Originally Posted by tsquare

It never did have a chance. Too many guys are only worried that the orange envelopes keep coming... they couldn't care less about the ASSociation.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

That's a very informative chart. Thanks, PG.

Here's my take on it. The chart starts in 1978. It would be interesting to see what it looked like prior to that (essentially, prior to deregulation). I suspect it would have some significant gains in the early to mid 20th century and then stay relatively flat (at about the buying power of 1978) through the 60's and 70's. That was definitely the "hey day" for airline pilots in terms of buying power. My opinion is that the "value" of an airline pilot had been written in blood and pretty well established by the time we got to the 60's and 70's. Safety was by far the #1 priority and airline pilot compensation reflected that. Then came deregulation. You take an industry that had been subsidized by the government and very poorly managed (didn't have to manage it well because the profits were virtually guaranteed). Suddenly, these companies have to actually compete in a free market. (Well sorta... airlines are still heavily regulated in many areas.) Anyway, it's literally taken decades for this industry to slowly recognize some of it's management flaws and begin to correct them. Then you add in the sense of entitlement to low airfares that people seem to have... and you have an industry that has allowed a real problem to develop in terms of the cost/revenue equation.

My take on PG's slowly declining buying power graph is that it reflects both the realities of the industry and ALPA's inability to effectively make the case for maintaining the value of airline pilots. I see C2K as simply a correction to get our buying power back to the well established value that we saw in the 60's and 70's. If you look at the graph, you can see that C2K set that buying power back to exactly what it was in 1978 before the decline started.

Then 9/11 happened. And we got into an era of irresponsible bean counting... disregarding tried and true business principles with a focus on short term performance numbers and stock price (instead of doing what is best for the company in the long run) and maximizing executive compensation. These bean counters have just about ruined our product (I'm talking the whole industry, not just Delta) and have turned employees into strictly a cost item, missing out on the real value of employees as one of the most important assets to the company.

The cuts we took just prior to and during BK were unprecedented and unwarranted. There is no way you can justify those massive cuts with a slowly declining line on a graph. What I think most of us are advocating is that we return that line on the graph to at or near that well established level of value that had been established for us for decades prior to 1978... you know, back when the overriding priority in the industry was safety, which includes having the best people possible in the cockpit. That's what I want to see from ALPA. I want them to make the case that what we do is no less valuable today than it was in 1978.

Sorry if I rambled a bit in this post... but I do not in any way believe that we have to accept a 50% reduction in the value of the career we signed up for. And I think we need to be realistic about the kind of numbers (increase) it will take to restore that reduction. Hint: It is not going to be accomplished with a "what are you willing to give up to get that" mentality.

Originally Posted by NuGuy

Heyas Carl,

Don't like them? Recall them.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Carl, it's really tough for you to admit you are wrong.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

So I say that GAINS in reserve will impact GAINS in other parts of the contract you come up with COST NEUTRAL. Show me how that math works.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Carl;
Any time I have ever talked to your DTW Sec Tres he always seems to get scope. I do not know why you think he would be willing to sell anything.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

I believe your FO rep is of the same mind set.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Do not forget that the sec/tres is a non voting position!

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

Carl was wrong.

Originally Posted by capncrunch

I disagree. As Carl pointed out earlier, from the beginning of the profession the contracts got bigger and better for pilots up till 9/11.

Originally Posted by Reroute

Nice spin.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

Okay, let's put it in the simplest terms for ease of argument. Let's pilots at XYZ airline had a contract where average pay was $50,000 a year and they each had 10 vacation days which averaged $1,000 per day in cost. Let's assume that those were the only two things in their contract, so the total contract cost is $60,000 per year per pilot. So now, they decide to go to an arbitrator to decide how much more they are going to get from the company and he decides on $12,000 per pilot increase in total compensation.

Okay, I know this is a totally made up, artificial situation but in order to illustrate my points I had to have everything as a known quantity.

So the union has $12,000 per pilot. They can give the pilots 2 more vacation days and a $10,000 per year raise, or they can give 12 more vacation days and no raise, or they can give $12,000 per year in pay raises. What they can't do is give 12 more vacation days AND a $12,000 per year raise.

In our situation we know the inputs to the contract, but we don't know the output, or how much we are going to get. What we do know is some general range of numbers based on the economics and negotiating environment. The unions job is to press the upper limit of all the variables to get the best deal possible. But at some point there is a limit. Once you accept that there is a limit then decisions have to be made because you have 12,000 pilots with 12,000 priorities.

If you reject the concept that there is a limit then I demand $50,000 per hour. If it is unlimited then why not shoot high? You will respond that I am being ridiculous, and I will agree, but you can only say I am ridiculous if you accept that there is some limit.

Delta will put about $35 B on the top line this year, our contact is about $2.25 (guess only) which makes us about 6.5% of gross. At least you would have to agree that we could never get more than $35 B per year and when you start to make some basic assumptions about paying for aircraft, fuel, gate space, etc. that $35 B gets whittled down pretty quick. At some point there is a range from current contract, to current contract + X. The union will make X as large as possible but there is a limit.

We have a perfect example of what happens when a union ignores limits. The APA made up a contract number based on some invented formula, with no basis in the real world. Their company has no ability to pay X, or at least the National Mediation Board is convinced they don't. Therefore, the APA is parked in limbo, and have come to ALPA for help and advice to get out of limbo. If you don't accept limits, then the realities of the world will come crashing down upon you.

Maybe you are a pay guy who wants all your increase in pay, Bucking Bar wants all his increase in scope, hockeypilot wants to have commutable reserve, maybe Carl wants better retirement. Once you have a limit, and once you have these competing priorities, then you have to make decisions. You cannot have it all.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I do it all the time, and have said so in my posts. I've never seen you admit to being wrong.



You absolutely are all about cost neutrality alfa. I'm glad to see that you are walking it back now that you've (yet again) been confronted as being a management/alpa stooge. I'm glad to see that you are on board with the idea of the 2012 contract costing management one hell of a lot of money. I'll do my best to watch out for you if/when you start to backslide.

Carl