Originally Posted by
Visconti
I'm not readywhenyouare, but I think I know what he's getting at here.
In my view, if these DL pilots weren't unionized the odds of every pilot walking out is close to zero. While some may for whatever reason, others will remain, if only because they rely on the source of income which can't be easily replaced elsewhere. DL can then try to hire other pilots to fill the openings and hope these "scabs" can bridge the gap until a more permanent labor solution is found. Of course, during these times and given the apparent pilot shortages, such a strategy may not be practical or feasible, which is why I suspect it's a good time to threaten a strike.
Personally, I don't like unions either--as a consumer they drive up my price per unit, inconvenience me and chip away at my piece of the pie as a shareholder. This of course doesn't mean I don't believe in labor's right to form a union, I do. I just view this as cost of doing business, where these DL pilots have an opportunity to leverage some concessions from the C-Suite. It would be irrational not to do so, because if the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet the C-Suite will be squeezing them.
Specific to Delta pilots right now, my understanding is that Delta is already trying to hire/train as many pilots as they can, there just aren't enough. There's already a shortage, so even 25% quitting could bring operations down, because it's not as if Delta can just fly fewer planes and just ride it out. If this were a law firm for example - they could maybe just take fewer clients, their fixed costs would remain, but labor is by far their largest cost. Delta needs planes to move around in specific ways, and is not setup for a large reduction in force, and the resulting extreme reduction in routes or frequency of routes becomes very obvious, very quickly, to the flying public. And those people will be forced to choose a different airline. And given the incredible effort and massive amounts Delta spends to keep flyers "loyal", that would all go down the drain, as loyalty here isn't really loyalty, it's paid for.
As for unions generally, I definitely understand the argument that unions drive up costs. But that's simply how negotiations work. Of course it would be nice for one side of a negotiation if the other side has almost no leverage in the negotiation (i.e. a salary negotiation for a single pilot). And those increased salaries drive up costs. Of course, it drives up costs a bit more than the increase in salary because there are these middlemen on both sides that are paid specifically to negotiate this. But that's already how almost all other significant negotiations work. There are lawyers on both sides negotiating, and someone has to pay them.