Shared Sacrifice

[Winglet]

7.5%??? That's laughable. 7.5% for those guys is NUTHIN.

The gall and huzbah of these clowns is really unlimited. Although I suppose we'll start hearing from some pilots about what a great sacrifice it is for the senior managers.

Any guesses on how soon they get it back . . . . and a lot more to boot?

Propaganda meant for the little people.

 

[olivia]

As for management and other non union positions being cut 5 per cent....
totally pitiful and insulting to all of us.

I think they had just gotten a 4 per cent raise two or three months ago.

If the company is to succeed, all groups should give approximately the same
percentage. And as far as upper managment and VP..s they could even
give more...since their performance has done nothing to make us more successful.
Wrong on fares, wrong on fuel....

One of our biggest problems in the company is the lack of accountability
at the upper management level.

 

[MrAeroMan]

As for management and other non union positions being cut 5 per cent....
totally pitiful and insulting to all of us.

I think they had just gotten a 4 per cent raise two or three months ago.

If the company is to succeed, all groups should give approximately the same
percentage. And as far as upper managment and VP..s they could even
give more...since their performance has done nothing to make us more successful.
Wrong on fares, wrong on fuel....

One of our biggest problems in the company is the lack of accountability
at the upper management level.

[post="188167"][/post]​

The unions were told they could come up with any formula they wanted to hit their cost target and managements was a combination of pay and benefit reductions. Those reductions were $49 million of a $210 million dollar management budget. That percentage works out to roughly 23%. Just because they didn't take a 23% hit in their hourly wage doesn't mean they didn't sacrifice and I fail to see how it's insulting.

 

[BoeingBoy]

MrAeroMan,

You're confusing the temporary relief sought by the company with the long term agreements they want.

1 - no offer to "come up with any formula they wanted" was made in relation to the temporary relief motion made by the company. That only applied to long term agreements.

2 - I certainly can't speak for other groups or even all members of my group, but for me the long term "ask" by the company is way over 23%. Just the pay and retirement changes amount to 50%.

Now about sharing the sacrifice equally....

Jim

 

[MrAeroMan]

Jim,

I was referring to the long term agreements but my post didn't articulate that as clearly as you did. My apologies.
The non-union and management ranks (mid to low management) are not that highly compensated even compared to the LCC models. The area they were over on was in the benefit portion such as vacation and sick time. That's where the biggest hit was taken as well as their 401K contributions and company match. You can't expect these people to take a 50% paycut and put them down to around 15k to 20k per year. Management ranks would empty quicker than you can say fire sale. While I sympathize with the ALPA members dilema from the figures I've seen most pilots will still be able to live comfortably. It's a sad day all around and the shakeout from this isn't over yet. I wish you the best of luck in your decision and the fallout that follows.

 

[BoeingBoy]

MrAeroMan,

And I should have been clearer. I don't expect a secretary or clerical employee to take the same hit as me any more than I expect a F/A to. My disagreement is with those who already make more than any rank & file employee.

Attrition counts as a management cost saving but not rank & file cost saving.

Unfilled vacancies count as a management cost saving but not rank & file cost saving.

The "complexity of the business model" enters into management calculations of "competitive costs" but not the rank & file.

Potential labor CASM reductions from the TP affects the "competitiveness" of management compensation but not the rank & file.

Anyway, you get the picture.

Jim

 

[PITbull]

MrAeroMan,

And I should have been clearer. I don't expect a secretary or clerical employee to take the same hit as me any more than I expect a F/A to. My disagreement is with those who already make more than any rank & file employee.

Attrition counts as a management cost saving but not rank & file cost saving.

Unfilled vacancies count as a management cost saving but not rank & file cost saving.

The "complexity of the business model" enters into management calculations of "competitive costs" but not the rank & file.

Potential labor CASM reductions from the TP affects the "competitiveness" of management compensation but not the rank & file.

Anyway, you get the picture.

Jim

[post="188344"][/post]​

The unfairness as Isee it is that Labor (the pilots) will be taking a much larger wage reduction than senior managment who are only taking 10%.

For instance, Jerry Glass makes $280,000, 10% of that is $28,000. He still makes a quarter of a million dollars. He just has to forfiet his 6 the vehicle.

For our pilots who make approx $200,000 captain. That brings them to nearly $40,000 hit, much higher than the senior exec. % was the company has motioned for all of labor to take 23%, much higher % than themselves.

That is why this company sould not be in business. They have used the courts system to hammer labor instead of endeavoring for sensible consensual agreements. This managmnet is "incapable of negotiations", and they should all be fired, and a trustee apponted.

BTW, our traffic was up in Sept. 70.7%, 4 point % ncrease compared to last year. Every single quarter this year has increase in traffic.

The company will be hard pressed to prove that the company is in iminent danger of liquidation with these numbers.

 

[MrAeroMan]

MrAeroMan,

And I should have been clearer. I don't expect a secretary or clerical employee to take the same hit as me any more than I expect a F/A to. My disagreement is with those who already make more than any rank & file employee.

Attrition counts as a management cost saving but not rank & file cost saving.

Unfilled vacancies count as a management cost saving but not rank & file cost saving.

The "complexity of the business model" enters into management calculations of "competitive costs" but not the rank & file.

Potential labor CASM reductions from the TP affects the "competitiveness" of management compensation but not the rank & file.

Anyway, you get the picture.

Jim

[post="188344"][/post]​

Jim,

I understand and I agree. While the overall dollar figure wouldn't be that great on Senior management the symbolization of that type of move would do wonders for rank and file morale. That must be why it wasn't done!