I consider myself a pretty die-hard capitalist. I'm frequently torqued when I see government intervention in what is the simplest, most elegantly effective, even instinctive economic model known to man. Free competition and innovation, coupled with rock-solid property rights and decent infrastructure solves a myriad of problems. Not all, of course, but when was the last time you worried about a band of rebel guerillas accosting you on the way home from the supermarket? When was the last time you heard of an American starving to death? Problems like these usually generate an outcry for government intervention in the Third World, yet the same problems are not solved in the USA with Bradleys at every street corner or tons of cheese dropping from a C-17. Our economic system effectively provides for most every basic need, usually in abundant surplus. Capitalism works.
But
I don't care! I can take for granted that I'll have cheese to place between my crackers. I'm confident no one is going to kill me for the contents of my refrigerator. I know that almost without fail I will have a modern, computerized, efficient, and reliable automobile at my disposal. Heck, despite being furloughed, I've turned down two job offers on this day alone! Such is the confidence that our economic largesse grants us. Thusly I move up Maslows hierarchy, I'm looking for self-fulfillment. I want to do reasonably productive, but more importantly fun, work. I want to provide for my family in such over-abundance I ought to be ashamed, but I won't be. I want to be able to cut ridiculously sized checks to charities and churches. I want to drive an SUV. Perhaps three of them. I want my neighbors to wonder how I can buy all this stuff while working so little.
Therefore
Screw capitalism. At least when it comes down to my career and my life. I, and I think most of us, realize what an amazing deal we have here. Ever break through that low overcast into the sunshine, in awe at this profession and what it offers? People break down the doors at HR to be in that seat. People will defy the collective will and anger of thousands to cross a picket line. People will work three jobs so as to
volunteer to sit in that seat. There is a market for labor. If it were a truly free market, we'd be screwed. Done for. Were it not for collective bargaining and the threat of an economically destructive force so wielded, were it not for the limited protection afforded by strict licensing, were it not for the uphill struggle required to build this career, no airline would have to pay it's pilots more than $5.75 per hour. We are stuck with a job that is too much fun for our own good. Therefore I'm willing to mix in any external factor that has a chance of jacking up that wage. Bring on a union, and make it a powerful one. Make it industry wide, with tighter controls on individual MECs. Let us stick to, and work towards, and even sacrifice our quick upgrade for the fulfillment of ALPAs stated goal: The removal of pilot compensation from the competitive equation. More external factors: The JAA has ridiculous standards for the ATPL, bring em on if that fends off a few more eager beavers. Flight instruction as an experience builder? Great. I cannot count how many aspiring pilots have been permanently derailed because that was a river they would not cross. Lets create a new dues assessment that buys out all advertising space in Flying Magazine, Flight Training, Pilot, et al that would be used to recruit new grist for the pilot factories. That would be taking the supply problem into our own hands
Bring on government enforced crew rest and duty time regulations. How about FAR 121.999 - Crew Nutrition? If the government chose to dictate who flies what routes I guarantee it would be a disaster, and it goes without saying, horribly inefficient. But it would likely create more pilot seats and less pressure on costs. That's a good thing in the Cardinal household, so bring it on. I simply don't care what the common man is paying for air travel. The economics textbook says that there is a collective drain, or at least less of a benefit, to society when goods or services are produced in a more costly way. But we needn't care, we can buy a V70, or an X5, or a Land Cruiser, and it would not bother my conscience if as a result of this inefficiency the GDP growth for the quarter was .00000003% less.
Encroachment by Low Cost Carriers - And their effect in the absence of the Utopia presented above.
This is the impression that the Citrus boys on this board seem to be under: "Mainline types think LCC pilots should never have taken jobs at these lowish payrates, and think the world would be a better place if the LCC pilots walked and didn't fly again until they were working under the Delta 2000 contract." Well I don't think this is the message they are trying to convey, as it's quite unrealistic. They see you as having considerable choice and control in the matter. WN, FL, F9 , Spirit (for you, Mad Dog), jetBlue (IATA JB?) etc essentially offer a deal to their pilots: Earn less and expand more. It's a variation on the same deal Crandall offered his pilots at American. "Buy this B Scale and we'll grow like gangbusters." It is admittedly a pretty sweet deal, because that rapid growth grants one rapid furlough protection, and rapid upgrade. But rapid upgrade cleverly masks the reality of doing more work for less money. Ignoring 9/11 and bankruptcy for a moment, the 4 year Frontier CA might be taking home more than his 4 year United FO buddy. But management is getting a lot more out of the Frontier guys hide, even though the poor pilot may not realize it. For the moment we'll ignore the impact on the UA pilots compensation, but this scenario does at the very least lower the average pay. The real difficulty is the propagation of this effect. At the bargaining table, the Frontier or Airtran pilots (and the rest of the employee groups, really) are not ignorant. They know what their options are. Lower pay and continued growth, or Higher pay and abated or even negative growth, manifested through managerial choice or an industrial action, it doesn't matter which. Growth removes the sting of the lower pay scale, and so that is what the pilots at the LCCs have decisively chosen. We see the product of that decision, Airtran takes new 717s, Frontier takes new Airbii, while United parks 'em and Delta scraps 'em, the pilots and the pay scales associated with those aircraft are similarly erased. But what is the LCC pilot groups unanimously chose the second option, Higher pay and less growth? This would be harmonious with removing pay from the competitive equation. Everybody would be on the same footing. Flight crew pay isn't a large percentage of total costs, so the national union could more or less simultaneously jack the pay across the industry without the threat of invasion by lines with lower costs.
And FL717, as an olive branch reference the rowdy AA thread, if Airtran called tomorrow, I'd be there
TC
