See, another emotional argument. When did I ever mention fear? I thought that I was quite specific in saying that our arguments should be economically based and not emotionally based.

If your F/O said on short final, "Hey let's buzz the tower like Maverick did in Top Gun." What would your answer be? Would it be based on fear or a rational analysis of actions and consequences?

You are not Fearless and I am not Fearful, so put away the schoolyard taunts and talk facts and not emotions.

 

The problem is that you do not have a patent on facts. Nobody (including you) can predict the future of the economy, our industry, or our company with any certainty. If you want to try and rationalize the unprecedented, draconian cuts we took a few years ago and that we continue today (well after bankruptcy was over), well I'm sorry but I'm not going to agree with you that that was/is rational or appropriate. If you want to tie our pay to the up and down cycles of this industry and this company's profits and losses, then go right ahead and continue advocating that we do that. If that's innovative or forward thinking in your mind, well I would submit that you have pretty low expectations of the future of this profession. Did you have these low expectations when you got into this career? Or have you changed your mind? It couldn't be that you're afraid to really fight for it because you're more afraid that you could lose it all, is it? Was that enough of a "taunt" for you? LOL

 

How is the market even remotely equivalent to the markets of the 70s 80s or even 2K? The supply and demand curve is vastly different than it was then. There were no puppy mill pilot factories back then. There were no predatory subcontractors hiring marginally experienced pilots at lower wages. You didn't have a public and hence a government demanding ever decreasing airfares as a birth right.

The Grand Scheme of Things, in a business sense, is not yours to determine. Just because we "make it a priority" doesn't mean we will be successful. Just look to American. If we had the power to dictate to the bean counters and managers what our price will be and let them figure out how to make it work, you might not like how they did. The market is not static and Newton's Laws still apply. If we were successful in commanding above market rates, there would be an equal and opposite reaction. The cost of our contract would equalize to the costs of the competition's contracts somehow, most likely by eliminating bodies. If you raise the per unit cost of labor too far beyond the competition, employers will reduce the number of units to keep their total costs in line.

How much is enough? I have no idea. It will be based on the market conditions and trends at the time of negotiations. The past will have very little bearing on those conditions.

 

It is not a given that "equalizing costs" will result in "eliminating bodies." In fact, I think that is highly unlikely. They can do the same thing they do when the cost of any number of items goes up. They can either find other places to cut costs and/or find ways to increase revenue. That's what the executives get paid the big bucks for.

And speaking of big bucks... You're right. The market is different than it was in the 70's, 80's and C2K. So how is it that executive compensation has gone through the roof since then, while our compensation has basically been slashed in HALF? Again, it comes back to priorities and even good business management. It is very difficult to achieve success in a company if you treat your employees like cr@p. Smart business managers understand that employees are one of the most valuable assets to the business, not strictly a cost item to be minimized. We need to get back to good, sound, common sense, proven business and leadership practices, not the cold, ruthless, bean counter mentality we have today. In my opinion, you will be more likely to have continued, valuable employment conditions over your career if we fight to correct this now.

 

I agree with your philosophy on business in general, but in the airline world where seniority is everything and is not portable, our ability to vote with our feet is severely limited. As long as they don't go below the price point that you can make more doing anything else than you can flying you will stay. Your professionalism and your self preservation instinct will keep you doing the job to the best of your ability. You may be surly, but pilots in general have very little contact with the customer.

Where you see the impact on poor relations is in the lower rungs of the employment ladder. At JFK we hired rampers, got them trained then they promptly left for JB for higher pay. Southwest has made a living on doing exactly just what you advocate. They have reached the limits of their business model, though. Whether their corporate culture survive the passing of Herb and Gary, remains to be seen.

 

You wouldn't be confused if you would just read the posts instead of reading into them. For the fifth time now I've said that I'm just talking about pay restoration right now. We have to take baby steps here because people like you don't actually read posts and end up making arguements against things that were never stated.

A new contract in 2012 will require a 42% bump in pay on day one to achieve the Delta C2K pay rate level. That will cost Delta about 800 million. Not 2 to 4 billion as has been stated by many around here. 800 million. I think we can all agree on that now. If so, the next item I'd like to look at is the 14% DC.

Carl

 

No you weren't dude. Your initial posts on this only talked about how impossible it will be to restore pay all in one bite because it would cost billions. We now know that was BS. Now you're back pedaling and saying you were really talking about purchasing power when you said pay. That's quite typical for you as we know.

The days of you using scare tactics and made up numbers to lower expectations here are over. We're going to find out actual facts here...one way or another.

Carl

 

It matters for pilots too. Here's one of the most credible experts in business management talking about this exact philosophy using pilots as a specific example:

YouTube - LEADERSHIP: American vs Southwest

One of the real tragedies of LM's "proactive engagement" strategy is that we have shielded our management from the normal consequences of this critical business mistake. It's helped them in the short run (although I would submit probably not in the long run), and it has hurt us immensely to date.

 

Well, if you want to taunt, then I can guarantee you that I have done more fighting for this profession than you have. So, if you are really committed, get from behind your keyboard and do something as opposed to just complain about the efforts of others. Until then, your taunts are hollow and have no meaning.

As for the rest of your post, then either you didn't read what I wrote, you can't understand what I wrote, or you just deliberately alter the meaning in your reply. I think I was clear in saying that our compensation could go way up if market conditions are right. I haven't lowered expectations in any way. I do realize that if you a situation where you try to distort the market based on emotional issues you will lose.

Based on your responses and your inability to address the core issues, it is clear you know that what I am saying is fundamentally right. You can complain about CEO salaries all you want but that is immaterial to our contract. Demagoguery wins loud applause, but the NMB would just laugh at you if you tried to use that as an economic argument. The guy losing the argument is the guy calling the other guy names.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Indeed!