Originally Posted by
Crjreg007
We both agree the company has won because PSA took pay cuts for growth but now the pilots want to take away that growth for pay raises they won't get. They got growth because of they are cheap. Giving them planes and raising their pay defeats the purpose of giving them the planes in the company eyes. I don't think movement is more important than getting paid but they are directly related. Quick upgrade directly equals more pay. It would be nice in a perfect world if pilots and company both made money but in PSAs current situation the company can make more money by not paying us. We all would love to be paid more but that's not on the cards currently for PSA. Looking through your posts it doesn't seem you even work for PSA so I don't think you truly understand the situation here. It looks like you work for Air Wisconsin so to me it seems us losing flying because of staff may directly benefit you it I'm not wrong. Air Wisconsin is a great group of pilots that does good work but have a very uncertain future because AA goes with cheaper regionals. You're right no one probably does want to ask Envoy guys about holding out for a better contract. Another good group of pilots that got hosed because of some one cheaper. PSA is about to be that hosed airline and they are already poorly paid with a bad flow. But go ahead PSA pilots stand up for better pay after selling yourself short for that growth. I'm sure the other AA carriers will feel real bad for us as they get our flying.
So you agree with me, but then say I lack brains
Benefiting from another carrier's misfortune isn't what I'm all about. When I look at issues like these I am not only thinking about AWAC. You are so paranoid about other airlines nipping at your heels that you are willing to sell yourself and other pilots short. Sounds like all the company fear-mongering and whipsawing did its work well.. I remember you said you didn't vote but you sound like a true yes-voter:
"I am willing to do more (bigger planes, more pax) for less money so my company can turn a bigger profit for itself. After I do this for the company they can pay other people (and not me) so that they can keep making themselves more money. Once I can no longer "benefit" from this arrangement, I will choose to defend the arrangement so management can keep more money. I don't care about money as long as there is growth" (which you've made abundantly clear)
We have a difference of opinion, but I believe your way of thinking is more harmful to the profession. Quick upgrade doesn't equal more pay. More pay equals more pay. The company getting captains on the cheap only benefits the company. Flow takes 15-20 years, but pay is capped at 12?? Company wins! But if money is really so unimportant to you, I guess I will just have to accept that your mind wont change.