Gunfighter

Both are bad, but my money is in the former. In a previous life/industry I was given formal anti-union training by one of the leading union busting law firms in the country. Our historical performance indicates we have a competent management team. From what I recall of the training, they seem to be following the playbook and have evolved some of the tactics. On the bright side, competent union busting management is better than inept leaders who run the place into the dirt.

WIPilot

not if union busting becomes a blind vendetta like it seems Delta has become

tunes

every other employee group has them now if they are over the age of 60....

sailingfun

I responded directly to this statement. “That's fair, but if they can offer long term leaves for non cons why can't they offer them to pilots?”
Can you explain what you think that means?

Chakerik

If you look at the context I am fairly confident you knew *paid* leaves were what was being referred to. A la sils...

sailingfun

They are not offering paid leaves to other employees with the exception of medical leaves for high risk employees. They recently changed how they define high risk and tightened up that program substantially.

D B Cooper

Since it was my statement,. They offered 60% pay for anyone considered high risk, by the CDC or Mayo clinic definition. My point was this wasn't offered, are you going to tell me we don't have pilots here that are considered high risk?

sailingfun

I am sure we have some. There are however obvious issues with pilots holding a medical. The required retirement age of 65 also comes into play. The program has two parts for non cons. Part one is for those over 70. Part two is for those age 60 to 70. Only part two would apply to pilots. In order to qualify you need to have at least one of the following, a BMI over 40, renal disease, liver disease, lung disease, immune compromised system, autoimmune conditions or neurological problems. I would say that with very few exceptions pilots who might qualify For the non con program can go out on a medical and get a much better benefit via our excellent disability program.

beis77

If the under means no SILs (of any length), then I’d take the under. Simple reason being that they don’t need to. They reached their target cost savings via the VEOP and the the soon to be furloughs. The high take rate of the VEOP is great, and hats off to the folks that took it. One side effect of the take rate being so high is that it allows the company to cut down to their true target without having to reconfigure the RJs. BS’s May email eluded as much, when he wrote their pilots required for Q3 2021 is 9400, yet they stopped cutting at Dec 2016 for the 10,069 number, based on contractual constraints. The high VEOP take rate allows them to get down to 9450 without having those Dec 2016 constraints, so now management has everything they’ve wanted all along and our leverage is gone. If we want to save the 1941, management is putting the onus on pilots to do it, which based on the MEC memo yesterday, isn’t going to happen. No judgement here, I support DALPA. I’m just saying that the company will achieve their cost savings goal with or without our participation, due to the large VEOP take rate; so they don’t really have an incentive to offer SILs and risk the potential fallout with the non-cons. Just my opinion and I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see SILs happening; EB seems diametrically opposed to them.

Gooner

Judging from some of the insanity on the political/mask thread, many would qualify.