look at the expression on Godzilla... funny.


---
so did anyone see this from the uk daily mail? What if it is true?

Remember that ash cloud? It didn't exist, says new evidence | Mail Online

Yep, I'm guilty of an "avatar violation." But, hey, at least it wasn't lizards boinking.:D

I agree about the unprofitable airline not being able to afford above industry average wages in general. The problem is that the unprofitable airline cannot afford many things. Obviously, it's always better to be profitable.

Now, over many decades, there have been airlines that went through periods where they were very profitable and very unprofitable. If you look at pilot compensation during that time (adjusted for inflation), it was relatively constant. A few ups and downs, but nothing like what we've seen in recent years. The only time our profession has ever seen anything like a 40%+ cut in pay, massive cuts in benefits and outsourcing of jobs was after 9/11. Granted, this was a particularly bad time for the airlines. But was it many times as bad as any other down cycle in the industry? I don't think so. I know it's easier said than done... but the industry needs to recognize that having quality pilots requires paying for them. The current situation cannot go on forever without a significant loss of quality and the resultant impact on safety. The profession is going to have to get back to where it's a fairly high paid profession. Us making excuses for why it shouldn't be that way just hurts our case, IMO.

NO. It is not our job, nor within our abilities to make the company either profitable or unprofitable. That is their job; having said that, that profitability affects our ability to exert leverage. We got C2K because DAL was making record profits for several years. To me, we don't set "demands". That's a recipe for failure. Under my terminology, we set our "expectations" on what we think is achievable, and our sights on obtaining something higher, knowing we may or may not be able to achieve that in the end. Let me caveat this with, I am not a negotiator, nor do I intend to ever become one. Having said that, my thoughts are to set your opener reasonably above your sights, which would be noticeably above your expectations, but not unrealistically so. If you get too far out, the process grinds to a halt. For example, assume you want to buy someone's house. It's listed for $300,000. You think a "fair" price is $280k, and you'd love to get it for $260k. If you offer $200k, they're liable to not even bother with a counter offer. They see you as not being a serious buyer. But if you offer $250k, for example, you'll have a better chance. BTW, I also completely reject the notion that we pick a number such that half way between the company's opener and our opener is where we want to end up. Thus, you game the opener to figure that out, and pick one accordingly. Contract negotiatiors on both sides are a lot sharper than that.

Similarly, and take these as only an example, if our expectations in the next contract are $250/hr on the 777A, and we'd like to really get $275/hr if we open for $500/hour on the 777A, it will take us LONGER, imo, to get to either of these, than if we open at $300/hr. In one case, DAL sees you as being reasonable and may be willing to negotiate - in the other, not so much. Just look at APA. Neither side has budged off their initial position as far as I know, because the APA opener is deemed by management to be unreasonable. Furthermore, is it better to get $250/hr (again just an example), effective on 1/1/13, or hold out for $300/hr but ultimately get $260/hr on 1/1/15?

Absolutely agree 100%. DISCLAIMER: All dollar values in this post are for example purposes only, and in no way should be implied to be my view of what's reasonable, achievable, fair or anything else.

Actually it was many times as bad as any other down cycle in the industry.

From deregulation in 1978 through 2001, about 1% of GDP was spent on airlines. There were minor fluctuations, but in general airlines were tied directly to the economy. Since 2001, however, the airlines only made up about 0.75% of GDP, with 2009 being a particularly bad year and airlines only getting about 0.65% of GDP. That's over 3 times as bad as other downturns.

I think I just pushed back having kids another couple years....

Until that avatar I didn't know thats what lizards did.

---
Hey, here is Steve Martin teaching us about Delta's financing philosophy:

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Don't Buy Stuff

Good example of how you can customize statistics to make your case. That's the first time I've ever heard of measuring the success of an airline or the industry by comparing its percentage of GDP. Interesting.

Of course, what I was referring to was profitability of the industry. I guess it just depends on how you want to look at it... and maybe to an extent who's case you're trying to make. :eek:

GDP, is interesting indicator to the cash flow of the industry. It aligns with our margins going down, labor costs getting cut etc.

88,

The country can't even agree that its worth keeping pilots alert, much less well paid... I don't hold out much hope for your "pay more or safety will suffer" argument. I believe you, I just don't think the average American (or apparently members of the Obama Administration) does.

Exhibit A:

Dispute Over Cost Delays Pilot Rules

• Article
• Comments

more in Politics »


BY ANDY PASZTOR

Reducing pilot fatigue is a top priority for U.S. airline regulators. But new rules are being delayed by disagreements within the Obama administration over whether the anticipated safety improvements would justify the cost to airlines.
When U.S. Federal Aviation Administration chief Randy Babbitt last summer launched a drive to update decades-old rules covering how many hours a day U.S. airline pilots can fly or remain on duty, the agency hoped to release draft regulations by early 2010.
That date later slipped by several months, but Mr. Babbitt and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood continued to say that keeping sleepy pilots away ...