^^^^^This^^^^^^^
When a legacy can’t fill captain seats, there is a reason. No more LOA’s. We need to address weaknesses in our reserve rules, improve compensation, and make positions not just tolerable, but desirable, especially considering the high cost of living in the bases where seats go unfilled. We are hiring at record numbers, massive aircraft deliveries are scheduled, and movement will be off the charts. It is in the interest of both the company and the employee to ensure that the infrastructure is there to minimize the growing pains. Hope we don’t let this go to waste, but it’s kind of what we do.

 

I wish we had a like button! Excellent post!

 

Cheaper (& faster) for the company to just grow senior hubs like ORD/IAH & shift flying to match staffing, or TDY to understaffed hubs as needed. They could easily make those unfilled captain seats disappear on the next bid with this approach. Don’t get me wrong, a contract is both needed & overdue, but I don’t think a few unfilled upgrades in SFO creates a corporate code red to get ink on a new contract.

The good news is- as you’ve suggested- I don’t think this is a fleeting moment. Each month we’re taking new airplanes & returning to profitability, so our bargaining position only gets better as time goes on. We’ve lost a lot to inflation over the past two years alone, but bargaining has been effectively on hold the entire time. I’m for affording the union time to negotiate the right contract on our behalf, even if it means being stuck with this one a little while longer.

 

Why should pilots care? If the company can't support a sustained standard of living for pilots (irregardless of national conditions), then shouldn't it just go out of business? Aren't the big shots supposed to be smarter than the market? If they can't make money but want to stay a going concern, shouldn't the be the ones eating the costs?

 

1) Irregardless isn’t a word.

2) The only way I could understand your post was by imagining a drunk guy yelling it to me at the bar.

3) Your sentiment is good but Hedley is correct. These “big shots” are smarter than us, not the market and their narrative will be one of, “oh fuel is so expensive now, we can only give you XXX raise in your new contract.” Watch us collectively vote yes for cents on the dollar. But yeah, time for a contract.

 

Merriam-Webster says “meh.”

 

Alot of people definately misunderestimate how “irregardless” has been embiggened.

 

I will definitely write my reps and tell them I am against positive space commuting, commuter hotels, and home basing. It should be tougher to commute than to live in base. That gives a seniority bump to pilots in those bases who chose to live in those higher cost bases to make up for the cost of living difference. I live 20 minutes from one of our junior hubs and even though I’m junior, I have more disposable income than some equal seniority people who commute from BFE for the same amount of days worked because I can pick up premium flying short notice and can pick up extra flying days equal to the days they spend commuting. That is actually better for the company (fewer pilots needed), and better for the value of our standby benefits (it encourages fewer commuters).

If the company is having a tough time getting employees in our more desirable/higher cost of living areas, then they should do what every other company in the world does besides the airlines and pay them more to live in a higher cost area. We are already doing this for Guam based pilots. SFO, EWR, and maybe LAX should be next.

 

Pay people more to be based out of a high cost area and it would likely have the same effect as paying for commuter hotels, etc. Seniority would increase as more people bid in to take advantage of the higher rates.

 

Yes, it will make the coastal bases more senior, but it will also put money into pilots pockets who live there instead of wasting it on hotels and seats that can’t be sold to customers.