dualinput

The time to change it was in 2018 and I voted no for this reason among others. Now it’s in our favor so you don’t change it on its own.

gripngrab

I don't give a **** if it's working or not. I'm personally against any pay raises for year one pilots if all pilots aren't given equivalent raises.

putzin

As is 99% of the group. The union covers dues paying years 2-12, the company can provide pay to those on "probation".

Excargodog

If a policy doesn’t work, why WOULD you support it?
Newbie hazing?

Excargodog

So whether the tactic is effective or not is irrelevant to “99% of the group?

They just get their kicks watching newbies struggle on training pay with no insurance? And you think that’s a good way to treat your fellow professionals?

BKbigfish

I don’t know why you can’t just come to terms with the fact that two things can be true at once. Our 1st year pay should be higher AND the only reason management is at the table right now is because our 1st year/training pay is so horrendous. What do you suggest we do? Agree to let management just raise 1st year pay? Lol c’mon man just concede defeat here. Stop trying to make the argument that we would have just as much or more leverage right now if we had industry average 1st year pay. We wouldn’t. It doesn’t make it right but it also is the main reason we’re even having discussions with management right now. It is what it is. Now we can argue about what the right thing is to do at the negotiating table for 1st year guys going forward (I agree with you we need to take care of them) but for you to continue to twist yourself into a pretzel and try and convince everybody that 1st year pay isn’t the only reason that management is at the table right now is just ridiculous.

Lakeaffect

Excargo, Your gripe about first year pay is noble, and it’s a valid point that’s felt by me and others. It’s not just 1st year pay, it’s every year along the longevity line that’s below the industry, 1st year being the worst. It would be better if we had 1st year AND every other year at the industry level, but we don’t, and that’s not because of the union. Yes the union decided how to divvy up the pay that was given by management, but it’s not as though the option was their to match Alaska or Delta or any other group that pay is in line with the industry. After years of negotiations we ended up with a financial package that was way below the bigger airlines. Decisions were made and it is what it is. Higher first year pay could have been negotiated, but it would have been at the expense of other years, which are already low. It’s always better to be at an airline that decides it’s in their best interest to pay appropriately (Delta, Southwest, United, JB, Alaska, American, FedEx and more). Unfortunately for us Spirit did not feel the need to pay us appropriately. The silver lining is that attracting new hires has, as of recently, become much more difficult and attrition has gone through the roof. Spirit management has painted themselves in a corner and would desperately love to raise only 1st year pay to alleviate it. So while it might seem noble to do it, it would be giving away our biggest piece of leverage. And it would be completely unfair to those that are just getting of 1st year pay that would not benefit at all. The whole pilot group deserves a raise, not just year 1.

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.

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?

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.