320AV8R said:
I agree with the fact that the costs at the LCC's were lower, but I think there are a few more factors involved than just pay rates. SWA\FO is exactly right (this time). When shat hit the fin, management at your airline had a vision for the future that involved breaking the high labor contracts. One of the little tricks they got many of you to believe was that your concessions were necessary due to lower labor costs at other carriers. That led to the rash of incidents where the jumpseat was being denied. What they failed to also mention, of course, was their own failures, amongst a whole rash of other things that had a little (sarcasm here) more to do with it. Each to their own opinion, and believe what you want, I think it's been touched on here once or twice before. I have the position of being furloughed from a major and currently employeed by an LCC, and I certainly do not blame my current pay rate for why I am here. You state that "The adjustment was to re-align with the LCCs." A major just posted a quarterly profit of $300 million and B6's profit was $14 million? Were the huge concessions that necessary? IF COMPANIES CONTINUE TO POST HUGE PROFITS LIKE THE AFOREMENTIONED WILL THE PAYSCALES BE READJUSTED? I doubt it. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that when Steenland is finished NWA will post similar numbers...huge profits shortly after deep concessions. And after this happens you can factor in your payscales prior to the paycuts and I bet you see that NWA could have still posted a huge profit. This is purely speculation, my own crystal ball, but you drink free beer on me some night if I am wrong.
