Inflation and pay is one aspect of the PWA. QOL, retirement and SCOPE (which keeps Delta from outsourcing unless we allow it) are just as important because we are out of real options if we want this as a career.

 

That "1 easy leg" day is uncommon today unless its a broken trip. Where they do exist, it leads days 1-3 or 2-4 being flown to the max, duty days long, layovers short. You want a long layover? You'll make-up for it on every other duty period. We already are at the point where it's dinner, workout, full night sleep...pick 2.

The irony of saying I don't want to work more with higher pay per duty, while then having to work 2 extra days a month [14 vs 12 to equal 72hrs] = 24 duty days annually, or almost 2 extra bid months each year. I know you all say "trips will be worse"... they suck already. At least make duty rigs 1:5 and add a smaller MDG.

 

Good update from the negotiating committee. Sounds like the PB day concession is a real thing.

 

Sounds like the only way for ALPA to “speed things up” is to concede to the companies’ demands. I think their stall tactics are running out of steam. Hold the line, no concessions.

 

Yep. They clearly have been burned badly by widespread Rolling Thunder this spring/summer. Which, if they would man the airline appropriately, would never/rarely be a thing.

Res GS operate like GSWC. We should never consider giving that up. Ever.

 

Something about having cake and eating cake comes to mind.

 

Fun with numbers for the skeptic part 2:

Thesis:

Swinging for the fence, “restoring the profession”, fighting to win back failed losses from the past, dragging out negotiations years beyond the amendable date, and negotiating by pilot wish list does not work.

Assumption:

We model a post GFC time period from 2010 to the present, and then project ahead to 2026. For this model will focus on pay only, assuming no other gains or losses in other parts of the contract. We agree to forget past negotiations and limit our look back to a 3 year trailing inflation rate at the time of negotiations (9 months prior to amendable date). Further, we agree to index our pay rates to the 3 year compounded inflation rate. Specifically, that trailing rate plus 1.0%. In other words, we don’t need surveys or even negotiators. We create a simple algorithm and it spits out our ask.

We will use Federal Reserve inflation data:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.co...flation-rates/

The model will encompass a total of eight 2 year contracts: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-2015, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2022-23, 2024-25.

Finally, we assume ratification at the amendable date.

2010:

Trailing total compounded inflation 2006-2008 - 10.12% or 3.27% annually compounded.

2 annual pay raises of 4.27% or a total increase of 8.71%.

Actual total inflation for 2010-2011 - 4.85% or 2.4% annually.

Result: a total real pay increase of 3.86% or 1.87 annually.


2012:

Trailing inflation - 5.04% total 1.65% annual

2 pay raises of 2.65% - 5.37% total

Actual inflation 2012, 2013 - 3.63% total or 1.8% annual

Result: real raise 1.74% total or .85% annual

Running total: real 5.67%


2014:

Trailing inflation - 7.05% total 2.3% annual

2 pay raises of 3.3% - 6.71% total

Actual inflation 2014, 2015. - 1.7% total .85% annual

Result: Real raise 5.01% total 2.45% annual

Running real total 10.96%


2016:

Trailing inflation - 5.29-% total 1.73% annual

2 pay raises of 2.73% - 5.53% total

Actual inflation 2016, 2017 - 3.43% total 1.7% annual.

Result: real raise 2.1% total 1.03% annual

Running real total 13.29%


2018:

Trailing inflation - 3.02% total 1.0% annual

2 pay raises of 2.0% - 4.04% total 2.0% annual

Actual inflation 2018,2019 - 3.84% total 1.9% annual

Result: real raise .2% total .1% annual

Running real total 13:52% total.


2020

Trailing inflation - 5.91% total 1.93% annual

2 pay raises of 2.93% - 5.94% total 2.93% annual

Actual inflation 2020,2021 - 5.95% total 2.93% annual

Result: real raise .01% total 0% annual

Running real total 13.64%


2022

*assumption: inflation finishes 2020 at 8% and comes back closer to the current 3 year trailing annual compounded rate (4.7%) for 2023 since future inflation is unknown.

Trailing inflation - 5.49% total 1.8% annual

2 pay raises of 2.8% - 5.68% total

*Actual inflation (8.0)(4.7). - 13.08% total 6.34% annual

Result: real raise -8.6% total

Running real total + 3.87%


2024

*assumption: inflation continues at current annual rate of 4.7%

Trailing inflation - 14.96% total 4.76% annual

2 pay raises of 5.76% - 11.85% total

*Actual inflation (4.7)(4.7) - 9.62% total

Result: real raise 2.23% total

Running real total + 6.19%


Takeaways:

We would greatly outperform over the entire timeframe of the model as compared to historical performance. Over a 30 year career we would see a real increase in earning power instead of a huge decrease.

During times of stable or dropping inflation (crisis) we outperform. During times of spiking inflation we underperform.

A recap of annual pay raises:

2010-11: 4.27%
2012-13: 2.65%
2014-15: 3.3%
2016-17: 2.73%
2018-19: 2.0%
2020-21: 2.93%
2022-23: 2.8%
2024-25: 5.76%

This turns out to be an annual compounded rate of 3.3% over the model and looks suspiciously similar to what a non-management employee gets for an annual raise in corporate America. Actually statistics show a net wash for real increases over the last 40 years for corporate America. The above model beats that modestly, which isn’t the real story. We wouldn’t end up greatly trailing inflation over our careers is the story.

Remember, the model generates real rates adjusted for inflation. Ignoring inflation, the above pay raises yield a 67.9% increase in pay over 16 years.

Leaders either know this or they get smart and then persuade their pilots. Going to the table with wish lists that cannot be delivered is not leading. It’s following. Going to the table unable to do math is sad, and doubling down on failed tactics is isn’t leading, it’s dumb.

Conclusion:

We elect toads to follow our direction and not to lead. Always have, always will. We will get historical results as a consequence. Occasionally we get a leader who does a passable job. Sorry boys, hate to **** on your dreams. I’ll be gone from this world when you youngsters pin on your 30 year pin and know the wisdom of my words. I wish you all the best, really.

 

Did you read the email from the union? Not one word mentioned about pay rates.

If only we would give what the company wants on productivity and QoL in order to gain your factitious pay rates? Did I read that correctly?

 

So, philosophically speaking, would management be opposed to a compensation structure tied closely to inflation, in our case compounding over time at around 3%? No. However, not being opposed and moving heaven and earth to show ALPA the wisdom of such a thing is another matter all together. Why do such a thing when we insist on giving them productivity over time? We volunteer to work harder (productivity increase) for less purchasing power (productivity increase) over our careers. The have us coming and going.

The way we do things suits them just fine and helps keep the owners of the company happy. I would love to be a fly on the wall if someone dropped this bomb on them at the table. They would wonder how to justify denying such modest raises, knowing that the productivity gravy train just derailed.

 

Did somebody say something? Reads like a AFA finance 101 class that could have taken one paragraph to get the point but LT. Smartestguyontheroom wants to impress the professor.