^^ I don't believe this true--it assumes CC is the ONLY thing that will happen (i.e. that folks won't leave, recruiting targets will be met, and that folks can legally continue to fly when last minute changes to rosters induce sickness and fatigue). We are also bounded by FTL limitations and regulatory mandates (which don't favour the company) so there's an external regulatory limit as to how bad things can get.
It ALSO-and more importantly--assumes CC is a bluff or short term deal which it isn't. While there will be immediate effects, its real threat is in the longer term. Either pay and conditions are improved, or more people are hired (which offloads the burden on people currently at the airline to make up for them-something folks have been griping about anyway). At the end of the day in some fashion the airline WILL pay for it. The key point is that it is more efficient (and beneficial to both airline and pilots working there) to HAVE people go beyond their contract on an "on demand" or contingency basis without incurring the significant direct cost (and associated collateral costs) of more workers. I don't know that the airline fully appreciates this or understands it--it just assumes it can happen as a given and that (mostly irrational and unfounded) fear will motivate its workers to stay in line.
CC is a reduction in productivity caused by people refusing to do more than their contract requires. Nothing more. People working above and beyond have masked an ongoing manning problem at the company--such that the schedule can be perennially juggled to keep things working. Manning to the level required means hiring new people which means more money, benefits, housing, and training--it's costly. It also results in a contraction of labor to man capital assets (jets) which are very expensive when they are not making money--at a time where more deliveries are taken and the company faces pressures of market forces and its expansion plan. The training pipeline can't keep up as it is; now it has an additional loading of needing more qualified individuals to fly airplanes. This skilled labor doesn't come cheap (compared to some other career fields) and requires training, experience, and licenses. Market forces also constantly compete for this labor and there's no real way to "lock in" people to prevent them from leaving save either offer them working conditions and pay they like or exploit boundless fears of the unknown of going elsewhere.
CC can (and may well) run for months or even indefinitely. During this time the company will bleed cash (albeit maybe slowly) because it will realize the loss of productivity and be forced to spend more on assets--of some kind--to cover this. The effects of this may not be immediate, but absolutely will hurt the bottom line--the company will be paying much more than it has to to run the place. No one likes to see this happen (in a sane company workers profit when the company does)--but it's a regrettable situation caused by a power agenda rather than a profit agenda driving negotiations. There's no "team" effort which realizes everyone can gain. In time maybe this will be realized, but it WILL take time.
The pain to the flyers will be difficult rosters and a SOMEWHAT hostile work environment. Firing a few to intimidate others to keep in line won't work this time IMHO. This trick only works once. Difficult rosters can be managed too. And what is the big deal about some temporary pain ? --many flyers have fought in REAL wars and all have had much more adversity in life. There's nothing to be afraid of, but it would be better if we could have an offer which is genuine, keeps up with inflation, and doesn't have divisive strings attached.
What's the best solution ? A REAL pay adjustment that reflects not only inflation but also the increase in prevailing market value of pilots due to increasing demand for the skilled labour (and remember real inflation is often higher than a nation's declared inflation--especially in the US where the numbers are juggled to exclude food, energy, and other nondurables). As well as meaningful all to gain roster and ancillary condition improvements. Such an offer MUST be equitable ACROSS THE BOARD and not divisive in any way by nature.
All this is happening because we are facing an obstinate power (or positional) style of negotiation which assumes that something is given up if one acknowledges a need to adjust pay as living costs go up. It assumes that if any meaningful deal is reached (or that people are happy) somehow the company has lost and lost position and power (when in reality nothing could be further from the truth).
It really amazes me that a group of such well travelled individuals (who HAVE seen first hand living conditions in Mumbai, Manila, and many other places where people make a go of it under much harsher conditions than we have or ever will face) can be so afraid of resolutely making good decisions and doing the right thing.
The goal of CC is to demonstrate--by affecting the long term bottom line over time--that a reasonable pay rise and all to gain working conditions improvement is cheaper than hiring a bunch of people who wind up hating their jobs and where they work. The regrettable cost of this is the money lost by the company during it (which workers could share in the profits of) as well as the pain of the workers having to deal with unpleasant working conditions.
Last edited by Shep69; 13th Sep 2014 at 17:48.