What's the Plan?
11-20-2017 | 01:36 PM
#41
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
You're impossibly stupid.
I pray that we get sold.
I pray that we get sold.
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!
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!
11-20-2017 | 01:44 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
From: 737 tiller master
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!
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!
11-20-2017 | 01:54 PM
#43
Gear handle manipulator
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: B-737 First officer
Bottom line: The company can afford to pay us top dollar, put a solid scope clause in place, and match Delta's 401k contribution but they simply won't. They've been making 20%+ record profits for years. Tell me genius, name one airline that went out of business due to high employee wages? Ask AAL, DAL, UAL, USAir, et al employees if their countless concessions saved their beloved company from bankruptcy and/or liquidation. Large corporations exercise creative accounting that you and I are not privy to. It is the greedy and evil society that we live in. Success and failure solely rests on management, period. Sadly, this management has used up most of its nine lives by choosing to let their greed and ego run its course. Instead of leading by team building, they chose the antagonistic approach in an effort to beat down the very workforce that brought them success. They are walking on thin ice and we are in dire need of leadership at the helm to steer this runaway vessel. Management needs to step up or move out.
11-20-2017 | 02:09 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
From: 737 tiller master
EA CO AS, may I suggest in the future, that you display some intelligence, if you posses any, and put up some facts instead of speaking from your sphincter. Here are some facts for all of us to ponder:
The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion. That was the fastest wealth creation since 2012.
Remember, BT and his homies are in the top 1%. They may be in the bottom of that 1% bracket but they are still in there. Greed and ego has no end.
The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion. That was the fastest wealth creation since 2012.
Remember, BT and his homies are in the top 1%. They may be in the bottom of that 1% bracket but they are still in there. Greed and ego has no end.
11-20-2017 | 02:40 PM
#45
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 410
Likes: 3
EA CO AS, may I suggest in the future, that you display some intelligence, if you posses any, and put up some facts instead of speaking from your sphincter. Here are some facts for all of us to ponder:
The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion. That was the fastest wealth creation since 2012.
Remember, BT and his homies are in the top 1%. They may be in the bottom of that 1% bracket but they are still in there. Greed and ego has no end.
The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion. That was the fastest wealth creation since 2012.
Remember, BT and his homies are in the top 1%. They may be in the bottom of that 1% bracket but they are still in there. Greed and ego has no end.
Agreed.
It's interesting seeing how "the common man" always puts the company first. The company being able to make a dollar trumps all other causes, including the worker who makes those dollars. We've seen this for years with the decline of unions and the population going along with it willingly.
Corporate profits are at a record high and *gasp* a union is trying to grab a piece of that pie. But instead, the top just gets richer (bonuses, stock options etc) and the common worker is happy settling for less because their boss told them it's best for the company's ability to compete.
It's laughable.
But I do believe as income and wealth inequality continues to build we will see a tipping point where the common worker starts to get it and demands, through organization, their fair share of the profits they produce. It may take time, but people are indeed getting the shaft and will someday wakeup.
11-20-2017 | 03:46 PM
#46
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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!
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!
You realize that the union didn't even ask for industry leading rates or scope right?
The union position was the average of the top 4 in pay and substandard scope protection.
Even if the arbitrators had given the pilots everything the union asked for, our pay would have been less than Delta, American, and United. Our scope would still have been worse than those three plus Southwest.
Explain to me how Southwest manages to pay more than we do while still guaranteeing their pilots job security via ZERO outsourcing?
11-20-2017 | 04:03 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
That's a nice strawman argument you have there.
You realize that the union didn't even ask for industry leading rates or scope right?
The union position was the average of the top 4 in pay and substandard scope protection.
Even if the arbitrators had given the pilots everything the union asked for, our pay would have been less than Delta, American, and United. Our scope would still have been worse than those three plus Southwest.
Explain to me how Southwest manages to pay more than we do while still guaranteeing their pilots job security via ZERO outsourcing?
You realize that the union didn't even ask for industry leading rates or scope right?
The union position was the average of the top 4 in pay and substandard scope protection.
Even if the arbitrators had given the pilots everything the union asked for, our pay would have been less than Delta, American, and United. Our scope would still have been worse than those three plus Southwest.
Explain to me how Southwest manages to pay more than we do while still guaranteeing their pilots job security via ZERO outsourcing?
11-20-2017 | 04:23 PM
#48
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 0
Dude, most of us get it. We're trying. We're still suffering from the effects of incompetence in the past, which is why we have ended up working under contracts that have been impacted by arbitration in a significant way. I recently flew with a guy who didn't have a problem with the idea of the company outsourcing E190's or similar sized airplanes. Every time we have a mandatory retirement, our pilot group's stance on scope becomes more united. The more regional pilots they hire, and the more retirements we have, the more things will improve. Things take time, though. The mistakes of negotiations past are still very present.
11-20-2017 | 06:38 PM
#49
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 832
Likes: 4
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..........
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..........
lmao
11-21-2017 | 12:24 AM
#50
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 393
Likes: 19
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!
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!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DLax85
Cargo
11
01-18-2017 07:53 PM
