I get that, but what's the genesis of it? Is it just a number thrown out by somebody? It doesn't meet 88s required 42% by a long shot. I also think that if we were to get that here, the usual suspects would go into meltdown mode. But since APA only got 5%, how can we even expect 14%? Doesn't compute.

Oh I have no presumption that LBP is even on the table. I really gave up that fight a long time ago. I just like pointing out that since bigger pays more, and half the super premium fleet is being scrapped, that we are gonna take a paycut. Of course with all the hiring going on and the supposed growth of airplanes that we are going to get, the pain will only be felt by the super premium guys anyway. And the staffing savings from pay banding won't even be noticed.

Fire away

Sink et al.

Oberon didn't really post anything too controversial - it was mostly him jumping in heavily on things that happened before he was empolyed by DAL.

I think he will be a solid contributor to this thread once he figures out the battle rhythm so to speak.

Scoop

RA bumped our FAs pay early to force Parker at American to match while the had an open TA.

If (and it is just a rumor) we increased our hourly rate 14% tomorrow, Parker would have to up his deal with the American pilots 19%. Our 14% increase plus 5%.

Absent a rise for us, they will only get our rates plus 5%. IMO he wants American to have increased costs.

Hmm. Scathing reply follows: I agree.

Thanks, Scoop. That should help separate two issues: newbiness, and credibility. I really have no problem with newbies contributing right off the bat. There is no APC probationary period. If there had been, how long would it have been to start reading 80, ftb, bar, or many solid contributors? There is also no APC retirement, as far as I know. There are a couple of crusty old guys I always enjoy reading here, like tom g.

But if you're going to step into big issues, you need to know what you're talking about. One former rj guy gets a little weird when he reviews history, and one whale captain stepped on his genitalia, trying to describe hiring practices at another airline, before his time. Other than that, these two are also very active and widely read.

Which brings us right back to a very good principle, one that rarely leads us astray: attack the argument, debate the facts, but don't attack the poster.

We are not days away from a TA - in fact APA just extended negotiations for another 30 days.

Also don't know where you got delta plus 5% from! our proposal was 2015 delta rates. The rumor is delta + ? In exchange of no profit sharing.

As of now the MOU calls for delta and united rates averaged together in 2016 for pay parity, but APA has said they want it now. Don't know how that applies to when Delta gets a new contract.

What will be the demise of APA is if no JCBA is agreed to it goes to arbitration and cannot exceed the cost structure of the MOU. Basically it would be slightly below average of current delta and united contracts for the next 4 years.

I think having no profit sharing would be a HUGE mistake, for two reasons:

1. Profits going forward are going to be huge, now that there are only 3 Major US Carriers, and little or no undercutting of each other. Reduced competition PLUS the falling price of fuel will guarantee big profits...at least until the next 'economic downturn'.

2. Profit Sharing is a GREAT motivator to get employees to work harder. With profit sharing they are 'vested' in the operation and when it comes down to doing a good job, or just punching out and going home, they will try just a little bit harder. And, it is right that they should share in the success they created.

I agree with both points. Parker was in Miami yesterday and the question was raised during a q and a and he kept pointing out how when times are down that having the higher rates and not having profit sharing would be the way to go. I'd much prefer our CEO to talk about how he will guide us to profits than hear about when we are losing money. We will see, it's all in the hands of the APA negotiators now....

Pay raise vs. profit sharing...

The CEO club always wants to pitch it as an 'either-or' proposition.

Chose one.

But it doesn't have to be a choice.

You can have BOTH.

Employees SHOULD have BOTH!

First off, you need a 3% raise every year, just to keep up with inflation.

Second off...WHO took a huge pay cut to save Delta and American and United?

WHO?

Yeah, the EMPLOYEES!

THAT is why they should always share in the wealth their sacrifices produced.

AND they should have raises, above a cost of living increase, to recover from the pay cuts.

Of course nobody in the CEO club will see it that way. They are paid with stock options. They would rather give that money to the share holders, to run the stock price up, so in effect, they can transfer your sacrifices to their pockets.