Originally Posted by
Nightflyer
All I can hope for is a 100% survey of the crew force. Anything less is unacceptable.
I hope that all pilots will take the time to submit a survey when it’s published, but I doubt all of them will take it. I would be surprised if 80% complete it.
Originally Posted by
PolicyWonk
And since you have access to a remarkable amount of information, what is our average lifespan after we retire? And how should that inform our per diem rates? Stated differently, is there any relationship between the number of hours we fly, and our longevity? Should our per diem be based on the price of a meal, or how much we decrease our life span for having exposed ourselves to the increased radiation of the cosmos while at altitude flying to that meal?
I will gain nothing from an increase in retirement benefits or per diem rates or any other proviso in the next contract. But I think the per diem rates should be doubled at a bare minimum. What say you? And why and how do you arrive at your conclusion? If you choose the path of least resistance, we, the rickshaw wallahs will not benefit one iota. But if you increase hourly pay rates, solely, magically, ALPA becomes a beneficiary also. Should we allow ALPA a cut of our per diem so they are encouraged to fight for it at long last? Should we allow them a cut of our retirement so they fight for it at last?
On one of the recent podcasts, the NC chairman said they looked at the data and it didn’t support the notion that our pilots die at a rate that is different than the actuarial data of the population at large.