Originally Posted by WhiskeyDog (Post 3374442)

While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?

Originally Posted by WhiskeyDog (Post 3374442)

While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3374485)

The problem is the company has no shortage of qualified applicants.

Originally Posted by WhiskeyDog (Post 3374442)

While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3374556)

I don’t think it was a company need. Overhauling first year pay may be but closing this loophole probably does not do much to help them get qualified applicants

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 3374585)

I have heard from multiple sources that we are not the number 1 choice of pilots looking for a job.

Originally Posted by crewdawg (Post 3374589)

I have a friend leaving another legacy (after 2 years) for here and passed up an interview at UPS. Why? Because here, he can sit short call from his house. People just have choices these days, which is great. Not saying we don't need a better contract, but this is just a subjective viewpoint.

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 3374592)

Absolutely! I was a NH mentor and lost 2 to other companies. Both made more sense to their QOL.

I was really pointing out that MGMT knows they have to step up their game, they can't just be arrogant about "This is Delta!"

I'm happy here but wish we weren't married to one major so that we could really explore what the market will bear. The idea that a contract doesn't expire, it only becomes amenable really hurts our bargaining power.

EB and his minions can just sit and wait, with little to no pressure.

Originally Posted by Crown (Post 3374492)

incorrect. There are about 3,300 applications on file, and bear in mind, these applicants are also applying at United, FedEx, etc.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3374485)

The problem is the company has no shortage of qualified applicants.