It's the principle of it with sick. In the past 3 years I've used a grand total of 40 sick hours...but I'm still against the archaic language. We need either voluntary verification back or kill the rolling 12 month and have it reset on DOH. The way it's written it's too easy to use legit sick calls then be required to go to the doctor for a note for a head cold. Voluntary verification eliminates that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with that.

For me, it's not a question of whether to call in sick or not. If I'm sick, I will call in. It's also not a question of amount of sick leave available. I think its adequate.

The problem is with the sick leave policy that requires a doctor visit when one is not necessary. Example: I had an issue back in March that I used 75 hrs of SL. That took me over the top of 100 hours and I now have to get a QHCP note to use SL even if I only have a cold. I think this note/verification requirement is hogwash (substitute a word that begins with B and ends with T).

If the company thinks there area abusers, then go after them not the rest of us. They have no problem figuring out who was not around for their short call periods, I would think they could figure this one out as easily.

Denny

I'm with you, Denny. Get diagnosed with DVT (not uncommon in our profession) which doesn't require a hospital admission nor is it a broken major bone so you miss out on the exceptions but it does pull your FAA Class I for 2-3 months so now you are into seeing an MD (not merely a QHCP) for verification of a sinus infection. Seems pretty stupid in light of having to jump through hoops with the FAA (and then get past Dr. Faulkner) for approval to come off sick leave and regain your Class I.

The company tried, and the union backed them up. So now we all wear diapers.

Did the company fire the sick time abusers like they did the SC abusers? And then the union got them their jobs back?

Yes- we need to be able to once again provide a doctor’s note for the big items BEFORE we hit 100 hrs sick, so we can call in sick for the colds and sinus stuff without the need for a note...

The company stated their motivation to tighten down sick leave was excessive risk. If they have better visibility into developing pinch points because pilots are more willing to throw down with a sick status while on reserve (should we get sick-if-needed), it seems like everyone wins!

The lookback on sick leave is confusing, and I think deliberately so.

When you have a cold, but you don’t want to figure out if you need to verify, or if it will put you into the verification window, and you don’t really think it’s worth a trip to the doctor for something some sleep and chicken soup will cure. You probably shouldn’t work, but you know you can function.

So, you just decide to go work, to avoid hassle either now or later.

I think it’s been pretty well designed for that.

One of the big issues that they eliminated was pilots calling in sick to create enough overhead in block hours flown to be able to turn around and then pick up a green slip. Especially during the usually " critically manned" summer months!!!!!!. Naw. Nobody would ever do that, we are professional pilots, by God, with the highest standards..... Right, the company wastes negotiating capital jousting at Quiotiesque windmills....how dare I insinuate that anyone would do anything unethical or for reasons that line their pockets......???????
Well, not now since you go to the bottom of the list for GS.... unless of course you happen to be an A350 capt where they are giving out GSWC

It’s quite simple actually.

100 hours without verification in the previous 12 months. The current look back is posted to the minute on icrew.

If you have used 99:59 hours and call out sick for a 32 hour 5-day trip, you still don’t have to verify even though you’re at 131:59.

If following that sick call the next week you decide to call out sick you need to verify.

This!

So why didn't I see any of these ideas in the survey??. That was a biased survey because it only asked about a few narrow areas of the contract, with a huge emphasis on "don't you think a DB plan would be great?! ". I will vote for improving SC long before I vote to be on the hook for a DB plan that I'll likely never see myself. I already contribute plenty to social security that similarly will likely never last for my retirement.

Ummmmmmm....."Ready, FIRE, Aim!" comes to mind. I think the accompanying emailed DALPA guidance called it: "Contract Survey Part I: Retirement & Insurance." I'm going to infer that there are a few more surveys coming on other areas of the PWA in the future.

You do understand they are breaking the survey up into sections and will get to scheduling in another survey. Right?
This was the retirement and insurance survey.

Have you volunteered to do some ALPA work? This would be a much easier read than the current Section 14, which runs 12 pages long. As much as I'd love for sick leave/use/verification to be as simple as you state, it isn't. Corner cases abound, and a pilot often needs to determine if he or she falls into one...or will at a future point when contemplating sick use in the future.
Case in point, I wouldn't be required to verify in your example because in the previous two years, I didn't use more than 50 hours. As you might imagine, I'm okay with the increased complexity that particular carve-out creates since it could completely absolve me of verifying some future sick event that uses all of my allocated sick leave.

Also, if that "next week" portion of your example causes a 33-hour sick event to fall off the front of a pilot's 12-bid-month lookback, the pilot still wouldn't need to verify. Your example also doesn't touch on the 160-hour threshold, previously verified events, partial trip sick-out, sick status declared after reserve trip assignment, (certain) bone breakage, etc...

We've got a pretty bright group of pilots...if some of them believe our sick policy to be overly complex, I don't begrudge them for it.

I haven't encountered many pilots who think the GS re:sick event change in the last contract was necessarily bad. I'm fine with it myself.

As far as the handling of sick and how it affects GS assignment... I talked to a 350 pilot who was told by a scheduler that he "went to the bottom of the list for 30 days after sicking out of a trip". Kind of scary to think schedulers can have that level of misunderstanding about our contract. I think/hope they don't manually create the GS list, though, so that person's misunderstanding hopefully doesn't actually affect anyone.

At some point I think (hope?) they'd have a condensed "whole contract" survey, because while these individual section surveys are great at getting to the heart of each section, eventually they need to know which sections overall we as a pilot group prioritize over others...

I'm not wholly familiar with the new sl/gs provision in the PWA. Does it basically state that you're last in line for a GS during the footprint of any trip that gets dropped due to sicking out?

No. Assume you are sick for a 4 day trip and then on day 5 you are well. Day 5 you attempt to GS a 4 day, it will send you to the bottom of the list if you would have been illegal for the GS if you had actually flown the trip.

I agree with just about all the comments previously about voluntary verification for things other than a broken bone etc, but I have a hard time getting fired up over somebody not getting a GS that they would not have been awarded in the first place. Great it we change it, but not a priority for me.

... as I understand it, all the "legal-checking" logic applies, including 30 in 7 et al.

This was a demand from the company because of the extensive use of tactical sickouts by a small minority of pilots.

Correct. This was actually a good change. A different DAL Pilot will still get the GS, but it prevents guys from working the system to get green-slips that they would have been illegal for. Finally if the company has no one to fly the GS, the Pilot who called in sick will get the GS - he just can't jump in front of fellow Pilots anymore. Total win for the Pilot group.


Scoop

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. The "ready fire aim" response to me was definitely applicable too - made me laugh. I guess this is probably the most sensitive and potentially divisive issue so it's getting some early focus - fair enough.

It’s funny that trying to provide all pilots with a roughly equal retirement is divisive. The senior pilots did the right thing for the junior guys during the bankruptcy era by using a targeted DC plan, plusing up all pilots to a 205,000 FAE and providing a minimum length of service credit. Now that the DC contribution has soared and those junior pilots look to have a much better retirement than senior guys they don’t seem to want to reciprocate.

My worry with sick stuff is more about the erosion of Qol rules in the company favor. Last contract it was 100 hours, next it will be 75 hours, and in 15 years we may find 100% verification all the time. I truly believe this is a probability.
When will we stop allowing them to change any rules in their favor? I understand that you have to give love to receive love, and I do not in any way begrudge the company their responsibility to cut costs. But I’d rather just match pay to the other majors and not lose one more wok rule while they are making billions(literally).IMO

Edit: I could see trading one set of work rules for another set. sort of a tit for tat. But on our dime, not thiers

It's "divisive" because the potential difference between what one TRIES to do and what actually HAPPENS is colossal. If I were 61, I'd be VERY interested in a retirement that could pay me 100k/yr or more starting before the next contract expires... I'd even trade in all of my DC for the next 4 years to make that happen. But since I'm in my forties, I don't trust management, DALPA, bankruptcy courts, arbitrators, mediators, politicians or negotiators to ensure anything like that lasts for two decades (when I retire) ...much less four decades (when I still may be alive).

Older folks simply have much less risk in negotiating for not-in-their-name retirement benefits when many of them will be dead in 10-20 years (roughly 75% chance of living to 80 if they're 60 now). I don't hold anything against them and am certainly not surprised different demographics have different needs and wishes. I don't call that divisive, I call that a difference in priorities.

^^^this

Decades of future market/industry risk make it impossible to say that today’s “young” pilots are getting a better deal with DC.

Attempting to make the 2 sides equal (based on a plethora of unprovable assumptions) is begging for each side to retract to their corner, and puts us right where the company wants us: divided.

The only way I see widespread support for an alternative plan is:

1. It is available to ALL pilots. Attempting to pick favored, or most damaged segments, of the pilot group is bound for continued discord like we’re seeing in this thread’s small microcosm or the overall group

And/Or

2. Provide 2 options. Option A is a straight increase of DC, while option B could be some hybrid annuity monster (or whatever it is that you guys are so hung up on getting). Everyone gets to pick which door they want to walk through, and forever hold their peas. Basically put your money where your mouth is ala DPMA - once a career election.

I don’t want anything to do with a plan that stores a benefit with the company instead of my own name. For that type of risk, the expected return should be high. I don’t see an annuity or DB being able to provide anything reasonably close to make the risk worth the promised reward.

Just show us the DC CASH, let us pay the taxes, and invest it how we see fit. No promises to be broken later.

Are you saying that pilots are so weak/scared that they'd just go to work sick rather than call in sick? If so, that's pretty sad. If I'm sick, I call in sick, I don't think twice about it. That said, I don't necessarily agree with the sick leave verification, though I don't see it as a huge deal. I can call in sick for nearly two months and not have to verify...not many places out there can do that. My sister is in the business world for fortune 100 company and has to provide a note for anything over 2 days.

Then you would not mind if they went back to a targeted DC plan increasing the percentage for older pilots substantially? Solves all the issues you point out.
The other option is to fund a annuity or DB plan for the pilots who will see a below average retirement. It would not impact the younger pilots in any way other than using more negotiating capital to one group.

This is the problem. Options will not work. Say for example everyone over 60 chooses the DB vice an increased DC - not enough coin to pay for a DB. Of course a 64 year old will forgo a DC increase or even his total DC for a DB - he is only losing 1 years worth of DC for many years of DB.


The only way to pay for a straight DB/hybrid annuity monster is to secure a long term funding source not a few guys giving up a few years worth of DC.


FWIW I did see one suggested plan on Chit Chat that did have potential - it gave guys an option and would only pay out a nominal amount for 5 years - a bridge to 70 to let guys increase their PGBC and SS payouts by deferring them. Of course this plan was promptly attacked on all sides. The more outspoken older guys thought it was too little - so they will hold out for a more lucrative plan and end up with nothing. The younger guys didn't seem to like it either - although it was voluntary and didn't seem like it would affect them negatively at all.


Bottom line - A plan to rob Peter to pay Paul will probably never pass the Pilot group. And if fairness is the issue how do we compensate the guys already retired? They have no 401K to contribute?


IMHO we are better off with improvements we all benefit from: Retiree medical, HSA being topped off, increased DC etc.



Scoop

Exactly. I wish we didn’t have to verify, but it if I am truly sick enough that I shouldn’t be at work (after already being out for more than a month of flying in the past 12 months) am I really going to fly/drive to work, get in the employee bus and all the other crap involved with a 4 day trip instead of going to my doc or “doc in the box?”

I’ll take option B.

Agree with the we are all better off with improvements we all benefit from. The medical/HSA doesn’t do this for the many on our list with tricare or for those who utilize spouse insurance. Can agree on increasing DC. Or just more $$ we all can spend instead of dividing us via special interests. QOL items, vacation, training pay are areas for improvement nearly everyone can get onboard for. And so is money. Each pilot can prioritize his/her money however they want to spend, save or invest.

My frustration is that because I had surgery last year, and used 106 hours, any sick leave usage for the next 12 months requires a doctors note.

Do know what a Doctor thinks when you're trying to explain why you need a doctor's note for a sinus block? They are literally rolling their eyes... and with little kids, they bring home lots of viruses from school.

I understand some of the company's concerns, but I think that certain things (like surgery, in patient or not, cancer treatment, all broken bones, etc) should be removed from the 12 month look back when you're provided verification.

Or any event which causes you to lose your Class I and have to go through hoops with the FAA to get a special issuance and get Dr. Faulkner's approval to return from sick leave.

Read the contract sec 14. If you qualify for disability - you don't have to take it - key word qualify, the 100 hour resets. Who on cancer treatment isn't going to qualify?

95% of broken bones and hospital admission for an acute condition can be verified at your option and wont count towards the 100 hours. I think broken fingers, toes, and like 3 bones in your inner ear are the ones not considered "major".

If you're at 106 hours, you have the incredible burden of going to a QHCP, ie Walgreens nurse, if you get a cold and if it happens to fall on days on where you call out sick.

By the way, if you used less than 50 hours sick the last 2 years, no sick hours are subject to verification.

This is so minor of a burden, especially compared to my friends that live in the cubicle world, outside of aviation.

Just like C2012, you still get paid if you're sick!!!

But I need to be able to call in sick via the app so I don’t have to call a human. That burden just makes people fly sick!

https://media0.giphy.com/media/k61nOBRRBMxva/giphy.gif

I'm just a little annoyed that I had surgery and had an internal organ removed from my body and that doesn't count. And when I asked my Chief Pilot what a QHCP note meant, they had NO idea. He spouted off the "if you have more than 100 hrs but not 160..." So I went to my regular doctor so I wouldn't make a mistake and get the wrong kind of note.

I'm not trying to get away with calling in sick when I'm not - I'm annoyed that my actual sickness now require a note for sicknesses than a normal person just goes to work, but because I'm a pilot I can't. And then the doctor thinks I'm being a pain, and I'm on the hook for the cost of it too.

You can get reimbursed for the QHCP verification (greater than 100 but less than 160) under 14.F.5.
Of course, if you exceed 160 hours and require MD-only verification then there is no express reimbursement option. Awesome cutout.

I asked my Doc if writing notes was uncommon. She said not at all, I write them all the time. I'm not defending the note, just pointing out that it's not as uncommon as people let on. I do think the "if this, then that" is beyond stupid though. Any medical professional should work wrt a sick note.

Actually that would be nice to have, and wouldn't cost much to implement. I can call a number, and never talk to a person to deviate DH...why can't I do the same for calling in sick?

I suspect the company thinks sick calls would go up.