Spirit of NKS, Part IV
03-23-2017 | 05:25 PM
#601
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 21
From: 60’s Tech, Right
You said you are happy, okay... why??
03-23-2017 | 05:28 PM
#602
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
Just throwing this out there, I honestly don't know the reasoning behind it. Why would (practically) the same negotiating team propose more than doubling first-year pay when last time around they actually cut first-year pay?? Why is it ALPA's responsibility to attract new hires with first-year pay?? I do understand, we don't want to hire a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who were dusting crops while sipping shine..... I get it, we want to hire the best. But, why expend negotiating capital on said asset when it's technically the company's responsibility?? UPS does it, Hawaiian does it...etc.
I was hired in the $38.50 era with the present negotiating committee having cut my prospective (turned out to be actual) pay now wanting to more than double prospective new hire pay. Why not divide some of that up amongst those of us who deserve it (been here over several meltdowns, no quid, etc....). I'm not saying don't raise newhire pay, but more than doubling it? I think that money & negotiating capital could be better spent elsewhere. The company wants to grow, THEY need pilots (a shortage, for the most part, benefits us), not ALPA's problem....
Thoughts?? I am truly curious if I'm the one out of bounds, or, if there is some reasonable logic behind my post.
Edit: And, I know we shouldn't negotiate in public, but, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the decision and not necessarily the exact numbers.
I was hired in the $38.50 era with the present negotiating committee having cut my prospective (turned out to be actual) pay now wanting to more than double prospective new hire pay. Why not divide some of that up amongst those of us who deserve it (been here over several meltdowns, no quid, etc....). I'm not saying don't raise newhire pay, but more than doubling it? I think that money & negotiating capital could be better spent elsewhere. The company wants to grow, THEY need pilots (a shortage, for the most part, benefits us), not ALPA's problem....
Thoughts?? I am truly curious if I'm the one out of bounds, or, if there is some reasonable logic behind my post.
Edit: And, I know we shouldn't negotiate in public, but, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the decision and not necessarily the exact numbers.
03-23-2017 | 05:37 PM
#603
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 21
From: 60’s Tech, Right
Very fair point. I'm just trying to get some opinions on it since the same committee cut it last time...
03-23-2017 | 05:37 PM
#604
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,577
Likes: 0
Just throwing this out there, I honestly don't know the reasoning behind it. Why would (practically) the same negotiating team propose more than doubling first-year pay when last time around they actually cut first-year pay?? Why is it ALPA's responsibility to attract new hires with first-year pay?? I do understand, we don't want to hire a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who were dusting crops while sipping shine..... I get it, we want to hire the best. But, why expend negotiating capital on said asset when it's technically the company's responsibility?? UPS does it, Hawaiian does it...etc.
I was hired in the $38.50 era with the present negotiating committee having cut my prospective (turned out to be actual) pay now wanting to more than double prospective new hire pay. Why not divide some of that up amongst those of us who deserve it (been here over several meltdowns, no quid, etc....). I'm not saying don't raise newhire pay, but more than doubling it? I think that money & negotiating capital could be better spent elsewhere. The company wants to grow, THEY need pilots (a shortage, for the most part, benefits us), not ALPA's problem....
Thoughts?? I am truly curious if I'm the one out of bounds, or, if there is some reasonable logic behind my post.
Edit: And, I know we shouldn't negotiate in public, but, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the decision and not necessarily the exact numbers.
I was hired in the $38.50 era with the present negotiating committee having cut my prospective (turned out to be actual) pay now wanting to more than double prospective new hire pay. Why not divide some of that up amongst those of us who deserve it (been here over several meltdowns, no quid, etc....). I'm not saying don't raise newhire pay, but more than doubling it? I think that money & negotiating capital could be better spent elsewhere. The company wants to grow, THEY need pilots (a shortage, for the most part, benefits us), not ALPA's problem....
Thoughts?? I am truly curious if I'm the one out of bounds, or, if there is some reasonable logic behind my post.
Edit: And, I know we shouldn't negotiate in public, but, I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the decision and not necessarily the exact numbers.
Standard pay is standard pay. Beside, the doubling in real dollars amounts to little more than an instructor's override so it's not going to break the bank. It was a head scratcher last time when the most junior fo got a 7k bonus and the most senior capt got 3k.
03-23-2017 | 05:41 PM
#605
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 0
I realize that. I've read your posts going back to the strike (part of the reason I wanted the original Spirit of NKS thread attached on our sub-forum). Are you insinuating that there will be a larger divergence between newhire pay and 2nd year (like Hawaiian, UPS...) or more like the legacies??
You said you are happy, okay... why??
You said you are happy, okay... why??
I don't disagree with your view, I just don't feel the same way, I've come across guys of my seniority complaining that the new guys were upgrading too soon, while we sat on the right seat for five years or more, i just don't see things that way, same with the pay, the more the better.
Again, i just feel different about the first year pay. 80 is great, and year 12 ca at 250 plus not bad either....if we get everything on those two sheets of paper for a 3 year contract, I'm a yes.
03-23-2017 | 06:16 PM
#606
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 21
From: 60’s Tech, Right
I happy because for a change we are asking for what we deserve from the new hire all up to Number 1.
I don't disagree with your view, I just don't feel the same way, I've come across guys of my seniority complaining that the new guys were upgrading too soon, while we sat on the right seat for five years or more, i just don't see things that way, same with the pay, the more the better.
Again, i just feel different about the first year pay. 80 is great, and year 12 ca at 250 plus not bad either....if we get everything on those two sheets of paper for a 3 year contract, I'm a yes.
I don't disagree with your view, I just don't feel the same way, I've come across guys of my seniority complaining that the new guys were upgrading too soon, while we sat on the right seat for five years or more, i just don't see things that way, same with the pay, the more the better.
Again, i just feel different about the first year pay. 80 is great, and year 12 ca at 250 plus not bad either....if we get everything on those two sheets of paper for a 3 year contract, I'm a yes.
03-23-2017 | 06:47 PM
#607
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. If we don't negotiate for it and the company decides not to raise it are we really helping the industry by expecting guys to go from an $80k+ job to a $30k job with with years of experience. They already take a massive seniority hit so why hit them with a huge pay cut too. Yes the company should do it to attract the right talent but we all know they don't give a poop.
The whole dues paying attitude is so backwards. At this level you've paid plenty of dues in your career. We need to stop raising the ladder behind us. Just because most of us had it bad doesn't mean you make those behind us suffer for no good reason other than "I walked 15 miles up hill in the snow so..."
It's also not "leading" delta pays $86 and united $85
The whole dues paying attitude is so backwards. At this level you've paid plenty of dues in your career. We need to stop raising the ladder behind us. Just because most of us had it bad doesn't mean you make those behind us suffer for no good reason other than "I walked 15 miles up hill in the snow so..."
It's also not "leading" delta pays $86 and united $85
Last edited by Qotsaautopilot; 03-23-2017 at 06:59 PM.
03-24-2017 | 04:14 AM
#609
Boost is Life
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: In the Garage
In a proper Union we shouldn't even consider almost literally eating our young to benefit even $1/HR pay rate across the board. This also is an investment to not have to fly with FO dingbat. When the pool dries up from low pay everyone on the list today will pay the price when you come to work.
I don't want to see 1st year FO end up far off from this proposed rate. A regional captain should be able to look at NK and make a "well DUH!" decision to come here. And it should be a "no way" decision to want to go elsewhere as opposed to a mass exodus that we're beginning to see.
I don't want to see 1st year FO end up far off from this proposed rate. A regional captain should be able to look at NK and make a "well DUH!" decision to come here. And it should be a "no way" decision to want to go elsewhere as opposed to a mass exodus that we're beginning to see.
03-24-2017 | 08:49 AM
#610
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Bus FO
In a proper Union we shouldn't even consider almost literally eating our young to benefit even $1/HR pay rate across the board. This also is an investment to not have to fly with FO dingbat. When the pool dries up from low pay everyone on the list today will pay the price when you come to work.
I don't want to see 1st year FO end up far off from this proposed rate. A regional captain should be able to look at NK and make a "well DUH!" decision to come here. And it should be a "no way" decision to want to go elsewhere as opposed to a mass exodus that we're beginning to see.
I don't want to see 1st year FO end up far off from this proposed rate. A regional captain should be able to look at NK and make a "well DUH!" decision to come here. And it should be a "no way" decision to want to go elsewhere as opposed to a mass exodus that we're beginning to see.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
