Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot (Post 2141106)

That would have been as a scab if it was May/June 85. Wouldn't be prudent is somewhat of an understatement.


TP

Originally Posted by Typhoonpilot (Post 2141106)

That would have been as a scab if it was May/June 85. Wouldn't be prudent is somewhat of an understatement.


TP

Originally Posted by Nantonaku (Post 2141018)

That seems absurd, currently 12,500 pilots - 1,200 pilot retirements = 11,300 - 18,000 = 6,700 pilots by 2020? Do you really believe that? That is almost 175 pilots a month, 60 a month isn't going to cut it.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 2141281)

Exactly.

These numbers have never added up.

And I sure that 1200 in retirements will easily exceed 2400 with medical and early retirements.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 2140683)

We have a lot of expectations that play heavily in our favor in most cases. Pay expectations are a big one of course. But even in this hypothetical case, pay is pay. Having four stripes because you think its cool isn't much to hang your hat on, so the smaller (and almost definitely lower paying) airline using just the pay argument from being captain would lose hard in making that case.

Of course it depends on what the pay rates are, but I'd assume if we did a total LBP blended scale (which I'm not advocating for and which I don't foresee happening anytime soon if ever) then that table would by its very nature still be above the smaller theoretical acquisition and from an earnings perspective would dwarf their hypothetical lower pay faster upgrade model.

Then comes into play all the other expectations, like retirements (for the next 10 years we're at or neat the top of the industry for that), retirement contribution, profit sharing, work rules and QOL, etc that all buff pay in the first place as well.

While the other smaller airline might attempt to say "a captain is a captain, full relative or bust!" I don't think that will work out for them at all. When presented with the mountains of evidence that career expectations here are significantly higher, separate AC pay, bands or even blended LBP wouldn't hurt us IMO. Unless we roll over as part of an ALPA conspiracy to sacrifice our group to some broader "see what ALPA membership gets you!" campaign of course. But even that is likely a small threat since JB, VX and NK all recently joined anyway.

As for Hawaiian I don't see that happening. They are horribly in debt (crushing debt for their size) and other than a very tiny number of slots they bring absolutely zero value to the table compared to doing it on our own.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 2141367)

IMO, retirements and other factors aside, if we had a longevity based pay system, it would hurt our argument against a 2 category (Captain/FO) ratio list badly.

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 2141391)

In what way?

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 2141367)

If we were on a pay scale where all of our captains make the same longevity based rate and another airline were to be merged in, how would that affect our argument that there should not be a straight ratio.

Originally Posted by Xray678 (Post 2141433)

A straight ratio is fine or two similar airlines. But if you were to merge to dissimilar airlines it could be a disaster. I would never want a straight ratio with JetBlue for example.