Labor is being slowly killed

[boomlrd]

Not hardly. And you can't get hired at UPS without any flight experience either. My point is that a 5 year FO is roughly equivalent in experience to a O-4 in the USAF.

Ok, I took you serious until you said that. There is a slight difference in the backgrounds of a typical 0-4 and a 5 year F/O, even at the ALMIGHTY UPS!

 

[Publishers]

How can you be grossly underpaid when if you stopped flying tomorrow at 8pm, the sub contractors that used to fly the product would do it again for less. Secondly, even the comparison to FEDEX is marginally appropriate. They, until Flying Tigers, had a totally different business model. Thirdly, as I was trying to point out you do not make some massive contribution to the company. UPS makes a tremendous amount of money, although the real test is profit related to sales or assets, from that brown truck not those big aircraft.

 

[Purpledog]

How can you be grossly underpaid when if you stopped flying tomorrow at 8pm, the sub contractors that used to fly the product would do it again for less. Secondly, even the comparison to FEDEX is marginally appropriate. They, until Flying Tigers, had a totally different business model. Thirdly, as I was trying to point out you do not make some massive contribution to the company. UPS makes a tremendous amount of money, although the real test is profit related to sales or assets, from that brown truck not those big aircraft.

It's a sad state of affairs when pilots are trying to justify why we should be paid less. We are our own worst enemies, who needs management.

 

[Clyde]

Clyde, would the unions have allowed the airlines to build up a rainy day fund? Can you imagine, ABC airlines that has never had an unprofitable year, it has 2.7B cash in the bank and no debt. Do you think the union would say, "We are perfectly happy with a 1.9% COLA adjustment to our present pay rates"? Happy New Year to all

It is not up to the unions to run the airline, that is management's job. It seems that airline management is the poster-child for incompetency AND how not to run an airline.

You asked about a rainy-day fund with regards to union input. I'll answer it by stating it like this: instead of borrowing to expand in a cyclical business, airline management should have been more conservative in how they handled their cash flow.

It would have been better to be a little smaller with more money in the bank than to leverage to keep up with the Jones'.

Before you bring up pilot salaries, realize that it takes TWO parties to agree to a contract. ALPA didn't force any legacies to pay them what they wanted, airline management agreed and signed on the dotted line.

 

[Clyde]

Ok, I took you serious until you said that. There is a slight difference in the backgrounds of a typical 0-4 and a 5 year F/O, even at the ALMIGHTY UPS!

And what if many 5 year F/O's were 0-4's at one time in their past?

 

[pilotyip]

No Clyde I have to again disagree, the threat of a union shutdown via a strike puts fear in the hearts of management. The loss of cash flow to highly leveraged airlines could be fatal. The recovery time from even a short strike is months. Look at NWA in 1998; shut down like10 days it was over a year before they returned to the same level of seats filled. Secondly the highly leveraged came about as a result of de-reg. In stead of buying airplane as equity through stock sale or profits, financing became the name of the game in order to grow and preserve market share against rapidly growing competitors. Before de-reg. Mutual Aid gave the shut down airline a source of revenue that allowed them to have the strike go on longer. It balanced the power of the union to shutdown the airline.

 

[hoover]

I think it is a mistake to tie pay with profits. A pilot is worth "X", and that doesn't change just because the company is making or losing money.

So for those of you who say "I deserve a raise because the company made money", I ask: Will the company deserve concessions if they are losing money?"

 

[Purpledog]

So for those of you who say "I deserve a raise because the company made money", I ask: Will the company deserve concessions if they are losing money?"

I don't know where you've been but that's exactly what they are doing. What's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. The major airline pilot today is making far less than one did 20 years ago due to inflation and cola adjusted for todays buying power.

 

[hoover]

I think you missed my point. My point is, the company comes to the pilots for concessions because in the past, they have demonstrated a willingness to give them, based on the financial strength of the company. Naturally when times are good, the pilots do the same as well. What I'm saying is that if you want to hold the line on pay, then you should adopt the attitude of "My skills are worth this much money. I will not work for less than that."

It's management's job to figure out how to make money, not labor's.

 

[pilotyip]

and Hoover when management can not make money and you are making $175K per year and they ask you to work for $125K per year, are you going to draw the line? About how many jobs are you going to find that pay $125K/yr to start and have 10-15 days off per month? Is it not better to preserve a greater portion of your pay than force the company out of business. Only asking the question.