Originally Posted by
pete2800
Who said pilots would make twice as much without the RLA? That's your own straw-man argument.
If there's no shortage of pilots willing to work at first year pay, why is it that RAH and Eagle are offering $5,000 signing bonuses, while Silver is offering $6,000? My regional is having a hard time getting people who are scheduled to interview to actually show up. I wouldn't call it a shortage, but it sure is a "buyer's market."
Comair walked over a decade ago. Which other regional airline has been allowed to strike since then? I'm not saying that without the NMB and RLA then we'd all make twice as much money, that's just silly. What I am saying is that in that sort of environment, management would actually have to come to the negotiating table ready to play ball, or risk having their workforce walk out. The focus would be on getting a deal done. The current NMB environment does nothing but reward management groups for their ability to draw things out indefinitely. This is nothing like a free market system like you called it.
This whole discussion started when you mentioned that new pilots are an "unproven commodity." I contested that when you run someone through the level of indoctrination that PPL-ATP training provides, as well as the standardization of a part-121 training event, you know exactly what you're getting. And then there's "probation," the period of time when if you're not getting the job done, you're gone without union help. Will all of these safe-guards in place, there's no need for low pay just in the name of "unproven commodities." Fire me if I'm incompetent. But until then, pay me according to my level of education, training, risk factor, and responsibility.
I aplogize, no one ever said anything about twice as much blah blah blah. and honestly not trying to be confrontational, in fact, go back, I never said anything about new pilots being an unproven commodity - that was someone else, and in fact I agree that a pilot is a highly skilled educated professional and it would be great if the market recognized that "more".
I just take exception to the fact that (while not explicitly stated) the inference seems to be that government interference (in the form of the RLA) is keeping salaries artificially low. I don't think that is true, as carriers do strike (see Comair).
IMHO wages are low for new hires because lots of people are willing to do the job for less and because that is the way union contracts are negotiated (low wages for entry, higher for seniority).
I agree - with companies needing to offer bonuses for people to come to work, maybe the market will reset. But as long as Majors can use regionals interchangeably, and plug a cheaper (newer) one in in place of a more "experienced" one (more senior workforce) then the downward pressure on wages will come from this, and not the RLA. All making it easier to strike would do would be force the union to put up or shut up sooner (IMHO, again, I think a lot of this "if only we could strike, we would, but the RLA prevents it" is posturing) and walk - hastening the replacement of that flying with some other carrier who is "younger" or who is further from a contract negotiation year. Maybe creating more instability would create stability, who knows? It just seems less likely to me.