|
Originally Posted by EA CO AS
(Post 2460648)
So if a union negotiator understands why coming in under the Big Four is a reasonable ask, why is this deal somehow unfair? I'd like to hear some well thought-out reasons.
All the unions want is peace and to keep the dues flowing. This keeps their representation cost down. During a strike both the employees and the unions income goes to zero but the unions representation cost go through the roof. These analyst and outside counsel aren't cheap. If you are the staff counsel at a union you get PAID THE SAME whether your guys are out walking the picket line fighting for better; with you having to work 60+ hours between talking to the various parties. Or you could convince your guys that they are only worth 90-95% of the other guys, it makes for much easier negotiations, and during the 5 years of the meat of your contract you can take extended lunches and still have time to cut out early for your sons soccer game while your guys are on the line flying worse schedules than ever, in crappier hotels than ever, trying not to get sick from their moldy crew meals. |
Originally Posted by AltoCumulus
(Post 2460756)
Simple, it is because the interests of the rank & file union members and the union are not the same.
All the unions want is peace and to keep the dues flowing. This keeps their representation cost down. Obviously, "reasonable" is a relative term, but if the IAM acknowledges that asking for pay matching the Big Four is unreasonable, you have to wonder why ALPA went there while simultaneously asking for additional benefits and protections, including a scope clause. |
Originally Posted by EA CO AS
(Post 2460648)
After speaking with one of the negotiators for the IAM, representing the CSAs and Res Agents among others (COPS contract), I'd asked what his thoughts were on the arbitration award, knowing they're going into openers with the company in April.
He said, "I don't see what the fuss is about; it's a fair deal. We were prepared to go into negotiations asking for the average of the Big Four, minus 5%, because we know we can't ask the company for industry-best pay - it's just not feasible." So if a union negotiator understands why coming in under the Big Four is a reasonable ask, why is this deal somehow unfair? I'd like to hear some well thought-out reasons. Post number 5...well played company man. Won’t be reading anymore from you. |
Originally Posted by EA CO AS
(Post 2460688)
Or did you forget those very important factors that mean a cost advantage is a NECESSITY for AS to compete and grow? Obviously the arbitrators looked at those factors when coming to a decision that was well over what the company wanted, but obviously short of what ALPA asked.
Alaska Air Group third quarter revenue: $2.1 billion Let's assume the third quarter cost difference between Delta 737 rates and Alaska management's proposed rates equals $50 million. Take that $50 million and divide it by $2.1 billion = roughly 2% Let's say Mr. Pilot's annual gross income is $100,000. Take that same 2% from $100,000 and you get $2000 bucks. Does a $2000 cost increase threaten Mr. Pilot's entire lifestyle (ie "business model) making $100 grand? Unless he has completely dorked up other budgeting in his life, I would argue no. Yet as evidenced by the quote above, many still believe this airline's ENTIRE business plan and growth model would be put in jeopardy by this very same cost increase if we were to go to Delta rates. Sadly, the company and this cost propaganda machine fallacy continue to win over many, including a sizable amount of the very people they are most directly deceiving... us pilots. |
Originally Posted by EA CO AS
(Post 2460648)
After speaking with one of the negotiators for the IAM, representing the CSAs and Res Agents among others (COPS contract), I'd asked what his thoughts were on the arbitration award, knowing they're going into openers with the company in April.
He said, "I don't see what the fuss is about; it's a fair deal. We were prepared to go into negotiations asking for the average of the Big Four, minus 5%, because we know we can't ask the company for industry-best pay - it's just not feasible." So if a union negotiator understands why coming in under the Big Four is a reasonable ask, why is this deal somehow unfair? I'd like to hear some well thought-out reasons. |
Originally Posted by Ray Red
(Post 2460556)
Any splitting that results from the upcoming SLI will NOT require any help from the company.
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 2460586)
The company has nothing to do with the SLI proceedings or SLI arbitration in an ALPA-ALPA carrier merger. The TPA spells out the process of SLI negotiations, mediation phase, and arbitration.
|
Originally Posted by EA CO AS
(Post 2460691)
Not only did the conversation happen, it was on Friday night in SEA at a company event, and I was pleasantly surprised at his candor in terms of not only his perspective on the arbitration award, but also that he was willing to openly share the IAM's opening position for payscales in the upcoming negotiations and why they felt they could only ask for so much. This led into another healthy discussion about the merits of increasing the wages in that existing CBA, the details of which aren't important here.
But sure, stick your head in the sand and say "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA" if you want, but if you have other union leadership members, who are also part of the negotiating team for an upcoming contract negotiation, saying they believe 5% under the average of the Big Four is fair compensation for the COPS contract, it's hard to understand why ALPA members would insist on being compensated at the top of the industry, especially if it renders the company unable to continue with growth that equals better job protection, better lines, and perhaps even larger equipment (yes, you heard me correctly) in the coming decade. |
Originally Posted by FlyGuy2002
(Post 2460668)
Dude as of 9/30/2017 the financials show $2,321,956 in revenue YTD. and NET income (profit) as $264,879... divide profit YTD into YTD revenue and we have 11.4% margin. If your gonna get on here and yap atleast yap facts. I know it may be an inconvenient truth but the margin, although healthy at 11%... is certainly not 25%..
And be very careful attaching our pay worthiness to profit margin, because heaven forbid our margins decline, I highly doubt youll support us making less pay because our margins are less. The pay should be higher based on the market rates for pilots right now.. margin has very little to do with anything... [QUOTE][For the quarter, our operating revenues grew to a record $2.12 billion. On that revenue, we earned a pre-tax margin of 21% and pre-tax income of $446 million,/QUOTE] Your wrong, from the horses mouth above. |
EA CO AS,
Alaska's CASM decreased between 2015 and 2016. Who took a pay cut or did management effectively manage the denominator of the CASM equation? What effect does 0.1% increase of ASMs have on CASM? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:34 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands