same deal at f9. It’s going to be hard to get management to agree to lower alv below guarantee but I guess anything is possible. It really would serve no purpose. To either side.

 

I get that. Being on a grievance committee for years I have pretty thick skin. There is merit to being able to piggy back on each other’s agreements. For better or worse. For example, we got nk Covid sick and pay protection agreement memorialized in an Loa and it looks like Ual recent commuter policy Loa of only one flight as well. To this point it’s been win win on most of the barrage of LOAs coming our way. I’m expecting that to all change come October barring a vaccine tomorrow.

 

How is it a pay concession on the bottom end if we’re talking about pilots not being furloughed?

The whole point of ALV reductions would be to prevent job losses, and I would hope a “comprehensive” agreement between DL and ALPA would include language that nullifies the agreement if furloughs happen anyway.

Arguing top end QOL hit seems tone deaf to me considering the whole point of any of this is to prevent job losses by collectively absorbing the pain of lack of work.

 

Is me taking a 45% pay cut a “top end QOL hit?” Sailingfun, the main forum advocate for ALV cuts, is proposing an LOA that cuts my pay 45% and his 17%. I don’t think that qualifies as a plan that saves jobs by cutting top-end QOL.

 

You are trying to “spread the wealth” amongst the group in an effort to maintain employment. While this is a noble cause and in theory I agree with it, the circumstances are completely contrived. I have my doubts about guaranteed furlough protection. What happens when they need round 2 or they decide circumstances have changed? We have a furlough clause for a reason and during section 6 the debate always falls to not putting significant effort into this because it can’t be relied upon. Are we to rewrite our agreement for this circumstance when it occurs? Any down turn could result in a pressure tactic to adjust any part of the PWA.

Admittedly furlough is the ultimate sacrifice for those affected but the MOAD was designed for this very purpose. There is no ability to train consistently through the A220 and keep the fleet operating. This is high stakes poker to be sure but the bluff has been laid out over the last several months to the point we are already accepting all UNAs are furloughed and management will come after their furlough pay but need them back in less than 24 months. We are being played, well. IF furloughs happens it’s because we are right sizing the business for the time. What if the guess at size is wrong or a lie? Besides it’s terrible business to retain more workers than necessary. I have been right sized before (not here) and the company no longer exists. These folks have a seniority number and will be back in less than 2 years. Besides I haven’t seen any serious conversation about letting other work groups go, or layoffs elsewhere. I know this comes across as heartless and pulling up the ladder but the bluff works unless we make them play their hand. My $.02.

 

How does it cut your pay 45%? If your displaced that happens with or perhaps without the LOA. The LOA will in fact eliminate a lot of displacements and reduce the length of others. I do get it however. Let someone else take far bigger cuts.

 

They don’t need to let other work groups go because they are reducing their hours. Sounds like you might think that’s a good concept.

 

he is a delta guy.

 

Nutting juicer than delta boys fighting over something b6 pilots got. Does anyone know where I put my popcorn?

 

“Let someone else take far bigger cuts?” Are you serious? I’m saying your proposal cuts your pay 17% while mine is cut 45% and you’re saying that I’m the only one arguing for a solution where someone takes “far bigger cuts?” Do they breathe oxygen on your home planet?

And my 45% cut is going from NB A at 83 hours/month to NB B at 60 hours/month. It’s pretty easy for you to advocate for an LOA where you’re only taking a 17% cut in hours at the same pay rate.