Just throwing this out there, I honestly don't know the reasoning behind it. Why would (practically) the same negotiating team propose more than doubling first-year pay when last time around they actually cut first-year pay?? Why is it ALPA's responsibility to attract new hires with first-year pay?? I do understand, we don't want to hire a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who were dusting crops while sipping shine..... I get it, we want to hire the best. But, why expend negotiating capital on said asset when it's technically the company's responsibility?? UPS does it, Hawaiian does it...etc.
I was hired in the $38.50 era with the present negotiating committee having cut my prospective (turned out to be actual) pay now wanting to more than double prospective new hire pay. Why not divide some of that up amongst those of us who deserve it (been here over several meltdowns, no quid, etc....). I'm not saying don't raise newhire pay, but more than doubling it? I think that money & negotiating capital could be better spent elsewhere. The company wants to grow, THEY need pilots (a shortage, for the most part, benefits us), not ALPA's problem....
Thoughts?? I am truly curious if I'm the one out of bounds, or, if there is some reasonable logic behind my post.
Edit: And, I know we shouldn't negotiate in public, but, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the decision and not necessarily the exact numbers.