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. You could say that future pay raises would absorb the exchange, or you could say that future pay raises may not be as big because of profit sharing. Management 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.
Dharma, a couple of questions for you. Considering hourly pay rates only, do you think over the next few contract cycles there will be a significant hourly pay rate difference among the major carriers? Now let's add PS to the mix. Do you think our hourly pay rates over the next few contract cycles will be less than other major carriers?
My answer to the first one is NO, I don't see there being a significant difference in negotiated rates. To the second, again, my answer is NO.
I understand what you are saying with the initial bump but I believe over a couple of contract cycles (that could very well include delaying tactics by management) we would lose any advantage that might be gained from a conversion of the 10%. I think management is looking long term with this and sees an advantage they could exploit if we convert.
If we want to convert that 10% to something other than hourly pay rates..........such as a retirement annuity/medical..........I might think about it. For straight hourly pay rates that can be massaged over time.......No.
Denny