Hey, I thought this was the Staffing and QSO forum. When did it become the "Bash each other and air our dirty laundry for all the other airlines to see" forum? I'd like to give my opinion, but you guys are scaring me! Oh, OK, I'll give it anyway.

Pay raises: I don't think so, not until net earnings are up over a dollar a share and forecast to stay there. Then, base pay can go up and our options might actually be worth something. Profits first, then pay. The reverse has been tried at other airlines. SWA has great pay, but they make money at 67% load factors (thanks to fuel hedging) and we would all still be making FO pay if we had gone there when we were hired. I came here instead of SWA because I would make more money the first 10 years, and that is still true (for me, maybe not for new hires). Finally, our rapid growth had been fueled by sky-high debt, unlike SWA. We have to make money (read cash flow, real money, not paper) to service that debt, and therefore stay in business. Patience is a virtue.

Bases: Nothing wrong with small productivity differences, but no one agreed to "lower productivity" just to get a base. I was here, went to all the pocket sessions. QOL was a big factor, but bases had to make financial sense, and we "cannot call ourselves a nationwide airline" without a west coast base, so said Dave Barger. The number one factor in pairing construction is cost, followed by productivity and QOL. You commute to JFK, I commute to LGB, why should my productivity suffer to protect yours? However, I agree that artificially evening out productivity to within five minutes is unnecessary, especially if it is done by slamming the junior guys with unproductive trips while the senior guys enjoy 3 hours more average daily credit. 15-20 mnutes is, I believe, a reasonable window.

Thanks for listening!