Nobody's disputing the need for raises or whether or not it is reasonable. But nowhere in all these grand charts and statistics do I see anything explaining how it is sustainable for the company to fund it at the current staffing levels.
You guys say you don't directly affect revenues, and third party revenue is no guarantee, so the only alternative is an offset.
Either you increase productivity, or you need to figure out which guys don't have a seat in the lifeboat via an early out or furloughs.
Your position may have changed but the company's hasnt, their offer still includes ZERO structural raises for six years.
Our staffing levels have decreased by over 35%, they have decreased faster than the volume of work which means we have already delivered a substantial productivity improvements and in return we recieved continued wage decreases in real terms. Like I've said many times before our staffing levels look high compared to other carriers because we do work in house and because management is top heavy, but if you look internally and historically we have seen huge staffing reductions and increased productivity. You cant look at our Labor costs as a stand alone figure and make any determination from that , you have to look at how it offsets the costs of sending the work out, the quality of the work, the turnaround time, the material costs etc etc. If at the end of the day, and the company refuses to answer this question, we can produce ASMs cheaper by doing it in house then our higher labor costs mean nothing. The fact that the company has not taken a position saying that it costs more to produce an ASM in house than outsourcing is an answer in itself, if they had such a self serving fact they would have used it and they havent. In fact information disclosed a few months ago at the last Presidents council indicated that even with in house OH maintenace our ASM costs were competitive.
I am agreeable to productivity improvements, always have been, as long as there is some quid pro quo, and I'm sorry they can stick their "You still have a job" quip where the sun dont shine.
As far as headcount reduction they can reduce as long as they dont furlough, I argued for the VBRs and told Local management to satisfy recalls and transfers but dont hire anybody new until we fix the compensation problem, our guys would rather have the OT than new coworkers, but it was management that claimed they cant afford to let anybody go and no we are not giving up work. Increasing productivity doesnt mean giving up work it means doing more, but they have to be willing to give more, in real terms.
If management wants a race to the bottom (where we all really lose), I'm sure that we could put them to the bottom before they put us to the bottom despite the lead they have. Its their choice, we arent looking for a fight, we are looking to be treated fairly and willing to fight if that what it takes.
