Obviously, it is no doubt that the majority of the airlines are headed by greedy and incompetent individuals who claim to care for their employees. I have painfully learned that Alaska is not immune. Alaska is not at the brink of bankruptcy and if it hadn't been for the "tactical" tax write-offs, Alaska would actually show a profit, IMHO. To take 1/3 of the pay away in the name of "being competitve" is more than a slap in the face; it's start of a lose-lose war. Perhaps, that's what the company wants - to bring down the morale of the work groups, blame the po'd off workers for taking the company into bankruptcy, and take away everything (ie. pension). It's the kind of paycut you'd expect from a company facing chapter 11, if not worse. As the saying goes, you can only kick the golden retreiver so many times before it bites. As for the arbitrator, I highly doubt that he didn't receive any incentives for his ruling. Greed is the cancer.
I'd like to know what happened too. From talking to the older crowd, it seemed like the paycut would be around 15% at the worst. Ayers, in his joke of plan "Vision 2010", wanted a 23% pay reduction. How the xxxx did I end up with a 34% paycut? That's a deadly blow financially if you are living on the west coast. Being in the red financially, beyond that in my case, is a flight safety issue as far as I'm concerned. I know I'm only pi$$in' in the wind but venting is rightfully called for in this situation.