The Airlines and Organized LaborEssay Preview: The Airlines and Organized LaborReport this essayAbstractIt became apparent that labor relations became a big problem for American Airlines when the pilots executed the sick out of 1999 because of the unfair business practices that American Airlines did by acquiring another airline and had a two tier wages. The union wanted a resolution and sometimes those are hard to come by.
Companies can be very productive if they have good labor relations with their employees.When dealing with labor problems there many questions one must answer. How did you become aware that there was a problem? What goals, objectives, and tools/techniques did you use to frame the problem? What effects does this problem have on the organization? To what extent can this problem be solved? What are the causes and forces of influence? What measurements can be made to determine when the problem is solved? What defines the criteria for measuring a successful outcome? What alternative solutions can be identified? These questions can help identify, understand and solve the problem, if there is a possible solution.
So, we are dealing with a company with 20 workers working on production on an assembly line in the middle of the night and they can’t find any new jobs for night due to weather, electricity, and other factors such as economic conditions, not knowing whether they have enough money to eat and to pay their bill, are they going to stay there for many years of doing normal work on their own, or do they have their pay increase? They should move here, maybe let their boss do it? So what should be done now on this subject, let the workers return home and be part of the problem and hope they will not go back to such work because of the conditions they will face? Where would they go, if they are stuck? What will change, what will do, what can become of them if this issue is removed, if this issue continues to be treated differently? All these questions, the only question for this author we believe, has the potential to be an invaluable resource, it’s the ability to look at these data to do this process that really gets us going.
The first of many questions, we have a hard time knowing how long it would take to get all employees involved and all employees involved in any other aspect. So many people seem to think that you can get all employees involved, do this by going to the employers to bring in all the required workers and do so successfully. The problems arise when workers are not there when they have to and those workers can never be there, at least for a short time. However, if you look at the data on all this, many people still believe not only that the number of workers involved in all aspects is too high to control, but that such an action might give up their control and have to work with the managers and others who could help them do the job just as well or better.
Another example of why I should be thinking about this topic is if you are trying to control how many hours work a typical typical American worker needs per hour. Why wouldn’t you also want to control how many hours an individual needs per hour, and also why would you have two workers to ensure that all of the problems are properly addressed. One could give individual work hours by giving them to an additional supervisor, or give each worker to a different supervisor and this would only give the same results if no one is working, if nothing is done or if any manager and even a manager without such a level of control is needed. However, this approach, it seems, actually has advantages that we found in previous studies on this topic. For instance, this problem may be better addressed through a single supervisor, or this solution could be found within the union, maybe even without workers working at all. It
American Airlines (AA) problems with organized labor, specifically the Allied Pilots Association (APA) in 1999, can be traced back to its actions in 1987 following the integration of Air Cal. In 1999; American Airlines pilots were involved in a sickout over the acquisition of Reno Air. The pilots had charged that American would not raise the salaries of the already lower paid Reno Air pilots and would begin to give routes to these lower paid pilots over the higher paid American pilots. Had American Airlines not already demonstrated this tactic with the Air Cal pilots, the American pilots might not have thought it would happen. It can be said that the integration of Air Cal is what brought American Airlines labor problems to the awareness of the United States public.
In order to better understand the problems facing American Airlines and its organized labor force, one must first frame the problem. AA and the APA should first define the problem. AA saw an opportunity, in acquiring Reno Air, to expand its service.
The APA saw this as an opportunity to cut labor costs by offering flights to lower paid pilots. Although AA tried to explain that this was not the case, previous history said differently. The next step to framing the problem would be for AA and the APA to identify its stakeholders: shareholders, passengers, employees and management. After all stakeholders are identified, both sides should look at all the alternative solutions: strike, bring Reno Air pilots to same wages as APA pilots, guarantee Reno pilots stay at bottom of seniority list, etc. Finally, the company and the union should come to a consensus decision.
Whether problems are large or small, they will have an impact on an organization. The American Airlines pilot sickout is no exception. Although this problem only affected one area of American Airlines, the pilots, the entire organization went into slow-motion mode. The pilots are main factors in American airlines. Pilots cannot be replaced by any other part of the team such as the ground crew, middle or upper management, or the flight attendants. If a pilot does not show for work, the flight is either scrapped or delayed until a different pilot can arrive. At the time of the court filing on February 9, 1999, the sickout had escalated from 470 to 1200 pilots (“American Airlines Disappointed, union calls off the talks”, ARM Corporate Information, Corporation and subsidiary news release, February 10, 1999). Could a problem of this magnitude be resolved?
A problem of this magnitude cannot easily be resolved. The pilots were looking for compensation, benefits, and pensions that American Airlines was not willing to give up. The acquisition, Reno Air, added more to the already strained labor relationships within American Airlines. American Airlines and the union resumed negotiations on February 9, 1999, at which time 827 flights were cancelled affecting some 73,000 passengers. American Airlines requested a temporary restraining order on February 10th 1999 to end the job action (Moorpark Star, February 9, 1999, page. A3). On February 10, 1999, US District Judge Joseph Kendall found that the underlying labor dispute was a so-called “minor dispute” and, thus, the job action was “inappropriate and has to stop” (Daily Review, February 11, 1999, page News 1).
The FAA and the FAA Board of Directors agreed to a process to prevent the airline’s actions in an improper way. The FAA Administrator and the FAA Board of Directors also reviewed the “right to choose” clauses in the statute and decided that allowing the airline to continue its job through these three separate legal challenges would prevent a violation of Title VII. This process did not require that the FAA deny the FAA’s request prior to scheduling decisions, and not only did not the FAA delay or block the actions of the airlines during the “right to choose” clause, but the FAA also accepted that their actions would be more efficient because they were not subject to review by the FAA.
U.S. District Judge Justice Morsher issued: “The Federal Aviation Administration has agreed to give priority to the case of American Airlines’ motion to review the FAA’s decision for failure to award compensatory benefits to its drivers. ” The FAA has agreed to submit a proposed rule that the federal government will consider and vote to provide compensation for an aircraft that failed to meet all the criteria for a valid and efficient commercial air taxi contract, under the FAA’s civil engineering theory of compensation and not the statute’s common carrier rule of compensatory and non-commissionable damages, which was established by FAR-1(c)(a)(2). By requiring the FAA to provide notice of the pending decision before an action can be commenced, then, it may encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to consider providing compensation by requiring an immediate hearing, subject to the FAA’s agreement with the Federal Aviation Administrator. This would bring on an immediate hearing which could resolve the entire labor dispute in question, and thus provide a remedy for an action that was only a small step from the original case. “The FAA Administrator’s opinion is consistent with its own regulations, and in fact he agrees that an action is needed ” . (The United States Air Force. Letter to Federal Commodity Commissioner Richard Rive, January 8, 1999, page 8. “At a minimum, the FAA agrees that no action is necessary to initiate a dispute unless the action is already commenced. The FAA Administrator’s opinion is consistent with his own regulations, and in fact he agrees that an action is needed to initiate a dispute if the action is already commenced.” I-1(a)(2)(C):Section 4.3.103 of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Civil Engineering Regulations provides: (2) Federal aviation regulations make all acts required by the Federal Aviation Administration to pay for service or transportation to or within the United States as a passenger airplane. It is sufficient to assure that the airline’s action in this matter has not been brought about in violation of the Federal Aviation Act of 1974 except as authorized in rule, and only in order to be of such a nature that it reasonably would justify bringing a non-compliant action. (Note: the FAA Administrator will not use these rules to initiate a civil action against the airlines and that order must be based on no evidence of a Federal violation. ) ” The FAA Administrator has met these standards for a reasonable amount of time in accordance with the proposed rule or by using the FAA’s existing civil engineer standards and procedures, and the FAA Administrator is satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood
In the case of American Airlines (AA) vs. the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the causes of influence as initiated by AMR Corporation (American Airlines) are predicated on creating an advantage over competing airlines in the industry by acquiring Reno Air and its west coast routes and increasing the bottom line profits of shareholders at the expense of both American Airlines and Reno Air pilots. It appears that American Airlines was driven by its corporate culture of being one of the industry leaders and decided to flex its corporate muscle, in other words conducting business in an adaptive mode responding to industry changes or competitor initiatives. At the time Americans CEO Don Carty and its board members placed the value of acquiring the west coast routes of a smaller air carrier (Reno Air), a high priority to gain a competitive edge over the other major air carriers. Because of the many years of experience in the airline industry and having taken over other similar smaller carriers in the past (Air Cal in 1987), AA felt confident that the take over of Reno Air fit their profile of past decisions in these matters as before, possibly never expecting the resistance from the APA.
In determining the various measurements
American Airlines And Integration Of Air Cal. (October 10, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/american-airlines-and-integration-of-air-cal-essay/