statements you make.

When things are said by a troll or someone operating like one, we have to protect people on this site when statements are misrepresented.

For example, your "example". You write "Some very good examples of unionized airlines creating more risk for their passengers just happened last month. Southwest, American, and Delta Airlines all had to cancel hundreds of flights to inspect and maintain aircraft that had exceeded their maintenance inspection dates. Many other airlines (union and non-union alike) had already completed those inspections on-time without violating any federal regulations. This was a huge example that proves union airlines aren't always safer."

The pilots' union has nothing to do with this. How an airline does maintenance is how they do maintenance. Yes, a union has a voice and can complain when management doesn't maintain planes as well as the pilots would like to see them maintained. But what happened with the airlines you cite has nothing to do with safety anyway you cut it, because these airlines were used as a scapegoat by the FAA because Congress was putting heat on the airlines.

It really does not matter whether the sheath protecting wires in the nose wheel area are tied by loops which are one inch apart or one-and-one-eights of an inch. That was the kind of chicken shit the FAA suddenly decided to engage in. The FAA knew it has nothing to do with safety except the safety of FAA bureaucrats holding their jobs.

The fact that you try to bend those completely political FAA actions to try to mislead readers of this board that it has something to do with safety is not appreciated.

Capn Steve

Insults

[-]

Posts: 485

(05/23/08 16:28:37)

Hi sunsfan --

No one was insulted here. But when someone expresses opinions that are completely untrue (as hotscape did), he/she needs to expect at least some sort of rebuttal.

Cheers.

Steve

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

More to consider than unions and maintenance

More to consider than unions and maintenance

Quick Reply