Originally Posted by EA CO AS

I'm unsure how nearly 8% growth annual projected is a "ship without a rudder." And why get into the costly "arms race" of a maintaining dedicated sub-fleet chasing after premium transcons against companies like AA, UA, and DL that benefit from huge corporate agreements? The course AS is plotting isn't as high-yield on a per-customer basis, but it's a MUCH bigger market segment they're going after in transcons.

But part of that is keeping costs low to remain competitive when AA/DL/UA/B6 try to fight with fares that trash yields for everyone.

AS took a knee this past quarter due to the QX fiasco, definitely - but barring that, I doubt there'd be anywhere near the hand-wringing that appears to be going on right now. And lest we forget, PBP is STILL projecting a payout in the 7.5 to 8% range; it may seem low since we've been spoiled by record payouts of over 9% for the past 5 years, but it's still healthy.

Take this one milestone at a time and you'll see things improving. QX is already righting their ship. 12/31 is the last day for Elevate. Then SOC in January, and single PSS on 4/25/18. Along the way, you see the first Airbus leave the paint shop in AS livery, followed by everything in the fleet getting retrofitted into the new interiors.

It's going to be an interesting ride, and I think, a very rewarding one.

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!