compound interest says if you’re five percent behind and gain 50% you’re further behind.

.95* 1.5=1.425
1* 1.5=1.5

now you’re 7.5% behind when you were 5% behind last cycle. So no. We aren’t looking for the same percentage increase. Even the equitable increase requires a higher pay increase just to match back to 95% behind the legacies.


Smh. Let the people in the negotiations do their job.

 

You missed the point. There’s a number that’s know already. That’s the point. It’s in the neighborhood of the same % increase as others. Is it 2 or 3% higher than others? That would be a realistic assumption but it’s definitely not over 10% higher. Again the numbers are known.

I agree with let the negotiators do their job. I’m not sure why you felt the need to add that?

 

While this is true, there's more to the story (there always is).

The issue w/ looking at it from a finite max "number" being the case is that the "number" can and does change depending on what the company chooses to do. In the market, the COMPANY chooses the product. The COMPANY chooses how they market and offer it. The COMPANY decides what changes/adjustments that are necessary for improved revenue. This can come in many forms - an improvement of the app, better customer service, other incentives like bags/children/companions flying for discount, etc. Perhaps the company decides to transport cargo. Again, there are several ways to improve ones operation. So, at any time, the COMPANY can project a "number" that is more or less.

Let's say our initial proposal would increase pilot labor costs/compensation by $100M a month (just an example). The COMPANY could counter w/ $90M (citing they can't afford any more). How do we know if this is true given the company has the ability to make adjustments to increase revenue?

My contention is that it doesn't matter what the company says. The labor market is dictated by both our and other airlines of which is beyond their control. If we as pilots agree on a number that we deem as the MINIMUM acceptable to be fair to us - given the current market - then the company either meets it or we strike. That's it. If negotiations stall, drag out, etc. then that is handled by the market. It won't be that long before other airlines hire and the exodus begins. The company must ride that fine line between revenue and costs. The company has the distinct ability (and responsibility) to stay in business - Barry shrugging his shoulders while stating that labor costs too much is essentially admitting he's not good enough as a CEO to improve the company enough to afford it (while other airlines do). So for us it's really simple as the market has spoken. Making enough to cover is not our problem. Labor should never have to be concerned with the company's ability to operate and make a profit. That is MANAGEMENT'S job. If it's ever a serious concern for us, we work for the wrong company. Sooner or later, the price of everything goes up. Labor. Gates. Better customer service. Everything.

Either adapt (improve) or die. The minimum will be dictated via the TA process. 50.1% NO means the minimum hasn't been met.

What is really scary would be if the company sold their lie to us, we believed it, voted in a sub-par contract, then the company made ALL the changes to actually improve the product and kept the profit.

 

Honest evaluation of the unity of the pilot group is essential during these times. If it ever gets to that point how many will cross the “line” ? The answer should be an honest 0!

Do the vast majority of pilots have a “war chest” ? - a minimum of 3 months personal expenses is a good starting point. (Start NOW if you don’t)

As many of you know Indigo won’t even move the needle in a meaningful way until you are close if not actually in the cooling off period. Don't let Indigo frame the parameters of who your peers are for contract comparisons.

In unity

 

We'll somehow end up being the first pilot contract with "Loss Sharing"

 

Lol. Is that where at the end of each quarter we all have to chip in some cash to cover the losses?

 

Not quite.

If you're talking percentages, you're still only 5% behind.

1.425 / 1.5 = .95

If you move two contracts (or whatever units) by the same percentage factor then the percentage gap remains the same.


You're correct in absolute dollar terms (not percentage) we'd be further behind. 1.5 - 1.425 = .075.

Difference is significant, especially because other factors such as inflation eat into that gap.


So yes, I agree we remedy the gap with a larger increase. ~58% if it's ~50% bump elsewhere.

.95 x 1.58 = ~1.5
1.0 x 1.5 = ~1.5

This closes difference in absolute terms.

 

Exactly that