Originally Posted by TED74

Are you floating a 5% dues increase or adding 5% to the existing 1.85%? I think you actually mean to increase ALPA dues by almost 300%. Some of those rampers are going to hear we just added about a $1,000/month assessment to union dues and offset some of that union excitement.

My job is not to convince anyone about the merits of a union. Frankly, our FAs are going to compare their situation to FAs at UAL and AA, not to ours. I'd wager that the folks on the bottom actually feel pretty good about the management team that just promised not to furlough them when their peers hired as far back as 2000 at UAL (when many of ours were literally in diapers) could be on the street 1 Oct.

Many folks are going to do just fine during furlough. Stay at home moms and dads whose spouse does well at their job or even has more time to plus up their own income to get the family right back where they were. Retired O-5s and O-6s with sizable pensions, free GI Bill college for their kiddo and a government contractor side gig. Entrepreneurs with stable income elsewhere and health care funded by their union.

I'd rather have those who are really struggling apply for financial assistance. Everyone won't need it, so let's get the dollars flowing where they are needed. I've already donated to ALPA's fund for this purpose, and if people want to spend $1,000/ month of their own family COVID budget to do the same, they certainly can. VEOPers could do the same if they feel so moved.

I also think the A to B carve out in your proposal is a little odd. What's the purpose? Just because someone had a high water mark a little higher than mine, they needn't contribute? Plenty of my classmates took early opportunities to A positions while I prioritized QOL and seniority... and now my lower income starting point pre-MOAD obligates me to a record-setting dues assessment the other guy doesn't have because he used to make more money? Does being absolved of guilt for GS flying still extend to these exempt pilots?

Assuming you can easily determine which families do or do not have "financial wiggle room" seems pretty dangerous. We can all make judgements about where folks SHOULD be re:income vs. expenditures, but you never easily know. I don't have a dollar coming my way from poor, unhealthy aging parents and step-parents, so I save for my end years and theirs. On the other side, I have friends with $5M inheritance heading their way in the not-too-distant future from parents with long term care insurance funding their own care. I also happen to have education benefits for my kids, a reserve retirement someday, and a spouse who worked her a$$ off (and still does) to produce income...albeit at the significant expense of being away from her kids. I say all of that because I think anything we do, we do together. We're either all in, or all out - just like we all work under the same PWA. I personally think certain versions of ALV reduction (uniform, across all categories, long term or permanent that actually keep everyone working) are far more palatable than your proposal. Let's hope negotiations produce some results.

I don't see there being much enthusiasm for the plan you propose, but appreciate your creativity trying to problem solve for soon-to-be struggling brothers and sisters.