>>EWR757- Like EA AS CO
, I think we agree more than you may think as well.<<
I'm sure we do. I think my initial reply to you was harsher than I meant it to be. Obviously from your postings, unlike Falcon, you reply with thought fact and attempt good discussion rather than...well it is clear with him.
>>Most of my buddies are pilots, neighbors, friends and I myself have a SEL but am not a commercial pilot.<<
You mean a private SEL? Good for you! It is never to late to start. Although the instrument rating is much more important than the commercial ticket.
>>I'm in the loop and have the utmost repect for what they do.<<
I wish I could drag Larry along for a few days, plop him in the jumpseat and give him a clue as to what really takes place on the line. What would be even better is to have him observe the process while flying in some really nasty weather, watching your fuel vanish while holding all the time making decisions on the safest way to conclude the flight and not upset our customers (i.e. diverting)
I would never hope for an abnormal in the aircraft, so given that, let him spend some time in the simulator and watch emergencies trained and practiced.
>>What they do is a trained profession in which their actions directly impact the company, and one in which safety is paramount. <<
Yes it does. A lot of pilots gripe that if we ever damaged an aircraft, we'd be history. That is fine, I can live with that. Yet we see some upper managemnt at times (at all airlines) make stupid bonehead decisions that cost the carriers millions and millions yet there is no accountability. They just eventually sail off in the sunset with their golden parachute. I know it is the nature of the beast, but it still grates on people.
>>Furthermore, it is a profession in which years of training are required <<
Many people have no idea what is really involved. Sure you can get some low time guy to fly the plane from A to B. But the real problem is when things go astray and non ops normal. It takes years of experience to conclude the flight safely. You have to have a well of knowledge to draw from. Nobody is there to help you aside from another highly qualified guy in the other seat.
a retirement age is mandated involuntarily. <<
Which will probably increase as the theft of our pensions run rampant across the industry. Don't forget we are also held to stringent medical standards. We are just one medical away from a mandated retirement if something bad shows up. Which in any other profession would allow that person to continue their career.
>>So for those reasons and more I don't begrudge pilots for what they make...not at all.<<
Nor do I!!!!! Cheap self gratuitous ad there.
>>I do take umbrage to the class envy card that gets pulled against senior management as if they *shouldn't* be paid commensurate with their skills either. <<
Like I said to EA
, my problem is the drawing of the line. Sure they need to make the big bucks. In the present discussion vis a vis pay cuts with the pilots, I do not believe the sacrifice is being truly shared.
>>While there are training requirements for pilots, type ratings, sim demands, etc, it remains much easier to replace a line pilot than it is a CEO, CFO, or someone at that level.<<
Actually not true due to union protections. CEO's can be fired at will from the board. We are not at will employees. In the context of there are many on the seniority list to easily replace, yes that is true. If you're talking about competent CEO's I'd agree. However their resumes alone don't impress me. I want to see real bonafide results out of these people.
>>Again, I don't say that to pit one side against another, but to illustrate the facts...hence my W-2 example. I found that hypocritical, when--even with their high degree of skill and expertise--can still be replaced at will.<<
I know where you're coming from and I also know that many in the middle management ranks are getting the shaft. I shouldn't use the term management so loose. I have been alluding to senior management at the executive level.
I have heard the stories and pressure on our middle management people. I agree it has been ugly and I do feel for you folks. Frankly, in a managerial sense, you guys are placed with the operational burden and if you don't perform you're history. A lot of pressure there. Upper managemnt always comes out on top of many careers that are sacrificed if there is a monumental screw up.
>>Hell, let's face it, the operation is bigger than any one of us, from the breakroom to the boardroom. <<
I agree. Very well put.
>>Ultimately, we're all expendable if you want to look at it in that way.<<
I agree there as well.
>>You asked the more appropriate question though in asking "How much is enough?" or "What *is* reasonable for executive compensation?" Very valid Q's to ask.<<
That is my only point especially in this environment of pay cuts.
>>But not for Continental execs, IMO....they gave 25%+, did it a while ago, shouldered a massive burden and they don't have the luxury of bitching about it as we do.<<
Well, reread the Rueters arcticle I posted about prior pay increases for positions vacated. Remember that they have only agreed until 2005 to stop bonuses. If my cuts on our 1997 contract were only to 2005 (end) I wouldn't complain.
As far as their bitching, all they need to do is sell a story to the board of why they are not expendable and viola...new pay package. Look how long we have been negotiating in vain for a new agreement. There is give and take on both sides of the argument but all in all, senior management can easily change their pay and benefits.
>>I'm taking a cut, and I'm not elated,<<
I'm figuring, roughly, this will cost me about $500,000 in pay and retirement benefits. I haven't actually taken a calculator to the entire deal. Also, I have not see the actual TA
so it is just a guess. Plus, the DC plan for retirement is not clear aside from general figures of contributions.
>>but I'm a realist. My resume also has a defunct airline on it, and I've been down the road of draconian pay and benefit cuts before...<<
Intersting comment there. Reread that. "Defunct and draconian pay cuts before". I'm not being a creep here but I have always said that pay cuts do not save airlines. Name one carrier that survived and prospered while cutting pay.
>>and unlike now, my company then didn't ask me HOW
I wanted it or solicit input to make it more palatable for employees. Nor was there any business plan, financial briefing or any such thing provided for employees as it has been at CO
While I agree CO
has been campaigning, I do disagree with some of their analysis. Especially about labor CASM vis a vis the industry. CO
still enjoys a very competitive labor CASM. It is the non labor CASM causing the problems.
You can't fix non labor CASM by cutting pay. The fundamental problem is still there.
>>Now take a look at the provisions of the TA
above for the mechanics: they take a 4% all-in avg paycut, OT
is calculated based on 40 hrs per week not 8+ per day, and they lose 2 floating holidays! That's all!! Read the job protections in there--if that's all accurate then the mechanics don't have a single thing to gripe about! They're guaranteed increases, as well as no furloughs, no vacation changes, 401k stays, *plus* the modified profit sharing and now the stock options.<<
I won't speak for the mechanics. Remember they have already have had a new agreement and interim raises. We have been out of contract since 2002. That agreement was signed in 1997 and was by any standards then concessionary.
Thank you for the mature and frank discussion.