Originally Posted by
Dharma
I also don't mostly. There's no magic way to exceed peers by a significant amount, for an extended period of time. Management also really doesn't care what label is on the value they transfer to us. It's all eventually wrapped up in pilot costs.
Which leads us to a second dimension often overlooked. What about the down years without profit? Now the way I've described above is of significant more value.
If you subscribe to managements view that we'll be profitable forever, why worry about any of it? If you think we might still be subject to the rise and fall of normal business cycles, exchanging the first level of PS for pay turns out to be way better.
I get both sides of the "should we trade PS for pay" and I side with the "no" camp on that.
However I find it disturbing that PS is such an emotional issue that sometimes seems to supersede far superior sections like Scope. Its almost as if some say that if outsourcing increases profits then its OK because we have good PS. But PS is a function of income. As we lose flying (or don't gain flying, etc) then we lose the foundational money that PS is based on in the first place.
I agree we shouldn't trade PS for pay, for numerous reasons already mentioned. But the way some fawn over it has me concerned that at least some would entertain further scope sales in exchange for more PS. And yes at least some who wear polos instead of hats and ties to work every day have at least entertained the concept. That should absolutely be off the table. More scope should be the biggest priority with way off in the distance.