Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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.
You're only making my point here.. Also, I never said anything about your pay going up. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Again... Allowing the company to selectively alter pay rates and pay bonuses means the rest of the group lost an opportunity for their own improvements. That is not how collective bargaining works.
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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.
Umm, when did I say anything about PSA? While we're on the subject, do you think PSA undercutting another ALPA carrier is a good thing? But sure, they "positioned themselves for leverage" by voting in concessions to take jets from another ALPA carrier, forcing the others to take concessions as well. What a great move for pilots everywhere...
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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.
Again, you only prove my point. They didn't see the big picture when they decided to sell scope, just like you aren't seeing the big picture now. Failing to see the outcome is no excuse for such a failure. How many times are you going to make excuses and let management win?
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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?
Scope has been sold because mainline pilots (ALPA) wanted it that way. "Holding the line" on scope that's already been sold off does nothing to change the current state of affairs. How much has ALPA national done to retake scope? Zero. Why? Because the loss of subsidizing from low regional wages would hurt mainline pilots' wallets.
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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?
Under one combined union, management wouldn't be allowed to offer something to one group without offering it to the other. It's called collective bargaining for a reason. I guess that's a concept you don't fully understand since you support targeted signing bonuses and uneven pay raises.
Being afraid of change is no reason to stay under ALPA's boot. The Association limits the regionals from negotiating collectively. I think it's peculiarly ironic that all 3 AA WO carriers are ALPA. All are owned by and flying for the same carrier, and all have been repeatedly whipsawed against each other to reduce wages. AA's intent is so obvious, and ALPA couldn't care less. Why would you support that kind of representation?
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
If the answer is obvious then why are you unable to answer?
Because I have no idea what you're getting at. Again, why don't you try making your own argument?
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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.
Soooo once again, you only prove my point. I really don't understand why you're arguing with me on this. You said earlier that Endeavor CRJ pay isn't less than Delta CRJ pay because Delta doesn't actually fly CRJs. Now you've done a 180, and you're telling me "Oh it's not the pay rates that make Endeavor cheaper it's the benefits, that's why Delta isn't flying them". So basically, Endeavor is cheaper, just like I said. Splitting hairs after the fact doesn't make you any less wrong...
Originally Posted by
TallFlyer
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.
So, you're telling me Delta is contracting out their RJs because they wouldn't be able to hire enough people?? Bwhahahaha!