TA Reached
12-11-2022, 12:55 PM
#311
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Posts: 43
The whole scale is $15-$30 less than my lowest on each end. But I didn’t expect them to sprint to the low end park there. And this whole not getting the full benefits of the TA until 2024 thing is just pouring salt in the wounds.
12-11-2022, 12:57 PM
#312
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2022
Posts: 182
Well you realize if we go back to the table we probably aren’t getting a TA with any benefits at all until 2024, so there’s that
12-11-2022, 01:07 PM
#313
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Posts: 43
I’m not gonna vote based on fear of what ifs on either side. This is not like any other time I’ve gone through a negotiation. The fact the company came to the table and gave an offering anywhere close to what we wanted during 3 months in early openers is just unheard of at least in my experience. But I’m not gonna be swayed by fear mongering on a public forum. Vote by what’s best for you. None of us are paying your bills.
12-11-2022, 01:14 PM
#314
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 417
12-11-2022, 01:17 PM
#315
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 162
12-11-2022, 01:32 PM
#316
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 551
We are three months out from the current contract even being amenable, no reason at all they wouldn’t come back to the table. Even if it did take another year, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to how many more I’ve been working here.
I may not agree with others on here who think we should vote yes, but at least cinco and others have been around long enough to have the bigger picture in mind.
12-11-2022, 01:33 PM
#317
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Position: Guppy
Posts: 764
You're basing your entire premise on a logical fallacy, an unproven assertion that doesn't carry much value in the current negotiating environment.
I'm not at Spirit, I won't be at Spirit, and in the next 5-8 weeks will be at one of the legacies, so this only indirectly affects me.
I am a regional CA (also a no voter on our recent passed TA) who turned down an interview with Spirit months ago because their training pay and benefits were an embarrassment. This doesn't change that.
No one asked for my opinion here, but I see a lot of the same misguided sentiments that I saw from newbies at my airline when our TA came out. This has become a big problem in our industry. I don't mean to patronize, and I won't start throwing out ad hominems here or anywhere, but those of you who are basing your yes vote on a fear of being without a new TA for some undetermined period of time should really reconsider the overall impact of a passage of this TA.
Of particular note and concern is the leverage lost by giving them the ability to increase year 1 pay without paying the rest of you. In an environment where pilots across the industry have enormous leverage, and even more so given the current hiring regime at Spirit, this is a concession. Management is effectively saying we need to attract more pilots, and you all need to give us this in exchange for a pay raise that is already required to attract those pilots. On no planet should you be giving up an enormous piece of leverage when they need new pilots a lot more than y'all need a new contract.
A JCBA could be 7-10 years down the road if it happens at all. The argument that negotiations take time and there's no guarantee of a new TA if this current one is rejected goes both ways. Those of you banking on a JCBA to save you years down the road are applying a double-standard. And I'm beyond certain that negotiation will take a lot longer than a new TA would now given the industry at the moment.
There is a lot of wisdom being offered in many of these posts.
The company's goal is to achieve their goal while spending as little as possible. 50% + 1 vote is what they want. In almost every negotiation, the first offer isn't the best or final one. Being afraid of a no vote is how management A) starts pitting labor against itself and B) gets what it wants without spending for it.
Hold the line. Y'all are worth more than this Pay TA that gives up a major concession for a mediocre pay gain, all the while hurting your negotiating capital in the future.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
12-11-2022, 01:59 PM
#319
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,542
This is a textbook, Grade A example of begging the question.
You're basing your entire premise on a logical fallacy, an unproven assertion that doesn't carry much value in the current negotiating environment.
I'm not at Spirit, I won't be at Spirit, and in the next 5-8 weeks will be at one of the legacies, so this only indirectly affects me.
I am a regional CA (also a no voter on our recent passed TA) who turned down an interview with Spirit months ago because their training pay and benefits were an embarrassment. This doesn't change that.
No one asked for my opinion here, but I see a lot of the same misguided sentiments that I saw from newbies at my airline when our TA came out. This has become a big problem in our industry. I don't mean to patronize, and I won't start throwing out ad hominems here or anywhere, but those of you who are basing your yes vote on a fear of being without a new TA for some undetermined period of time should really reconsider the overall impact of a passage of this TA.
Of particular note and concern is the leverage lost by giving them the ability to increase year 1 pay without paying the rest of you. In an environment where pilots across the industry have enormous leverage, and even more so given the current hiring regime at Spirit, this is a concession. Management is effectively saying we need to attract more pilots, and you all need to give us this in exchange for a pay raise that is already required to attract those pilots. On no planet should you be giving up an enormous piece of leverage when they need new pilots a lot more than y'all need a new contract.
A JCBA could be 7-10 years down the road if it happens at all. The argument that negotiations take time and there's no guarantee of a new TA if this current one is rejected goes both ways. Those of you banking on a JCBA to save you years down the road are applying a double-standard. And I'm beyond certain that negotiation will take a lot longer than a new TA would now given the industry at the moment.
There is a lot of wisdom being offered in many of these posts.
The company's goal is to achieve their goal while spending as little as possible. 50% + 1 vote is what they want. In almost every negotiation, the first offer isn't the best or final one. Being afraid of a no vote is how management A) starts pitting labor against itself and B) gets what it wants without spending for it.
Hold the line. Y'all are worth more than this Pay TA that gives up a major concession for a mediocre pay gain, all the while hurting your negotiating capital in the future.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
You're basing your entire premise on a logical fallacy, an unproven assertion that doesn't carry much value in the current negotiating environment.
I'm not at Spirit, I won't be at Spirit, and in the next 5-8 weeks will be at one of the legacies, so this only indirectly affects me.
I am a regional CA (also a no voter on our recent passed TA) who turned down an interview with Spirit months ago because their training pay and benefits were an embarrassment. This doesn't change that.
No one asked for my opinion here, but I see a lot of the same misguided sentiments that I saw from newbies at my airline when our TA came out. This has become a big problem in our industry. I don't mean to patronize, and I won't start throwing out ad hominems here or anywhere, but those of you who are basing your yes vote on a fear of being without a new TA for some undetermined period of time should really reconsider the overall impact of a passage of this TA.
Of particular note and concern is the leverage lost by giving them the ability to increase year 1 pay without paying the rest of you. In an environment where pilots across the industry have enormous leverage, and even more so given the current hiring regime at Spirit, this is a concession. Management is effectively saying we need to attract more pilots, and you all need to give us this in exchange for a pay raise that is already required to attract those pilots. On no planet should you be giving up an enormous piece of leverage when they need new pilots a lot more than y'all need a new contract.
A JCBA could be 7-10 years down the road if it happens at all. The argument that negotiations take time and there's no guarantee of a new TA if this current one is rejected goes both ways. Those of you banking on a JCBA to save you years down the road are applying a double-standard. And I'm beyond certain that negotiation will take a lot longer than a new TA would now given the industry at the moment.
There is a lot of wisdom being offered in many of these posts.
The company's goal is to achieve their goal while spending as little as possible. 50% + 1 vote is what they want. In almost every negotiation, the first offer isn't the best or final one. Being afraid of a no vote is how management A) starts pitting labor against itself and B) gets what it wants without spending for it.
Hold the line. Y'all are worth more than this Pay TA that gives up a major concession for a mediocre pay gain, all the while hurting your negotiating capital in the future.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
12-11-2022, 02:02 PM
#320
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 254
This is a textbook, Grade A example of begging the question.
You're basing your entire premise on a logical fallacy, an unproven assertion that doesn't carry much value in the current negotiating environment.
I'm not at Spirit, I won't be at Spirit, and in the next 5-8 weeks will be at one of the legacies, so this only indirectly affects me.
I am a regional CA (also a no voter on our recent passed TA) who turned down an interview with Spirit months ago because their training pay and benefits were an embarrassment. This doesn't change that.
No one asked for my opinion here, but I see a lot of the same misguided sentiments that I saw from newbies at my airline when our TA came out. This has become a big problem in our industry. I don't mean to patronize, and I won't start throwing out ad hominems here or anywhere, but those of you who are basing your yes vote on a fear of being without a new TA for some undetermined period of time should really reconsider the overall impact of a passage of this TA.
Of particular note and concern is the leverage lost by giving them the ability to increase year 1 pay without paying the rest of you. In an environment where pilots across the industry have enormous leverage, and even more so given the current hiring regime at Spirit, this is a concession. Management is effectively saying we need to attract more pilots, and you all need to give us this in exchange for a pay raise that is already required to attract those pilots. On no planet should you be giving up an enormous piece of leverage when they need new pilots a lot more than y'all need a new contract.
A JCBA could be 7-10 years down the road if it happens at all. The argument that negotiations take time and there's no guarantee of a new TA if this current one is rejected goes both ways. Those of you banking on a JCBA to save you years down the road are applying a double-standard. And I'm beyond certain that negotiation will take a lot longer than a new TA would now given the industry at the moment.
There is a lot of wisdom being offered in many of these posts.
The company's goal is to achieve their goal while spending as little as possible. 50% + 1 vote is what they want. In almost every negotiation, the first offer isn't the best or final one. Being afraid of a no vote is how management A) starts pitting labor against itself and B) gets what it wants without spending for it.
Hold the line. Y'all are worth more than this Pay TA that gives up a major concession for a mediocre pay gain, all the while hurting your negotiating capital in the future.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
You're basing your entire premise on a logical fallacy, an unproven assertion that doesn't carry much value in the current negotiating environment.
I'm not at Spirit, I won't be at Spirit, and in the next 5-8 weeks will be at one of the legacies, so this only indirectly affects me.
I am a regional CA (also a no voter on our recent passed TA) who turned down an interview with Spirit months ago because their training pay and benefits were an embarrassment. This doesn't change that.
No one asked for my opinion here, but I see a lot of the same misguided sentiments that I saw from newbies at my airline when our TA came out. This has become a big problem in our industry. I don't mean to patronize, and I won't start throwing out ad hominems here or anywhere, but those of you who are basing your yes vote on a fear of being without a new TA for some undetermined period of time should really reconsider the overall impact of a passage of this TA.
Of particular note and concern is the leverage lost by giving them the ability to increase year 1 pay without paying the rest of you. In an environment where pilots across the industry have enormous leverage, and even more so given the current hiring regime at Spirit, this is a concession. Management is effectively saying we need to attract more pilots, and you all need to give us this in exchange for a pay raise that is already required to attract those pilots. On no planet should you be giving up an enormous piece of leverage when they need new pilots a lot more than y'all need a new contract.
A JCBA could be 7-10 years down the road if it happens at all. The argument that negotiations take time and there's no guarantee of a new TA if this current one is rejected goes both ways. Those of you banking on a JCBA to save you years down the road are applying a double-standard. And I'm beyond certain that negotiation will take a lot longer than a new TA would now given the industry at the moment.
There is a lot of wisdom being offered in many of these posts.
The company's goal is to achieve their goal while spending as little as possible. 50% + 1 vote is what they want. In almost every negotiation, the first offer isn't the best or final one. Being afraid of a no vote is how management A) starts pitting labor against itself and B) gets what it wants without spending for it.
Hold the line. Y'all are worth more than this Pay TA that gives up a major concession for a mediocre pay gain, all the while hurting your negotiating capital in the future.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
You don’t get what you deserve in life. You get what you negotiate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
