The ability to use it with no additional cost of a doctor visit, probably $130 a year. Time and hassle to complete.

Right on, it's an attempt to reduce sick leave. It's in all industries, MBA's drink from the same cup. This latest change will be measured, costed, rinse and repeated for the next contract.

Ok, I'm going to push the rope again. This literally almost made me quit this forum with how much shot I got from the entrenched mafia here. But here goes
How much are we willing to give up for pay rates
Every contract they want more
When do we draw the line?
It will always seem like small potatoes but when we look back over 3 contract cycles we are going to be like holeee fook imho

>>Thanks. As I thought, no erosion to any benefit.<<

Mister Karnak.

It sounds like we probably disagree on what constitutes an "erosion of any benefit".

CCN

I see NO erosion of the sick leave benefit. I never verified before, voluntarily or otherwise, and have no intention of doing so now.

If I have a bad sick year and end up having to verify, I'll shake my head at the silliness of it all and waste an hour of my day.

Even if this had been our sick policy forever, not once in 20 years would I have had to verify. Undoubtedly there will be a time when I will have to, and then I'll do it,needless hassle though it might be.

What's with all the angst? I can remember as a new hire getting ZERO sick leave my first six months, calling in sick because I had a nasty case of the flu that laid me out for a week... and just losing the money! Sorry, don't want those "good ol days."

No. I'm a generic line pilot.

I'm flattered that you've been reading. I'm also concerned that you haven't been reading for comprehension. If you'd like to make me the subject of discussion, you could start a thread.

Seated, watching SportsCenter. And "no" to the first question.

A comment on the actual topic? It's a good first step!

I don't see verification requirements as an erosion of the benefit. As I've posted on this thread, I think it's an attempt to make that process a pain in the butt for some. I don't think it'll work.

That's my perspective. Your's might be different. That's a good thing. The ad hominem stuff in your post is not a good thing. Ironic that you cited "grown-ups" in your post, eh?

Ok, that's cool. And it's "Captain Karnak", which is what I make my kids call me. ;)

I concede the convenience of the full package is somewhat decreased by the verification terms, but the value of the benefit has not decreased. I believe it's important to keep the facts straight because I think the company will make this an issue in our next section 6.

The company touts statistics about usage. Even if they're accurate, I don't see the new verification requirements having much impact. They couldn't reduce their liability (our accruals and access), so they sought to change the hassle factor. We don't demand the company move us from a great hotel just because every 10th time we've stayed there our room key didn't work.

Assuming the triggering event didn't involve a visit to a QHCP on its own?

If we're making assumptions or estimates, what percentage of pilots will experience a triggering event...and what percentage of those do you think will not involve a visit to a QHCP without direction from the CPO?

Concur on the "time and hassle".

This would have been my situation based on last years usage. The "no erosion" is completely ridiculous. The language would have never changed if there was no erosion. Is it a small trade for you? Probably, but it took us one more step down the concessionary road. Over time this will have a cumulative impact for sure. Why else would the company want it? The ability to use a contractual benefit is just as important as the dollar value of the benefit.

Record profits and we gave concessions. (small ones in your opinion, I get that) And in return we have the industry leading contract? :rolleyes: (not when evaluated by QOL or retirement, that's my opinion) Pay is not even industry leading. :confused:

This is all theoretical and AFAIK untested. The real issue is what happens when they're going after someone because of their sick use, and the only note the person can get is a "nothing is wrong with this person at this time". Then what?

Are we 100% sure there's nothing they can do about that? If so, where is it written, and/or where are the test case/precedents to prove it?