|
Curious if someone has the numbers for what the CEO and the top execs made in 1994.
What kind of profits/losses did the company post for FY '94? |
Originally Posted by WideRide
(Post 1201032)
NO, it is not a signing bonus. It is to "offset" the cut they are making to your profit sharing payout.
You are buying into the scare tactics. Good pilot. Fall in line. Put your hat back on, and shine those shoes. Seriously...the sky is not falling. Both sides are reasonable. If we send it back, we can get the areas we have issues with refined. Not having a deal is a bad idea for the Company as well - and it is bad for SWA because they are "stuck" with 717's they don't want, and ALPA national (dues), and all those RJ guys at DCI who are like grapes on the vine, withering away...and us (we want pay and we want it now). Don't buy into the Company "all or nothing" line...we can fix scope so it is at least better than the current offer (or maybe we can even hold the line!)...we can increase the pay rates...we can get rid of that 7th short-call day they are adding, we can get rid of the profit sharing cut... If we all band together and vote NO, we can show our solidarity and the Company will know they have to make us a better offer. The Company needs the lift. They need 717's or 319's. They are stuck with 255 70-76 seat RJ's and the 50 seaters are not viable in this fuel market, refinery or no refinery. We had to accept massive cuts post 9/11. We are working under a concessionary contract right now. We have the upper hand now. Let's use it. Vote NO. I can't believe how many people are falling for the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Does anybody believe that the company is willing to throw out months of work if we just ask for modest improvements (a few more percent in pay and some tightening of some language) and the certainty of labor peace (which they need for the capital markets and to get rid of the unprofitable 50s - isn't it amazing that the 1.25/1 is EXACTLY what is need ed to bring over 88 717s (which the company wants because they are cheap). I think the risk (no raises for up to two years) outweighs the rewards (giving up the sure raises with concessions in scope and work rules). |
Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg
(Post 1200669)
Pilots also got reimbursed for laundry and tipping back then.... Big deal! Times have changed, and now our peers can't negotiate out of a paper bag, not helping us at all. 9-11, BK, and age 65 also screwed things up. It's not good to dwell on the past, rather concentrate on going forward and gaining as much as we possibly can within reasonable means. That means reasonable gains thanks to shorter duration contracts, not one big "gold mine" hit at once. Just not going to happen in today's negotiating environment. Ask the AA, UCAL, and US guys what I mean.
Bill, One problem with that logic is that's exactly what the company is doing to us with scope. Every new contract we give up just a little bit more. Anyone who believes that the "hard caps" on the RJ's will still be in effect in 10 years is delusional. |
Can anyone post the fares, by RPM, were in '94? Fares are down 18% since 2001 and transcontinental fares today are very nearly what they were just prior to deregulation in '79, same dollars reduced by 33 years of inflation.
GF |
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1200711)
Well, at least we know where you're coming from - acceptance of the post-BK "new normal." That seems to be DALPA's position as well. Not everyone is quite so ready to lie down and take it.
|
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1200711)
Well, at least we know where you're coming from - acceptance of the post-BK "new normal." That seems to be DALPA's position as well. Not everyone is quite so ready to lie down and take it.
DALPA has recouped over 53% of what was taken out of the pay tables while AA, CAL, UAL, and LCC have done jack $h!t in that same time. How have YOU raised the bar within your pilot groups' negotiations? |
Originally Posted by NwaBusDriver
(Post 1202844)
Bill,
One problem with that logic is that's exactly what the company is doing to us with scope. Every new contract we give up just a little bit more. Anyone who believes that the "hard caps" on the RJ's will still be in effect in 10 years is delusional. This contract recaptures control of flying that was previously allowed to be outsourced. Period. That is not concessionary. |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 1203001)
Scope is more than RJ's.... Ask any NYC ER or LAX 73N pilot.
This contract recaptures control of flying that was previously allowed to be outsourced. Period. That is not concessionary. Next contract I'll be told we were able to get a 15% raise on day one. Unfortunately we had to give up our 15% DC! |
It is not 1994 any more. It is 2012 and the world is different. Those old rates no longer apply.
|
I read the LAX LEC letter, what exactly are you referring to in this letter. It appears that its just ALPA union propaganda. Its sad that we pay our hard earned money each month for a crap TA. Unbelievable, the NC is stroking each other with the success of a quick TA. Well, if you bend over fast enough, anyone is willing to give it to you fast and dirty. Delta NC, stop bending over on behalf of the entire DAL pilot group.
It may be bad timing... However, we need a changing of the guards for Delta pilots representation. I have read both the pros and cons of this TA. We should be in absolutely No rush to ratify this crap, send it back and do it right this time. Remember, the NC is working for us, we pay $$$ dues for this TA? Trust me, RA wants this contract inked early for a reason that will only benefit DAL MGT, Not DAL Pilots. The NC has more leverage than they want us to believe. We are no longer considered an asset at this company...Vote No. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:26 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands