![]() |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2326776)
The verification doesn't require a pilot to be sick at the time, have symptoms, or a diagnosis.
Harm? |
Originally Posted by Dirtdiver
(Post 2327304)
The company expects a doctor to accept our word that we were sick 2 weeks ago, while they don't.
I don't think any of us see this as anything other than an attempt to create a hassle for us. The company wanted tougher language to help them manage an issue they don't seem to have the stones to fix themselves. Kudos to our negotiators, even as we gripe about the language we ended up with.
Originally Posted by Dirtdiver
(Post 2327304)
The note and expense of the doctor visit is just there to push us to fly if we're marginally sick.
On a sort of related note, I found a new segment of the pilot group who are a little more vulnerable: Instructors. I went through CQ not long ago, and my sim partner had full-on, runny-eyes, hacking cough, sneezing, "don't touch me, I fell terrible!", crud. His logic was that he was too sick to fly passengers, but not to sick to give the flu to our instructor. I marinaded my right hand in Purell, and wiped everything down frequently. The poor IP, though. |
Go buy a $6 bottle of NyQuil and show the receipt. Much cheaper
|
Originally Posted by asacimesp
(Post 2327425)
Go buy a $6 bottle of NyQuil and show the receipt. Much cheaper
|
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2327393)
On a sort of related note, I found a new segment of the pilot group who are a little more vulnerable: Instructors. I went through CQ not long ago, and my sim partner had full-on, runny-eyes, hacking cough, sneezing, "don't touch me, I fell terrible!", crud. His logic was that he was too sick to fly passengers, but not to sick to give the flu to our instructor. I marinaded my right hand in Purell, and wiped everything down frequently. The poor IP, though. |
Didn't we argue about all of this and vote on it a while back ;)
|
Originally Posted by qball
(Post 2327609)
Didn't we argue about all of this and vote on it a while back ;)
|
Originally Posted by Vincent Chase
(Post 2327664)
Umm, some of us didn't look at scope or sick leave. Most went directly to section 3.:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2326668)
My understanding is the company believed pilots were submitting voluntary verification at points during the year that were convenient for them, resulting in higher-than-average sick usage by those pilots.
What's the harm is waiting if/when you hit the 100 hour mark? Completely an debate for prior to signing a TA, obviously. One of a few reasons I voted no. |
Originally Posted by zippinbye
(Post 2328093)
Perhaps the pre-100 hour occcurances that required a doctor visit, and reporting such could alleviate the need to seek a doctor just for a "note." How many times under our recently-departed voluntary verification system did I have to slink into a care provider's office and grovel for a junior high-esque attendance excuse, after the obvious symptoms had dissipated? Many, many. And the doctors or PAs thought it was B.S. every time; mainly B.S. on behalf of our employer, not me, that I'm aware of.
Completely an debate for prior to signing a TA, obviously. One of a few reasons I voted no. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands