Originally Posted by
trustbutverify
The reason we will not approach the UAL/AA wide body count is that we have done a lousy job negotiating and enforcing scope. DALPA has even gone so far as giving away scope in the past, VAustralia LOA is a prime example. So in my mind, you are solving the company's problem for them with your idea. To answer your question, I want both - money and shiny new jets (not literally, but the flying that they would do) because they are both represented in major parts or our contract.
I know I am going to regret this: Do you think we can put that genie back in the bottle without significant cost? We can just say no. I know. But that doesn't solve the problem. And it is OUR problem, not the company's. A banded/longevity scheme makes them pay more for smaller airplanes. (Standing by for the inevitable - but the 767 pays 757 rates - argument
)
Originally Posted by
trustbutverify
To your point about stagnation not being a factor, it absolutely is a factor when all the "growth" is at the bottom. Many have already pointed this out already - life is great if you're a new hire. Not so much if you're mid seniority. Yes, retirements are coming in larger numbers but our future wide body growth, or lack thereof, will stifle the real progression that would happen if we had solid wide body scope.
Yup. All the growth is at the bottom. I agree. And the only way we are going to see more money at the top half of the list is to change the pay scheme. Otherwise it is going to be the same ol same ol, because there is no growth at the top end. 737s/717s/321s and a smattering of 330s and 350s to trickle in. woo freakin hoo. I hear many many guys say that they don't care if they are flying a C172 if it pays enough and they get their time off. But the reality of that talk is that it is just talk. Too many want the big shiny jet and will sacrifice QOL for it.
Show ALL of us the money, not just the lucky few.