thanks. I'll edit.

They can't pay when times are bad because they don't have the money. They can't pay you when times are good because the bad times could be right around the corner.

I guess think of it based on what an informed, objective outsider would think. Profitability certainly plays a role as does our peers etc.

Our profitability should provide a spring board to very large gains! As it gets larger, is also has diminishing returns. If we were making 20B, it isn’t like someone objective is gonna say “let’s pay all the pilots a million a year since they can afford it.”

We can argue anything, but it isn’t like we are going to trick the NMB with fuzzy math or emotional arguments. No doubt arguing for improvements that someone already has like United, are very reasonable IMO. Since we have areas that are superior (that is why our pilot cost are similar) A reasonable person is still going to look at the totality of the items and determine how that relates to the rest of the pilot market.

Your first paragraph and last sentence seem to contradict themselves. On the one hand you agree that profitability should affect the zone but in the last it seems like you think we can’t get much more than the other majors.

I would think we could do significantly better based on profitability alone.

Denny

Traditionally they base it on your standing amongst your peers in work rules and compensation.

Sorry if it came across that way.

Without profitability, it is much harder to achieve gains. The more profitable, obviously the easier.

There are a lot of factors on the reasonableness. History says the pilot market is one of the main factors. Some of the smaller airlines have negotiated very large percentage gains. They were also playing catch up as they were below the market to start with. In normal conditions, you haven’t seen those sort of percent increases even by the airlines that went on strike. (Once they reached market value)

Hey, the NMB may prove me wrong and they may think nearly doubling our current value is “reasonable” but if the past is any indication, I would not bet my profit sharing on it.

And by the way, I hope we get everything we are asking for (almost everything) I just don’t believe the NMB has the same definition of reasonable as some of our guys do.

Delta Mgmt requests mediator.
 

So, if the total cost of Delta’s contract is $1 more than the next most profitable airline, then that’s good enough? I’m sorry, I truly don’t understand what point you’re making. Does the magnitude of profitability come into play or not?

Also, if you sign first, then how do they figure the zone of reasonableness if everyone else is working under a stale contract?

My guess: the NMB considers “reasonable” what that particular company can afford, but not to vastly exceed what peer companies can afford. They are well aware that another contract will soon be amendable, and don’t want to complicate their next mediation.

I'm sure the company will argue that. It's not going to look favorable to a mediator though the 15B in stock buybacks, the A350 program disaster, the record number of green slips last year, and the list goes on. Just because the company made some bonehead management decisions doesn't mean we shouldn't get ours.

But this is where ALPA needs to be smart. ALPA needs to show HOW the company can afford it while still churning the profit machine that has been a reality over the past 5-6 years. I'm hoping they can do that. If ALPA can show a mediator its full work, it'll play nicely in our favor.

Or maybe not. What do I know?

It should be mentioned that one of the main reasons this company is making this type of profit is that the pilot group, more than any other group, sacrificed first and much more than any other employee group.

Pay cuts
Work rules
Retirement

They came to us for “safe harbor” pay reduction to save this company.
Used the courts to bludgeon us.

Now they act like they don’t owe us anything?