Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
See, that's where we just can't find common ground. You think ALPA has "gotten back a good chunk of what was lost" and made "significant progress?" I just don't see where the facts support that.
We took a 42% cumulative pay cut, lost our pension, and had thousands of our jobs outsourced. A 42% cut requires a 73% increase on day one to restore. The longer you go (with inflation marching on) the more that 73% number continues to grow. So here we are... almost 10 years later... and we are still at a 32% cut in buying power (which means the initial draconian 32.5% pay cut we took prior to BK has been sustained with zero recovery), we still lost the pension (got some things in exchange, but still a significant net loss of benefit), and still have thousands of our jobs outsourced. In terms of pay rates alone, in almost 10 years we've made about 16% progress out of the 73% needed. At that rate, we need way longer to restore our profession and our careers than the vast majority of us have left.
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion... but I think if you take the emotion out of it and just look at the facts, you will see that we have made very little progress toward restoration.
Now if your objective is not restoration... If you've accepted bankruptcy as a reset and only expect "reasonable" improvements from that new baseline... Well then we've done pretty darn well and your expectations are in line with ALPA's expectations and apparent objective. Forgive me if I don't accept that and want to try representation that will at least TRY to achieve the objective that I believe is appropriate and worth pursuing.
Like Carl has said, ALPA is simply a poorly performing vendor. When a vendor performs poorly... and especially when a vendor performs poorly and shows no sign of even making an effort to improve... well in the real business world that vendor is (how can I say this delicately?) "let go." It's simply a business decision.
I can respect your difference in opinion, and thanks for laying it out in a civilized manner.
Where I believe the biggest difference comes into play is what we both view as achievable. What would you consider a reasonable dent in your 73% desire? Half of that rounded up is 37%. As you point out, the longer it takes us to get that the bigger the number really has to be to overcome inflation and the opportunity cost of forgoing a smaller (IMO more reasonable) chunk and then trying again in a few years. I just don't see getting a 37% raise on day 1 or even year 5 when the majority of our competitors are still paid less than we are (let's save the SWA, FedEx, etc argument for another time.)
I also don't see DPA getting that for me either. What I do expect is that they would try and fail, thus costing me 1-2 incremental contracts in the interim. You say we're only 16% of the way back from C2K? I'm not a numbers guy so I'll take that at face for the moment. How much further behind that curve would we be if we had taken the APA/USAPA approach? I just can't ignore the real world examples that have occurred, or are occurring around us. That is why I take purple's pessimism as what it is, pessimism. Are we where we want to be? No. Are we significantly better off than where we would be using DPA's proposed strategy? IMO yes.
Again, I respect your laser focus and desire to restore the profession. I just think any strategy we adopt toward that end MUST be rooted in reality, whether we particularly like that reality or not.