Alaska Air Hiring
08-23-2022 | 12:54 PM
#6852
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 140
08-23-2022 | 01:01 PM
#6853
Banned
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
than*** “intelligent one.” I strictly just said, 70% isn’t a win. No need to get defensive for someone actually calling you out on all the ridiculous things you say. Sorry if I hurt your feelings (not really). I’ll just wait for you to actually say something that comes true. Which at this rate… might be a bit. Just kidding, November right?! Ha!
08-23-2022 | 01:08 PM
#6854
Banned
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
UPS just passed with 97% participation & 90% YES votes.
Pay: Capt $401. FO $284. @ 81 hr monthly guarantee
A Plan: $139,500/yr
Scope: Very strong limits.
Vacation: 5 weeks/yr ( if you put 2 weeks in any month, you can take the entire month off )
Understand Alaska is a “smaller” company & will never pay or treat you as DL, UA, FedEx or UPS.
Pay: Capt $401. FO $284. @ 81 hr monthly guarantee
A Plan: $139,500/yr
Scope: Very strong limits.
Vacation: 5 weeks/yr ( if you put 2 weeks in any month, you can take the entire month off )
Understand Alaska is a “smaller” company & will never pay or treat you as DL, UA, FedEx or UPS.
If you are always comparing the current rates where you work to pay rates somewhere else 3 years in the future, you are always going to be disappointed… no matter where you work.
But yes UPS got a good contract… just not what you are holding it out as. They are hiring 🤔
Last edited by OTZeagle1; 08-23-2022 at 01:23 PM.
08-23-2022 | 01:34 PM
#6855
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Skepticism of a merger? Yeah. You’ve been saying the same story for years now. Then when the time comes, nothing. I don’t know where you get your information from, but clearly it’s not credible. I’d be willing to bet you that come November, nothing will change.
08-23-2022 | 03:05 PM
#6857
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,847
Likes: 653
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Then we should have rates for max 10's, and justify that with pax economics.
Trying to argue that we should get something because somebody in a different industry operating different equipment has it will not compel management. That's like saying we should all get $1M because that what neuro-surgeons make. Little to do with the price of tea in China.
Argue based on OUR economics. Make it logical. Or argue based on the fact that all the pilots will strike, or that half of them will simply leave within a year. Fear of consequences is more compelling anyway.
Trying to argue that we should get something because somebody in a different industry operating different equipment has it will not compel management. That's like saying we should all get $1M because that what neuro-surgeons make. Little to do with the price of tea in China.
Argue based on OUR economics. Make it logical. Or argue based on the fact that all the pilots will strike, or that half of them will simply leave within a year. Fear of consequences is more compelling anyway.
08-23-2022 | 03:09 PM
#6858
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 140
Then we should have rates for max 10's, and justify that with pax economics.
Trying to argue that we should get something because somebody in a different industry operating different equipment has it will not compel management. That's like saying we should all get $1M because that what neuro-surgeons make. Little to do with the price of tea in China.
Argue based on OUR economics. Make it logical. Or argue based on the fact that all the pilots will strike, or that half of them will simply leave within a year. Fear of consequences is more compelling anyway.
Trying to argue that we should get something because somebody in a different industry operating different equipment has it will not compel management. That's like saying we should all get $1M because that what neuro-surgeons make. Little to do with the price of tea in China.
Argue based on OUR economics. Make it logical. Or argue based on the fact that all the pilots will strike, or that half of them will simply leave within a year. Fear of consequences is more compelling anyway.
I don't know why you're so eager to defend the margins of the company. They have many people (who make more than you) doing exactly that. You should tend to your own first.
08-23-2022 | 03:21 PM
#6859
Banned
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,347
Likes: 329
I expect this, I expect that!
I expect that you’re going to be disappointed after a new TA is voted in. And even more disappointed once you see how slow it will be to implement the changes. 3rd step trading was the movie preview. A new TA will be the onscreen presentation.
I expect that you’re going to be disappointed after a new TA is voted in. And even more disappointed once you see how slow it will be to implement the changes. 3rd step trading was the movie preview. A new TA will be the onscreen presentation.
08-23-2022 | 03:40 PM
#6860
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,847
Likes: 653
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Better to insist of an industry leading package based on AS's financial performance. That's hard to argue with. Pretty sure that's what the NC is doing. You can even argue that AS needs better than DL, et al to retain pilots for a career on the guppy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
