1) Kindly, you need to get over yourself, as you are not an executive, VP, CFO, CEO or even the junior financial analyst peering wistful from the corner office through floor to ceiling windows.
Does one need to be? Aren't these basically the people farthest removed from the operational realities of the job we do? The same whiz kids feverishly trying to formulate practical analyses that successfully omit the human factor and yet can somehow work? The same people that are seemingly annoyed by us and all the things we do that make us so unlike the paper place-holding workers in their plans, models, and grand ambitions? The high priests of the quarterly report, their loyalty to profit secondary only to their own career ambitions? Don't get me wrong, I believe there are any number of positions in our economy that require such a marketable brand of sociopathic shrewdness, and I for one am proud that we've been able to accommodate quite a few of them here at US.
They look good in golf polos, and this is good for business.
2) While you are inappropriately dismissive of Rent Sharing as an economic concept in your "blood from turnip" rant, it should be noted plenty of economic research analysis have determined it to be supportive as a wage determinant. Within the economic journal article, "WAGES, PROFITS, AND RENT-SHARING" by David G. Blanchflower, Dartmouth College and NBER; Andrew J. Oswald, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Peter Sanfey, University of Kent, during the opening review on other scholarly pubications noted the following: "All find evidence for some kind of ability-to-pay effect upon wages. While most of these do not rest upon cross-section regressions, each draws upon data sets from highly unionized economies." It would appear to be a valid comparison as the ability-to-pay and our own "highly unionized" workplace to be compelling. Essentially, little profits = little raises, just ask the West ramp agents working under America West lousy profit margins and even worse pay scale for decades. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/oswald/wprs.pdf
Economics. The Dismal Science. Did you know that economists have successfully predicted nine of the past four recessions? It's science.
A few minor details:
In principle I can see the point you're making in terms of ability-to-pay, although I submit there's much lost in trying to cross-analyze the highly idealized generic manufacturing firm of a 17 year-old scholarly publication (of which the latest sampled data is 24 years old) and a modern post-deregulation, post-9/11, great-recessional airline. All it is saying is that for certain firms, within certain models, with all things being equal, ability-to-pay does appear to be a wage determinant. But the airline industry is an odd duck, and ceteris paribus assumptions concerning a lot - or any- of the variables can render an entire model invalid.
I will agree that ability-to-pay is a wage determinant; I always thought that was quasi-obvious but hey, whatever. Be that as it may, this is not to say that it is the only or even the main wage determinant, it is simply one of the considerations that a firm must make in determining what it can afford or what it says it can afford or will be able to afford as it applies to employee wages. Fair enough.
However I think it's worth pointing out that
ability-to-pay and
willingness-to-pay are two different things, and there's no set criteria for what qualifies a firm as "able" or "unable", besides the conclusions and sentiments of those running it. Management being what is and having the goals it has and having demonstrated their negotiating style will likely never concede that it can comfortably accommodate pay raises; their discomfort at the prospect of paying higher wages is present regardless of projected revenues or cash on hand. Simply put, the company will always argue that for whatever reason it lacks the ability to pay higher wages.
Fares and travel demand are up for the summer, and unless I'm mistaken we're looking at the possibility of profit in Q2; couple this with the rate of unemployment having leveled off and steady economic recovery and we may not be in such a position of weakness one year hence.
What since the passage of the TA justifies fleet receiving a pay increase? We're one of the work group that has successfully integrated. Baggage mishandling is down. On-time metrics are up. Complaints are down. Don't know the numbers system-wide but we're running a safer operation here in PHX. We've suffered their draconian attendance policy and the out-farming of field stations. We've implemented their bag-scanning procedures and made them a working tool within the operation. And personally, I've been busting my ass as I do each day to get these flights in and out safely and on time and would appreciate more compensation as an acknowledgment of the work I've done and the experience I bring to the company by virtue of the work I've performed for them.
Their relative ability or inability to pay for this does not concern me as within my position it is a variable entirely out of my control, though I try to do what little I can within my role to make this airline seem legitimate and viable but alack, buzz buzz, I'm just a worker bee...
3) For all the chest thumping, self-flagellattion bravado in the final analysis, this union is negotiating from a position of weakness due to our relative ease of replacement and the "blood from turnip" problem. As my granddaddy use to say, "#### in one hand and pray in the other and see what gets filled first," because that's all you have is a prayer something works in your favor. I just hope our uniforms won't consist of a hairshirt during the contract negotiations.
Maybe so, maybe not. The game hasn't even started. Optimism might not be the safe bet but it is a lot more fun.
