I certainly empathize with your situation (been there twice...), and understand your position, but for once, I have to agree with nitey's sentiment from a few posts above. National is currently looking to usurp our long and, if I may say so myself, appreciated history in the service of our nation. Not surprisingly, we're a day late and a few dollars long (yes, I mean it that way) in maintaining our well established history. However, we have had some previous competition where the lowest bidder won, and the reliability, or lack thereof, resulted in us getting called back. Same pig, new suit. I hope that your future, if any, with National is short lived, and that better digs find you, but in the short term, your experience combined with your interest and willingness to keep the lowest bidder alive hurts the rest of us, including the remains of your previous ride. It pains me to feel compelled to say that, and I say it with all deference to your situation, but the very thought of us losing any element of the niche we've spent over 20 years building to ANY low bidder is even more painful. Hang in there, and best of luck with whatever comes your way.
707 thanks for the good wishes. Good luck to us all.
I understand that there is some bad blood between the two airlines, but don't throw pilots under the bus as the cause of that feud.
I'd caution all of us to resist putting the blame on a particular pilot group for the existence of a bottom feeder like National. And my willingness to fly for them should not be confused with a willingness to keep them alive. Airlines like National will either succeed or fail for many reasons but pilot pay is probably one of the least important reasons.
I know for a fact that most of these bottom feeders are currently having a really difficult time with pilot staffing. They are shooting themselves in the foot. Even though they realize that when they pay such low wages, their turnover rate is astronomical and their consequent recruitment and training costs skyrocket, they blindly continue down the dirt wage path at the insistence of their bean counters. It is the company that sets the wage scale not the pilot group.
An argument could even be made that experienced pilots going to a low paying airline could hasten their demise by driving up these costs with the high turnover when they leave.
Has nite ever really met a pilot who said "Oh boy! Maybe I can jet a flying job that pays LESS!"?
And as you pointed out, their reliability due to poor performance suffers from staffing and other related issues as well.
Also consider that, with hard work from the pilot group, some former "bottom feeders" are now "respectable" airlines.
Where do we draw the line when it comes to who is the low paying airline that we shouldn't fly for? Under the current standard set by some people on these boards, a FedEx pilot would have the right to say that pretty much all the pilots at ANY other freight airline settling for low wages to take FedEx jobs away. Do we really want to start pointing fingers (like nite is) at our fellow pilots? It is the companies that are creating the situation - not the pilots.
Don't blame the soldiers for the war. Direct your anger at the right people - and it's not the pilots.
8
PS. It's a moot point in my case now, anyway. I've now got a class date with a "mid-level feeder" that may become a surface feeder someday soon ...