AtlCSIP

By the way guys, thanks for some thought out, mature dialog on these subjects, whether we agree or not. It has been refreshing.

Nevets

Again, it's not just one person's raise we are talking about. They are giving raises out to two management teams when the job can be done with one. Yet they ask us to give back some of ours? How is not the two related since it all comes from the same bottom line? Why are you so defensive about them with me when I haven't skewed the facts posted about their raises? Let me put it this way, if you were this executive management team, would you give yourself the raises they have from 2010-2012 and then ask your workers to forgo some of their small compensation? If not, why not. And of not, then what's the difference?

AtlCSIP

Again, different point, and I am not being defensive of them, but I have owned and operated businesses in the past, so my perspective is different than most.

We weren't talking about the potential waste associated with 2 management teams, although I would agree with you they should be unnecessary by now, resulting in savings.

What I would do wasn't the point, but since you asked, I have never asked for pay concessions from an employee who worked for me and do not believe pay concessions are the correct way to proceed in relation to our situation. I have let people go who were not worth the pay they received, but I digress. Our issue has nothing to do with the problem of management raises or the waste associated with 2 management teams. Our issue is 1. Are we worth more than we are currently paid? Generally, yes, and 2. What can we do to increase our productivity and/or value added to justify additionl compensation beyond that which we are currently worth? If you can answer number 2 (I have some ideas, though they would not be popular) then you have reached a realistic point from which to bargain/negotiate for additional compensation beyond that needed to get us where we already should be. Once we show that our raises are deserved (which I believe they are) it is management's responsibility to determine how to fund those raises, which, you would think, would include eliminating one of the management teams, but that is their problem, not ours.

I'm on your team. We are fighting for the same things. We are worth more regardless of what management does, and that needs to be our point in negotiations.

unit monster

Things got better once BL left because that is how INC wanted it. BL was a scapegoat for poor morale and extended (!) contract talks. To think BH was the sole manipulator in making changes at this place is naive at best. JMO

AtlCSIP

I never said BH was the sole manipulator of anything, and can't speak to anything prior since I wasn't here.

Captain Tony

Only if you're wealthy or have another source of income.

Captain Tony

You're looking at this whole thing from a management/business owner point of view. Most of us in this industry became pilots because we didn't want to be part of the cubicle culture. The airline industry and its pyramid scheme seniority system (where the higher the pay the less you work) has been in place since its inception. You are decrying this system, but its never going to change. In fact, it's a big reason why many of us do this day in and day out.

You also act like management compensation occurs in a vacuum. If the company was profitable and growing,and we were getting raises along with management, no one would care. But when the company isn't growing or profitable, management needs to embrace shared sacrifice. For them to tell us we're too expensive and need to give concessions, then award themselves a raise (regardless of whether its 12% or 83%) is out of whack, and really a slap in the face. Obviously we don't need to give THAT bad if they can afford to pay him that handsomely to attend meetings and smoke cigarettes out front all day. You act like BH invented this whole thing. BH is just COO. He takes orders directly from SGU and implements them. He functions like a senior VP, yet gets paid like a CEO. And to use your argument, it's not justified for the amount of work he performs.

AtlCSIP

I don't have an opinion of BH. As stated before, my comments were based on info from guys like you.

I realize that my point of view is that of a business owner, since I have been for much of the last 25 years, which is why my opinions are what they are from a business standpoint. Logic would say that you can't consistently pay people more to accomplish less and remain viable for the long term. If that is possible, tell me how.

As far as the management/pilot debate is concerned, I think it's obvious that I got tired of the cubicle and would prefer to be here. I would, however, like to leave this place better once I move on.

Nevets

My only point is that if they are getting pay raises, regardless of whether its 73% in one year or 24% between 2 years, I find that as a problem when they ask us for concessions. Your disagreement was that it was only 12% pay raise per year and that we all got raises the year that they took a one year pay cut (which they more than made up the following year). That is not fact. Many of us, mostly for those that make the least, FOs, didn't get a pay raise at all. And none of us has gotten a 12% pay raise per year, let alone just keeping up with inflation. So even if we don't skew the numbers (your point), I still see a problem with that regardless of any other point.

What do you disagree with what I said above.

AtlCSIP

The only thing I disagree with is the corellation between BH's (or managements) pay and ours. They are two separate issues. I see a problem with concessions regardless of what has happened with management pay. If BH had taken a 90% pay cut and we had lost 50,000,000 last quarter I would still believe that we should have a raise, and it isn't because of anything that happened to somebody else. It is because, as professional aviators who have invested great amounts of time and money to qualify us to operate equipment worth 20 million bucks or more where we are responsible for the safety and well being of up to 76 people, we are worth more than we are currently compensated. How much management makes is immaterial.

Are you worth more because somebody else got a raise, or because you are under compensated for who you are and what you can do?