Originally Posted by
Itsajob
Show me where it says that an employee has to stay at a certain rate. The rates are tied to a position, not to the individual. They define a monetary value to a unit of work such as dollars per hour, day, or widget produced. A person in a captain slot earns X, and a person in a copilot slot earns Y. The company can’t alter the rates for those positions, but there is no requirement to keep a person in any category, they just can’t furlough. XJT is getting rid of all of their higher paying aircraft. Those people will go from 175 rates to 145 rates. Just like a captain being displaced back to first officer, the rates weren’t reduced, just the new position uses another previously existing rate.
Here is the text:
SEC. 4114. REQUIRED ASSURANCES.
(a) In General.—To be eligible for financial assistance under this subtitle, an air carrier or contractor shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary, or otherwise certify in such form and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe, that the air carrier or contractor shall—
(1) refrain from conducting involuntary furloughs or reducing pay rates and benefits until September 30, 2020;
Here are 2 examples:
1. Gate agents at a small airport earn $20/hour, that is their rate. Normally they work 40 hours per week and handle numerous flights spread out during the day. As a result of schedule reductions, they now only handle 2 flights, both in the morning. Due to this their hours are cut to 20 per week. Their paycheck is now less, but their rate remains unchanged.
2. A regional airlines finds out that the legacy who owns the planes that they fly is going to retire half of their fleet. The regional runs a big displacement and downgrades half of the captains, but does not furlough until October 1. Captain still pays $72/hr, and first officer still pays $42/hr. The displaced captains will now take home a smaller check, but they did not reduce the rates.
This only applies to a company that has received grant money. If XJT doesn’t get the money, all bets are off.
All good points, but I don't think it's that cut and dry. The legislation was hastily drafted and is vague and open to interpretation. I wonder if liberal, pro labor congress critters will agree with the company's understanding of this. There will probably be a lawsuit or two before this is all over.