aislehopper
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 331
- 9
NHBBs:
Sorry for the delay in the reply. The thread has gotten quite long. Here is my take.
Senior management did allow the pay rate, but it was under duress. With negotiations moving toward further job action, I think that managment had to cave and hope that the economy held so that profits could pay for the contract. However, a strike or off booking would have hurt the company, so management had a Hobson's choice. It took the gamble and lost
IMHO, the Railway Labor Act should be amended to allow for binding arbitration instead of strikes. A panel of arbitrators could look at both sides, if a company was correct in what it could pay, the company's numbers prevail.
If a union's numbers are more compelling, the union prevails. Under the current system, a powerful union can use the threat of a strike to obtain a too lucrative contract. The too lucrative contract weakens a company to the point where it is acquired or enters bankruptcy. Once in Bankrupcy, section 1113 tends to favor the company. In both cases, There is an imbalance of power which leads to poor agreements.
Would the pilots ultimately have been better off if their contract had been a little more market rational? An argument can be made both ways.
IMHO, the problem is all of ours. As much as some may hate to admit, management, DALPA and the rest of us are all in the same boat together. This is a case of us vs. us. We will all need to be a lot less dysfunctional if we are to survive.
I think that they need to give back enough money to arrive at a rational payrate. Nothing more, nothing less. When I say rational, I mean a payscale that takes into consideration the health of our balance sheet, the projected health of the aviation sector, our costs versus the costs at other carriers, and what our costs need to be to put us in a position of market dominance
If it turns out that management gets too much in concessions, our balance sheet will show it. When the time to negotiate the next contract arrives, DALPA can even the score and get back the amount that it over gave in bankruptcy. The system will balance out.
IMHO, any over sacrifice today by DALPA can be recouped later from a healthy company. Any under participation could allow the company to go to Chaper 7 or allow us to hobble along weakly until someone acquires us. Neither situation is in the best interest of the pilots.
ah
Sorry for the delay in the reply. The thread has gotten quite long. Here is my take.
A h, what I don't understand is, it WAS DL's (Most) senior management, that "ALLOWED" Dalpa to BE in that POSITION.
Senior management did allow the pay rate, but it was under duress. With negotiations moving toward further job action, I think that managment had to cave and hope that the economy held so that profits could pay for the contract. However, a strike or off booking would have hurt the company, so management had a Hobson's choice. It took the gamble and lost
IMHO, the Railway Labor Act should be amended to allow for binding arbitration instead of strikes. A panel of arbitrators could look at both sides, if a company was correct in what it could pay, the company's numbers prevail.
If a union's numbers are more compelling, the union prevails. Under the current system, a powerful union can use the threat of a strike to obtain a too lucrative contract. The too lucrative contract weakens a company to the point where it is acquired or enters bankruptcy. Once in Bankrupcy, section 1113 tends to favor the company. In both cases, There is an imbalance of power which leads to poor agreements.
Would the pilots ultimately have been better off if their contract had been a little more market rational? An argument can be made both ways.
That IMHO IS DELTA AIRLINES PROBLEM, and THAT DOES NOT equate that DALPA must take "LARGER" pay cuts.
IMHO, the problem is all of ours. As much as some may hate to admit, management, DALPA and the rest of us are all in the same boat together. This is a case of us vs. us. We will all need to be a lot less dysfunctional if we are to survive.
Let me ask you straight out. ("Despite DALPA being put in a High pay rate BY DL MANAGEMENT) Do you think that they
Should give back "EXTRA" money(Over and above), because of DL's STUPIDITY" ?
(I'm not asking this question from a "moral", or "Do the right thing" standpoint)
Thanx aislehopper !!
NH/BB's
I think that they need to give back enough money to arrive at a rational payrate. Nothing more, nothing less. When I say rational, I mean a payscale that takes into consideration the health of our balance sheet, the projected health of the aviation sector, our costs versus the costs at other carriers, and what our costs need to be to put us in a position of market dominance
If it turns out that management gets too much in concessions, our balance sheet will show it. When the time to negotiate the next contract arrives, DALPA can even the score and get back the amount that it over gave in bankruptcy. The system will balance out.
IMHO, any over sacrifice today by DALPA can be recouped later from a healthy company. Any under participation could allow the company to go to Chaper 7 or allow us to hobble along weakly until someone acquires us. Neither situation is in the best interest of the pilots.
ah