Joining late, but as a libertarian who can't stand forced unionization I couldn't resist
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">From a corporate standpoint, this is a fast-track to bankruptcy, especially in a recession which it is widely acknowledged we're entering at the moment. Salaries are part of overhead - and high overhead kills off companies when revenues are down.</font>
But what kills companies even faster are managers who nickel-and-dime to save costs when they really ought to look at ways to boost revenue. During the last recession many firms swung the axe wildly and left themselves worse off, while those that engaged in aggressive marketing, price-cutting and product/service improvements actually grew during that time. In the case of pilots, let's say we have a 767 captain making $200k and an FO making $100k (probably on the high side, but bear with me). That's $300,000 per year. Now suppose they make 10 round-trip flights per month. $300,000 a year for 120 flights works out to $2500 per flight. Now suppose we get 200 pax per flight- that means the captain and FO cost $12.50 of that return fare. Therefore even if the pilots work for free the airline is only going to save $12.50 per round-trip passenger, while the plane is flying with about 30 empty seats. Instead of trying to save a few pennies by cutting the crew's pay the airline would be far better off doing whatever it takes to fill those empty seats.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Not only this, but their agreements limit the number of hours they have to work to ridiculously low levels - the equivalent of just over a working week for an average person per month.</font>
Do you seriously believe hours flown equals hours worked? Personally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near an airliner whose crew simply punched a clock, started the engines and flew away.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">They expect to be paid for training time - regardless of the fact that most professions require training/seminars/conferences for which there is no additional pay.</font>
Not my profession- maybe the local sweatshop or McD's expects employees to train for free but certainly not any employer that values its workforce. Most training happens on company time and any that doesn't is usually accompanied by some fairly generous perks.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The pay gap between US crews (and these three carriers in particular) and crews in the rest of the world is vast and seemingly growing out of control.</font>
Why is that a problem? There's a similar pay gap for every other profession as well; I could double my take-home tomorrow. Know why? Because
America is richer. Period. The UK and Europe could be just as rich by cutting taxes and deregulating, but it's easier to whine about the other guy who's better off than it is to solve your own problems.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It's very much to ALPA's benefit if other US majors (such as Continental, US Airways, TWA, Northwest, Southwest etc) join them - and ensures for those carriers that are paying their crews high salaries that come the recession, their competitors are in the same boat.</font>
And how does this differ from the behaviour of other trade unions?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">But can these pay levels be justified?</font>
If you're asking whether they're being paid what they're worth, well they're worth exactly what somebody is willing to pay. The drivers carry enough fare-paying pax to cover their salaries many times over so obviously the airlines think they are.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Is there any justification for retaining the old system of paying higher salaries for larger aircraft?</font>
The obvious reasons are (1) bigger investment in training = higher pay to keep them around (AKA "golden handcuffs") and (2) bigger plane = more pax = higher revenue.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Surely a far better way of doing things would be to have a 'normal' level of base pay - and then profit share (perhaps in conjunction with an ESOP) so that if the company's doing well - then the employees do likewise. If it isn't - then they don't get any extra. The benefit to the company is that they can control their overhead by keeping pay at a reasonable level - and employees share in the good times.</font>
Flame away on this one, gang
The unions will never agree to such a scheme. Union dues are based on the employee's hourly pay, so any bonuses, company stock or profit sharing go directly to the worker. That's why unions have always opposed such schemes- becouse the bosses don't get any cash for it.