View Single Post
Old 10-29-2025 | 11:50 AM
  #77  
Steve Crewdog
On Reserve
 
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 103
Likes: 5
Default

Originally Posted by dmeg13021
Your example is good, but omits the fact that your sick bank is now back up to 230.
I'm not sure where you're getting that your sick bank is now back up to 230 hours.

You start with 200 in January 1. YOu accumulate 5 hours/month. On July 1 you have 230 hours. Let’s say that in July you call in with a Mental Health Sick Day and use 30 hours. Sick bank goes back down to 200. Accumulate 5 hours/month. On January 1 of the following year it's back up to 230. [goto:top. repeat:routine Mental Health Sick Call]




Originally Posted by dmeg13021
I don't like the provision either, but the company apparently was tired of senior dudes cashing in their sick banks through pickups then sick drops. We can try to negotiate it back, but it's going to cost something.
You forgot to say "Ok, Boomer."

I forgot what the effective date of TA-2 was, but about 70% of our hires are post-Merger, and I've heard that as much as 60% of our pilots, if not more, have been hired in the last 5 years. So my personal guesstimate is that the “senior dudes” (and dudettes) were a minority of the pilot group at date of signing. And of that small group of senior pilots, the percentage using/abusing/exploiting the loophole was an even smaller minority of the pilot group at DOS.

Some of the senior pilots had already been out on LTD and were trying to build their banks back up. Some of them felt it was morally wrong to use the loophole. Some didn’t even know about it. And some were Marvin Mainliners, they were going to come in sick no matter what because they personally felt like they had to keep the company afloat and it would all collapse without them.

So let’s be honest about what closing this loophole was about: it wasn’t about stopping the FOGs as they flew off into the sunset, it was about closing the loophole for the 60-70% of the FNGs who had been hired since the merger and were going to be under this contract for the next 7-10 years, and keeping them from using it.

Which is why I voted NO.
Reply