[QUOTE=TonyC;1752651]Really? Did you really just ask that?
First, it wasn't a retirement incentive. It was intended to remove an impediment to retiring. You may think it's a subtle difference, but it's significant. We don't pay people to retire.
Semantics and you know it.
Second, Google VEBA. Sure, I agree that the guys who chose to not retire didn't really need the money for its intended purpose. But much like you lose control over money when you place it in a trust, if you try to place conditions on the use of money held in a VEBA trust, you'd run into Age discrimination issues.
I would be in favor of a vehicle to remove the impediment to retirement that only goes to the pilot when he retires. Do you know a legal way to do that?
Then it is age discrimination that this VEBA was for 53 and older. The money could have been put in the VEBA trust and paid out when a person retired if he went at 60 the full 25k plus interest if at 63 10k with interest and if at 65 nothing. It could have been broken down in monthly amounts or daily for example. Any left over funds would be seed money for the discriminated people under 53 to have the same options. This could have simply been the restrictions applied to the plan much like the 53 old cutoff.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking. In the first place, the way the STV is structured so a pilot can take his family on The Company's dime, including round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, I doubt junior guys would be able to hold them. But for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and nobody wants to do them. That's where your "working up the list until starting over" objection doesn't make sense.
In the original and the first revision of the FDA LOA (the one we voted on), a junior pilot could not be inversed to an STV more than once in 6 times the duration of the STV. In other words, not more than 1 month out of 6 months. Since the window of opportunity for STVs is so narrow (only 24 months when opening or 540 days when closing the FDA base), the most junior pilot wouldn't see very many months of STV. The same pilot, however, might find himself inversely awarded a SIBA slot over and over and over and find himself in the same country flying with fewer benefits that the STV.
In other words, STV does work up the list for 6 months before starting over. SIBA never has to work up the list.
Respectfully with SIBA you do not have to say in theater for the whole bid month you are deadheaded home. Allowing anyone to forced to leave commitments to friends and family at home for even a full month is wrong. Also the same guys said the domicile would go senior and the junior guys would not be able to hold it.
I'm focused on right now, what's being done and hat's not being done. Are you happy with the way Contract Negotiations are going? Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that we can't even have a mature discussion about work rules because The Company has refused to take PIBS off the table?
I'm not satisfied with that. I think we can do better, and we deserve it.
I personally think the big difference is you are on the outside now and not privy to all the secret discussions like you were while you are a block rep. I have only always been on the outside and this administration not any different, except comm is better. Then and now many discussions and decisions are made in secret that the rest of the crewforce are not privy too.
I think you are a good guy and really want what is best for us as I do we just see many things differently.