From what I thought, our ask didn't change but was always lower.

I'm not really concerned about the union (MEC/LEC or NC). It's the pilot force that decides things. And after last go round, there are enough of us still here that remember the union tactics and attempts at manipulation. It was even said by MEC higher ups "if we don't accept this one, the next one will be worse." SMH. Look at where we are now - the current rates being offered keep us behind so I'm fine with waiting it out for more. If more isn't offered, then I'm more than willing to see if a strike can happen. If the smallest only surviving ULCC can't strike, ALPA's got a new fight (Congress and the RLA).

But, despite being older and lots of seniority to lose, our current ask has me losing money (if signed in 2027) vs. going to legacy and upgrading at earliest. And think, the next contract cycle of legacy will be 2028-31. The so-called QoL we pretend to have isn't worth it. If non-legacy is voted in, I'll take my "retro" check and gladly give erbody below me a bump in seniority.

I would suppose everyone else can run the math as well...

OK, so some basic business principles (it's amazing how often this seems to be needed here)...

REVENUE is only ONE side of the equation. There is also a COST side to things. And as long as REVENUE is sufficient enough to overcome COST (to include LABOR), then the company makes a profit. Scott Kirby himself said that LABOR COSTS get passed on to the customer (meaning, ticket prices would need to rise).

Now, if the company surmises that raising the price will cause REVENUE to lessen, then they can do a couple of things to change that:
1) Decrease costs somewhere else (let's assume this isn't possible even though it almost always is)
2) Increase revenue somewhere else (this can be accomplished in many ways in the airline industry to include shipping cargo, more international flights, etc.)
3) Change specific areas within your model. This, of course, takes time and resources as aircraft reconfigurations come into play usually but once in place, pay for themselves and then some.

Good businesses do this all the time. It's part of business and is why CEOs get hired/fired. If legacy rates depended only on premium services (first class, international, etc.) then how does SWA afford their pilots? Come to think of it, if REVENUE is fixed or capped at a certain rate, no employees would EVER get raises.

Keep in mind the long game and the fact that the market will turn around eventually. It always does.

The union just very recently provided a new economic proposal to the company/ arbitrator. It had some asks reduced. But to be honest, I don't know if the pay tables were reduced or not?? The current ask is a 12th year CA rate of $360/ hour.

I don't know if we had a higher one of if that's what the first one from 2 years ago. I'll see if I can dig thru 10,000 emails to find it

12 year….360/2024….374/2026…389/2027

Of course, the CURRENT (2025) 12 yr CA at AA/UA/DL for A321N is 389.34. ALPA/MEC did a decent job on the latest Contract Comparison (on the MEC page). Yr 2 CA pay at UA (which is doable in some cities) for 2026 is $360.

Our ask was lower when we asked. The only reason mgt hasn't jumped on it (and locked us in at bargain rates) is because they don't think we pilots will turn it down (and quite possibly accept even lower).

Not getting the same rate to me is like saying i'm worth less or that i'm not as good of a pilot as others. I honestly felt like I should've walked last contract cycle but justified staying by telling myself that we were too far behind to make it up all at once. Well, seems like we're in that boat again. I'm too proud to stay behind forever.

I get legacy or I walk. Only way I lose is if we merge w/ a legacy after I do (and my seniority gets even lower). But I don't think that will happen.

negotiate update # 22 has the original proposal

Thank you. I had been searching. Looking at the contract comparison was somewhat useless since it only provided a snapshot that didn’t show growth for the other carriers.

Yeah, I told my reps about that. I hate that it shows the snapshot but not the other further out numbers. you have to do the math yourself.

Also, Remember our rates are the blended ones, not straight 321N rates or 319 rates... You have to avg those out at the legacies to get their "blended" numbers.

I can't find it in my email. Can you please post the pay numbers? At least the 12th year CA rate? Is it 360? Thanks

as follows.

Years of
Service 01/16/2024* 08/01/2026 08/01/2027
or MRA**
1 $325.00 $338.00 $351.52
2 $328.04 $341.16 $354.80
3 $331.10 $344.34 $358.12
4 $334.19 $347.56 $361.46
5 $337.32 $350.81 $364.84
6 $340.47 $354.08 $368.25
7 $343.65 $357.39 $371.69
8 $346.86 $360.73 $375.16
9 $350.10 $364.10 $378.66
10 $353.37 $367.50 $382.20
11 $356.67 $370.93 $385.77
12 $360.00 $374.40 $389.38

First Officer

Years of
Service 01/16/2024* 08/01/2026 08/01/2027
or MRA**
1 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
2 $173.38 $180.31 $187.52
3 $199.39 $207.37 $215.67
4 $208.12 $216.44 $225.10
5 $215.37 $223.99 $232.95
6 $221.73 $230.60 $239.82
7 $227.47 $236.57 $246.04
8 $232.41 $241.71 $251.38
9 $236.10 $245.54 $255.37
10 $239.65 $249.24 $259.21
11 $242.20 $251.89 $261.97
12 $244.98 $254.78 $264.97

* Retro pay back to 1/16/24 at 75 hours/month/pilot, pensionable

** MRA = Market Rate Adjustment

Original top of scale numbers asked by ALPA were;

CA 1/16/24 - $364.90
CA 1/1/25 - $379.50
CA 1/1/26 - $394.68

FO 1/16/24 - $249.24
FO 1/1/25 - $259.21
FO 1/1/26 - $269.57

So they have dropped the rates by about $5 an hour on this latest counter proposal.

12 yr CA rate for 2026 was $394.68 in original ask.

12 yr CA rate for 2026 is $374.40 in the new ask.

Thats a $20.28 reduction. It’s also way behind the “big boys”. Color me not amused.

The only saving grace is the market rate adjustment of this proposal would catch F9 up to legacy rates in year three, at the “end” of this new contract. If it actually worked.

Yeah….. there’s one thing that would actually help and need to be ironclad for it to work. Problem is getting them to agree to it. Not sure BB wants to give us anything close to what we are asking.

Thank you for posting that guys. Appreciate it.

I thought we had reduced our ask but I wasn't sure.

Yeh the new top rate is for 2027 on current ask vs 2026 on original ask. I spoke directly to negotiator at airport sit few days ago, they are saying this new offer gets the same money as original ask but is more back end heavy. This is to allow the company "breathing room" with their current "hardships" as they anticipate return to profits and growth etc.

It's to show good faith to NMB to be able to call for a status meeting if the company does not respond in a reasonable way at the next meeting.

THIS RIGHT HERE is what people are not understanding. If we start truly coming down from our original offer and the company doesn't try to even come close, it won't be good for them in the eyes of the mediator, hopefully getting us closer to being released. All of the stuff the union is doing isn't just our few people on the NC, it is backed by ALL of ALPA and their legal teams and strategists.

gee. I sure hope there’s going to be some sort of snap up prevision in those rates.

Otherwise in 3 years, and two cycles behind, people will be real ****ed when they start hearing what everyone else will be getting.

The act of making preparations for a possible or future event or situation.
"The provision for retirement requires planning."

Alright Vision. If its’ war you want….. Than bombs away.

Just a slight correction to this. Since the rate doesn’t change until 8/2026 the combined actual rate for 12yr CA in our updated ask would be $366. A 7% decrease from our initial economic proposal.

Yeah, this is a SOLID NO from me. There's no way the so-called QoL items will make up the difference (especially when you consider the company will find a way to negate most of those items)...

everyone praises the QOL items. Forgetting we fly off hours more than any other carrier.

the majority of our seniority list is red eye flying.


what QOL is that? With more people and less resources. Pay me.

Give us intl and redeye override and min day and watch redeyes go senior... lol

Yeah, it's easy to say that now but when a TA arrives in your inbox with a $70,000 raise, it's a bit more complicated than "SOLID NO"

No the F it's not!!!!!

I can do math bro. Raising my pay up to the bottom (like last time) is a SOLID NO. If you're good with it, then we'll know come vote day.

that latest economic proposal from ALPA will absolutely be a yes vote

This mentality is exactly why F9 will remain a stepping stone airline.

that contract would result in far fewer people leaving this airline

The money is fine. It's the rest that will determine which way I'd vote.

People stay due to the seniority system (I will be leaving though). People come for the pay (or they didn't get called by the others who pay more). Do you think anyone is choosing F9 w/ an offer from anyone else? There is just no substitute for the rate - no amount of so called QoL items will make up for it. We just proved that last cycle.

Can't believe you'd be willing to do it again but to each his own...

Ask yourself - would ANYONE in their right mind w/ multiple CJOs choose F9 (with the new contract) over anyone else in the majors (who doesn't live in Tampa)?

Unfortunately, it is complicated.

The real question usually comes down to $70,000 raise today (yes vote) or mystery pay raise at a mystery time in the future (no vote)

That's what's complicated.

Indeed. The time value of money has to be considered. Though I am currently not thrilled with what I saw if they can pull 100% retro it sure helps the math.

Can it be anything else ?
Not trying to stir the pot but look at it objectively…… business plan support that idea ? How about the quality of MGT to someday get there with a different business plan (ULCC isn’t the way) ? I have my doubts…

IMO when F9 lost its unique appeal and hopes of being a market disruptor is when they filed CH 11. That set off a downward chain of events that ended up with the current Indigo situation. At the time of the acquisition it seemed like a perfect situation long term with the merger of SPA and F9 being the end game.

The market has shifted away from that business model and may shift back in time but does the company have enough cash to weather that storm with the Board and CEO they have in place now ?

Get all you can in Section 6 but you will never surpass Legacy contracts - that’s just my opinion.

That being said I will be walking in circles with y’all when you need it.

70k raise is $352 an hour for a 12yr captain. We proposed $360 for 24’ and $374 for 26 I don’t believe it will get any lower than that. And if it does it’s an easy no for me.

70k raise is $352 an hour for a 12yr captain. We proposed $360 for 24’ and $374 for 26 I don’t believe it will get any lower than that. And if it does it’s an easy no for me.

I don’t think anyone is asking or expecting to surpass Legacy contracts. That is silly. We just want to be in line with everyone else.

You’re actually wrong. We want to pass their current rates. Time value of money. We make substantially less than them. Never meet their same hourly rate and delay 2-4 years to even get that gap to be within 5%.

we want to beat their current pay rate. We are last in cycle we should be pulling the industry up not snapping on to the last cycle years later.

but thanks for telling us you don’t value our work as much because we have a different name on the side of our 321NEOs.

unfortunately if that’s the way you wanna look at this:

should’ve got that legacy retro/profit sharing/pay raises from 2-3 years ago and invested it in the market or housing.

but hindsight is 20/10.

There’s room to go down to legacy guarantee and bump the rates no? Not one person has mentioned the other side of the equation.