Originally Posted by Splash

Not careless...lazy.

Look up the pay rates at the various railroads for the same position/longevity...then reconcile the differences.

Or find another point.

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

I WISH our career resembled Google or Apple. But why don't we use something more appropriate. How does your argument look when presented with facts?



MD-88 Inflation adjusted rates

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

That is the "Inconvenient Truth" PG. We all would like it to be different.

Our goal is to get that trend line to move upwards and make it sustainable in good times and bad. It requires thinking outside the box. Some could care less.

It is about setting the foundation for better tomorrow's that will last well beyond the careers of the youngest pilots here which will retire near 2050. Yes, almost 40 years from now. Lets leave them something they can build upon when we are gone, not our mess. I am willing to sign on for that.

Originally Posted by slowplay

Hey, direction is important. Make one wrong turn out of HKG and what happens to years of an unblemished career? Is that drama?

Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy

First, reference my picture of MD88 rates above. Then ask yourself why that is the trend line? And please don't forget, that in general, DAL has been at or near the top of the industry (as has NWA) during this same period. Possible answers:

1) ALPA caved at every chance
2) We are all weaklings
3) Deregulation was a paradigm shift and our rates are simply migrating toward "market rates"

If you picked 1 or 2, you might as well quit reading -- we'll never agree on anything.

If you acknowledge 3 is the likely culprit, then at least we have a frame of reference going forward.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

You know the irony here is as years go by salaries decrease while the safety record increases. Just an observation.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Really, this has nothing to do with DPA but rather just a big wow from those of us outsiders for so long who thought DALPA was the one got C2K rates KNOWING that Delta couldn't afford them and told Delta to park those damn 777s until you give us a rate. I mean I frankly thought I'd here more "okay guys, look us in the eyes, stick with us, we are going to get paid what we deserve! READY! HERE WE GO!"

Not RJs are good, scope relaxation isn't a bad thing, what are you willing to give up, that costs money, your expectations are out of line, blah blah blah.

Just disheartening to say the least.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

FtB;
I do not think anyone, ALPA, DALPA, DAL Management thought that the decline in the margins was a lasting thing. No one could have predicted 9-11 a few months after inking C2K, no one could predict that SWA would have won the lotto on fuel hedging when the rest of us were up to our eyeballs in debt and could not hedge, no one could have predicted that their hedging would have lasted until 2009, which allowed them to keep their wages up, and prices down. A lucky business decision that will probably never happen again allowed them to look a lot better than they really are. The legacies miscalculation of this caused many to mortgage their companies to weather what many thought was a passing storm and guessing wrong.

It is a compiling of issues, add it it internet ticketing and it is no wonder that many went in to CH 11 slashed contracts, and shed debt. SWA which mind you caused much of the prolonged suffering by a great hedge (good business decision) put the final nail in the legacies coffin. As much as we do not want to admit it, CH 11 reset that, and SWA exasperated it.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

I think part of the problem is that we're ignoring the environment around us. The only way a company will grant more than it can "afford" is if the competitive landscape requires it, i.e. if competitors are stuck doing same. When we negotiated C2K, don't forget that the bag sickers all said "United Plus". When we negotiated the 777 rate, we also traded 3B6 (I think that was the right section) for it, i.e. we waved our leverage to do hold up operation of a new aircraft type in the future. And the 777 numbers were so few, that the rate could have been $500, without materially affecting the contract.

Since then, we've seen that pilot groups will go through any length to keep a company afloat, because our seniority is not portable, which tilts the equation further to the company's favor.

Now, I do agree with you that there is something distasteful in the continuous "what are you willing to give up for it" talk, which is another way to say it's impossible to achieve more. And we all can guess how a defeatist attitude at the start would affect the result of any negotiation...

Personally, I think we would gain much more if we could alter the environment in a way that makes pilot costs a constant across the industry. When I dream, I see a future where ALPA would simply be an exclusive crew-leasing company to the airlines, and pilots would be no more tied to a carrier than a plumber to your personal sink. I also see much to be gained by controlling the supply of pilots by maintaining higher barriers to entry (i.e. advocating for higher and higher certification requirements, etc.).

When I'm not dreaming, and I look at this industry, the one we actually operate in, I want a negotiating philosophy that's somewhere between the debilitating and lame "no, we can't", and the unenforceable "we want". As I said before, I'd rather simply dial in on a logical place where we should be, considering the profitability of the company, but without regard to the other groups. In other words, if DALPA could articulate clearlly where the "sweet-spot" that doesn't quite kill off the goose, I'd sign up for that. Stated yet differently, if we could articulate that the company is good for X millions/year more (comfortably or not), and we could back up that number, I would then expect polling to discuss the group's priorites in how to distribute it, and then we spool up the Strike Committee, work the press to pretend we have the right to strike, tire the owners, and get to where we rightfully need to be.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

So PG, you believe pay should be based upon how much the company makes?

So take a snap shot in one year and project how much you think the company should make and cement pay tables off of a one time guess? So then it's really not about how much the company makes is it? It's about how much we think they'll make. It's an asinine system. It's probably why management teams throughout the industry laugh at pilot groups.

Because SWA is still going to pay their 737 pilots more than our 747 pilots despite the fact that the end of 2010 we're projected to net $1.3-$1.4 billion and they'll net maybe $500-600M.

I ask because why didn't we negotiate a snap back in 05 or even with LOA 19?

More importantly, moving forward, should 747 pilots at Delta be paid more than 737 pilots at SWA? How much more? How much less?

You could have the current system of pay tables as is, but I think you should have snap back provisions.