Quote:
I'm not legitimizing Gene and the DIP financier's claims that wages bankrupt the airline - God knows there were many other factors.
What would have happened however if all the UAL pilots with an ESOP position, via ALPA, would have gone to management in the late 90's and said, "We want to outsource our cockpit jobs for 20 cents on the dollar, but we still want to be manager owners"?
To put the ESOP in perspective:Originally Posted by Captain Bligh
As a "not yet" UAL pilot, I've wanted to ask this question for years. In fact I did ask so rhetorically (to myself), but never had the cahones to ask a UAL pilot. First off, I know all about the "you had to die, quit or retire" scenario concerning ESOP ownership cash outs. At my here and now place in life however; if my stock compensation was worth 8-10 times my annual earnings and I could have taken a step back and looked at what I was making vs. what the rest of the industry was making... well you know where I'm going with this. What an impossible decision to make. Am I a stock holder with an interest in profitability? or am I a blue collar unionist with a vested interest in wages? What an unfair, diametrically opposed choice to have to make. The capitalist in me says take the money and run, but the pilot in me says stay in the cockpit. Ya'll owned stock but didn't act like stock holders.I'm not legitimizing Gene and the DIP financier's claims that wages bankrupt the airline - God knows there were many other factors.
What would have happened however if all the UAL pilots with an ESOP position, via ALPA, would have gone to management in the late 90's and said, "We want to outsource our cockpit jobs for 20 cents on the dollar, but we still want to be manager owners"?
The original ESOP that was voted on by the employees and turned down by the IAM would have made the employees OWNERs unlike the ESOP we got after the IAM voted it down, made the employee's (Except the FA's who decided they wanted no part of the 2nd ESOP) RENTERS.