First year pay at Spirit

[bubbers44]

NSL isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. I don't think companies would want to have to hire people because they are on a national list. What we have is what will be. It is all a crap shoot. Hopefully your first airline stays in business. We have all flown with pilots that shouldn't have been hired. We can't put them on a list so everybody gets to see why.

 

[waveflyer]

Good lord guys- (waiting for someone to prove the saying "pilots are the stupidest smart people in the world" wrong)
we're talking about 1st year pay and it's effect on the industry- it's much bigger than just getting through the one year one time.

Try to stay focused. Forget the NSL- getting rid of poverty 1st year wages will help enough-

 

[Lear70]

While I don't believe that 1st year pay being so much lower at EVERY airline is a GOOD thing, it IS the industry standard, like it or not, and would require a large amount of negotiating capital to correct, not to mention EVERY MEC would have to agree to try to bring up the bottom as well, or the "movement" to correct the seniority problem never gets off the ground. Tough battle to fight... and choosing your battles IS half the war.

However...

I STRONGLY disagree with LOWERING pay rates that were ALREADY low in order to fund pay raises on the higher end. That was one of the things that got me steamed on the last AirTran T.A... I will never, EVER agree to selling out my fellow pilots, even the new-hires not on the list yet, by lowering their already-crappy pay just to get more money for other pilots on the list. That's a big "SCREW YOU" to the new-hires. Good job (not).

Moderator hat on: Please don't start new threads in the Majors forum for specific sections of the T.A. you like or don't like. This discussion should be in the LCC forum and really should be held on your private message board. I'll let this one run because there aren't any other Spirit threads on the 1st page right now and it's the first strike in nearly a decade at a passenger carrier, but please don't start multiple threads on the issue. Thanks.

 

[Dan Roman]

opps, that would be me, fair enough.

As far as bashing ALPA and first year pay. It is ALPA that fought for the rights of all F/O's. If you go back in history they have made better percentage gains for F/O's than Captains. By that I mean the pay disparity between Captain and F/O use to be far greater than it is now, ALPA fought to change it.
You could argue the independent unions doing there own thing has done the greatest damage to new hires. The biggest blow to the profession was when the APA signed off on a B scale that paid 50% less for new hires. It was unbelievable at the time and the rest of the industries jaw dropped. It took a strike at United by ALPA to rid our profession of that. Also, were is SWAPA when their airline requires a 737 type to be hired? I would say that is a larger burden on someone than first year pay.
If you are going to bash ALPA, keep in mind that although the independent unions can often capitalize on the gains ALPA makes, they tend to do what is best for themselves, regardless of the consequences for the industry as a whole, it is ALPA that tries to do what is best for the profession.

 

[Dan Roman]

PCL-
why not average out the 1st 3-5 years of FO pay - as the previous poster said- think time value of money-
I'd gladly forego any raises for 3-5 years to avoid the crunch of 1st year pay-
this can be done in a no cost way- we just don't even consider it- the old "well I had to do it(!)" w/ no thought to how it affects our industry nationwide...

we've simply taken this 1st year pay standard as a fact of airline life w/o ever questioning it. It's dumb. No personal attacks- there's just no other word for it.

That's a good idea. But somehow I think if you raised first year pay and than kept 2-5 year pay lower you would get a lot of screaming and yelling wondering why a 3 year F/O at airline x gets less than a 3 year guy at airline y. I think he would soon forget that he got paid more first year.

 

[Dan Roman]

Two more points- I know that only a very small % of legacy pilots will leave and make a lateral move- but don't minimize what even 5-10% can have on mgmt's willingness to negotiate- the free market is supposed to work for us- not just against us.

2nd think about the nature of Spirit airlines- the lifers may not care but there will always be pilots who use Spirit (and similar sized niche airlines) as a stepping stone and stay a relatively short while- this means a certain amount of turnover- and a certain percentage of pilots always on 1st year pay decreasing the overall compensation to the pilot group-

I would suggest this is exactly why not to increase first year pay. With all due respect, I want my union negotiating for my career, I don't want them spending negotiating capital for someone who is passing through and plans to leave. What also hasn't been mentioned, first year is probation. The pilot hired may not be suitable for the airline.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

So one of the biggest arguments that 1st year FOs shouldn't be paid because they spend some of the year in training. Okay.

Should Captain upgrades take the same hit? I'm not talking about that mythical 1st year CA rate, I'm talking about a 50% hit on whatever rate they would be at for that year.

The pilot hired may not be suitable for the airline.

I've flown with some FOs that I watched like a hawk, but I've also flown with some CAs that never should've gotten in that seat. Should upgrade CAs go back on to probation?

Somehow I doubt logic has any place in this argument.

 

[PCL_128]

I STRONGLY disagree with LOWERING pay rates that were ALREADY low in order to fund pay raises on the higher end.

I definitely agree with you there.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I STRONGLY disagree with LOWERING pay rates that were ALREADY low in order to fund pay raises on the higher end.

I agree. They never should have lowered first year rates for FOs to supplement the rates at the other end.

D'oh!

 

[JoeMerchant]

Waveflyer and PCL_128 are nicely illustrating the heart of the problem that ALPA has. Whether one wants to admit it or not, we all look out for number one first....Number one ain't you. It's me.

If ALPA had been smart, they wouldn't have designed a system that is so seniority based. There "SHOULD" be a more level system. Instead, this business is very much favored towards the senior members.

Higher first year pay, or some kind of national seniority list would help get people to "fight". Instead, senior folks like me are never going to fall on our swords only to have to start over again at the bottom for 20 bucks an hour....Ain't going to happen...

Both of these guys are huge ALPA flag waving chest thumpers, yet they are illustrating very nicely the quandry we find ourselves in...There should have never been this huge difference in "senior" vs. "junior"...however there is....That is our downfall, and it isn't going to be solved anytime soon....