ALPA political strategy

[goldentrout]

Selectzonefive

First of all...if you don't want to discuss things on this board...why do you waste your time here? Your sarcasm may show your wit, but not your intelligence.

Second of all...I've flown with many pilots like you...sarcastic "know-it alls". I tried to start a discussion. your condescending reply started the sarcasm...I fault myself for stooping to even reply to that...you baited me and you won.

As for making stuff up, point out any thing you think I fabricated, and I will give you a reference document for every fact I've stated.

1. ”1. As stated above, ticket prices. i.e. revenue are down...”

United is going to take an 18% paycut. That's a fact...ask the guys at United, it's on their ALPA website. As far as RASM...it doesn't matter if you fill up every darn plane on every darn flight...if you can't generate enough revenue to pay the bills, then it doesn't matter how many RASMs you fly. Now THIS IS just conjecture on my part, but I can't imagine CALALPA getting some big raise...they may say that's what their going to ask for (because all unions want more pay and benefits, even if might financially cripple the company).

I don't consider AirTran, Jet Blue, Southwest to be major airlines...guess what...those guys are making money or at least paying the bills. Why? Because their overhead expenses do not exceed their revenue.

Delta lost $326,000,000 last quarter. That's more than 3.5 million dollars a day. American lost $495,000,000 in the 2nd quarter of 2002. That's 5.5 million dollars a day. If you think management is not going to let theirregional airlines do this job at half the price, you need to get an MBA...and so does Duane Woerth.

2. The 1000 or so guys on furlough at Delta were all hired before 9/11. Whether it would be one list or a flow back, they would be senior to the 500 or so guys that Comair/ASA has hired since 9/11, and the 500 or so more guys Comair/ASA will hire in 2003. The FACT is this is what they're projecting to hire. IBoth ASA and Comair will meet this year's hiring projections...and with a bounch of planes on firm order, there's little doubt they won't meet next year's projections too. If I were an ALPA member on the street...I'd rather be in that hiring line, rather than waiting for ALPA to pull some magic trick out of their hat to get me a job. I have friends at CAL and American, most of them that have flowed back KEPT their jobs based on their seniority. The guys JUNIOR to them at Eagle and CALEX are on the street.

3. Management is hiring at the regionals and furloughing at the majors...evidence that they are going to get the job done for half the cost...as I've previously stated."

You said: Some properties are hiring and some properties have furloughs. Also, some properties are stagnant as far as movement.

I may have generalized a little here, but let's look at the big picture. ACA/US Air Express/Comair/ASA/Freedom Air are all hiring...Delta, Northwest, American, United are all furloughing. The point is that you can fly 2 50/70 seat RJs from Atlanta to Orlando for the about same price as 1 737, and offer the customer twice the choice.

It's happening all around at almost every major airline...737/Mad dogs out...RJs in. I know for a fact that Delta and American have converted numerous mainline stations to regional only stations. This is the trend and it will continue. How do I know? Because Delta just put off all their Boeing aircraft orders for 2003 and 2004, and they are going to buy 50 or so RJs in 2003. Same for US Air...no big aircraft orders, but a couple hundred RJs on order.

I asked for opinions...you're right. I didn't ask for condescending sarcasm.

After 9/11, I made these same argumets to many major airline guys on this very board. I got the same sarcastic, condescending replies...you don't know what you're talking about...it's all management's fault...we won't let "them" (management) get away with it...scope will protect us...over my dead body will I gave up a dime!

Now it's all coming true...which was my original point that ALPA's strategy has failed it's members...unless you're at the top of the list..."preserving the profession." That's one you should add to your * Use Snappy and Irrelevant Comebacks list."

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

GT, I think I understand what you're trying to say regarding one political party seems to (on the surface anyway) promote more business while the other gives the impression it is pro labor.
Personally I am confused about the whole thing. The Republicans taunt they're for business and for individual rights. Yet more and more businesses are leaving the country (for shareholder value of course!) and Bush/Ashcroft seem to be want more government control all in the name of safety. On the other hand, the Dems - claiming they're for labor - want to tax the tar out of anyone making middle class wages on up. In addition, they want to regulate businesses more and more. Add a good mix of trial lawyers and it is no wonder businesses want to leave.
Guess the question (may not be the right question) is do businesses leave because of the desire to make more money or do they leave because it has become such a pain to do business in this country?
I agree the airline business thrives as American business thrives. While a company like Lee jeans has 750 jobs leaving Lebennon (sp?), MO may not seem to be a big deal, add dozens of other companies doing the same thing and it adds up real fast. Would think this has to have an overall negative impact on the airline biz. If America is not careful there won't be the abundance of folks to buy those $60 carefully crafted in China college sweatshirts because we'll all be unemployed (or working for the government!). Can only hope the government and business realize this and want to turn the tide.

 

[Jetsnake]

What a shame if the GOP does something good
for our country besides smoog on some fat girl's
dress.

 

[goldentrout]

"Bush/Ashcroft seem to be want more government control all in the name of safety."

I don't understand what you mean by this?

But in answer to your question about why business is leaving the country, the answer is simple economics...between government red tape and taxes, doing business in America is just too expensive.

As an example...and maybe most people know this, but I didn't until I got out of the military...businesses have to pay an unemployment tax for each employee...so when you fire them for poor performance or lay them off because you can't afford them anymore...the government takes that tax money and pays the fired/laid off worker unemployment. That's unbelievable! Businesses have to pay a tax to finance unemployment payments to people who they fire for poor performance or slow economic times. If I'm a business owner, and I can find a place where I don't have to pay such a ridiculous tax, you better believe I'm moving my business there in a heart beat!

If the US government wants to keep my business, and my tax dollars, then they need to provide a competitive business climate in relation to other countries who want me to come there to bring jobs and tax revenue.

Of course they also leave because labor is cheaper elsewhere. I would be interested to see how many unions have priced themselves right out of jobs. They demand outrageous pay and benefits...the company is held hostage because they can't afford a strike...so they give in to the union demands...the union leaders and workers have a big champagne party...and then six months later their jobs are outsourced out of the country.

This is just basic economics. Businesses will always seek the lowest bidder who can provide the desired level of service/labor at the lowest price.

That's ALPA's problem...they somehow think they are going to be able to "preserve the profession" by scope and other such trickery, which are in direct opposition to the above economic principle.

Ask anyone with an MBA, and I'm sure they'll back me 100% (although some MBA on this board will probably refute me just out of spite).

 

[eaglefly]

Fact ! - If it smells like trout, GET OUT !

This thread is about one individual apparently suffering from delusions of grandeur and wallowing in his own fish-laden sphincter gas.

Gotta a be a current or hopeful Freedom pilot.

 

[bart]

Thanks for reminding why I chose not to pursue a career with the airlines....

 

[SelectZoneFive]

Back!!! What did I miss?

(As a side note, I took the kids to see that new movie "Santa Clause" with Tim Allen. It was cute I recommend it.)

The statement that it was cute is simple my opinion it is not a fact. But I did make the statement that it was cute, that is a fact.

Hey Golden,

Calm down son, you sound all wound up.

I have a fix. Let’s discuss definitions! This may clear up the confusion.

No sarcasm, or witticisms that stun the crowd with their originality. Let’s get the dictionary.

Opinion:

Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date: 14th century
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Fact:

Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
- in fact : in truth


Please, do not tell us one of your opinions and claim it is fact. That it is incorrect.
Let’s try an example:

Snickers bars are better than chunky monkey ice cream.

This is not a fact. It is an opinion. That is my point.

Please do not get upset and keep repeating yourself like no one understands you, just get your general distinctions in order.

You wrote:
"The facts speak for themselves...all the collective bargaining and scope clauses created by ALPA have led to nothing more than persistent airline financial instability, and thousands of pilots on the street."

Hmmm.


If you maybe tried something like this instead:

I think that some of the current labor agreements, in place at some of the major carriers, have hindered them in the current economic downturn that we are experiencing. I would not be surprised to see more concessionary bargaining taking place in the future. I think that the past has shown that this happens more often than not in the cyclical industry we work in. I think ALPA like most labor unions tries to bargain increases during the good times and concessionary agreements during the bad times. It would appear to me, that what is happening is just the same old replay between labor and management, which has gone on since time immemorial. It is almost like the analogy of a seesaw finding its natural balance once a new weight has been introduced to one side.

See? One statement makes you sound like a raving rambling fanatic and the other makes you sound as if you have a thought out OPINION. Know, if someone wants to debate you on this, then you can seek out established facts to support your opinion.

If you want to win converts, then change your style. If you want to fight and alienate people, use your current style. (Please use this in one of your quotes, I have a $10.00 bet that you will.)

Sarcasm and humor can sometimes be miss-read. My goal was to be humorous with you. These places get too serious sometimes. (That’s an opinion, not a fact)

 

[Rvrrat]

Where's that Foghorn Leghorn sound clip when it's needed!!?

"I say, I say yer built too low. The fast ones just go over yer head."

 

[B1900DFO]

Golden,
Post sep 11 ual's daily loss exceeded the pilots daily payroll. Does that mean the current economic climate unfortunately does not support pilots being paid for the next 4-5 years. Are you familiar with the cyclical nature of this business. In the early 90's the majors were all thought to be on the verge of shutting down and then just a few years ago they were making record profits. Do you have any idea how much airlines are forced to shell out in security costs. I have heard about 30% of the cost of a ticket in many cases.

I think it is short-sighted to blame the industry's woes on what you refer to as "outrageous" pilot salaries. However it is interesting that you keep beeting the "one list" drum. Sounds to me like you can't wait to be making a white-collar salary with some decent workrules. Another one of your facts you refer to regionals doing the job for half the cost. That is a half-truth. The cost per seat mile is substantially higher in an rj than say a DAL 777 (whose capt is making about 260/hr). However in todays weak pricing climate airlines lose less money with the rj's.

Goldentrout please give me your thoughts on these next few statements. Do you think Alpa national had anything to do with Ual, UA, or DAL pilot payrates. Those rates were fought for by the pilot's respective MEC's and negotiators. Alpa national merely provides tools to help all Alpa carriers in their contracts. You bash Alpa but if they weren't around who would fight for you if you didn't want to take an unsafe airplane, or bust rest requirements. Do you think the FAA would fight for your job, the Republican party? Alpa national is merely a handful of volunteers that are fighting to protect our profession. Unfortuanatley as much as we like to hold ourselves in high esteem we could be replaced by a bunch of foreign nationals willing to work for room and board and a green card in no time. Guess what; Bush supports cabotage.

Also just for laughs show me a period of time in the last 20 years where Republicans have controlled the white house and the airlines and their pilots have thrived; or better yet the economy and the national deficit have thrived.

 

[Saabslime]

What a shame if the GOP does something good for our country besides smoog on some fat girl's dress

ROLMFAO!! Absolutely the funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

[goldentrout]

B1900DFO

Golden,
Post sep 11 ual's daily loss exceeded the pilots daily payroll. Does that mean the current economic climate unfortunately does not support pilots being paid for the next 4-5 years. Are you familiar with the cyclical nature of this business. In the early 90's the majors were all thought to be on the verge of shutting down and then just a few years ago they were making record profits. Do you have any idea how much airlines are forced to shell out in security costs. I have heard about 30% of the cost of a ticket in many cases.

I think it is short-sighted to blame the industry's woes on what you refer to as "outrageous" pilot salaries. However it is interesting that you keep beeting the "one list" drum. Sounds to me like you can't wait to be making a white-collar salary with some decent workrules. Another one of your facts you refer to regionals doing the job for half the cost. That is a half-truth. The cost per seat mile is substantially higher in an rj than say a DAL 777 (whose capt is making about 260/hr). However in todays weak pricing climate airlines lose less money with the rj's.

'Goldentrout please give me your thoughts on these next few statements. Do you think Alpa national had anything to do with UAl, UA, or DAL pilot payrates."

Look at the ALPA website and read Duane's latest strategy on how to keep pilot salaries where they are in the face of declining revenue. He says the main thing driving down revenue is the low ticket prices of Southwest Airlines...so he wants to get Southwest in ALPA...so then they can bargain for higher wages ...which will in turn (in theory) force Southwest to raise their prices...which will supposedly then make the market so that UAL, DAL, NW, AA, etc can compete with the likes of Southwest and the other low cost carriers.

So to me, the summary of this strategy is as follows. DAL, UAL, AA, NW are losing hundreds of millions of dollars every quarter. While employee overhead is really not that big a chunk of overall expenses, it is one of the only expenses that can be substantially changed.

Southwest, with their current wage structure, has made money in every quarter in their existence. If you look at the book "Flying Through Time," the airlines are perenial money losers...at best they make a profit about half the time, and end up furloughing thousands of employees every 6-10 years.

So ALPA's grand strategy is to take an airline (SW) which consistently grows and makes money, and turn it into a DAL or AA, which have lost over $800,000,000 in the in the last two quarters combined, and who have laid off 20,000 or so employees since 9/11. I'll let you all decide the merits of this strategy.

The economic boom of the late nineties was an aboration of economic activity, fueled mostly by speculative investing that led to much paper wealth, and unsustainable economic growth rates. The airlines (except Southwest) unbelievably based their business model on that unsustainable economic rate...the big 4 were losing money even before 9/11 in 2001. If you don't agree with me...go do some research in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by their analysts. For instance, in referring to UAL, they use terms like "the fox got into the hen house" in referring to last UAL pilot raise. WSJ lsmas the employee groups for being greedy, and mnagement for not being more financially discplined.

My goal is to have an airline industry where 10-20% of the employees don't get laid off every 10 years...where stock options as part of compensation would be worth something if the airlines could consistently make money...and where you don't have to try and time your hiring prospects to not be in the "furlough fodder" (bottom 20% of the seniority list).



"Those rates were fought for by the pilot's respective MEC's and negotiators. Alpa national merely provides tools to help all Alpa carriers in their contracts. You bash Alpa but if they weren't around who would fight for you if you didn't want to take an unsafe airplane, or bust rest requirements."

As I said in my first post, I think ALPA has done many good things for pilots in the non-financial arena.


"Also just for laughs show me a period of time in the last 20 years where Republicans have controlled the white house and the airlines and their pilots have thrived; or better yet the economy and the national deficit have thrived."


I think, my friend, you have a missunderstanding of who holds the purse strings in the country...Congress decides how the money gets spent, set tax rates, etc. Only once that I can remember in the last twenty years have the republicans controlled the...1994-1998...that was the about the beginning of the airline boom...then the Democrats took back Congress in early 1999...and have held at least the Senate or the house ever since...the airline boom peaked in 1999 and has been downhill ever since.


Selectzonefive

I appreciate your feedback...but to be honest with you, I'm more of straight shooter than your suggested way of writing

I just state what I see...the big 4 have all have scope clauses in place to supposedly protect pilot jobs...the big four all have at least 1000 or so pilots on furlough, with more to come (UAL announced 600 more on 1 Nov)...the airlines are losing hundereds of millions of dollars every quarter, and billions of dollars a year...to the point whre many are having to have government loans to bail them out, because private investors won't touch them with a ten foot pole.

Cyclical or not does matter to me...any company that can only make a profit 50% of the time...lays off 10-20% of it's work force every 10 yrs or so...and has to go the federal government for financing because the banking industry won't talk to them...is a failed business model.

The government board that decides airline loans told US Air and
UAL that they had to get concessions from their employee groups before they would even talk to them about a loan. The people who sit on these boards are fiancial and business experts...what they essentially told UAL is "your employee wage structure cannot be supported by the revenue we think you can generate. Lower your wage rates (all negotiated by unions such as ALPA), or no money for you."

It is NOT opinion that

1. All the major airlines have scope clauses to "protect" pilot jobs, yet the major airlines have thousands of pilots on the street, with more furloughs projected.

2. Many major airlines (such as UAL), cannot obtain private financing because the banking industry says they are too much of a risk.

3. The federal government will not give these airlines any money until they bring their overhead costs in line with revenue.

4. The only real cost the airlines can change is employee benefits...and most of these contracts have been negotiated by ALPA and other unions.

Ergo, I stand by my statement

"The facts speak for themselves...all the collective bargaining and scope clauses created by ALPA have led to nothing more than persistent airline financial instability, and thousands of pilots on the street."

Cyclical or not, these are the current results of ALPA contracts and scope clauses.

Gotta run...no time for spell check or grammar check

 

[SelectZoneFive]

Goldentrout said:
"I appreciate your feedback...but to be honest with you, I'm more of straight shooter than your suggested way of writing"


That is why you have no credibility as far as I am concerned.

You make gross generalizations, combine them, and then arrive at absurd conclusions. Then you repeat yourself and demand that people debate you with the same kind of elusive thinking that only you seem to posses.

I cannot debate the absurd, or entertain logic that is held together by cobwebs and old string.

I can debate factual material, trust me, my time in college competing on debating teams imbued me with the skills for that.

 

[goldentrout]

Selectzonefive

Most of what I've said applies to most of the airlines, but I will grant you that I am making generalizations that, though I consider to be valid, may not be applicable to each airline.

So let's get specific.

UAL.

1. The ALPA negotiated contract and signed in Oct 2000 gave the UAL pilots something like a 20-25% payraise. I can't locate the exact number, but in talking to my friends at UAL, those numbers are close.

2. Here are the yearly financial results for UAL from 1997-2001, according to the MSN.com financial website.

1997 - profit 949 million

1998 - profit 821 million

1999 - profit 1.2 billion

2000 - profit 50 million

2001 - loss 2.1 billion loss

2002 - loss 1.4 billion through 3 quarters

But, hey, they "deserved it (their contract)." UAL stock has dropped from a high or around $78 in Nov 1999 to $3.91 today. In the fourth quarter of 2000 (right after they signed their contract), UAL lost 124,000,000 + 2,000,000,000 in 2001 + 1,400,000,000 = 3,500,000,000 since they signed their contract!
Whoever UALALPA had as their financial advisers didn't do a very good job of predicting the financial future of UAL. Granted, no one could have foreseen 9/11, but UAL was losing millions in 200 and 2001 before 9/11. If the industry is so cyclical, then UALALPA should've seen the bad times coming, and negotiated a contract that would allow UAL to weather the bad times.

To me, UALALPA failed it's pilot group by being greedy, and not negotiating a reasonable contract that would have helped the company (and the pilot group) through the economic downturn. Instead, UAL is on the verge of bankruptcy, they've got 1,500 guys on the street, and they'll be taking an 18% pay cut on 1 Dec.


Delta airlines

1. DALPA has a scope clause in their contract that limits the amount of regional flying as a percentage of mainline flying, and limits the number of 70 seat RJs at Comair/ASA.

2. These scope provisions were supposed to "protect" mainline jobs.

3. Delta mainline has 1000 or so guys on furlough, probably more to come.

4. Comair offered DALPA a flow through and combined list a few years ago. DALPA would have none of it.

5. Comair/ASA hired something like 500 pilots in 2002, and will hire another 500-600 in 2003.

6. If there was a flow through and/or combined list, all the Delta furloughees from 9/11/2001 would be senior to all the Comair/ASA guys hired in 2002 and 2003...i.e. they'd all have jobs by the end of 2003 (assuming hiring projections are correct).


To me, DALPA, due to a rather condescending view of "regional' pilots, failed their pilot group. They refused a flow through and/or one list agreement, which would've given their pilot group maximum job protection from losing their jobs in an economic downturn. Now ASA/Comair are hiring. There are rumors of preferential hiring for Delta furloughees...right at the bottom of the ASA/Comair lists, instead of on the top of those lists if there had been a flow through agreement.

US Air

1. I used to fly for a US Air Express carrier. I've seen the "max pay to the last day" stickers on US Air mainline pilot bags.

2. Before 9/11, US Air had the highest cost per seat of any major airline.

3. US Air declared bankruptcy in 2002. Their pilot contract was signed in Sep 1997. According to SEC filings, US Air made 197,000,000 in 1999, lost 269,000,000 in 2000, lost 2,100,000,000 in 2001.

4. US Air has 1500 or so guys on the street.

5. The guys who are still have a job had to take a significant pay cut before the government would even entertain a loan.

To me, US Air ALPA failed it's members by negotiating a contract which pushed US Air into having the highest cost per seat of any major airline, with no prospect of revenue that could cover such high overhead costs.

Here are three examples of where either scope and/or excessive wages contributed to the financial demise of three major airlines, and the loss of thousands of pilot jobs. All these scope clauses and wage/benefit packages were negotiated by ALPA unions.

I'm taking your advice...I stopped generalizing and gave you three specific examples, backed up with researched data.

I can't conclude that pilot contracts solely contributed to the state of the major airlines today. I can conclude with reasonable certainity, though, that ALPA at these airlines failed to secure the job and financial security of its members due to greed and/or arrogance.

I admire your pushing me to narrow down my facts...I'm and Ayn Rand fan myself...but if these examples don't back up my statement

"The facts speak for themselves...all the collective bargaining and scope clauses created by ALPA have led to nothing more than persistent airline financial instability, and thousands of pilots on the street."

I don't know what more I can do to pursuade you. Maybe the best thing to do is wait 2 years or so, and then come back to this board and see what ALPA has accomplished as far as pilot job security and wages/benefits for its members.

Thanks for forcing me to be more specific...it trains my mind.

 

[goldentrout]

Just gotta put in a few (ok, many) last thoughts on this issue.

My original proposition is that the best job/wage security for pilots is to have a strong economy. The best way to have a strong economy is to vote republican. The last economic boom (and airline boom) was, what 1995-2000 (Congress mostly under republican control, and then died late 2000-2002 (Congress controlled mostly by democrats during this time).

Did you know:

1. The 100th US Congress served from 1987-1989, democrats controlled both the house and senate, with a republican president.

2. The 101st Congress served from 1989-1991, democrats controlled both the house and senate, with a republicn president.

3. The 102nd Congress served from 1991-1993, democrats controlled both the house and senate, with a republican president.

4. The 103rd Congress served from 1993-1995, democrats controlled both the house and senate, with a democratic president.

5. The 104th Congress served from 1995-1997, republicans controlled both the house and senate, with a democratic president.

6. The 105th Congress served from 1997-1999, republicans controlled both the house and senate, with a democratic president.

7. The 106th Congress served from 1999 to 2001, republicans controlled both the house and senate, with a democratic president.

8. The 107th Congress served from 2001-2003, republicans controlled the house and democrats controlled the senate, with a republican president.

and...

1. The last big airline down cycle was 1990-1995. It didn't matter who as president (Bush or Clinton). Democrats came into power the two years prior to the airline downturn, and were in power throughout the downturn.

2. Last big airline upturn was 1996-2000. Clinton was president, but republicans controlled the senate and the house starting in 1995, and held them until 2000.

3. This airline downturn started 4th quarter of 2000, and will continue into 2003...democrats have been in control of the senate for the last 18 months of this (107th) congressional session.

While these facts alone cannot show definitively that democratically controlled congresses led to airline downturns...it can be stated that democrats have presided through most of the last two airline downturns...and republicans presided just before and through the last airline upturn.

ALPA vs Non-ALPA

Where would you rather work?

SWA, non-ALPA

1. FOs top out at 92,000/year, Capts at 150,000 year

2. SWA has always posted an annual profit in its 30 years of exsitence.

3. To the best of my knowledge, SWA has never laid off a pilot

4. In 1991, SWA was the only airline to post a profit, while the rest of the industry lost 2,000,000,000.

5. 2001...SWA posted a profit, while all the other airlines combined lost close to 7,000,000,000.

6. SWA hired in 2002, and plans some hiring in 2003.

UAL, ALPA

1. 737 FO currently tops out at 130,000/yr 737 Capt tops out at 189,000/yr. Take away 18% (cause that's coming on 1 Dec), and you get 107,000/yr for top FO pay, and 155,000 for top Capt pay. These figures are from Air Incs' Salary Survey, -18%.

2. UAL lost 800,000,000 between 1991-1993. They took a concessionary contract in, I believe, 1994. UAL made money from 1994-2000 under the concessioanry contract...and started losing money again (by the hundreds of millions) right after the new UAL pilot contract of 10/2000.

3. UAL lost 2,100,000,000 in 2001. The first full year of their new, ALPA negotiated contract. UAL is expected to lose 1,800,000,000 in 2002...the second year of their new ALPA negotiated contract.

4. By Mar of 2003, UAL will have over 1500 pilots on the street, their pilots will take an 18% paycut, and they hove no prospect of profitiablilty (or hiring) until at least 2004, probably longer since they'll have to recall so many pilots before hiring.

...now what has ALPA done for pilot job/wage security in the last 10 years at UAL???????????????????????

I'll take a 10-15% a year less at non-ALPA SWA anyday, knowing that even in this severe airline downturn, SWA is hiring, has never furloughed, and has always posted a profit.

I'll say it again, as far as safety, medical, etc., ALPA has done great things for us.

However, when it comes to wage and benefits, it's just about the money...the money at the top end of the seniority list who's job security is not in really in jeopardy. The "ALPA brotherhood" stops at the pocketbook...ask any of the 5,000 or so ALPA brothers on the street at NWA, DAL, AMR, US Air, or UAL.

Then ask the same question of the SWA guys on the street...if you can find one.

 

[Rvrrat]

man, I spend way too much time on this bulleting board...

I'll be happy to get a few new target sheets printed up; you've shot the center right out of the current one.

It's been said that politics is the second oldest profession; it's beggining to be indistinguishable from the first.

Like investing, is the goal quick short term gains that may be monumental or, long term gains that may be somewhat less astounding but are significantly more stable.

It seems most people have forgotten the principals of being prudent; the foremost being to take no action or make no allegiance which would put one in a compromising position. For example: If I am prudent about my personal debt load, I will never find myself in a position that requires I continue to work for an employer who has become unethical. If I don't like what the company is doing I can walk away. I have the ability at any time to withdraw my services. In this way, I retain for myself the final word on a matter.

The ALPA has not earned my trust by their actions. In my view, they have squandered their historical benefits.