As you know, that is true WRT pay rate cuts and other concessionary things, usually coupled with furloughing to the bone anyway, and locked into the CBA until future cycles that has to be fought for tooth and nail even during a roaring economy later. An ALV reduction could be a rolling 60 days at a time by mutual agreement, have a fixed snapback point anyway, and would be 100% self correcting in a good economy. No BK judge would ever lock in 50 hour ALV's for an entire CBA cycle because the company would never ask for it and would fight against it.

So the four corners of this particular arguement only hold water in the very narrow band of specific circumstances whereby either we're headed to liquidation soon anyway so we screwed ourselves out of some ALV hours for a few months, or we're headed to Ch11 reorganization soon, which would result in a full and complete restoration of the ALV anyway (and likely even higher) because the company would want that. Was it C12 or C15 where we made the concession to raise ALV's by an hour? Now all the sudden high ALV's are sacrosanct.

Then full pay til the last day. While I don't want that to happen, I can accept it. Let's scatter to the winds and those of us left in the field can apply for bottom of the list positions at our competitors. I can accept that. Funny thing in that case though, as well as even a less severe Ch 11 situation, is that the shareholders will be completely wiped out (at least the vast majority of them will be). If an agreement was to be had that would have saved the shareholders but it was refused by the company only so the muckity mucks could preserve their future compensations, would the shareholders and/or the SEC want to look into that? That would make for a very interesting scenario.

I'm for all of the above as long as we get things in return. Early outs being included in that savings figure are one time short term savings, whereas SILs and lower ALV's save for as long as they are present. Early outs are also limited in their maximum potential savings with the more you do the less you save once you get beyond the point of maximum return. So the MEC was technically correct in saying that, however it was only correct for the short timeframe in question. And even then it would save more to have lower ALV's and IMO there would be an opportunity in that for a longer term win-win. If, however, like you posited, that the company would refuse adequate upsides for us, then full pay til the last day or the Ch11 process, whichever comes first.