DTW Roadshow
06-05-2012, 12:50 PM
#111
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by ReasonableMan
That is the problem. It seems the NO voters are trying to make the case for getting C2K back in its entirety without realizing C2K was not sustainable! It was a poor management decision that resulted in part bankruptcy by the company, an almost hostile takeover, and a ****ed of pilot group. I too want C2K, but only if I can keep it! It is attainable but we have to build the company to a point that it can sustain it. That's better for all. Beyond that is also attainable and sustainable in due time.
As a no voter, C2K rates are not my goal. SWA rates up front, either at signing or at the amenable date would turn me. They're our prime competitor in many domestic markets.
[/rant]
06-05-2012, 12:52 PM
#112
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Elvis90
As a no voter, C2K rates are not my goal. SWA rates up front, either at signing or at the amenable date would turn me. They're our prime competitor in many domestic markets.
06-05-2012, 12:58 PM
#113
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by johnso29
Down to which aircraft? Do you want this for MD88 and up? Or all the way down to the B717?
06-05-2012, 01:02 PM
#114
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by Elvis90
The MD-90 seats 160. I would prefer that...I would prefer "narrow body pay", but that's a separate discussion. Bottom line, B737 pay parity from Day 1.
06-05-2012, 01:06 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by Elvis90
The MD-90 seats 160. I would prefer that...I would prefer "narrow body pay", but that's a separate discussion. Bottom line, B737 pay parity from Day 1.
06-05-2012, 01:09 PM
#117
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by finis72
I guess you like your pay now because with those demands you will be shelved by the NMB for a long time then it will take parity plus another 15-20% to make up for the time value of money.SW got to where they are by taking small raises every year along with profit sharing. One of the things they have is raises tied to operating margin, maybe a double edged sword but an interesting concept. I think working for a consistently profitable company helps also.
If the company offered 1/1/1/1, and we said no, would the NMB reject it? Maybe the company aimed too high then.
06-05-2012, 01:10 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by Elvis90
[rant]
As a no voter, C2K rates are not my goal. SWA rates up front, either at signing or at the amenable date would turn me. They're our prime competitor in many domestic markets.
[/rant]
As a no voter, C2K rates are not my goal. SWA rates up front, either at signing or at the amenable date would turn me. They're our prime competitor in many domestic markets.
[/rant]
06-05-2012, 01:12 PM
#119
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by ReasonableMan
Even if it's not sustainable and you will lose that or even more shortly after receiving it? Are you willing to risk your career and lively hood over $5 more per hour? That's not very logical.
06-05-2012, 01:21 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 777 Sim Instructor
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by Elvis90
That's where we disagree. I think it is sustainable, as it has been for SWA, UPS and FedEx. If one carrier raises the bar, others will follow and pilot costs will be a commodity to pay just like oil.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
