Frontier Hiring.
01-22-2017 | 11:42 AM
#6731
Stirring the pot
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 63
From: Off reserve 🤫
You are a DB! Go somewhere that you actually think is worthy of having you!
You know reading is actually a requirement? "My first vote will be no regardless." Very shortsighted by you don't you think?
And about growing a pair? I will wrap them around your head 3 times over.
You must be one of those new Super Captains that Puffs out his/her chest and talks a big game!
You know reading is actually a requirement? "My first vote will be no regardless." Very shortsighted by you don't you think?
And about growing a pair? I will wrap them around your head 3 times over.
You must be one of those new Super Captains that Puffs out his/her chest and talks a big game!
The older I get the less accommodating I have become to being s$it on and taken advantage of....
Enough is enough.....
Again refer to post 6715
01-22-2017 | 10:12 PM
#6733
Banned
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
From: doggy style
01-22-2017 | 10:49 PM
#6734
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
I know there is a lot of frustration. There will be a TA someday. I am of the belief that it will be later, rather than sooner.
With that said, once there is a TA, we owe it to ourselves, our union leaders, our negotiating team, and our fellow pilots to read, evaluate, and compare the TA to our current CBA, our expectations, and the industry standard pay and work rules (which keeps increasing).
If our NC brings us a TA that meets or exceeds these metrics and expectations, our pilot group will vote in favor. If we are presented with a TA that does not meet or exceed our peers, we absolutely should vote NO.
We have been working under the current CBA or a concessionary version for 10 years. Saying that we should vote NO on principle without ever seeing, reading, or evaluating the TA is short sighted.
Also, in my opinion, the duration of any future agreement is just as important, or more so, than the agreement itself. 10 years was an asinine duration, and we should never have agreed to that, no matter what our situation was.
With that said, once there is a TA, we owe it to ourselves, our union leaders, our negotiating team, and our fellow pilots to read, evaluate, and compare the TA to our current CBA, our expectations, and the industry standard pay and work rules (which keeps increasing).
If our NC brings us a TA that meets or exceeds these metrics and expectations, our pilot group will vote in favor. If we are presented with a TA that does not meet or exceed our peers, we absolutely should vote NO.
We have been working under the current CBA or a concessionary version for 10 years. Saying that we should vote NO on principle without ever seeing, reading, or evaluating the TA is short sighted.
Also, in my opinion, the duration of any future agreement is just as important, or more so, than the agreement itself. 10 years was an asinine duration, and we should never have agreed to that, no matter what our situation was.
Last edited by ColdWhiskey; 01-22-2017 at 11:03 PM.
01-23-2017 | 03:23 AM
#6735
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
From: A320 Captain
I know there is a lot of frustration. There will be a TA someday. I am of the belief that it will be later, rather than sooner.
With that said, once there is a TA, we owe it to ourselves, our union leaders, our negotiating team, and our fellow pilots to read, evaluate, and compare the TA to our current CBA, our expectations, and the industry standard pay and work rules (which keeps increasing).
If our NC brings us a TA that meets or exceeds these metrics and expectations, our pilot group will vote in favor. If we are presented with a TA that does not meet or exceed our peers, we absolutely should vote NO.
We have been working under the current CBA or a concessionary version for 10 years. Saying that we should vote NO on principle without ever seeing, reading, or evaluating the TA is short sighted.
Also, in my opinion, the duration of any future agreement is just as important, or more so, than the agreement itself. 10 years was an asinine duration, and we should never have agreed to that, no matter what our situation was.
With that said, once there is a TA, we owe it to ourselves, our union leaders, our negotiating team, and our fellow pilots to read, evaluate, and compare the TA to our current CBA, our expectations, and the industry standard pay and work rules (which keeps increasing).
If our NC brings us a TA that meets or exceeds these metrics and expectations, our pilot group will vote in favor. If we are presented with a TA that does not meet or exceed our peers, we absolutely should vote NO.
We have been working under the current CBA or a concessionary version for 10 years. Saying that we should vote NO on principle without ever seeing, reading, or evaluating the TA is short sighted.
Also, in my opinion, the duration of any future agreement is just as important, or more so, than the agreement itself. 10 years was an asinine duration, and we should never have agreed to that, no matter what our situation was.
ColdWhiskey, Thank you and I agree with your assessment 100%. Voting no without even reviewing the next TA is short sighted at best.
01-23-2017 | 10:13 AM
#6739
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
I also have extremely low expectations in regards to our first TA. I don't think we're going to see anything soon. At least worthy of a yes vote. And when we do get to see it, it better have a whole lot of retro.
01-23-2017 | 06:53 PM
#6740
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
From: CRJ-200 CA
[QUOTE=ColdWhiskey;2286545]I know there is a lot of frustration. There will be a TA someday. I am of the belief that it will be later, rather than sooner.
It would appear later rather sooner is a common thought but the only thing they really have going for them is the promise of a not too long upgrade time... 3-4 years to get into the left seat isn't bad... problem is we're gonna have what? 2400-2500 pilots for 130 something airplanes? We have almost 1100 right now... there are people that have passed upgrade, some attrition and very few retirements... so to be generous, the next 250 pilots hired will have a shot at upgrade in a reasonable amount of time... that means in a year, everyone hired will be stuck in the right seat for a while... compound that with the fact that everyone else is hiring into a better contract and the pilot "shortage" really hits hard here... they want all those airplanes in the air so they can continue to print money... the only way they're going to attract anyone a year from now is money and work rules... might be sooner than we think
It would appear later rather sooner is a common thought but the only thing they really have going for them is the promise of a not too long upgrade time... 3-4 years to get into the left seat isn't bad... problem is we're gonna have what? 2400-2500 pilots for 130 something airplanes? We have almost 1100 right now... there are people that have passed upgrade, some attrition and very few retirements... so to be generous, the next 250 pilots hired will have a shot at upgrade in a reasonable amount of time... that means in a year, everyone hired will be stuck in the right seat for a while... compound that with the fact that everyone else is hiring into a better contract and the pilot "shortage" really hits hard here... they want all those airplanes in the air so they can continue to print money... the only way they're going to attract anyone a year from now is money and work rules... might be sooner than we think
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
4 Fan Trashcan
Mergers and Acquisitions
7
01-28-2009 09:27 AM
