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

Frontier pilots extend pay cuts

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
Ouch

14.5 percent is just the hourly rate cut. If you factor in no 401k contribution, and no B fund...its more liek 19.5 percent total.

Ouch, climb 2, I hope your avatar is a pic from your FA's, otherwise it would be hard to be motivated with 20% paycut, not to mention inflation, etc....
 
Better the pay cut than lose their jobs.

At what point is this not true.
Would you say this if it was a 50% pay cut, 90%?
Airlines are just testing to find the braking point.
Until this point is found and pilots say "it's better to lose my job than take that pay cut........, you are right......
 
HERE IS THE F'KN BULL$HIT,

Our pilots voted, not to help out our furloughed pilots, with their medical bills (SHAME ON US).

(Side Note:I am a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. But I belong to a UNION, so I have to have Social values and help our distressed brothers/sisters.)

One of the most vocal pilots, against helping out furloughed pilots, wants to drop some of her/his trips this month.

Thats cool, it in her/his rights to do so, but her/his excuse for not helping furloughed pilots with their medical bills was that she/he is Broke and she/he cannot afford to pay 25 bucks/month. (Her/His trip that she wants to drop is worth around 400 bucks!) (The Union wanted to only assess 25 bucks/month for furloughed Fos medical fund).

I am so F'n confused!!!

CYA
 
Last edited:
No, we voted not to help the furloughees through the only package that was offered to us, which was a mandatory extra dues assesment. NO research was done regarding the level of interest in the program and thus how much $ was needed. Instead, they came up with an arbitrary number and stated that if $ was left over in the end, it would go in the Union's general fund...

In voting "No" for the assistance package, I for one was voting "yes" for a voluntary fund, which is being set up. That way, I know how much the program needs and that my voluntary contribution goes to those who need it vs the general coffers of FAPA. As soon as someone tells me how much they need from me, I'll write a check, up to the amount originally proposed in the plan.

Animal, I know you started this ball rolling and I admire the initiative. I, too want to help the furloughees that need it, but the package we voted on was unacceptable. I don't think any furloughees are going to suffer as a result of the vote. Personally, I'm sick of hearing about it.

Just had to get that off my chest...
 
Very well put Toob. I voted no as well based on the reasons stated. It was a well intended but poorly executed plan and I have to question why someone would call out his own pilot group on a public message board based on inaccuracies and incomplete information. The subject was extensively debated in house (as it should be) and the vast majority saw it as you described it. Give it a rest.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top