Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
It occurred to me while I was writing it that you might misunderstand. If we can use someone else's pay to help our case with restoration, then by all means we should use it. That's the only thing that's important about SWA pay. If we got full restoration and then they got a 100% pay increase, I really would not care in the least that we were making less than they are.
Ahhhhh OK, so when someone is making more, then it can be used. When they make less, you ignore it. Got it. No double standard there. No vacuum. And also, since you have pointed out many times, SWA never went thru BK, so their pay is not affected, and therefore is still at pre BK rates. The "restoration" argument that should be made in this case is relative to others that have been damaged, and that does NOT include SWA. Don't get me wrong, I think we should make more than they do, and if they ever sign a contract, I will wager that you will find we will. And when we sign our next contract, it will be by a significant amount. But it probably won't satisfy your C2K + metric.
Really?
I get that we should it to bolster our argument, but you cannot ignore those making less because you then open the door to that argument. Look at it the other way around. The company can say that we make more than 95% of the other carriers on an equivalent equipment basis. You then say, but not SWA. It just doesn't make sense as a negotiation tactic. And then you even want to go farther and say that since the M88 "does the same job as a SWA 737" that it should be considered in the same vein. I have a 12 leg trip later this month (failed bidding). Should that be considered similar because it is the exact same Florida shuttle that SWA does?
Oh, and when is the vote?