Originally Posted by
sweetholyjesus
It's this type of attitude that got us into the scope mess in the first place.. ME ME ME. You fail to see the big picture just like the scope yes-voters did. Temporary, non-contractual bonuses only paid to new hires are better than permanent pay scale raises for everybody??
You're making the assumption that the only reason my income has gone up and new pilots have come to my carrier is that somehow everyone on property somehow gave something away that caused all this to happen. If anything, the ones who have come here later than I have made more money over time than I ever did.
The truth (not that anyone really cares about that here) is that PSA pilots positioned themselves for growth, and therefore leverage in the new pilot hiring environment.
Speaking of big picture, can you name another pilot group that was harmed by that vote? No? How about name all the pilot groups who've seen their compensation go up. Truth be told, that's much more about market forces than anything else.
I don't know how much those programs cost versus how much revenue the regionals pay in dues, so I can't honestly answer. I still question the need to stay under ALPA just for those services, especially since their unions sold everyone out in the first place. Their history doesn't suggest that they have regional pilots' best interests in mind.
Originally Posted by
sweetholyjesus
I've explained this already... Let's just assume it's even true that the regionals cost more to represent than the dues they contribute. That would only be the case because their wages are so low. Why are they so low? Because mainline pilots voted in scope in order to retain/increase their own wages and benefits. If you lower one scale and increase the other, what does ALPA's bank account get in the middle? Balance.
Again, I'm not arguing that there are pilot groups that have voted in contracts that have increased pay and relaxed scope. I think if pilot groups back then could've foreseen the growth of regionals to the levels that exist now they may have been more circumspect. But 20+ years ago when all this started that danger wasn't anticipated.
But even saying that, your math, or more accurately your hypothesized incentives, still doesn't work. Why settle for balance when one could just hold the line on scope and create more mainline jobs, and create more dues revenue that doesn't require subsidizing an entire pilot group? Doesn't ALPA make more money that way?
But I guess since it isn't ALPA National making the decisions, but rather individual pilots voting their own wallets, it doesn't work that way. Funny how that works.
So you don't think regional pilots would be happy with the end of whipsawing and under-cutting? They wouldn't be happy with increased leverage and pay? What would be your suggestion then? Stay under the boot of ALPA or...?
I think the moment that management offers an incentive to one pilot group that isn't offered to another, and that pilot group wants to take it, then there's the end of your theoretical union. Unless of course you'd rather keep all regional pilots under that particular boot. It's really hard to make an argument against perceived authoritarianism by advocating for, wait for it, more authoritarianism.
What your describing is more akin to a
Guild than a labor union, and while there are some merits to that concept, the problem is getting there from here. In the end, why not let the market continue to do the work it's already been doing?
The answers are obvious. Why don't you explain your own argument? I promise to pay full attention.
If the answer is obvious then why are you unable to answer?
Sorry but this is a bit silly. There's a reason Delta isn't flying any 900s, because Endeavor is doing it for cheaper. If Endeavor had the same contract rates that Delta does, do you think the 900s would be at Endeavor? Common sense says no.
Um, actually they probably would. Understanding why requires knowing the answer to my original three questions, and understanding that pay rates are only a small part of the present and future costs of operating those aircraft. Work rules and benefits are a significant part of that cost, and so long as Delta management can keep those airplanes off the mainline certificate, they will.
The other reason they would is that you can be sure that the mainline carriers will try anything to alleviate their pilot hiring issues, be it on the demand side (age 67) or the supply side (ATP rule). If they're able to get legislative relief in any of those areas, look for them to try and lower those rates back down.
Please feel free to show me any of my posts that belie partial facts. Vague, baseless remarks like that don't do you any favors.
No joint venture ever began without a discussion...
Read the above, none of which is vague or baseless.