|Quoting PITrules (Reply 92):|
I comes from the many people who think it is OK for pilots to take a 50% cut when times are bad, only to get a 10% raise when they are good.
While I'm not saying this is the case because, as I've said already, it's for the market to decide - perhaps the fact that pilots had to take large paycuts after 9/11 may be a signal that they were being paid too much for the market to stand in the first place.
|Quoting PITrules (Reply 92):|
So why should they have 50% (or 40% - it was only a ballpark figure) of compensation taken away when the industry is much stronger
I don't know which "industry" you're referring to, but I'd hardly call the airline industry "much stronger."
It's still sitting on a mountain of debt, still isn't earning its cost of capital (as it pretty much never has), and competition continues to get stronger every day. The short answer to your question is simple: pilots should have to give up and get back whatever compensation they do because of two things: a) what the market is willing to pay, and b) how well they are able to negotiate not with the company, but with the market, on what they are worth. The negotiation is a bit more opaque, but it's there: if the pilots negotiate too high a compensation for themselves, then their employer will go out of business, and they won't have any compensation, or job.
We've been through this already. Management - at least in the case of AMR - didn't give themselves anything, the Board did. And it's not as if the Board just gave it to them yesterday, once they already saw the outcome of the game. They set these bonuses into motion years ago, when the stock options were worthless, and only be getting the stock price to go up did the options get any value.
|Quoting Indy (Reply 94):|
Fault in my opinion lies with the company and the consumer.
I'm with you on at least part of that.
Like with many (if not most) things in this world, if you want somebody to blame, look in the mirror.
We - as Americans - have decided that we value low cost above all else, which is why retailers like Wal Mart continue to grow and do huge business, and why we're buying crappy contaminated products from China (generalization, I know, but it is happening to at least some extent). We as the American public sent businesses a message: we want the lowest cost possible, and we don't care how you get it to us. When that is the message people send, what conclusion do you expect companies to draw?
This whole argument about capitalism, socialism, fairness, inequity, etc. is just all moot in my view. This isn't a question of capitalism or not, equity or not, it's a question of consumer vs. producer. In the U.S. right now, the consumer is completely, 100% in the drivers seat and calling the shots: they pull no punches, have no patience, and have absolutely no qualms about exactly what they want: low prices, low prices, low prices. In that environment, the producers (i.e., businesses and employees) have no choice.
|Quoting N710PS (Reply 103):|
That is what seperates us from them for those of us on this site who are in the aviation community front lines.
Sometimes, whether you think so or not, the line between "us" and "them" isn't quite as clear as you might think.