Originally Posted by Herkflyr

This is the easiest yes vote I've ever had to contemplate. Easier than TA2. And, every time you spell "company" as "kompany" an angel loses her wings.

This thing is damn near identical in approach to the VEOP--you know, the thing that kept you on the property longer than even you supposed (and it wasn't even built to do that!).

Like the VEOP, these measures are 100% voluntary. Not one pilot on the seniority list will be compelled to bid one, just like not one pilot was compelled to take the VEOP. "Albatross around our neck?" Hardly.

Like the VEOP, I think these measures will be popular, if they are offered. And if they are not offered, then the no voters can breathe easy can't they?

As a side benefit, some of the money saved may mitigate furloughs--just like the VEOP did, even though that was never the intent with the VEOP in the first place. It is in fact possible to get a positive net gain outside of the strictest contractual language (like "metrics! we need metrics!"). The company has crunched some numbers and have said "220 pilots get a two month extension on the payroll, if nothing else." Who knows? Maybe in two months those pilots get furloughed and the company terminates the program (as they and WE have the right to do) and that's all she wrote for LOA 23. Perhaps the program, like the VEOP, will be unexpectedly successful, more furloughs beyond 220 are averted and the program is enhanced. Either scenario could happen, but likely it will be something far between those two extremes.

Look, if we vote this down, I'll just shrug my shoulders and go on living my life and flying my schedule as before. I won't mutter about it, nor hold anything against anyone voting no. I'm personally not affected (23 years on the property) but if the voluntary ULCs are offered, I'll take one. I just see this as an easy Yes and don't understand the negativity. If everything ever negotiated is an automatic "the sky is falling" hysterical NO, then you're just the boy who cried wolf.

There'll be plenty of reasons to vote no in future times. I don't see it here.