Originally Posted by
Scoop
Guys from the NN on work-rules:
"These changes will likely result in a contractual staffing reduction of approximately 300 pilots. However, the Pilot Retirement Medical Account Program (See Negotiators’ Notepad 12-07) and other changes to the PWA such as the increases to the staffing formula and to vacation and CQ training pay are expected to more than compensate for
this reduction."
While this is written to look neutral it is a big negative in my opinion. If nothing changed we would all advance accordingly when these "300" guys retired. It may not have be for 2 or three years but the advancement would then be a permanent improvement.
Now it will take approximately 300 retirees to just break even and we will "lose" the same advancement when those 300 guys would have retired in two or three years.
Am I making a mistake in my logic, or is trading productivity for an early retirement program a big loser in the long term?
Scoop
You are correct as far as the early retirement program. It is not a offset to work rule changes and should not be sold as such. Those pilots would all likely as you point out be gone in the next two to three years. The changes to how training and vacation are handled are however real and will generate jobs to help offset the 300 jobs that could be lost to the other items. It looks to me like the net job loss is around 200 pilots not counting the increased value of vacation and training just the different application of it relative to the current method. The 300 number by the way is considered to be a worst case number. Its really hard to quantify such a number. As a example how many pilots today when they have say 60 hours of flying choose to yellow high and fly past the ALV? That has the same effect as ALV plus 15.
In summary
ALV 15- lost jobs
30 day months-lost jobs
84 hours-lost jobs
Vacation applied to reserve hours- slight gain in jobs
training applied to reserve hours- slight gain in jobs
5 to 6 extra x days per year- slight gain in jobs
Extra vacation and training pay-neutral to very slight gain
full when projection reaches reserve guarantee- slight gain in jobs
I do not think the staffing formula will protect any jobs as Dalpa believes. The reason for that is historically the company has never been able to staff right at the manning formula. We are staffed well above it today. It will create contractual jobs but will not create actual jobs which is what we all really care about.