Originally Posted by
putzin
No dog in your fight and your numbers are good, except.
The time to get the extra $5 bucks an hour was DURING negotiations NOT waiting 6 months or year by voting "no" on this AIP.
You're $65 bucks an hour BEHIND even us lowley Spirit pilots. You'll pay for that $5 bucks an hour and still be out of the money by holding out voting "no". 75*65*12= $58,500
So do you think you can achieve 15 or 20 an hour, because that's what you'll need. While you were on ice, besides PBS, how much more did you achieve?
If I remember right our NC came back with .50¢. There wasn't much faith they'd achieve more.
Also some of you keep throwing out Dal and Swa holding out, they didn't have to achieve nearly as much as we did or you do. Either way, at this time, voting "yes" or "no" you're already out the money your speaking about.
You will have your pride voting "no" though, but that doesn't buy cars, bedrooms or State college.
Best
This is a very good point. However, you minimize the time of the contract.
If we vote no we'd miss out on a potential $60k we could've had, had we accepted a year earlier. But, instead, we held out for a measly $5 more per hour. That $5 more means that for the NEXT 5-8 years, we'll earn an additional $4500 more per year vs. this AIP. Over the next 8 years, that's $36k. So we'd only be out $24k less. All the while, we'd be earning retirement and LTD privilges on a higher wage scale. But MOST important, we have less ground to make up on the next contract. Because, during those same 5-8 years, you, JB, Alaska and everyone else will renegotiate their contracts again pushing us further below market value. If we're $65 behind, then it's $65. We can make up 1/2 now and possibly 1/2 later but I'd rather make up $55 now and try for $25 later (settling for $10 if we have to). Now is the time for the money grab.
TBH, I have no idea if $5 / hr more is attainable. Probably not. You're absolutely right in that attaining that difference should've occurred in negotiations. We fornicated the pooch on that one... My example was just to show what the difference in salaries can make. As I've mentioned many times before - voting yes because you think it's the best we're gonna get is one thing but ACTUALLY thinking this deal isn't that bad (which ive seen on here) is another. THIS DEAL STINKS worse than yours IMO. Your negotiators did a better job given the conditions of the TRO, etc. It is what it is.
However, if we vote no, I say we vote no to get the contract duration lowered to 4 or even 3 years. Seems like an easier feat to accomplish and costs this management nothing.
Either that or a "me too" clause where anytime the AVERAGE A-321 salary increases, our wage is brought up to that amount . . . say, starting year 3 of this contract.