Majik
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 320
Let's see, I think the company wanted to raise FO pay for two primary reasons:dsptchrNJA said:Point well taken. I knew you would say that.. you've said it before. But in order for you to make your opinion here you have to assume the company's motives are exactly as you detailed.
So let's assume, for argument's sake, that it has happened exactly as you suggested. Well then, I guess all the original accusations and blame placed entirely on the company can be thrown out the window. Sounds like they would be both equally responsible for low FO pay.
We can both agree on the moral of the story... let's just get the dang contract over with.
1 - To try to entice applicants to apply so they meet their hiring requirements.
2 - So the new-hire salarys wouldn't look so low when they are made public in the media.
What do you think the company's motives were when they attempted to unilaterally raise FO pay only?
I give the company part of the responsibility for current FO pay. The remainder lies with the pilot group that ratified the 1998 contract and said it was good enough. I congratulate our leadership for not allowing the company to wiggle out of a position that they may be ashamed of publically.