Concessions Are Coming
06-07-2016 | 04:59 AM
#271
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
I was hired at NWA in Jan. of 85. I got a call from United in May from a gal who offered me a job at United as a 737 or 727 Capt. ( Typed in both) for $75K a year. After I respectfully declined, she said "I understand, just doing my job"
06-07-2016 | 05:19 AM
#272
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,362
Likes: 845
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
I don't want to speak for him but I had a family member who would have appreciated you guys doing the right thing with regard to UAL. He was a strong union supporter and knew they would need outside "help" to make it work.
06-07-2016 | 06:00 AM
#273
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 2,960
Likes: 0
From: Power top
06-07-2016 | 07:14 AM
#274
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
These numbers have never added up.
And I sure that 1200 in retirements will easily exceed 2400 with medical and early retirements.
06-07-2016 | 10:26 AM
#276
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
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.
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.
Their captains would be making the same amount as our captains, regardless as to what type of airplanes they bring to the table.
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.
06-07-2016 | 11:25 AM
#277
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
06-07-2016 | 11:39 AM
#278
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Let's say, for the sake of argument, to remove all the unnecessary Alaska stigmatization, that we merged with Southwest and we all were going to have a longevity based pay system.
Just to start out, before adjusting for retirements, where would you put the #1 Southwest pilot on the combined list and why?
Just to start out, before adjusting for retirements, where would you put the #1 Southwest pilot on the combined list and why?
06-07-2016 | 12:34 PM
#279
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 56
From: 765A
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.
06-07-2016 | 12:48 PM
#280
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
The issue though is if we had a longevity based pay system, what that would do to our argument for not having a straight ratio starting point with another airline.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
