I posted the data hours ago. You posted long after mine, but I know you're not much for details or accuracy.

This is from the Department of Labor dude.

Wrong again. Salary only.

Can anybody say...thread drift!

As long as the job in corporate communications is with ALPA...then I'd be making way more than those overpaid jet jockeys.

Carl

 

O.K. A/R,
I'll bite....just approximately WHAT percentage of paycut/pension erosion would you be ok with,as a result of BK, or are you happy with what "our guys" negotiated for us? I'm just sayin'...

Chuck

By the way, the UAL of '02 (I think)--(I do recall their 747 captains were paid $310 per hour) contract was much richer than the NWA 1998 contract.

 

Pre CH 11 DAL paid their 777A's 319 an hr. What is the point to this?

Even the carriers (sans LUV) that had independent representation took massive pay cuts. (Ch 11 or not) We have only started the post bk era. No one argues we need more, but look at the whole picture.

LUV was cherry picking your routes and could afford to feed off our fat. No the case anymore.

 

Comic relief to lighten the mood? I like it.

 

The 1986 MD-88 Captain rate (12 yr) was $135.53. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $280.13 in 2012. The same rate in our current contract for 2012 is $167.68. It would take a 67% increase to our current contract 2012 rate to get back to the buying power enjoyed by a 1986 MD-88 Captain. And how is it you justify that 42% pay cut again??

 

Or the truth. Either way, I like it too!

 

No, I don't think it's "extreme fear tactics" that are driving people, although you make another interesting point: our MEC has a nasty tendency, as I believe all MEC's have, to try to "sell" their T/A's. In fact, it's often negotiated into the T/A that way. I suppose this may be a standard business practice, where we trade something in exchange for helping to reduce the uncertainty about the outcome, but still, it leaves a foul taste to us "customers" that have to endure the brain-washing at vote time. I'd rather see a pro-con paper, and hear a lot of silence. The one time we don't need communication from our reps (except to answer questions)... we're flooded with it.

But back to my anger point... you are establishing yourself as a proponent of DPA so far. When you're putting up salaries of National employees in a discussion about DPA, what effect are you going for in support of your argument... if not anger at the incumbents?

 

Killing the gregarious mood already?

 

I put up the data in response to a poster who asked about the "rumor" he heard that some administrators at ALPA national make more money than an MD88 FO. I posted the data from the Department of Labor to show it wasn't a rumor.

Carl

 

Why do you only pick the 1986 or 2004 rates???

Extrapolate the 1999 rate. See where that gets you. Or better yet, do a long term, historical look since deregulation and see what that trend line looks like. Our rates have nothing to do with LM or ALPA, its called market forces, and the trend is not our friend.