MileHi

1. I'm not aware of anyone saying they don't care about 1-3 year FOs.

2. The plight of the 36.62 club has nothing to do with the details of the current LOA.

3. Saying FOs should be concerned if this LOA passes is LITERALLY telling you to be afraid (fear mongering)

Hence, non sequitur fear mongering

Snowbound

Thinking beyond tomorrow and learning from the past is hardly paranoia.

Nothing about your LOA is rationale unless you are brainwashed by the greedy, top echelon or have a personal agenda.

ORD170

I guess you didn’t listen to the conference call last night? Do you believe FO pay in years 1-3 should be less, because they will upgrade by year 4, and be making captains rates? That’s what was said on the call last night.

aviatormjc

In 2007, FOs started at $23, now they start at $41. There was a time FO upgrade took 6 years, now it's what 3.5? New LOA has FOs topping out at $60. And if they choose to upgrade they will be making $102 in 2020. But the 2007/2008 guys were still making $36.62 as they were going through upgrade after 6 years. Major improvement for the current FOs and now the new cadre get what a $17,500 bonus? In 2007/2008 new hires had to sign a $20,000 2 year training contract. Keep this in mind as you make your decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Snowbound

1. I would say you do not care about anyone but yourself.

2. It has everything to do with them. The opposing side plays the game the same way each time. Their overall strategy never changes.

3. No it is telling them the truth.

ORD170

Even some of the twenty year guys say they voted no. I would be more concerned about the “personal agenda” cheerleaders. I just wonder why the union keeps pushing this thing. I’m curious what the spin will be if it gets voted down.

ORD170

Agreed the FO pay is well below 9E, and it takes 9 years to reach $60.00. Vote no!

hopeless in SEA

It's always irrational, or fear mongering, or some other implied slur . . . unless MileHi says it!

Airline Division thefts and payoffs. E-board union "leaders" leaving to become management VP's after pushing horrible TA's. Union-busting tactics used to divide and conquer for over 10 years. Paid contractors hired to facilitate "inevitable" bankruptcies that are miles away. Fouled up, or worse yet, tampered-with votes spearheaded and mismanaged by union personnel.

These things are all real, and they all happened right here at Republic.

And the guy that calls them "non sequitur fear mongering" doesn't want you to remember them when you vote on big-ticket items.

Let's break this down ... "non sequitur" implies that your logic is flawed. And "fear mongering" implies that none of those things listed above has ever happened.

So now, MileHi has accomplished three things:

He failed to use any argument other than calling you guys irrational or scared. Again. He failed to provide a reasonable excuse for voting yes to anything. Again. But more importantly, he has shown his true purpose on this site. To stand against the majority. He does not support the best interests of anyone on this board. Shocking everyone, I'm sure.

Ignore his insults, and look for LOA content. You won't find it. Because if he argued on its merit. It would be voted down.

MileHi

You are conveniently twisting words. The decision was made by the NC to deploy more negotiating capital towards retention acknowledging the company will want to use their capital to recruit. Upgrade times should continue to decrease as the company grows. Historically, mgmts only try to throw money for recruitment and supplement retention by offering bonuses (see AA WOS, amongst others). This is bad for the pilot group. If attrition does not slow to an acceptable level, the Company will have no choice but to return to the negotiating table. This is a win win.

MileHi

It seems like aviatormjc has a good grasp on the facts. Unfortunately for ORD170, top out FO pay rates are the only thing that matters to him. That's too bad.