TheManager

I find it really hard to believe that. USAirways negotiated one and had it in place and theirs was a complete snap. As we know, they are now fighting with Doug over it and are patiently waiting the arbitrators decison.

So, we could not have even negotiated a gradual snaps based on economics or profitablity or even time? How about snaps based on executive bonus triggers/compensation? Anything!!

It could have been been fairly impelmented to give them the fiscal breathing room they needed and not the open ended give back they now have. I really don't except the idea that the "demand commitee" didn't have the leverage.

TheManager

The who??? WT PH are you referring to?? I'm lost

TheManager

My point is: ALPA and the Hawaiian pilots dealt with the same 1113 process and court structure that we did to reach an agreement. Theirs blew ours away.

They rejected the first TA while they were being told by ALPA that they would have a Judge imposed contract if they did. Their negotiators went back to the table and they succeeded greatly over the first TA.

The text book scare tactics apparently did not work as well there. (you know, like the ones spouted by pilots wearing suits during heated get togethers in the lounge in Mecca)

TheManager

So, where would one actually find the entire document today?

DAL 88 Driver

Well, I have never used the exact term, "open ended emergency loan"... so I could pull a Buzz (comm chair) on you and just leave it at that. But this is the essence of what I've been saying... so I'll be honest and open and say you are right that I think we shouldn't look at this as a permanent reset of the value of our profession and our careers. And, hey, I can't help it if someone else reads what I post and agrees with it!

Wow! The Georgia Oracle and the Cabot Kid actually agree on something! Well sorta. I'm guessing you think the company has to first develop this "sustainable business plan" and clearly demonstrate the ability to pay pilots what we're worth. I think that pilots, like fuel, should cost what we cost, and the burden is on management to develop a sustainable business plan that addresses the reality of what things cost, recognizing that pilots costs are a relatively small part of the overall big picture. I also think good management actually treats its employees as a valuable asset and not just a cost item. (Lip service doesn't count... and a good union would hold management's feet to the fire on that.) I'll bet you've seen me post that a few times before too!

DAL 88 Driver

"The Cabot Kid" is slow's way of reminding me that he knows who I am in real life. (Not that it's all that hard to figure out and I really don't care.) And I'm pretty sure I know who he is too. Let's just say that I think his "strategic thinking" is a little off.

slowplay

The argument in bold is one I do not understand. What is it that we cost? Look at the homepage of this forum. You'll find A320 Captains pay rates at $125/hr at LCC East, Virgin America $133/hr, $137/hr at UAL, $152/hr at Spirit, $159/hr at JBLU, and $168/hr at DAL. How much does an A320 pilot cost? You can look at just about any fleet and find huge disparities.

Unlike commodities such as oil, we aren't a fixed industry cost, and we aren't easily transported to other industries. Couple that with the fact we don't control industry pilot supply like the AMA does with physicians and you always have people willing to do the same job you do for less. It's a tough problem.

As to the rest, we are generally in agreement. I believe we differ in our opinion of whether or not ALPA has done a good job in holding "management's feet to the fire." I'll leave that for you to rant about.

DAL 88 Driver

This is a good demonstration of where we disagree. Your argument seems to say that pilot costs are currently appropriate in this industry. Since "so and so" makes "x amount", and Delta's costs are pretty much right there with them... well, then our pilot costs at Delta are pretty much right where they need to be. Sorry, but I'm not buying that. There is no rule in business that says the cost of an employee group at one company has to match the cost of the same employee group at another company. And many successful companies over the years have subscribed to the idea that compensating your employees BETTER than your competitors is actually a competitive advantage. A highly motivated and loyal workforce is worth A LOT! There are many tangible and intangible benefits that come from this. Bean counters see only the cost disadvantage side of the equation. And in our case, the cost "disadvantage" would be minimal. It would be interesting to do some research on our specific situation at Delta. But APA's pay restoration proposal from a few years ago showed their proposal for 50% increase in pay resulting in an increase of CASM to AA of less than 1/2 cent! I'll bet ours wouldn't be a whole lot different than that. Try to be something other than a bean counter, slow! Strategically speaking, it's a smarter way to think. Plus, it advocates for the pilots. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?

slowplay

So you tell me that (paraphrasing) that "pilots cost what pilots cost." I show you that they don't. You then tell me my argument is that our costs are appropriate. OK....

You are the one that took straight data and came to that argument, not me.

The numbers are facts. We have to use those facts to craft arguments that will be heard not just by management, but by the NMB. To get leverage we also have to get other stakeholders to hear and understand our point of view, as their interests sometimes compete with ours.

I want to be paid more. The Lloyd Hill APA argument was in my view a stupid one that has had them frozen in place during Section 6 for 5 years. That's the gameplan you want to use? I don't have time to wait until 2018 for a payraise... There are other examples of stupid arguments out there that have had pilot unions frozen for 5-7 years (most of them during the last NMB). Even with a "friendly" NMB we have to have logical, economically sound arguments. Saying "I want more" or "I used to make more" aren't sound, and there's a track record associated with those. It ain't good.

DAL 88 Driver

So when do we start communicating our point of view? So far, all I've heard is management's point of view... coming from ALPA! Management doesn't even have to make a case for why we should be paid what we're paid... ALPA is doing it FOR them, and has been ever since we came out of bankruptcy.

You and I may not like APA's approach or everything they've done. (Yes, believe it or not I don't think everything they've done is perfect.) But at least they are trying and advocating for restoration. Nobody has to guess what they're trying to achieve and what they think pilots are worth. Meanwhile, ALPA's tone and approach appears to be totally concessionary.

Look. I don't know if we're ultimately going to achieve full restoration or not. I think we can and should. But one thing I do know without a doubt. We're not going to achieve it if we don't define it as our objective and then set out with a firm resolve to get it done. I don't see anything like that from ALPA. Not in the least. And it's way past due! I'm rapidly getting to the point (probably already there) where I'm simply not willing to give you guys any more chances. Either lead or get the hell out the way so someone else can!

Right now, the only possible alternative I see out there is DPA. There are still questions to be answered about DPA. But at this point, I'm willing to try a relative unknown over a known quantity that I know to be a failure. For me, that's really what it boils down to.