Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1730368)

I want as much money as possible as quick as possible. I hope we get restoration. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1729624)

I certainly agree on no erosion of QOL or productivity.

That said, I'm intrigued by Option B in Question 28 of the survey. This is the question on pay banding and asks if we would be in favor in a staffing neutral way, e.g., more vacation. This could give the pilot group fewer trips to Virginia Avenue in exchange for more vacation, saving us more negotiating dollars for $$$, while not reducing pilot staffing or requiring more work.

Thoughts on that?

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1729751)

That is a concession. It reeks of cost neutrality. Why on earth would we do that?

My thoughts are, you are floating another lead trial balloon for DALPA.

My thoughts are, only a hardened hack would attempt to spin the concession of longer freezes as a positive by promoting it as "fewer trips to Virginia Avenue."

You appear to have abandoned all pretense of being a neutral line pilot unaffiliated with DALPA. Or are you still trying to obfuscate your intent?

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1730387)

I did not take it as him "lecturing" us. I voted for the big pay cut because I was led to believe it would keep us out of BK. I was wrong and feel that we as a pilot group were "taken to the cleaners" by management.

I now believe that we were going into BK with or without pay-cuts and management played us. I think there is something there when it is said that we unwittingly helped or participated in the reset to our wages.

Scoop - Just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1730436)

You're forgetting the software issues though. Everyone knows software can only be programmed to give us our end in due time, while it can be instantly programmed to give the company its end. That's just basic computer science. Coming to a tablet near you. Eventually. Maybe.

Oh and we also gave them "voicemail notification" for the first time ever. And we gave up 2 hours of day one start time, going down to FAR minimums and calling it a victory over the old 5am because the old 5am was illegal, 10am was the soonest legal, and we were sitting on 12pm. In their defense though, we were going to give that up with our without paying to remove the CDO's the company supposedly didn't care about, pilots didn't even know was an issue anyway and which may be back soon anyway.



Wait, what?

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1730493)

Not that there is anything that can be done to change it now, but if you look at the four airlines that went into bankruptcy around the same time, United and US Air did not do concessions before and Delta and Northwest did. Delta ended up with the best work rules, the highest pay rates, and the best bankruptcy returns. Northwest alone retained their defined benefit plan.

We can't go back and run an experiment, but you can't say that airlines that waited until bankruptcy did better than those that took concessions before. In fact, the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1730431)

I think the big score from a company POV is longer freezes...we should resist that.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1730436)

we also gave them "voicemail notification" for the first time ever.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1730371)

(standing by for surrender monkey garbage).

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1730127)

Yes. I want our reps talking about restoration yesterday (and now). I don't want them screaming, whining, throwing a fit about it, etc. But I do want them to articulate in a professional and measured way that our objective is to restore the standard of living that was provided by our compensation during most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's. Since they refuse to do that... and since they actually make arguments against that, saying it's "unreasonable"... then it's very clear to me that their objective is NOT restoration or anything even close.

If you have a lower opinion of the value of our profession, then that's certainly your prerogative. I don't know what your background is. If you're worried about rocking the boat with you being near the bottom of the seniority list, I can understand that concern. I've only got 10 years left (to age 65) and I can understand the temptation to keep things on an even keel and play it ultra conservative. I'm in the left seat and am making pretty darn good money compared to what the average person makes out there in the real world doing other things. My retirement accounts are on track to provide a nice income when I retire.

But here's the thing. I have too much respect for the value of what we do to accept that it is appropriately worth 34% less than it was for decades prior to bankruptcy... especially given the dramatic turnaround and restructuring of our industry and our company. There's just no legitimate reason to continue compensating us as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. It's wrong. And I'd like to leave this profession in some semblance of the shape I found it in when I first started. You may not have that same appreciation. Your standards may be lower. I just hope you are not representative of the new generation of airline pilots.