Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1697778)

I guess virtually every airline management team and all the analysts are wrong.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1697779)

I think a lot of people that want to transition to LBP somehow think it will be a raise (at least for them). Usually the scheme includes a dramatic increase in the pay steps (perhaps unlimited). That only serves to back load compensation which is the last thing we need to be doing. Most LPB schemes also neglect the reality of bigger pays more and think it will decouple us from that. But it will still be there because that "one rate to rule them all" has to come from somewhere.

Once locked in, then it gets more interesting. If we have one rate and the company wants to replace 50 A330's with 20 A380's (pretty much all we're flying across the pond anyway is high frequency to "partner" hubs anyway) then they cut lots of jobs and no one makes more. Meanwhile its a huge disincentive on bottom end scope. The cost of 88 717's goes way up if they all pay ER or greater pay in today's pay table.

I see further banding happening (50 cents to a dollar extra for 737-900? Really?) Not to mention the unreasonable difference between M88/90 and A319/320.

Then there is the relative integration poison pill. There are several examples of our pilot group getting absolutely slaughtered with a relative integration (Hawaiian, JB, VX, etc) even if it was status only relative. Imagine a full relative. No thanks.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1697776)

Nonsense. Both Delta and NWA did so for years without these JV's.
Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1697776)

I don't know when we're ever going to open our eyes.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1697827)

So did Eastern, Braniff, Pan Am, TWA... etc etc etc... They also flew for years without jet powered aircraft. What's your "point"?

Originally Posted by DAWGS (Post 1697772)

T will argue the company will buy whatever they want regardless of pilot pay. I don't think the billions of RJs purchased support your claim. Our pay structure is not a small factor in what they purchase.

Originally Posted by iceman49 (Post 1697698)

February 15, 2008

John McCain and the pilots

http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_.../15/mccain.jpgSen. John McCain may have the Republican party nomination wrapped up, but he still has some convincing to do with one group of traditionally Republican voters. No, I'm not talking about evangelical Christians - I'm talking about commercial airline pilots.
McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2003 that would have changed the Railway Labor Act to include mandatory "baseball-style" arbitration in airline contract negotiations. That's a method whereby a mediator makes the final decision on disputed issues, and there is no appeal. Unions have long opposed any attempts to force that type of arbitration, because it removes their greatest form of leverage - the ability to strike.
McCain's 2003 effort failed, but lots of pilots still remember it. One told me recently that he will never vote for the Arizona senator, and he believes many of his colleagues feel the same way.
"Look, most pilots are ex-military, they're professionals, most of them vote Republican and have all their lives," the pilot said. "But when it comes to McCain, most of us all remember how he backed airline management and tried to screw the pilots. That's going to cost him some votes."
- Trebor

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1697782)

Again, you're doing nothing but parroting what you've been told to believe by senior management attending your Line Check Airman meetings. Why do you think they attend tsquare? Do you think they attend because they're interested in line pilot training?



See above. You do damage to our profession when you just parrot without thinking.



See above.

Carl

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 1697834)

I get that. McCain's constituency is McCain and the Media. He is a traitorous ass. (not talking about Vietnam or POW stuff. His current actions vis a vis retirees is just appalling.)

But in the grand scheme of things, he would have been a much better choice (ok, "much" maybe too much). Present company in the WH excepted, Presidents don't get to just make up laws. The chances of the bill you quoted becoming law would have been slim to none. But we would not have had the anemic, pathetic semi recovery we are seeing now. A robust economy is the best pilot friendly policy.

Originally Posted by Spudhauler (Post 1697865)

Can we stop with the political stuff unless it's specifically germane to our chosen profession? No one is going to convince another person their side is right or wrong on this site. Let's get back to worrying about the whales being parked and C2015 please.