Originally Posted by
BMEP100
Kirby said in the interview they would like to see a 50% reduction in guarantee hours for pilots, almost under his breath. That is a change and reduction to the UPA. Every pilot that works will have a significantly lower W-2, and B fund and RHA fund balance upon retirement. That is especially harmful to those retiring in a couple years, with no way to catch up. (Unless the age goes to 68). Are you guys in the lower mpg camp okay with that?
I’ll be gone, but oh my how many times have I seen this played out before? The response and evolution is predictably the same ;
1. NO CONCESSIONS, FULL PAY TILL THE LAST DAY, MAINTAIN THE CONTRACT
2. HEY, YOU SENIOR GUYS HAVE HAD A LOT OF GOOD YEARS, BE A SPORT AND AGREE TO LOWER HOURS, (that’s really not a concession you know).
3.CRAP, THOSE CONCESSIONS WE GAVE EM WHEN THIS STARTED WERE REALLY A BAD IDEA, WERE GONNA GET EM ON THE NEXT CONTRACT!
And for whomever said the contract wasn’t constructed to account for a downturn like this; there have always been downturns and furlough threats, since de-regulation. That is one reason the MPG exists. This one is just of a different nature. SS,DD.
just so we’re very clear, saying that some guys NEED the money (closer to retirement, bankruptcy, stolen pensions, etc) is EXACTLY the kind of stuff scabs espouse about crossing the picket line. “Joe is a scab, but he’s a good guy... he had his reasons.” If you aren’t prepared to take a hit to help other United pilots, what right do you have to wear the pin? What if we struck?! Do older pilots get special protections because they have 2 ex-wives and a disabled kid? It sounds good on the surface, but that’s the road to scabdom
B: a forum is a place to discuss and refine your own ideas. It is ridiculous to think that we shouldn’t post our thoughts and look for input from others because the company might see that we aren’t in 100% lockstep with union leadership. That idea, if taken to its logical conclusion, is Orwellian to say the least.