HeisenbergBlue

Yah... you are wrong. You think by pointing out how other frontier pilots are treating people who think they might vote yes is degrading Frontier Pilots? Have you even read what’s going on in here!?

They degrade, make fun of, call names etc etc etc. But me pointing out that by them doing that is masking a larger yes vote? Come on man....

DrJekyll MrHyde

Hey Heisenberg, GFY!

Go jerk off somewhere else, you and your alter ego butthert are not part of our pilot group.

wt93205

The problem is our current system I credit 75 plus hours (depending on awarded line credit and how you work the slide) for 23 days off. With PBS you will be credited less then that by about 8-10 hours to achieve the same 23 days off. This is the problem. It is a concession in pay/days off. If you choose to drop credit for additional days off that is on you. It is not a benefit of PBS. 75-35=40 hours awarded credit is about two 4 day trips. You want 60, fine, then drop your pay to get those additional days off. That is a function of the user not PBS. If we could drop to 60 with our current TA it would be the exact same except now you would only have a 3 day trip to credit the same 60. With PBS you would at least have a 4 day remaining plus maybe a 1 day. We don't want PBS. We just need our current contract to be allowed to drop to 60. We are better off. Plus don't forget we lose out with bidding for RGS. Current system you can bid for RGS during a 4 day and get it dropped and pay protected. With PBS if you do the same you will end up with super seniority and will have to make up the lost credit from the difference of RGS to the dropped trip credit. Garbage.

wt93205

Here is a NavBlue window for Mesa. Windows and ALV vary by airline. One point to notice is how they have the ALV at 85. That equates to 1020 hours average per year of credit/not block. Still this is short staffed for this airline. They do not have the trip/rig rules to credit soft time. Most all is block for credit. It forces the airline to unstack like crazy because most do not want this much awarded in their bids.

HeisenbergBlue

After reading most of the posts, I wish I wasn’t actually. Most yofnyou and the way you talk to and about people make me want to change my vote from No to Yes just to cancel one of you wonderfully pleasant keyboard warriors out. Seriously, you talk that way in the cockpit too?

wt93205

It goes both ways with yes voters and no voters. It’s really just people who get to hide behind a screen name and like to bully.

HeisenbergBlue

Agreed. Though I have yet to see a yes voter act or speak out like any of the hard core No votes here. It’s embarassing to say I’m part of the same pilot group at times. They say we should be treated in compensated like all the other pilots, and then act like children

Ducttape

So when this passes, can I post the same things you posted on the Spirit forum when we voted in our contract?


A sad day for the airline industry. Spirit pilots. From strikers to sellouts. Lost all my respect.

Don’t know why you’re worried. You said yourself that Frontier pilots have more self respect than Spirit pilots and won’t vote any Spirit type contract in.

And no, not “butt hurt,” as you like to say. Just enjoying karma and how it works for loudmouths who have been in the industry for a minute.

I hope the Frontier pilots do what is best for them, but I wouldn’t ridicule their decision, whatever it is, and attack their pilots.

Biffsteritis

We’re speaking out because we believe, whole-heartedly, that this TA will collectively worsen our pilot group’s QOL and long-term financial goals. We believe that this will also negatively impact the airline’s ability to retain quality pilots, further impacting the airline and its pilots in terms of both financial well being and QOL.

We are speaking out because short-term monetary gains are no excuse for a reduction in work rules. These work rules have been gained through years of hard work and fighting. We need to think long and hard about giving them up for an industry bottom salary.

Gary et al

Very good and true post. On this little bit though, it's sad that some do need to think "long and hard" when it should be fast and easy.