Quote:
There are quite a lot of pilots here that like the "accrual" method we use better than the method DL uses.
I'd argue that using the UAL current system, close to 100% agree that if we keep the current model at UAL, the accrual amount needs to increase significantly. Some would like to see it tied to block time. Should a pilot with a 90 hr line get the same accrual of sick time as a pilot who is doing a 73 hr line? I'd argue that having a min accrual per month is necessary, but if a LH reserve goes over a set number, that accrual should increase.
There's also an argument to keep the current model, but put in some "caveat's" that would trigger immediately for certain life events like cancer, broken limb, major surgeries, on-the job injuries, etc.
Is this the sword you're willing to fall on for the next year or two to get another TA? Note our culture here at United. DL didn't get everything we have. We still have better protections on trip integrity and FC DH. We have to realize that the company is looking at the numbers and they are doing a demographic of who will vote yes/no on these items. How many of those 2500 hired last year are worried about a total overhaul of sick leave or rather have more retirement $$ or another few % of pay?
The reality is the solution is much more difficult when you look at the demographics. If we were all newhires with 0 sick bank starting out or those that just drained their SL, it's easy to see DLs method is "better", but how do you account for the transition from current to DLs method. If you figure out a solution to that problem, that's the only way you'll see a method similar to DLs at UAL.
This is a fairly insightful post. Whether you like the DAL system or the UAL (and arguably more common) system really depends on your circumstance.Originally Posted by Zoomie
IMO, I will say that those on forums that are adamant that DL sick leave is "better" need to talk to their fellow pilots at UAL. I'd say straw poll asking other pilots, we're split 50/50 on it, but have no access to actual data. Maybe more pilots would prefer the DL method, but we'll never know that data. I'll also say UAL ALPA hasn't educated everyone on the options out there in the industry, so most pilots don't even know details of the DL sick leave model. I'd say 100% of those that consider transitioning to the DL method "need" to get a "pay out" of the current method to transition (how do you feel about those 1000 hr sick bank guys getting a $200-300k payout and you getting next to nothing when you have only accrued 250 hrs of banked Sick leave?). That's the companies prerogative, but the data shows most of those guys will hit retirement with those hours intact and are using it as an insurance policy.There are quite a lot of pilots here that like the "accrual" method we use better than the method DL uses.
I'd argue that using the UAL current system, close to 100% agree that if we keep the current model at UAL, the accrual amount needs to increase significantly. Some would like to see it tied to block time. Should a pilot with a 90 hr line get the same accrual of sick time as a pilot who is doing a 73 hr line? I'd argue that having a min accrual per month is necessary, but if a LH reserve goes over a set number, that accrual should increase.
There's also an argument to keep the current model, but put in some "caveat's" that would trigger immediately for certain life events like cancer, broken limb, major surgeries, on-the job injuries, etc.
Is this the sword you're willing to fall on for the next year or two to get another TA? Note our culture here at United. DL didn't get everything we have. We still have better protections on trip integrity and FC DH. We have to realize that the company is looking at the numbers and they are doing a demographic of who will vote yes/no on these items. How many of those 2500 hired last year are worried about a total overhaul of sick leave or rather have more retirement $$ or another few % of pay?
The reality is the solution is much more difficult when you look at the demographics. If we were all newhires with 0 sick bank starting out or those that just drained their SL, it's easy to see DLs method is "better", but how do you account for the transition from current to DLs method. If you figure out a solution to that problem, that's the only way you'll see a method similar to DLs at UAL.
Carryover style sick banks are a leftover from pre-bankruptcy, when accrual rates were much higher. For instance, pre-bankruptcy at NWA, you accrued 5 hours a month, plus another 7 if you did not call in sick that month. Under typical circumstances, lets say you called in sick twice a year for 2 3 day trips that paid 16 hours. So that is 5x12, 7x10, and minus 32, which nets you 98 hours per year. After 3 years, you would have more than the highest accrual at DAL (the 270 is incremental as you gain longevity, something which is sometimes missed). After 10 years, you'd have a year's worth of sick leave (980 hours). There were many pilots at NWA that banks in excess of 2,000 hours as they approached retirement.
If you have a strong accrual, and are reasonably healthy, then accrual banks are the way to go. If you don't and aren't, then the lose it or use it with a big balance is better. If you have to go on disability, a large bank is usually enough to carry you over, negating the need to carry supplemental insurance. At DAL, there is a supplemental plan we pay into that covers 24 months of plus up to disability, so you're getting essentially full pay for up to 2 years. A more robust bank system negates the need for that.
An intangible that is sometimes missed, however, is how you are treated on disability vs sick leave. When you are on sick leave, you're on the payroll as an actual employee, and have active employee benefits. If you're on disability, you're not. at least at DAL.