KnockKnock

I'd say to those pilots on the fence, if you're thinking of going, go. It's a long process and if you hesitate, you're just costing yourself seniority. Not to mention the mental stress you're causing yourself. Alaska either works for you or it doesn't. Those that have left haven't been the loud vocal type. They just put in the work and leave. Good on em. I guess I'm lucky too. Alaska works for me so I don't have to worry about it. I think the company and the pilot group will be just fine.

Fred Flintstone

Thanks for sharing!

All Bizniz

Good for you that AS works for you but sadly it doesn't for me at all, not with this current contract. But I'm too far up the mountain to consider turning around, so win, lose or draw, I'll be here. I am angling (no pun intended) for the win though. What worked and is working for me is a decent side hustle that allows me to not take this place too seriously. I mean, I come to work, I'm safe and professional but I find it impossible to feel like I'm part of a great organization. (I guess in the end, that's all they care about, that we show up, and fly the d**n airplanes).

And what is it with this machine that constantly churns out the 'secret sauce' flavored Kool-Aid? lol

As for guys on the fence, I wouldn't be surprised that for more than a few, it's only because they haven't gotten the call from the true legacies why they even have time to go back n forth in their minds...

echelon

What, taking two days of my life away from me wasn't enough so now they're sending a colorful propaganda pamphlet to my house with the bullet points from said two days in it? Desperate much? Let's do this!TM

majorpilot

THIS!!!

Life is too short to be miserable...

Arctichicken

Been away for while but I see nothing has changed.
FP/V1: same old shat, different year! Management: "Good job guys, keep up the good work, oh and btw, we need to keep costs low so we'll never pay you top dollar. And, if you guys don't pull harder for less, we'll need to shed some weight. Questions? Have a great day. xoxo!"

If this place works for you, then great--stay. If not, I'd run as fast as you can away from this dysfunctional self proclaimed "family" before the next downturn. Remember, the company has more $$$, resources, and brains than what ALPA national is capable of/willing to put out for this insignificant pilot group.

WhenPigsFLy

So three AK guys here on yr 2 at UPS made, 220k, 227k and 290k. Just w2 no bfund. All fo widebody pay. One lives in domicle(290k). Commuters from west coast made less.

Ispeakjive

Tell me again about your millions. It makes me all tingly inside.

symbian simian

So IANAL, AIATLTG (and I am too lazy to google), but what statue would prevent targeting a competitor's blue collar workers?

rickair7777

Generally considered predatory/unfair business practice.

You can hire anybody if you need them, and consider all applicants equally. But if you have 10,000 apps on file, hire 500 pilots, all of them from a specific smaller competitor even though many other apps are equal or superior to the 500 hired, that competitor might have a case. Worse if your recruiting obviously targets that specific company when there are many other good applicants at many other companies. Worse also if you offer unusual bonuses or the like.

It would be possible to damage a competitor legally by hiring many of their employees as long as the process was not specifically targeted at that employer. OK to damage the competitor as a second order effect, but the primary purpose has to be legit hiring, and the process has to be even for all applicants. Actually you could legally target a specific competitor IF you need their employees and IF they are the only source of those employees. That last would never apply to pilots, but might apply to personal in skilled niche technical fields (such as AI research). Non-disclosure and non-compete agreements generally mitigate that sort of behavior.

Not sure about specific laws, but I know there have been lawsuits.

"Systematic inducement of multiple employees of a single company to leave their present employment is unlawful when the purpose is to destroy a competitor or an integral segment of its business, rather than obtain the services of skilled employees. The very fact that a company targets its recruitment efforts at a single competitor suggests an improper motive, since one company rarely has a monopoly on skilled workers. Evidence that the loss of key personnel will harm the company, and that its rival desired to drive them out of business is important proof in these cases."