Yes I agree but I think it helped acccelerate us that direction. Trust me I am not saying it was the only cause.

 

I never said that.

My problem is with those who say that the C2000 caused UAL's CH11 filing/furloughs and therefore we should never again receive a large contract. It kinda goes along the same line of thought that the pilots were solely responsible for for the Summer of 2K.

The CH11 filing was the result of many events. Rapid growth leading up to the dot com bust, 9/11, increasing fuel costs, and yes, costlier contracts. The company knew of their cash flow problems in the spring of 02. They even knew that if they let current events run their course, we would hit our min cash limit Nov 02 time frame. From my perspective, it seemed like they wasted a lot of time trying to solve the problem. One could even argue they wanted to go bankrupt, shred the contracts, pensions, and ESOP all at once.

It nauseates me to hear someone, let alone a pilot, neatly wrap a large contract gain into a CH11 filing and furloughs. C2000 was essentially an inflationary increase from 1994 to 2000 plus a modest contractual gain. I'm not going to speak for Mr. Average IAH pilot, but coming off a nearly 50% pay cut 8 years ago, I will not vote for an "average contract" and continue to fund our bankruptcy of 3 years ago and senior management's bank account.

 

If I put on my shareholder's hat: I'd think that Delta+1 was a reasonable offer given the economic conditions today, but I think that full pay restoration would only be feasible if we returned to the economic conditions that were prevalent in the late 1990s (cheap reliable fuel, constant profits at decent levels yielding attractive ROIs). Unfortunately this is a different decade and passengers are paying fares near all time lows (in real dollars), the top network carriers on average as an industry aren't on track yet to produce significant profits that attracts long term investors and a classification as a blue chip company.

Wouldn't a "B" scale for new hires who are first placed on 99-seat jets be reasonable? Similarly would a "C" scale for those who start on 86-seat jets and a "D" scale for those who start on 76-seat jets where pay parity with the 12-year "A" scale rate is reached by the "B" scale in year 15, the "C" scale in year 18 and "D" scale in year 21?

 

No Mr. Ferris, it would not.

 

I have heard people talk that were doing contract negotiations at DAL & UAL at that time. They say things started towards a recession the summer before 9/11. They say that's why they settled for the deals they got.
The attacks reportedly made it a faster and more severe decline, but the net result might have been pretty similar. We'll never know.

 

Not a f$%#*ng chance. Horrible idea. How about we have a unified pilot group that is paid commensurate with being the industry leading airline that our "leaders" claim to be. Really? Another B-scale advocate?

Scott

 

And the beat goes on as usual......

 

Fair enough. Thank you for the straight answer. I don't listen to the opinion of Scabs so I wanted to ask point plank.

I'm 6'5", 6'7" with my hair. We should start an airline Basketball team!

 

DAL's contract was negotiated in Bankrupcy. Perhaps you missed our 2nd Q numbers.....

 

"If I put on my shareholder's hat: I'd think that Delta+1 was a reasonable offer given the economic conditions today"

Not even close! The Delta+1 is a PAY CUT!!!!!

How might you ask?

If you read all the details in the offer CAL management offered reductions in:
Vacation
Sick list pay
757 pay
Training pay
Reserve coverages
Dead head seats
Out sourcing MORE FLYING
and more.

For UAL pilots the entire package was a net negative dollar and life style wise.
This = PAY CUT!