First Week Openers
#191
Meanwhile your soon to be brothers at B6 are rumored to be going back and forth with management between 17% raise (MGT) and 20% raise (union).... a raise for all, not just newbies.
Just propose taking the B6 A320 rates with a snap-up to whatever they end up with in this negotiation as your way of helping the company merger go more smoothly.
Just propose taking the B6 A320 rates with a snap-up to whatever they end up with in this negotiation as your way of helping the company merger go more smoothly.
#192
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
People at NK have been saying that for over four years. It hasn’t budged management an inch. And why should it? NK isn’t losing many senior CAs - except to retirement.
The people they are losing - junior CAs who will spend a long time on reserve and FOs are easily replaced as long as new hire classes remain full, replaced by FOs costing them about $50 K that first year and by upgrading FOs with less longevity than those CAs departing. It’s a net decrease in payroll for management.
And management gets to keep the unvested parts of the 401k of those departing. Management is coming out ahead on the deal.
Where is the ‘leverage’ in that?
Cinquo and a few others have been advocating this “strategy” for four plus years, and it hasn’t worked yet. It is the equivalent of bringing in cheap labor to replace the people quitting, negating the leverage of attrition. Why would management raise everyone’s wages to avoid doing that? What other airlines are successfully implementing this policy? Or have implemented this policy? Where has it ever worked?
How long will it have to not work before you’ll be convinced it isn’t going to work?
The people they are losing - junior CAs who will spend a long time on reserve and FOs are easily replaced as long as new hire classes remain full, replaced by FOs costing them about $50 K that first year and by upgrading FOs with less longevity than those CAs departing. It’s a net decrease in payroll for management.
And management gets to keep the unvested parts of the 401k of those departing. Management is coming out ahead on the deal.
Where is the ‘leverage’ in that?
Cinquo and a few others have been advocating this “strategy” for four plus years, and it hasn’t worked yet. It is the equivalent of bringing in cheap labor to replace the people quitting, negating the leverage of attrition. Why would management raise everyone’s wages to avoid doing that? What other airlines are successfully implementing this policy? Or have implemented this policy? Where has it ever worked?
How long will it have to not work before you’ll be convinced it isn’t going to work?
#193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 394
People at NK have been saying that for over four years. It hasn’t budged management an inch. And why should it? NK isn’t losing many senior CAs - except to retirement.
The people they are losing - junior CAs who will spend a long time on reserve and FOs are easily replaced as long as new hire classes remain full, replaced by FOs costing them about $50 K that first year and by upgrading FOs with less longevity than those CAs departing. It’s a net decrease in payroll for management.
And management gets to keep the unvested parts of the 401k of those departing. Management is coming out ahead on the deal.
Where is the ‘leverage’ in that?
Cinquo and a few others have been advocating this “strategy” for four plus years, and it hasn’t worked yet. It is the equivalent of bringing in cheap labor to replace the people quitting, negating the leverage of attrition. Why would management raise everyone’s wages to avoid doing that? What other airlines are successfully implementing this policy? Or have implemented this policy? Where has it ever worked?
How long will it have to not work before you’ll be convinced it isn’t going to work?
The people they are losing - junior CAs who will spend a long time on reserve and FOs are easily replaced as long as new hire classes remain full, replaced by FOs costing them about $50 K that first year and by upgrading FOs with less longevity than those CAs departing. It’s a net decrease in payroll for management.
And management gets to keep the unvested parts of the 401k of those departing. Management is coming out ahead on the deal.
Where is the ‘leverage’ in that?
Cinquo and a few others have been advocating this “strategy” for four plus years, and it hasn’t worked yet. It is the equivalent of bringing in cheap labor to replace the people quitting, negating the leverage of attrition. Why would management raise everyone’s wages to avoid doing that? What other airlines are successfully implementing this policy? Or have implemented this policy? Where has it ever worked?
How long will it have to not work before you’ll be convinced it isn’t going to work?
Its been 1month of negotiations, not 4years. It’s gonna take a little time.
Last edited by Lakeaffect; 10-01-2022 at 08:03 AM.
#194
That/It/Thang
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,954
And to CargoDog, yes the plan is working. 4 years ago we didn’t have the attrition because guys like you were still trying to come over here and fly the Airbus for $50/hr
Thankfully the ExCargoDogs willing to work for $50/hr are drying up. And because we didn’t raise first year pay 4 years ago, attrition is the reason and only reason why management is at the table.
Thankfully the number of guys like you, wanting to work for so cheap, is ending, and rates will have to come up.
#195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 1,035
People at NK have been saying that for over four years. It hasn’t budged management an inch. And why should it? NK isn’t losing many senior CAs - except to retirement.
The people they are losing - junior CAs who will spend a long time on reserve and FOs are easily replaced as long as new hire classes remain full, replaced by FOs costing them about $50 K that first year and by upgrading FOs with less longevity than those CAs departing. It’s a net decrease in payroll for management.
And management gets to keep the unvested parts of the 401k of those departing. Management is coming out ahead on the deal.
Where is the ‘leverage’ in that?
Cinquo and a few others have been advocating this “strategy” for four plus years, and it hasn’t worked yet. It is the equivalent of bringing in cheap labor to replace the people quitting, negating the leverage of attrition. Why would management raise everyone’s wages to avoid doing that? What other airlines are successfully implementing this policy? Or have implemented this policy? Where has it ever worked?
How long will it have to not work before you’ll be convinced it isn’t going to work?
The people they are losing - junior CAs who will spend a long time on reserve and FOs are easily replaced as long as new hire classes remain full, replaced by FOs costing them about $50 K that first year and by upgrading FOs with less longevity than those CAs departing. It’s a net decrease in payroll for management.
And management gets to keep the unvested parts of the 401k of those departing. Management is coming out ahead on the deal.
Where is the ‘leverage’ in that?
Cinquo and a few others have been advocating this “strategy” for four plus years, and it hasn’t worked yet. It is the equivalent of bringing in cheap labor to replace the people quitting, negating the leverage of attrition. Why would management raise everyone’s wages to avoid doing that? What other airlines are successfully implementing this policy? Or have implemented this policy? Where has it ever worked?
How long will it have to not work before you’ll be convinced it isn’t going to work?
Classes are not full. There are quite a few no shows each class. That’s facts.
Things also were not at critical mass yet in the timeline. We have been constantly increasing training capacity to handle attrition. Remember doing anything but giving the pilots raises is managements goal so that’s what they have been trying to accomplish. They are currently maxed on training. Now have no shows in class. Now have less applications bc of massive pay increases at regionals. Most importantly combined with all of that, deliveries that were delayed during covid are arriving quickly.
Management may be covering attrition and even a little growth but they are covering it with vastly lower experience which carries its own set of other issues. They however are not covering the amount of growth for the increased rate of deliveries. Lower attrition would allow that training capacity to be used for growth which is what they need. If they solve that problem alone they don’t have any more problems and can stall until a JCBA and they are cashing their golden parachutes.
Ask yourself how much flying we do today compared to pre CovID and ask yourself how many airplanes we currently are operating compared to pre CovID. Ask yourself if what we have today for utilization is what management wants and why higher aircraft utilization is not happening. Also ask yourself how much utilization factors into spirits ability to become and stay profitable.
You haven’t got a clue if you think simply replacing pilots leaving with low cost new hires is something management is ok with and also happy with. Go get a clue.
#196
The leverage is attrition. We wouldn’t have nearly the attrition we do now if we raised first year pay, which is exactly why management only wants to raise 1st year. They aren’t thrilled about saving money on the rotation of cheap first year pilots.
Its been 1month of negotiations, not 4years. It’s gonna take a little time.
Its been 1month of negotiations, not 4years. It’s gonna take a little time.
The attrition in the senior CA group is negligible. Management knows these guys aren’t going to go over to a legacy and restart at the bottom for 92 an hour on reserve. The attrition that counts is FOs and to a lesser extent junior CAs. And with legacies hiring, these people are leaving, but as long as management can replace them with cheap help, they don’t care. They have no real incentive to raise pay generally. Not when they can replace those leaving at $50 k a year.
They’ll be quite happy to never raise CA pay and backfill their FO losses with guys who work for $50k a year. It’s like a “B” scale. It allows current FO jobs to be replaced by more and more less experienced people. And those people will keep coming as the regional model cracks and breaks, because a type rating in a full sized airliner eventually gives them a step up the ladder to someplace else. And as long as management can replace them with another $50k guy, that’s fine with management.
And it’s been four plus years that Cinquo (and a few others) have been saying that screwing over the newbies was giving us leverage and nothing has changed yet.
#197
Meanwhile your soon to be brothers at B6 are rumored to be going back and forth with management between 17% raise (MGT) and 20% raise (union).... a raise for all, not just newbies.
Just propose taking the B6 A320 rates with a snap-up to whatever they end up with in this negotiation as your way of helping the company merger go more smoothly.
Just propose taking the B6 A320 rates with a snap-up to whatever they end up with in this negotiation as your way of helping the company merger go more smoothly.
#198
#199
It wasn’t a critical issue over the last 4 years. Remember CovID?
Classes are not full. There are quite a few no shows each class. That’s facts.
Things also were not at critical mass yet in the timeline. We have been constantly increasing training capacity to handle attrition. Remember doing anything but giving the pilots raises is managements goal so that’s what they have been trying to accomplish. They are currently maxed on training. Now have no shows in class. Now have less applications bc of massive pay increases at regionals. Most importantly combined with all of that, deliveries that were delayed during covid are arriving quickly.
Management may be covering attrition and even a little growth but they are covering it with vastly lower experience which carries its own set of other issues. They however are not covering the amount of growth for the increased rate of deliveries. Lower attrition would allow that training capacity to be used for growth which is what they need. If they solve that problem alone they don’t have any more problems and can stall until a JCBA and they are cashing their golden parachutes.
Ask yourself how much flying we do today compared to pre CovID and ask yourself how many airplanes we currently are operating compared to pre CovID. Ask yourself if what we have today for utilization is what management wants and why higher aircraft utilization is not happening. Also ask yourself how much utilization factors into spirits ability to become and stay profitable.
You haven’t got a clue if you think simply replacing pilots leaving with low cost new hires is something management is ok with and also happy with. Go get a clue.
Classes are not full. There are quite a few no shows each class. That’s facts.
Things also were not at critical mass yet in the timeline. We have been constantly increasing training capacity to handle attrition. Remember doing anything but giving the pilots raises is managements goal so that’s what they have been trying to accomplish. They are currently maxed on training. Now have no shows in class. Now have less applications bc of massive pay increases at regionals. Most importantly combined with all of that, deliveries that were delayed during covid are arriving quickly.
Management may be covering attrition and even a little growth but they are covering it with vastly lower experience which carries its own set of other issues. They however are not covering the amount of growth for the increased rate of deliveries. Lower attrition would allow that training capacity to be used for growth which is what they need. If they solve that problem alone they don’t have any more problems and can stall until a JCBA and they are cashing their golden parachutes.
Ask yourself how much flying we do today compared to pre CovID and ask yourself how many airplanes we currently are operating compared to pre CovID. Ask yourself if what we have today for utilization is what management wants and why higher aircraft utilization is not happening. Also ask yourself how much utilization factors into spirits ability to become and stay profitable.
You haven’t got a clue if you think simply replacing pilots leaving with low cost new hires is something management is ok with and also happy with. Go get a clue.
#200
That/It/Thang
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,954
Yeah, let’s agree to rates lower than the new standard of what pilots are worth with the hope of a catch up to JetBlue. No way. Alaska rates reset the bar, JBLU is working on those rates now for their negotiations, and so should we. And IF the merger fails, we will go back to our own section 6, taking a few years at least, trying for higher rates. No f'in way
Any talk of JBLU rates left the room as soon as the Alaska TA came out.
Swing and a miss, again Cargo
I’ll use your words, “why are you willing to screw over your pilots with low pay?”
Last edited by CincoDeMayo; 10-01-2022 at 09:23 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post