Originally Posted by Excargodog

I’m equally puzzled why you and others like you can’t even address the question of whether or not this supposed tactic is effective. AS has a new contract. I don’t particularly like some of their QOL issues, but their management certainly came to the table and their payscales are far superior to NK. B6 has an attrition problem and their payscales are superior to ours - again without screwing over their newbies. The Big Four all have payscales above ours and are in active negotiations - all without screwing over their newbies. So what evidence is there that we wouldn’t be at the negotiating table if we weren’t screwing over our newbies?

As I have repeated, “How long does this have to not work before you’ll concede it’s not going to work?”

Even more puzzling is this; if you and the others actually believe the path to success in negotiations is screwing over our junior troops, why do you get so upset when I say we are screwing over our junior troops? If indeed the intention is to deter people from coming to NK or to increase first year attrition by treating them like cr@p, I would think you would want someone pointing out to potential new hires on a continuing basis that they will be making sort of minimum wage training pay, have no insurance, and pointing out to new hires how much better newbies are treated elsewhere to deter people from being recruited and to increase first year attrition. If all of you are so damn sure you are doing the right thing, why do you get so upset when I point out exactly what you ARE doing?

If you really believe that’s the way to go, it seems like my efforts could only assist you.

Originally Posted by Excargodog

I’ve never claimed that ONLY first year pay ought to be raised. But again I ask; “How long does screwing over first year people not have the desired result before you decide screwing over first year people isn’t helpful?”

Or is that some cult or religious tenet that nobody can ever be convinced isn’t effective?

Originally Posted by baseball3792

As someone on first year pay, I hate it. But… Alaska was in negotiations for years and had to vote on a strike authorization to finally get their increase. JetBlue gets paid more but lacks QOL provisions that we have (I bet management would raise pay if we agreed to give them full control of the reserve grid!). We have been in negotiations for… two months. These things take some time, and we will not know if you are correct or not for several more months. But I tend to agree with everyone else. The crazy low training pay and first year pay is likely a major factor forcing management to the table. We can’t provide “proof” other than the fact that their initial proposal was to just raise first year pay.

Originally Posted by dualinput

To be clear Alaska was in negotiation for years through a pandemic and an airline industry asking for bailouts. We cannot use their timeline for any kind of measuring stick in todays pilot market. Also they were negotiating the entire contract. We are only looking at compensation right now which is black and white. Work rules will be in the JCBA. Anyone that wants you to think it should take years to negotiate compensation only is trying to lower your expectations.

Originally Posted by baseball3792

Absolutely. I more meant it as, two months of negotiations is not long enough for excargo to claim that first year pay hasn’t worked as leverage.

Originally Posted by Justabusdriver1

No one should have to “suffer” through a year of poor financial compensation. What kind of person thinks that way? That’s exactly the reason recruiting is going to flat line. No one will come here to “financially suffer” for a year when they can live comfortably where they are at till they get picked up by a legacy.

Having lower first year pay is a management tactic to incentivize people to stay more than a year with much higher pay on the horizon. I don’t disagree with that kind of strategy but the current gap is exceptionally wide and could be narrowed a bit.

Bottom line it should never be an acceptable idea to have first years suffer just to feed the top of the pay scale. It should never be a bargaining chip in the first place their are other bargaining powers available to the union

Originally Posted by Lakeaffect

No one has to suffer. With the amount of hiring at almost every airline, the higher than ever regional wages, and most airlines at almost double Spirits 1st year pay, people are suffering less now than they have at almost any-point in any of our lifetimes at the airlines. Ideally, yes it would be higher pay, you can place your frustrations at management, not the union. Management, by the way wants only as of recently to raise first year pay not as a change of heart, but because without it they cannot make money.

Originally Posted by Justabusdriver1

No one should have to “suffer” through a year of poor financial compensation.