Originally Posted by LoFly (Post 3116135)

V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y
they can offer 0 hours leaves, who cares!

Originally Posted by KC135 (Post 3116150)

Those possibly getting furloughed or downgraded also care. More would take a fair industry average offer of 50 hours, which could save some jobs.

Originally Posted by LoFly (Post 3116159)

Absolutely. The more hours the better, as long as it's voluntary. The less hours, the less people will take it. And they will have to furlough deeper. When comparable ulcc didn't. Good luck with future hiring after that.
oh btw, I'm on the furlough list.

Originally Posted by KC135 (Post 3116150)

Those possibly getting furloughed or downgraded also care. More would take a fair industry average offer of 50 hours, which could save some jobs.

Originally Posted by Losamigos (Post 3116166)

I am too. The company already wouldn't bite on the union's ETO offer though. What will it take?

Originally Posted by captnate702 (Post 3116186)

The Company rejected the union's ETO offer that had a full no furlough clause. What we are talking about here and what is industry standard is a furlough mitigation agreement. Try to reduce the number of furloughed pilots via voluntary participation in an extended leave program for 45-50 hrs (get out of here with 35 hours...looking at you Indigo/F9).

Based on the video from Vegas, the union's offer was tied to complete no furlough commitment, not furlough mitigation - that's a big distinction. All the agreements getting done are based on furlough mitigation, and my two cents is that an agreement with a full no furlough clause is not at all realistic.

Originally Posted by captnate702 (Post 3115953)

That's total garbage. When mass furloughs are on the line during the biggest catastrophe in the history of our industry, the priority has to be protecting jobs. That is the most fundamental reason for having organized labor and paying dues. Protecting jobs must always get a free pass to the front of the line. If you get terminated, does your termination case have to go to the back of the line so the "prior outstanding issues needing addressed first" can get resolved? H#ll no. What we are talking about here is potentially 10-20% of our dues paying members being kicked to the street. Saving their jobs has to be the priority. I don't think you really meant what you wrote: that avoiding furloughs cannot be addressed until the other arbitrations (what was the recent one, VFN arbitration right) can be resolved. That's not word for word what you wrote, but that is what you are saying and that is garbage if you truly believe that. Comparing a VFN arbitration to protecting 100 jobs and keeping 100 members off the street then you don't the first thing about what strong organized labor groups are built on.

Having said that, I totally get the extreme skepticism by our pilot group with management, but its not like our plight has been that much worse than Spirit's. Spirit spent basically the same amount of time getting their contract and had to fight tooth and nail. Or, look at Frontier. Management got huge concessions during the recession and did avoid bankruptcy, but then it took Frontier years to get management to agree to a competitive contract. I think Spirit and Frontier got something done because both parties wanted to avoid furloughs and were willing to negotiate even though there were a litany of other things that they could not agree on. Spirit was able to avoid furloughs altogether. Frontier has yet to be seen (tho I'd be shocked if they got to the poiint where they avoid furloughs altogether). These are telling examples that should be scrutinized.

If I'm a Frontier CA and my line guarantee is 35hrs on leave compared to 50 at Spirit, am I gonna be super frustrated? Of course. But agreeing to voluntary furlough mitigation endeavors is better than nothing imo. I've said it before, I wish there was a 50hr leave option (even 45hrs would do) that I could bid for to help reduce our junior members from hitting the street. One CA on a reduced line like that can save a first or second year FO (of which we have a lot of) from getting furloughed.

Basically, their livelihood has to take priority over the CBA fights we are having (of which there are plenty and I am not minimizing them - HDMWD anyone???). But these junior pilots pay dues too and their jobs have to be the priority - even if it means compartmentalizing all of the scheduling violations the company routinely hits us with and hammering out a furlough mitigation agreement.

Originally Posted by captnate702 (Post 3116186)

The Company rejected the union's ETO offer that had a full no furlough clause. What we are talking about here and what is industry standard is a furlough mitigation agreement. Try to reduce the number of furloughed pilots via voluntary participation in an extended leave program for 45-50 hrs (get out of here with 35 hours...looking at you Indigo/F9).

Based on the video from Vegas, the union's offer was tied to complete no furlough commitment, not furlough mitigation - that's a big distinction. All the agreements getting done are based on furlough mitigation, and my two cents is that an agreement with a full no furlough clause is not at all realistic.

Originally Posted by tom11011 (Post 3116207)

Are you an airline pilot on the Allegiant seniority list? (second request)