Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Even if you could get past the near impossibility of how you would realistically transition to your longevity based pay system, it ignores what I think would be a devastating impact on jobs. Specifically, it would incentivize the company to buy larger aircraft since we would have taken pay based on revenue production out of the equation. Further, it would make our smaller aircraft relatively more expensive to operate thus putting more pressure on outsourcing the bottom end. These two points add a compounding effect to job destruction.
With our current system, we are seeing a reduction in large aircraft which means pilots will be displaced to lower paying positions. I get that. But it's requiring more jobs. If I had to choose between higher pay for fewer jobs, or slightly lower pay for many more jobs...I choose the latter.
Carl
The transition would have to take place in steps obviously. Our pay has little to do with what airplanes the company buys. You need to get over that egotistical stance. They are going to buy whatever makes money for the enterprise. They aren't gonna buy a hundred 747-800s if you take a paycut.
And since it appears that you haven't been paying attention, where on earth do you think they are going to outsource bottom end flying to? Endeavor is losing 40 captains/month, and getting 3 replacements if they are lucky. Pay attention Carl.. Good grief.
The only thing you said in the entire missive above that I agree with it highlighted. Other than that...
