Desdi

Come on man… we got our 3%, now the company ratchets down the soft time making up for that, could see that coming from a mile away. Let’s not forget we were told the company was crying poverty and the NEA would fix everything, and they had nothing left to offer….the the very next day after LOA 17 passes they start a bidding war for Spirit. Some people here have short memories. My fear with our current leadership going forward is apparently they can’t see these things coming. It doesn’t matter how hard CK works if you don’t have a healthy suspicion of anything management proposes and it’s piece in the overall strategic going’s on. We need to realize the few times we have leverage (when everyone is trying to convince us we don’t) and not **** it away for less than it’s worth.

SaintNick

these trips that have zero soft time sound very fatiguing.

BunkerF16

How many commutable trips are you seeing now?

Steelers

How do you figure? Avg daily rig ruins commutability and productivity. 8.5 hour day turn tied up with west coast redeye 3 day pays 20 hours.

If it was a 5 hour min day it would either be 23.5 hour 4 day or 8.5 day trip and 15 hour commutable 3 day.

BunkerF16

My guess is they stop all or most of the in base layovers..especially the ones where they incorporate highly productive day turns followed by unproductive days to finish off the pairing. They'll have to pay the daily min rig AND per diem for that in base layover. Not sure that would be something they'd want to do.

Steelers

agree there would be no cost benefit

Flyhayes

Disclaimer, I'm not a juicer by any stretch. But to hang an argument on the Spirit purchase misses the bigger picture (see what I did there). The spirit deal is largely funded by a loan, which is supposed to add value to the company.
What value would the company be adding to share holders if they funded better pay for us through a loan? That would be a poor reason to take on additional debt.

Similarly, we complain about a 3% increase not making a dent with the current inflation that we are experiencing. No company in their right mind would increase wages just to offset a temporary spike in inflation. There is a reason cost of living increases are tied to the average rise of inflation and not temporary spikes or dips.

We need to stop getting hung up on these arguments since they will never get us anywhere.

Excargodog

Mmmmm..?

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/a...trategies.aspx
https://uniontrack.com/blog/cost-of-living-adjustments
No. perhaps what is needed is for guys/gals to stop being defeatist. One can argue about WHICH inflation adjusted index ought to be incorporated into the payscale, but in an industry where management routinely uses the RLA to stretch out old contracts as much as 3-4 years after they should be renegotiated, no one should ever rule out ANY mechanism for AT LEAST keeping salaries up with inflation in actual buying power.

MainlineFlyer

Firstly assuming this is just a temporary spike in the inflation RATE (which is a large assumption giving the facts), the current 9% of increase in prices is likely permanent. Thus we need AT LEAST a 9% pay raise just to account for the past year of cost increases.

Remember, the company is able to take advantage of inflation by raising prices in real time, with executive bonuses sure to follow. This is why economists refer to inflation as regressive. Business owners benefit, while wage earners have to claw back buying power.

Flyhayes

You are absolutely correct. We should analyze the different inflation indexes as we negotiate payscale. And we should push hard for gains in this hiring climate. It's likely the best time we've ever had to be able to make theses kind of strides on the basis of supply and demand. The company speaks business, and negotiates as such. We as a group, in section 6 need to speak business, and not speak pilot sometimes. Complaining of an LOA that netted us 3% when current inflation is what it is, in my view isn't a sound business discussion that will lead anywhere with the company. The LOA itself, was simply a fine paid to us by the company not an actual contract negotiation. So to have it brought up time and time again doesn't do anything to move the needle.
BTW I was vehemently opposed to the LOA and would rather have seen it go to arbitration in order to make a point. I think that point (even if the arbitrator left us with nothing) would have been a stronger message to the company about what we are willing to put up with. As of now, the company knows they can disregard the contract as they see fit, for a relativley small slap on the wrist. What's to stop them from doing it again?