Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
There was a very real risk that there wouldn't have been pay parity for any meaningful length of time.Seriously guys, lets move on. Dicko, you know damn well that you were offered pay parity, but your reps turned it down. I feel badly that they so grossly misrepresented you, but blame them not the guys here.
During Round 1, that pay was only offered in the last minutes where the MEC was attempting to leave. Most present feel it was a "from the hip" shot from MV without it having been vetted by cost analysis.
During Round 2 when we were asking (and practically begging by the end) for SOME of the pay raises to come earlier or to "snap up" sooner, Southwest management kept saying No so finally the NC chair in front of all of us looked him in the eye and said, "There's no way our pilots are going to see this as anything but punitive. We need a reason why. It was in the first deal, why can't it be in the 2nd?"
Management answered by saying, "You don't WANT us to pay those rates. In trying to get a deal MV offered more than the airplane can pay for in profitability, which means if we paid those rates, the airplanes would be operating at a loss, with the current price of fuel, it's seating capacity, our inability to run it like SWA schedules for at least a year or so, especially during the transition when operating efficiency on that fleet will drop, and to tell you the truth, as soon as MV offered that and the bean counters got wind of it, they started coming up with ways to dump the airplanes ASAP. Some of those ways included, for the first time, a serious discussion on furloughs and early lease returns and just paying the penalty.
With these airplanes paying their existing rates, the airplane remains profitable during the transition and, once we get it here, we can increase the efficiency of the crews to offset the SWA pay rates. So unless you want more talk of airplanes going away quickly, you don't want those rates right now."
Until we can get 90% of the stage lengths on that plane between 60-90 minutes (none of this 2+ hours crap - the airplane's not built for that), and get another 60+ minutes or so utilization a day out of the plane, it's going to be only marginally cost-effective. Plugging it into the SWA network on their short hops is really going to help that airplane's cost efficiency and, thus, profitability, in order to pay for the higher rates.
Yes, they have the money to do it, but if you knew you were going to have to operate an airplane at or near a loss, would you suck it up or would you try to get them to go away while they were still on the AirTran side of the partition?
It's a gamble... like any other.
Discuss.