Originally Posted by EA CO AS

I couldn't agree more, and based on that, I'd propose we keep it in that realm, rather than condescendingly referring to someone with a different opinion as merely a "guest" and implying they have no right to discuss issues impacting pilots.

Speaking of business decisions, it occurs to me that management's decision to seek pay rates that were less than the Big Four was actually in the best interest of the business, and also the pilots. Assume for a moment the pilot group were offered industry-best pay; that results in costs potentially being higher than the other carriers, making competition difficult, if not impossible.

This results in stagnant growth, meaning fewer upgrade opportunities or even poor job security if the company had to resort to cutbacks. While those at the top of the seniority list would still be ok, particularly those nearing retirement, the rest of the membership would be in jeopardy. And lest we forget, there are thousands of other non-pilot employees whose careers would be in jeopardy as well if the company agreed to a contract that was so generous it made competition impossible.

So while BM could have possibly chosen his words more carefully, the fact remains that simply saying, "Sure, here you go," and handing an industry-best contract to the pilot group would have made them all happy, there'd be no point in doing so if it means the long-term survival of the company was placed in jeopardy by doing so. In fact, it would have been irresponsible to do that.

Again, I know my opinion won't be popular here, but these are called "collective bargaining agreements" for a reason; neither side gets 100% of what they want, and that's a good thing. Management getting all their asks could potentially result in every member of the pilot group being unhappy, and no one wants that. ALPA getting all their asks could potentially result in the company having to shrink, being sold, or going under entirely, and no one wants that either.

At least I hope not!