Alaska General Discussion
07-31-2023, 06:36 AM
#731
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,041
I think an early pay raise is possible but highly unlikely. Yes, there's attrition, and pilot recruiting is slow, but they're still filling ground schools and running the airline smoothly. As a homeowner, when do you pay to replace your roof? A slum lord waits until the roof starts leaking and the city threatens condemnation. Alaska's roof isn't leaking yet. After reporting some healthy Q2 numbers, management is literally out on vacation. The Seattle Times hasn't run a negative Alaska story in over a year. I doubt pilot raises are on anyone's radar.
I don't mean to slam our management. I think they run a good airline, but they have three major flaws IMO:
1) They don't hire enough outsiders to fill leadership positions which makes them blind to opportunities and causes an entrenched Alaska "We're better than everyone because we come to work early in the morning and care about metrics" groupthink. There's so much more to running a service-based company than morning ops meetings and financial mathematics, but management can't see it because they all think the same way. Any outside ideas are shunned.
2) They're too risk-averse. The prime example is Virgin America. It cost VX's investors roughly $900 million to go from nothing but an office in NYC to running a profitable airline with valuable gates and slots in our nation's most lucrative airports. Why didn't Alaska do it themselves? Alaska could have done what VX did when VX did, and it would've been so much cheaper for Alaska because they already ran an airline. Why did they spend $4 billion to buy Virgin instead of spending less than $900 million to build out their own network? Alaska could've built what VX did, when VX did, for half of the cost, but they didn't because they were too chicken. Instead, they end up paying 4 times more and going through the pain of a merger. It makes me wonder what opportunities they're missing out on right now.
3) They don't care enough about branding. Alaska has arguably the worst brand of any airline in the United States. Let's start with the Eskimo logo. They're afraid to use the logo to promote the airline because left-leaning people might think Alaska's logo is racist, but on the other hand, they're afraid to ditch the Eskimo logo because it'll upset right-leaning rural customers. In classic Alaska management fashion, rather than make a hard decision, they punt. They keep the logo but don't use it except on the tail of the plane. And the name "Alaska"... Good god... It's so stupid. Spirit has better brand recognition than Alaska Airlines. People know that Spirit serves the entire country and they believe they're getting rock-bottom prices when they fly Spirit. What does a leisure traveler in Kansas City think about Alaska Airlines? Do they think we're the people from that bush pilot reality TV show? Do they know about our cheese plate with a selection of the finest cheeses the Pacific Northwest has to offer? Customers don't know who we are and management doesn't care. I don't know why the BOD tolerates the situation year after year, decade after decade.
A potential Alaska pilot needs to look at the Washington State Ferry system (the ferry boats that service Puget Sound) to get an accurate idea of their career progression at Alaska Airlines. Alaska grows at the same rate as the city of Seattle and surrounding metro areas. We add seats to our routes at the same rate as the Washington Ferry adds seats to the Seattle to Bremerton line. If that career progression and stability sounds good to you, then Alaska is the place to be.
I don't mean to slam our management. I think they run a good airline, but they have three major flaws IMO:
1) They don't hire enough outsiders to fill leadership positions which makes them blind to opportunities and causes an entrenched Alaska "We're better than everyone because we come to work early in the morning and care about metrics" groupthink. There's so much more to running a service-based company than morning ops meetings and financial mathematics, but management can't see it because they all think the same way. Any outside ideas are shunned.
2) They're too risk-averse. The prime example is Virgin America. It cost VX's investors roughly $900 million to go from nothing but an office in NYC to running a profitable airline with valuable gates and slots in our nation's most lucrative airports. Why didn't Alaska do it themselves? Alaska could have done what VX did when VX did, and it would've been so much cheaper for Alaska because they already ran an airline. Why did they spend $4 billion to buy Virgin instead of spending less than $900 million to build out their own network? Alaska could've built what VX did, when VX did, for half of the cost, but they didn't because they were too chicken. Instead, they end up paying 4 times more and going through the pain of a merger. It makes me wonder what opportunities they're missing out on right now.
3) They don't care enough about branding. Alaska has arguably the worst brand of any airline in the United States. Let's start with the Eskimo logo. They're afraid to use the logo to promote the airline because left-leaning people might think Alaska's logo is racist, but on the other hand, they're afraid to ditch the Eskimo logo because it'll upset right-leaning rural customers. In classic Alaska management fashion, rather than make a hard decision, they punt. They keep the logo but don't use it except on the tail of the plane. And the name "Alaska"... Good god... It's so stupid. Spirit has better brand recognition than Alaska Airlines. People know that Spirit serves the entire country and they believe they're getting rock-bottom prices when they fly Spirit. What does a leisure traveler in Kansas City think about Alaska Airlines? Do they think we're the people from that bush pilot reality TV show? Do they know about our cheese plate with a selection of the finest cheeses the Pacific Northwest has to offer? Customers don't know who we are and management doesn't care. I don't know why the BOD tolerates the situation year after year, decade after decade.
A potential Alaska pilot needs to look at the Washington State Ferry system (the ferry boats that service Puget Sound) to get an accurate idea of their career progression at Alaska Airlines. Alaska grows at the same rate as the city of Seattle and surrounding metro areas. We add seats to our routes at the same rate as the Washington Ferry adds seats to the Seattle to Bremerton line. If that career progression and stability sounds good to you, then Alaska is the place to be.
In fairness though VX did the standard startup business model of harvesting prime gates and slots which are essentially set aside for new entrants, to foster competition. Those gates and slots might not have even been available to an established airline, although AS may have been small enough to qualify for some.
Yes they should have retained the VX name (since they leased it anyway), or taken the opportunity to rebrand to something else... eventually the identity politicians are going to come for the Eskimo. It would be better to have done that early, on their own terms, rather than kicking and screaming like the guy who owned the Redskins.
07-31-2023, 08:00 AM
#732
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2022
Posts: 689
I'm not sure why this still needs to be repeated but our $306 did not influence the upcoming $343 and soon thereafter $360. Based on the votes ( and the decision to not even vote), AA and UA pilots soundly rejected those numbers and a contract even close to ours.
There is a huge difference between pattern bargaining and just simply being left far behind hoping the company increases the pay rate because the difference is so vast, it's actually in their best interest to do something.
Who would've thought in this pilot friendly environment, especially considering how far behind we were, we are in a position realistically where if the company offers us a non CBA obligated raise that is 5-10% below our peers, some of our pilots will gladly cheer and thank the company.
Hopefully between now and 2025, we learn our worth and vote accordingly so we don't get in this position yet again
There is a huge difference between pattern bargaining and just simply being left far behind hoping the company increases the pay rate because the difference is so vast, it's actually in their best interest to do something.
Who would've thought in this pilot friendly environment, especially considering how far behind we were, we are in a position realistically where if the company offers us a non CBA obligated raise that is 5-10% below our peers, some of our pilots will gladly cheer and thank the company.
Hopefully between now and 2025, we learn our worth and vote accordingly so we don't get in this position yet again
07-31-2023, 10:19 AM
#734
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2022
Posts: 689
07-31-2023, 10:28 AM
#735
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 1,238
Because you don’t understand even basic economics. MAGIC will happen this fall. The “30” on here will still find fault, or find something new to cry about.
07-31-2023, 10:32 AM
#736
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,041
And what about all the other employee groups? They going to a big gratis raise too? If not, the water cooler would be pretty entertaining.
07-31-2023, 10:45 AM
#737
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 677
It could be argued that pilots at the big 3 generally believe that they should be paid more than the Alaskas, the Jetblue, and the Spirits, etc, because, well, that's how it's always been. It would be no surprise then, that they would/did reject rates that were similar to what we had accepted.
07-31-2023, 01:24 PM
#738
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2022
Posts: 689
Am I missing something?
07-31-2023, 01:34 PM
#739
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 257
07-31-2023, 02:03 PM
#740
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2023
Posts: 699
I think you made my point without even realizing it, as your second sentence seems to be contradicting your opening statement. Would you care to clarify?
It could be argued that pilots at the big 3 generally believe that they should be paid more than the Alaskas, the Jetblue, and the Spirits, etc, because, well, that's how it's always been. It would be no surprise then, that they would/did reject rates that were similar to what we had accepted.
It could be argued that pilots at the big 3 generally believe that they should be paid more than the Alaskas, the Jetblue, and the Spirits, etc, because, well, that's how it's always been. It would be no surprise then, that they would/did reject rates that were similar to what we had accepted.
Every airline that waited got a nice pay bump within a few points of Delta.
We are 3rd tier because the pilots allowed themselves to be there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
