Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Discussion on AirTran T.A. - STAY ON TOPIC

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
You are right it has been way too low for way too long. Snarky comments about "subsidizing" that gap being closed is petty plain and simple.

Yes the last TA was a bad deal for FOs and reserves and was rightly voted down. It is curious though how every captain I speak to claims to have made a no vote when 75-80% of them obviously did. Quick enlisted Army guy math but heres how I got there:
40% yes vote with nearly unanimous no vote from FOs = 80% yes vote from captains. Anyway, they voted for what was right for them at the time and I'm not mad at them for it. I take you at your word that you were one of the 20% or so who did vote against it and will simply say thank you.

Oh and Citrus, I will "get off of my throne" when I have finished giving birth to another shavetail zoomie lieutenant and these things can not be rushed!
 
40% yes vote with nearly unanimous no vote from FOs = 80% yes vote from captains.




Give some of us skippers some credit. The FO's did not unanimously vote "No", far from it.

Hell, look at how many FO's voted for MH to be their Status Rep.:laugh:
 
Give some of us skippers some credit. The FO's did not unanimously vote "No", far from it.

Hell, look at how many FO's voted for MH to be their Status Rep.:laugh:

In all fairness, MH was elected by just the members present at that particular LEC meeting, as was JS. The entire pilot group didn't get to vote on it.

I'm just sayin'... ;)
 
Look, it is not my intent to suggest that there were not a lot of captains who selflessly voted no on our last crummy offer when they would have in the end been better off voting for it and again to those who did, I will simply say thank you. Although I'm not really sure what I'm thanking you for because I've lost more than I'll make now on this deal too by having voted it down. I guess that's my point. That we should take what we can get and move on.

There were however, many more who for their own reasons did not and that is OK too. My estimate of the percentages is just that, an estimate offered for no other reason than to illustrate that a significant number of pilots did vote for the last agreement because they felt it was best for them and theirs to do so at the time. To now imply that FOs who have been so grossly underpaid for all this time should forego an opportunity to more or less close that gap because someone feels that they are "subsidizing" (his words not mine) our raise is just, well petty.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness, MH was elected by just the members present at that particular LEC meeting, as was JS. The entire pilot group didn't get to vote on it.

I'm just sayin'... ;)

That was just the interim election. There was a full election a year ago when he got elected by the entire group.
 
That was just the interim election. There was a full election a year ago when he got elected by the entire group.
Yeah, forgot about that; was so focused on upcoming arbitration I wasn't paying attention and didn't even vote (first time I haven't done that in a rep election). Didn't a complete unknown run against him and it was fairly close, like 60/40?
 
Yeah, forgot about that; was so focused on upcoming arbitration I wasn't paying attention and didn't even vote (first time I haven't done that in a rep election). Didn't a complete unknown run against him and it was fairly close, like 60/40?

I'm not sure I would call him a "complete unknown". I believe in college he held some sort of record in the "naked beer slide" event . . . :laugh:.

Actually, it was MC, a good guy and the only one who bothered to submit a position paper. Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. ;)
 
Comparing the TA rates at AT to say, oh I'll just pick a random airline...SWA. And using the hourly conversion applied to SWA's rates. it looks like the following is true:

- In the five years it will take to reach the max pay rates in this TA, a TWO yr SWA capt will still make more than a 15 year AT capt? (BTW, who the hell came up with a 15 year pay scale? Ridiculous.)

- In the five years it will take to reach the max pay rates in this TA, a FOUR yr SWA F/O will make more than ALL of the F/O's at AirTran? (+/- $2)

Not to mention SWA F/O's (still) making more per year, in some parts of the scale, than AT captains.

You guys should vote no and go back to the table.
 
Easy for you to say. Somehow I get the feeling we will achieve something very similar to your payrates pretty soon one way or another.
 
I'm not sure I would call him a "complete unknown". I believe in college he held some sort of record in the "naked beer slide" event . . . :laugh:.

Actually, it was MC, a good guy and the only one who bothered to submit a position paper. Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. ;)
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Had MC served in any committees or been publicly visible doing union work? Makes a difference when running against an incumbent.

Interesting that the incumbent couldn't even be bothered to write a position paper for his own re-election... :rolleyes:

p.s. Quiet Flight,,, nice avatar. :cool:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top