Originally Posted by
Buck Rogers
Ok, here's my better answer in the form of a question. If there is an ALV reduction for say 1 year of 20% . The bottom guys don't get furloughed. The old pilot that only had 1 year to go retires on that reduced pay.
Is there a winner, is there a loser ?
If you agree winners/losers, do we justify that with a nebulous " Well, it's the right thing to do" or some other platitude?
If you presume the 64 year old is at least a 717 captain on year 12 pay at my hypothetical reduced ALV of 65 hours (from the initial post in this thread) then they are grossing $16640 per month with an additional company 401k contribution of $2662 per month. They had their pension stolen from them, but they still have had more time and should have a much larger 401k balance than a pilot who has been at Delta less than 4 years. The 64 year old is also 1 year away from claiming social security and still has a small monthly pension from the PBGC. Also, this pilot most likely does not have children under the age of 18 at home.
The pilots that are at most danger of being furloughed are an average age of 34. At a reduced ALV of 65 hours even the first year pilots are still grossing $6000 per month with an additional company 401k contribution of $960. I'd wager the majority are married with multiple small children. They have a much longer career ahead of them than the 64 year old, but if they are furloughed their employer based monthly income goes to $0 increasing the chances of depleting their savings and taking on additional debt to survive.
Personally, I would agree to reducing the ALV temporarily if it will save Delta pilots' families the financial hardship of furlough.