Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
I agree. But, there's a big difference between management and pilots. Management can vote themselves huge bonuses, rape the company and run it into the ground, and then bail out and go elsewhere. They are only limited by their individual talents and ability to sell themselves in the open market place.
We as pilots decided many years ago to abandon that approach. Instead our careers, and our fortunes, are tied to a seniority list, which in turn is tied to the fortunes of an individual company. This made sense during the regulated era as bankruptcies were rare, but since deregulation has been an abysmal failure.
Now, without any type of portable seniority, we are the only (relatively) well paid group tied to our own company. When the company fails, we fail, and get to choose starting all over in the profession we know, or abandoning it and starting all over in a new profession. Two lousy choices. That is why, absent change, DALPA recognizes that for its pilots to be successful, ultimately DAL must be successful. Dubinsky's choke the golden goose philosophy doesn't work in the modern environment.
Furthermore, while we may have become "too big to fail", we have also become "too big to strike". I don't see ANY President ever permitting another nationwide strike by a carrier of our size. The deck is stacked as deeply against labor as I've ever seen it in my 20+ years in the industry. As a result, we have virtually no tools left. We should be expending our resources on changing the RLA so as to level the playing field, but I don't see much movement in that direction. Instead, again as DALPA recognizes, our best hope is to have a wildly profitable company, as that is the best chance that they will throw us a few morsels come contract time.
I see your point, and I'm not directly advocating a "pay us or burn the place down mentality", but as far as negotiations go, I think the pilot group needs to take a back seat approach attitude with management. Personally, I am not a big fan of management coming to the pilot group for help and assistance to help set up a "grass-roots" campaign whenever the timing suits them, and in turn telling the pilot groups we have nothing else to give when contract time rolls around.
I'm just saying the perception should be that pilots, as an operational cost variable, we should be less involved with the corporate operations, as a whole, during negotiations. I can't see any good coming out of it, as far as our bargaining position goes. Management will always be able to stack the deck in a position which will make them look the weakest, if we decide to play with that deck then we already will be at a disadvantage.
An engine overhaul costs what it costs, and in my limited knowledge, rarely will the company be able to negotiate down the cost of such a operational necessity.
I think FTB, brings up a great point, like it or not, we are limited in the available tools we have to negotiate with management. No matter what your reservations are on the matter, without bargaining tools a negotiating interest has few legs to stand on. The negotiation plan for 2012 should already be in the works if you ask me, and I hope we've analyzed not only our negotiation tools, but also those of our management.