Consessions vs furloughs

[enigma]

This statement is in response to something someone ("flydeltasjets". I think) said in another string, but that thread has already been hijacked and crashed, so. Here's a quote from the other thread,

"While concessions would certainly save money, our president himself said that they would only keep as many pilots as they need, concessions or not. Want to argue, call him. I'm jus tthe messenger. "

If anyone believes that, I got some waterfront property in AZ for sale. Delta is keeping the pilots they need, but not a the major level. I respect the Delta furloughees who are happy to stay out in an attempt to maintain the wages, but I think that you are being sacrificed so that your senior brothers can keep their big paycheck.

It is now rumored that DAL is starting another lowcost carrier subsidiary. That sounds like DAL needs pilots to me; they just don't pilots that they have to pay over market price to get.

Back to the consession vs furlough thought. If you all want to remain on furlough until someone above you retires, thats OK. I'm not arguing that. I think that you are willing to see mainline stagnate, or shrink, because you've already got a seniority number and you would rather work for big money at a smaller mainline than you would work for less at a big carrier. I see your point, and would probably be tempted to do the same if I was in your position.

However, if that is the choice you have made, don't try and tell me that you are either, 1. attempting to raise the bar, nor 2. that mainline doesn't need pilots. I would have to say that you are not raising the bar, you are just keeping it high for yourselves, and, obviously mainline needs pilots.

In the mean time, while you are holding up your future wage potential, the rest of us are forced to endure our average wages. Your being furloughed gives us just about ZERO bargaining power. Guaranteeing (sp?) that we will continue to work for far less than DAL mainline, and that our carrier will continue to take your passengers. I would rather not have it that way, but ya'll are in the drivers seat, not us.
just something to think about

regards,
8N

 

[tbkane]

As a furloughed pilot at DAL (the last on the list), I don't agree that everyone thinks this way. I for one would go to the low cost carrier for a reduced wage in line with the current express contract.

What none of us want is a regional type pay and work rules, or to give concessions from pay just to see DAL make record profits again.

The pilot group gave concessions for the furloughee's last time, and went without raises since 1996. 1997 - 2000 record profits at Delta record bonuses for management, record number of VP's and no raises for the pilots. In 1997 Delta had 17 vp's and 8,800 pilots, we now have 8,800 pilots and 53 vp's.

Contract 2002 we got the pay raise just in time for every airline calling for concessions, so I for one would take concessions in order to go back to work, but they MUST be tied to snapback clauses in times of good. If they continue to bleed then the concessions would stick, as I don't want to see them in bankruptcy also.

 

[General Lee]

Taking pay cuts at Delta would actually move things along faster. The senior guys would likely retire rather than take, let's say, a 15% paycut because their retirement is based on their best 3 consecutive years---and a paycut would limit their future earning potential. Most of them have had it with security delays, checkrides, etc. and would rather play golf.

I have not been furloughed, but would not mind a pay cut or to fly for the Low Cost Carrier if it would mean not getting furloughed in the future and having a viable airline. A snapback
to current wages would be nice down the road---let's say two or three years from now, when things hopefully will be better. Also,
the pilots shopuld not be the only ones to take wage cuts. Also
flight attendants, Mechanics (both Non union), and management.
I am a team player-----and I want the team to survive. I am not ABOVE pay cuts like some of these guys------but things should return to normal when good times return----right???


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

This statement is in response to something someone ("flydeltasjets". I think) said in another string, but that thread has already been hijacked and crashed, so. Here's a quote from the other thread,

"While concessions would certainly save money, our president himself said that they would only keep as many pilots as they need, concessions or not. Want to argue, call him. I'm jus tthe messenger. "

If anyone believes that, I got some waterfront property in AZ for sale. Delta is keeping the pilots they need, but not a the major level. I respect the Delta furloughees who are happy to stay out in an attempt to maintain the wages, but I think that you are being sacrificed so that your senior brothers can keep their big paycheck.


-------Do I believe Fred? Not 100%, but I accept his general point. If we were to come to DAL and say that we would all work free for a year, he probably would agree to stop the furloughs. He knows we are not going to do that, and he does not want to get into a war with DALPA over the size of the concessions. He was asked if DAL would discuss cost savings measures to lesson the furloughs. His answer was that if DAL only needed a certain number of pilots, that is all they will keep. Could his mind change? Sure. But I passed his comments along to demonstrate that it was not the evil DALPA who said "no" to any proposal to save the furloughees.


It is now rumored that DAL is starting another lowcost carrier subsidiary. That sounds like DAL needs pilots to me; they just don't pilots that they have to pay over market price to get.


-------I agree with that, and perhaps the furloughs will stop if the subsidiary is large. What would concern me is if they further shrink mainline in favor of the LCC. That would not necessitate more pilots, only lower wage ones.



Back to the consession vs furlough thought. If you all want to remain on furlough until someone above you retires, thats OK. I'm not arguing that. I think that you are willing to see mainline stagnate, or shrink, because you've already got a seniority number and you would rather work for big money at a smaller mainline than you would work for less at a big carrier. I see your point, and would probably be tempted to do the same if I was in your position.


------Your assessment is a bit incomplete. Our aversion to concessions is not only about the paycheck. It goes a bit deeper than that. Concessions are not always denied, and the DALPA guys have given in the past. If we need to again, I will support that. However, a few things need to be considered.
#1. We don't know how many pilots DAL intends to furlough. We could be buying guys who wouldn't even have gotten furlughed in the first place. Let me explain. DAL says they intend to furlough 1400 guys. Suppose we give concessions in exchange for 400 fewer guys. What if DAL never planned to furlough the full 1400? We would have given up money to save guys who weren't going to get the ax anyway.

#2. We still have not gotten final word that the furloughs can continue. We argue our case again 10/30 and 31. The arbitrator's ruling might change everything.

#3. Just like negotiating with terrorists tends to reward their behavior and encourage more, negotiating for furloughees sets a bad precedent. Guys gave concessions in 96 to help bring back the furloughed guys and were then forced to fly under a concessionary contract, even during the highly profitable next 5 years.

#4. The company has not presented us with a plan. If concessions are needed to help DAL grow and survive under a thoughtful business plan, I am sure we will give as we have during the past. However, giving money that will be spent supporting an ill-conceived price-war is hardly money well spent.

However, if that is the choice you have made, don't try and tell me that you are either, 1. attempting to raise the bar, nor 2. that mainline doesn't need pilots. I would have to say that you are not raising the bar, you are just keeping it high for yourselves, and, obviously mainline needs pilots.


---------Actually, we are attempting to keep the bar where it is! Also, I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that mainline needs pilots. They seem perfectly content cutting our guys and hiring DCI guys.

In the mean time, while you are holding up your future wage potential, the rest of us are forced to endure our average wages. Your being furloughed gives us just about ZERO bargaining power. Guaranteeing (sp?) that we will continue to work for far less than DAL mainline, and that our carrier will continue to take your passengers. I would rather not have it that way, but ya'll are in the drivers seat, not us.
just something to think about

I don't really follow your logic. I would ask you to consider it this way: In the long run, the higher our wages are, the greater your bargaining power. Granted, it is taking a temporary hit right now, but then again, so are we. If we were to acquiese to mgt's demands every time times got tough, the concept of "pattern bargaining" would take on a whole new meaning, and not a good one.

I would not be surprised to see some forms of concessions. After all, we are not blind to the problems the industry is having. Hopefully they will include all of us returning to work! However, we won't (and shouldn't) give money away just to allow mgt to pi$$ it away.

Meaningful, temporary, and effective concessions? If they are absolutely needed and properly negotiated. Arbitrary concessions don't work. Ask the guys at PAA, TWA, EAL, etc.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Consessions vs furloughs

I don't really follow your logic. I would ask you to consider it this way: In the long run, the higher our wages are, the greater your bargaining power.

FDJ, your replies are hard to follow. I am also unable to figure out how to cut up quotes, so I just cut and paste. That way I can diffrentiate quote from reply.

I don't believe that your economic ideas reflect the realities of the market. "Pattern Bargaining" only worked when there was no competition in the marketplace. In the freemarket, with no bars to entry, there is nothing to stop a lower cost carrier from using market priced labor. You seem to have a myopic view about your employer. You may control Deltas flying, but you don't have any control over the passenger. Today those pax are buying tickets on AAI, SWA, NKS, etc. For the most part, those carriers fly mainline equipment. You seem to be assuming that your current hard times are temporary. I doubt it. I think that we are seeing a paradigm shift in the industry.

I really don't know how to say it any differently.
Being out on furlough is not helping the rest of us to increase our pay. Short term, nor long term. In the short term, we have a harder time arguing for a pay increase. In the long term, our short term derived pay scale will hurt your chances to grow because the pax that used to fly DAL are now buying up cheap tickets on Spirit, AirTran, etc. I think that the fact that DAL is thinking about starting another narrowbody subsidiary proves my point.

I am truly on your side, I don't want you to take a pay cut, nor do I want you to finance a fare war. But you're not in a fare war. You are in a market economy with lower cost competitors. If I could have my way, ya'll would just fire all of the overpaid bag smashers, etc, and keep the pilot pay up in the stratosphere. In the mean time, It's just my opinion, but I don't think that your current position is helping anyone except the senior pilots at DAL.

regards,
8N

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Do you not accept the premice that when we accept concessions, the rest of the industry, especially the low cost carriers will have to follow of lose thier cost advantage. I would be careful what you wish for.

P.S.
Pattern bargaining got us our contract. It worked only 1.5 years ago, even though the low cost carriers were already a threat.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

PS

I know that my replies are hard to follow. Maybe one of you computer guys can tell me how to do multiple quotes?

 

[DaveGriffin]

Re: Re: Consessions vs furloughs

Originally posted by FlyDeltasJets
#2. We still have not gotten final word that the furloughs can continue. We argue our case again 10/30 and 31. The arbitrator's ruling might change everything.

A man has to have a dream FDJ. Unfortunately this wet dream of yours will never happen. Get over it……you lost the grievance first round and you will lose the next. No arbitrator will deny that the terror attacks of 11 Sep and following events, such as the AA63 attempted shoe bombing, have caused and continue to cause a significant percentage of flyers to reduce or eliminate their air travel.

Originally posted by csmith in another thread
I will concede that 911 was an undeniably THE premier tragic event in aviation. More than the event itself, however, are the events which have arisen in the aftermath. Govt bureaucracy, the recession strengthening, and imminent war have contributed to the down cycle which rears its ugly head every 5-10 years. In my opinion, it is this which has sparked the business traveller's abscence--as it ALWAYS does.

Such a predictable Delta pilot characterization of the attacks of 11 Sep. In seeking to advance your union’s agenda and gain, you guys will say and do ANYTHING to minimize the enormity of the enemy attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

“Tragic” is the Swissair 111 crash.
“Tragic” is Mt St Helen exploding and killing over 50 people.
“Tragic” is a father or mother of young children killed in an automobile accident.

The attacks of 11 Sep are far more than a “tragic event”. It was not an accident. It was far, far more. It was the premeditated, deliberate and indiscriminant murder of innocent civilians by a dedicated enemy using covert suicide saboteurs and our commercial airliners with passengers as the means of destruction. A foreign enemy declared war on the US with this sneak attack and continues to threaten attack at home and abroad.

Your sophistry betrays your union’s attempt to minimize, distort and recast the true nature of the horrendous attacks to forward its mercenary purpose.

 

[Publishers]

Concessions

Concessions is probably the wrong term.

As Enigma points out, there has been a shift in the market forces. For those that want to talk about give backs or concessions as a temporary fix, you are probably missing the point.

The reason that you start another carrier like Delta is talking about is to differentiate between both product as well as the fact that what you are starting is a long term program with a different approach.

When things get out of whack, other things happen to bring the balance back. Some are real and some are artificial. Let me give you a non-pilot oriented example.

The discount carriers like Valujet were able to buy DC9-30's for $1.0m. Compare that with the $30.0m that majors were paying for Boeing 737 equipment. To help drive up their cash requirement, the majors lobbied for Stage III implementation behind the scenes. Hush kits cost $2.0m for the DC9. This articial and permanent regulatory change tripled the cost of the Valujet aircraft. At the same time, the engines were needed in service and they started going up in price.

Let' s look at one more example. SWA pilot costs continue to go up, new aircraft continue to go up, etc. another carrier comes along with the same general concept but with old 737 and less wages, reduced costs, and reduced prices.

My point is that balance needs to be maintained in the market and pilot wages will not continue up if ticket prices do not go up in a corresponding manner. We are out of balance.

 

[csmith]

If anyone believes that, I got some waterfront property in AZ for sale. Delta is keeping the pilots they need, but not a the major level. I respect the Delta furloughees who are happy to stay out in an attempt to maintain the wages, but I think that you are being sacrificed so that your senior brothers can keep their big paycheck.

It is now rumored that DAL is starting another lowcost carrier subsidiary. That sounds like DAL needs pilots to me; they just don't pilots that they have to pay over market price to get.

Back to the consession vs furlough thought. If you all want to remain on furlough until someone above you retires, thats OK. I'm not arguing that. I think that you are willing to see mainline stagnate, or shrink, because you've already got a seniority number and you would rather work for big money at a smaller mainline than you would work for less at a big carrier. I see your point, and would probably be tempted to do the same if I was in your position.

However, if that is the choice you have made, don't try and tell me that you are either, 1. attempting to raise the bar, nor 2. that mainline doesn't need pilots. I would have to say that you are not raising the bar, you are just keeping it high for yourselves, and, obviously mainline needs pilots.

In the mean time, while you are holding up your future wage potential, the rest of us are forced to endure our average wages. Your being furloughed gives us just about ZERO bargaining power. Guaranteeing (sp?) that we will continue to work for far less than DAL mainline, and that our carrier will continue to take your passengers. I would rather not have it that way, but ya'll are in the drivers seat, not us.
just something to think about

regards,
8N [/B]

8N, I would submit that somebody has to have the highest wages in the industry. I would submit that with Delta taking a backwards step in compensation, other carriers, including negotiating ASA, would be faced with the same realities. It ain't gonna come from just the Delta pilots. I submit that a certain periodical said that the recession ended sometime between last November and last March. I would submit that Delta pilots are STILL behind real dollars from their 70's and 80's compensation even after "pricing themselves out of the market". I submit that the average pilot at Delta has already taken a pay cut via backwards seat movement. I myself can conservatively say that my paycut has been 320K per year. I would submit that, yes, a new carrier is in the works. I would submit that the PRIMARY reason is to detach the "low fare" from the brand name of "Delta". People don't read low fare when they hear the name Delta. I submit that wages on this airline, which WILL be flown with Delta pilots, probably will not be in line with the Delta PWA pay scale--AKA another B scale. I submit that this will generate pay cuts at other airlines, maybe even yours, is the Delta pilots sign off on it. I submit that the Delta pilots will then come under fire from the usuals on this board for not having the guts to strike, or something to that effect. I submit that while some pilots throw arrows at the Delta pilots, they are still the highest compensated in the industry, and in fact another well compensated asked to "borrow" our lead negotiator for their upcoming negotiations.

I can go on, but I think you can get the point. The really funny part is that you think us not taking a pay cut is causing you financial harm. I'm disappointed to see that fallacious thinking out of an 8N'er.

C

 

[furloboy]

"Your being furloughed gives us just about ZERO bargaining power. Guaranteeing (sp?) that we will continue to work for far less than DAL mainline, and that our carrier will continue to take your passengers. I would rather not have it that way, but ya'll are in the drivers seat, not us. just something to think about "

-----------------------------------------------------

Oh jeez...I didn't realize that being furloughed would leave you with "just about ZERO bargaining power." Sorry. I guess that's just one of many things that I should have considered when I was canned. It's just that the whole find-a-way-to-make-a-living thing preoccupied most of my time. Perhaps--since I'm "in the driver's seat"--I'll call the company and "unfurlough" myself tomorrow.

8N, I don't think you meant to get anyone fired up with those couple of sentences--but you did. If you think that any of us furloughed guys/gals can do dick-all to influence when/how/if we get back to work...well, you're wrong. Just something to think about.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Even though I don't have a stake in any of this, just wanted to make an observation.
This whole process reminds me of buying a car. The airline is the dealership while the employee is the car buyer. The airline/dealership is saying they can't afford to sell the car that low (i.e., pay wages that high) and the employee/car buyer is saying they can't afford to pay that much for the car (i.e., take a pay cut). Guess there needs to be a balance between market realities and not selling yourself short. Personally, I find car buying to be a very grievous process. Good luck to all.

 

[Publishers]

More like

It is more like the

Customer is saying I will not pay that to go. Here is what I will pay.

Airline is saying I cannot produce a product that is sold for that with the cost structure that I have.

Other airline is saying-- maybe you cannot but we can.

First airline is saying I would have to start anew with a new company to be competitive with Other airline.

Employees of first airline are saying why should we support that. We like what we were making.

Customer is saying I could not care less what you want. This is what I will pay.

Other airline is saying "Welcome Aboard".

 

[enigma]

Et Al

Publishers, You're correct. I went back and reread my original post after you pointed out that concessions wasn't correct. I agree with your post, and the point of balance is what I don't think that some others have grasped.

FDJ and csmith, I opened up a can of worms with the concession argument. My intent was to point out that the idea that DAL would only keep the pilots it needed was ludicrous on its face. That statement seems logical, but it is being proven untrue by the continued expansion of DCI and by the DAL lowcost startup.

From csmith.
8N, I would submit that somebody has to have the highest wages in the industry. I would submit that with Delta taking a backwards step in compensation, other carriers, including negotiating ASA, would be faced with the same realities. It ain't gonna come from just the Delta pilots. [qoute]

You are assuming that we are all equal at the outset. Unless Congress decides to re-regulate the airline industry, (it was mentioned in hearings the other day) our employers operate in a free market. At the present, the market is not supporting "full service" major carriers. Whether you and I like it, or not, costs will come down to a sustainable level. I differ with you in that I am not attempting to maintain a level above market, I am trying to bring a below market package up to market.

I would submit that Delta pilots are STILL behind real dollars from their 70's and 80's compensation even after "pricing themselves out of the market". I submit that the average pilot at Delta has already taken a pay cut via backwards seat movement. I myself can conservatively say that my paycut has been 320K per year.

All I have to say, is that you are not getting my point. This is not the 70's. The market doesn't resemble those markets in any way. I assume that your figure of 320K per year pay cut is a typo.

I would submit that, yes, a new carrier is in the works. I would submit that the PRIMARY reason is to detach the "low fare" from the brand name of "Delta". People don't read low fare when they hear the name Delta. I submit that wages on this airline, which WILL be flown with Delta pilots, probably will not be in line with the Delta PWA pay scale--AKA another B scale.

Do you realize that this position makes my case? Certain DAL furloughees, have stated that they are happy to be on furlough because it means that they will have high wages once they are recalled. Now you are positing that the DAL pilots will work for "B" scale. I submit that this proves me right.

I submit that this will generate pay cuts at other airlines, maybe even yours, is the Delta pilots sign off on it.

Your consessions may generate cuts at other carriers, but probably not mine. You guys don't seem to realize just how low cost we are. Your consessions , and a "B" scale is a major concession, will probably cause a domino effect at other carriers of like cost structure. If you take consessions, I imagine that even your "B" scales will be dramatically above ours. That will help you, because having your high wages to use in bargaining will help my MEC increase my wages thereby helping erase my employers advantage. If DAL has pilots on furlough, we can't use your numbers at all. In truth, your current numbers are so much above ours that we have a hard time using them anyway.

I can go on, but I think you can get the point. The really funny part is that you think us not taking a pay cut is causing you financial harm. I'm disappointed to see that fallacious thinking out of an 8N'er.

Sorry to disappoint. I don't agree with your point, but this is an discussion among gentlemen. We can agree to disagree. I hope that I didn't come across as having any personal animosity. I am on your side. I would much rather work for your scale than mine.

from furloboy
Oh jeez...I didn't realize that being furloughed would leave you with "just about ZERO bargaining power." Sorry. I guess that's just one of many things that I should have considered when I was canned. It's just that the whole find-a-way-to-make-a-living thing preoccupied most of my time. Perhaps--since I'm "in the driver's seat"--I'll call the company and "unfurlough" myself tomorrow.

8N, I don't think you meant to get anyone fired up with those couple of sentences--but you did. If you think that any of us furloughed guys/gals can do dick-all to influence when/how/if we get back to work...well, you're wrong. Just something to think about.

furloboy, Sorry I riled you. See the opening to this post. My point should have been more specific toward the concept of DAL needing pilots. I am not condeming any of you furloughees. But trying to debate a point with some furloughees who think that they are doing something noble by sitting out. I think that the only ones benefitting from your furlough are the senior pilots at DAL. In the end, they will get to maintain their high wages, and you will end up on "B"scale.

As to your comment about your furlough having no effect on my bargaining power, Have you ever tried to bargain for anything in a sellers market?

regards to all,
8N

 

[Boeingman]

Re: Et Al

I think that the only ones benefitting from your furlough are the senior pilots at DAL. In the end, they will get to maintain their high wages, and you will end up on "B"scale.

This is so crystal clear from the outside looking in. I think we are seeing the metamorphasis of a new tactic by mangement with this same property and seniority list alter ego carrier. Albiet an alter pay ego carrier.

Of course, you're assuming that DAL recalls anyone within the next few years. If at all.

Any DAL guys hearing the rumor about another possible 600+ furloughs from on top of the 1400? FWIW, I was told this by a DAL pilot yesterday JS'g.

 

[csmith]

Re: Re: Et Al

This is so crystal clear from the outside looking in. I think we are seeing the metamorphasis of a new tactic by mangement with this same property and seniority list alter ego carrier. Albiet an alter pay ego carrier.

Of course, you're assuming that DAL recalls anyone within the next few years. If at all.

Any DAL guys hearing the rumor about another possible 600+ furloughs from on top of the 1400? FWIW, I was told this by a DAL pilot yesterday JS'g.

It is hardly a "new" tactic to play the senior group within a list against the junior group. It has been going on for years.

Again, FM cannot last forever.

On that note, chief pilot messages to the group have said that the number will remain at 1400 barring another force majeure event. Invading Iraq has some speculating that this would constitute a "war emergency" and would thus fall under the FM definition. I would imagine that such a furlough would again be grieved, but it too would end. The trick for the Delta pilots is to remember what happened back during the previous Iraqi scuffle. The concessions came in when the economy was just picking up momentum. When asking for some givebacks while record profits were being made, a good faith gesture that management and labor were really in it together, the infamous words "a contract is a contract" were uttered. Most guys I have spoken with have not forgotten these words, and will not.

In case everyone missed it, FM cannot last forever. It will end, and I want TK to come back to the job he left.

 

[tbkane]

csmith

I want tk back also, more than anyone can imagine.

 

[csmith]

Re: Et Al

8N remarks in quotes:

You are assuming that we are all equal at the outset. Unless Congress decides to re-regulate the airline industry, (it was mentioned in hearings the other day) our employers operate in a free market. At the present, the market is not supporting "full service" major carriers. Whether you and I like it, or not, costs will come down to a sustainable level. I differ with you in that I am not attempting to maintain a level above market, I am trying to bring a below market package up to market.

I too have heard the rregulation word thrown around. At this point, I am tending to agree. I have yet to see quantifiable data, as none of us are economists, that this market will not support full service carriers. This industry is cyclical, and everyone predicts the doom of the high paying jobs with every downturn, yet somehow they make it through. Saying that compensation cuts at the full service carriers will not effect the bargaining of the low fare carriers is totally incorrect. I remember at good old 8N, everybody bought off on that idea back in 92. AMR was furloughing so Eagle had to furlough as well, and cuts were needed as well. Blah, blah, blah. None of it being true of course, but I would not be surprised to see the strikebreaker press-to-test button pushed in this tight job market if the low fare carrier pilots do not fall in line with managed expectations during negotiations.

Do you realize that this position makes my case? Certain DAL furloughees, have stated that they are happy to be on furlough because it means that they will have high wages once they are recalled. Now you are positing that the DAL pilots will work for "B" scale. I submit that this proves me right.

It does not prove you right. I did not post that Delta pilots would work for a b-scale as witnessed by the very next line in your post--note the is should be an if. That is a big IF. All of this is conjecture anyway, as those rumors are just that--rumors.

I submit that this will generate pay cuts at other airlines, maybe even yours, is the Delta pilots sign off on it.

All I have to say, is that you are not getting my point. This is not the 70's. The market doesn't resemble those markets in any way. I assume that your figure of 320K per year pay cut is a typo.

I am quite aware that this is not the 70s, however, maybe you should tell that to the car prices, or the cost of a movie, or groceries, or gas. All things are relative. A pilot for Delta is not have the standard of living he or she did back in the 70s and 80s. Suggesting further pay cuts on top of my 20K, yes it was a typo-sorry, is absurd. Yes, I am aware that many guys took a 100% pay cut. It is unfortunate, it is not unusual in this industry, and having been furloughed myself I feel their pain and anxiety. That being said, I don't see management cutting other employees compensation. You certainly don't see management cutting their own compensation. In fact, as we are all aware, VPs at Delta are the most rapidly growing segment of our population. Management in airlines always has a history of running to labor for concessions when their tired out ideas are not working at the moment, yet they do not share in the lucrative times. Labor cost ain't the problem. The Delta MEC knows this. This is why their services are in demand at other airlines.

Sorry to disappoint. I don't agree with your point, but this is an discussion among gentlemen. We can agree to disagree. I hope that I didn't come across as having any personal animosity. I am on your side. I would much rather work for your scale than mine.

No offense taken. I do think you do have some personal animousity, but I'll take your word for it that you don't. I have absolutely no doubt that my services and responsibilities command the pay which is paid to me. I agree that your services should command no less. The problem is, and has always been, that we--pilots--are whores. I am not exempt from this, nor are you. As low as you think you are paid, there are people lining up out there who are willing to step into your seat for less money. This the problem which will plague us forever, keep two tiered payscales, affect the age 60 rule, and so on. I guess we will agree to disagree, but I'm still listening.

 

[Boeingman]

Re: Re: Re: Et Al

It is hardly a "new" tactic to play the senior group within a list against the junior group. It has been going on for years.

Yes, I am aware of that. My point is that this new carrier within a carrier will bring the old tactics to a new, unprecedented level.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Re: Re: Re: Et Al

It is hardly a "new" tactic to play the senior group within a list against the junior group. It has been going on for years.

It would be an absolutely useless tactic if the seniors didn’t jump on the opportunity to protect their self-interest at the expense of the juniors every chance they get. You can’t blame anyone but yourself for this.

Again, FM cannot last forever. In case everyone missed it, FM cannot last forever. It will end…

It certainly will, but not as a result of the second grievance hearing in late October. From the comments on this board by the furloughees, it is evident you have gotten their hopes up with the second hearing. Your leadership knows full well it will fail. As was the first hearing, it is nothing more than a meaningless gesture intended to convince the juniors how hard their union is working on their behalf.