You didn't keep it in context.

You claimed - "Just a little better. Chapter 11 was a 42% pay cut in buying power. We're currently at a 34% pay cut."

Does it matter where we fit relative to everyone else?

If we were 50% above 2004 pay rates, but 5-10% behind our peers…you'd be happy?

 

Edit. Warren Buffet's rules excepted.
1) Don't lose money.
2) see rule 1.

The rest is just fluff.

 

No, his number is taken in a vacuum. It always has been. But to be fair, he seemingly would be happy if dALPA went all in and came out and said we want restoration (whatever that is). But then I think he would move on to say that they aren't doing enough to make sure that happens. It is a never ending cycle.

But your question is an interesting one.

 

I didn't keep it in the context you wanted me to keep it in. You guys may have gotten used to controlling the message through your official DALPA communications and on the old DALPA Forum, but you can't do it here.

I really, honestly, do not care what anyone else makes. 50% above the 2004 MD-88 Captain rate would put me at $356/hour. Yes, I would be more than happy with that! It's more than I even expect. This isn't a competition. This is about getting appropriate compensation for the job we do, the responsibility we have, and for the sacrifices we've all made to get to this point in our careers. Whether you look at 2004 (C2K) rates or, for example, 1986 rates... they come out about the same in terms of buying power. There was a standard of living provided by this profession that was pretty well established for decades. That standard of living was decimated through the bankruptcy process. And DALPA has spent the past almost decade acting as if bankruptcy has established a "new normal." There's lots of blame to go around for why we took the cuts in the first place. But like many things in life, it's how you respond to adversity that really defines you. At this point, I believe most of the blame lies squarely at the feet of DALPA. They have responded very poorly.

A 34% pay cut is not appropriate today. I don't think it was even appropriate for bankruptcy (it was too much), but it's certainly not appropriate now with our company making billions in profits!

 

Not sure what you're trying to relate this to here. But Warren Buffet's rule is a good one and is a big part of the reason I invest the way I do.

 

Close, but not quite right. It's not taken in a vacuum. Quite the contrary, it's people like you who are thinking in a vacuum. You're thinking strictly in terms of comparisons with other pilot groups and using that to argue against restoration. That, my friend, is a self fulfilling prophecy if ever I saw one. And you're completely ignoring all the other arguments that support the case for restoration.

If DALPA came out and defined our objective as restoration and then legitimately went about trying to make that happen, you wouldn't be hearing much from me. If they'd done this in the first place, you probably wouldn't even have known who I am, DAL 88 Driver or otherwise. Believe it or not, I don't like debating. I'm perfectly happy to fly my trips, enjoy the personal satisfaction from doing a really good job and working with some really great people, and then go home and think about something else.

 

So with this and the post 2 above, you hereby waive all rights to ever mention SWA ever again.

 

It occurred to me while I was writing it that you might misunderstand. If we can use someone else's pay to help our case with restoration, then by all means we should use it. That's the only thing that's important about SWA pay. If we got full restoration and then they got a 100% pay increase, I really would not care in the least that we were making less than they are.

 

Ahhhhh OK, so when someone is making more, then it can be used. When they make less, you ignore it. Got it. No double standard there. No vacuum. And also, since you have pointed out many times, SWA never went thru BK, so their pay is not affected, and therefore is still at pre BK rates. The "restoration" argument that should be made in this case is relative to others that have been damaged, and that does NOT include SWA. Don't get me wrong, I think we should make more than they do, and if they ever sign a contract, I will wager that you will find we will. And when we sign our next contract, it will be by a significant amount. But it probably won't satisfy your C2K + metric.


Really?

I get that we should it to bolster our argument, but you cannot ignore those making less because you then open the door to that argument. Look at it the other way around. The company can say that we make more than 95% of the other carriers on an equivalent equipment basis. You then say, but not SWA. It just doesn't make sense as a negotiation tactic. And then you even want to go farther and say that since the M88 "does the same job as a SWA 737" that it should be considered in the same vein. I have a 12 leg trip later this month (failed bidding). Should that be considered similar because it is the exact same Florida shuttle that SWA does?

Oh, and when is the vote?

 

Your thinking is so one dimensional. I didn't say anything about SWA pay being our entire argument. It's just one thing that contributes to the case for restoration. Other carriers with pilots making less are also not nearly as profitable as Delta. Also, many of those carrier's pilots took extreme pay cuts in their company's bankruptcies and should be making more than what they're making now too. You are under the (false) impression that there is some rule in business that says employee costs have to be equal between companies. This is simply not true.

But go ahead and resign yourself to bankruptcy level compensation as a new normal. I'm not going to change your mind.