Originally Posted by
TED74
The only offer made public was an uneven ALV reduction of UP TO 15 hours (could be 0 or 1), applied non-uniformly across categories. It was also to sunset in a year. The only way that plays out is with the company minimizing expenditures and jobs; the corollary would be the optimizer we've all gotten to know and love. Any actual benefit of an across-the-board and/or permanent ALV reduction (more jobs, better long-term QOL) would be completely negated under that model.
Permanent, uniform ALV reduction is not on the table. It simply doesn't benefit management in a meaningful way and would hamstring them in the recovery. I'd vote for it if it were offered...but it won't be.
The ALV dilemma has many sides and I get where some of you say lower ALV’s lead to a better QOL. Only if our base pay was higher, ALV would have to be raised by as much to offset. Because a lower ALV w/ more green slips is not an improvement of QOL and actually a big hit to QOL.
But in this particular example of lowering ALV by 15% unevenly across various or all fleets is very insidious and would’ve lead to pay cuts out of seniority. You can’t allow the company the ability to cut one fleet’s hours (pay) over another... especially the minimum ALV (min rsv/min block hours). That would be unjust and go against seniority.
If anyone thinks that a lower ALV would somehow lead to more pilots on property or more green slips for those on the fleets accepted are purely delusional. Delta is only shopping for this option to save money. That means on those fleets that would see lower ALV’s there’s not going to be much flying anyways, which means those pilots would’ve just taken at least a 15% pay reduction.
Under our current system, there is nothing worthwhile of a lower ALV. And I guarantee you that our past has shown that we will fly higher ALV’s and cover w/ green slips. That save lots of money on the overall manning document and to try to ever get it back is a waste of time.