Originally Posted by
slowplay
Yeah, even if true it's really throwing a guy new hire under the bus...a requirement to stay in the aircraft that he was hired to fly for 12 whole months but with the ability to move a base...and if we're training that much (remember, he's a new hire) he gets out of 23G recovery obligations.
Slow,
Assuming the speculation is true. (Talk about a "double negative".)
You're in favor of subjecting a new hire in a January class awarded the 88 to less pay than a new hire in the March class awarded the ER, just because it's "our responsibility to save the company in their own training inefficiencies"?
(I know that first year, new hire pay is the same dollar/hour figure, but with "international override", the ER kids make more.)
Just asking because I want to be clear on everyone's position. How about establishing something to benefit both the company and ourselves at the same time? (Novel concept
)Thinking outside the box here. Why not "save the company" some money & make a little for ourselves while offering a 12-month seat lock for the first aircraft trained, but guaranteeing a "pay differential" for that person, so that if they would've been able to bid the ER, and can't due to the lock, can still have an opportunity to take advantage of their being hired three months earlier (seniority based system) instead of being discriminated against, due to the company's inability to plan accordingly.
Thanks again, fly safe,
GJ