Yep. There is value to that claim. Southwest likes to make the same claim about not furloughing. But they also gave out an assortment of 1/3/5 year SILs to help prevent furloughs.

United just delayed their furloughs till Oct 30 due to the pilot group voting on their TA. Obviously if the TA passes then those furlough notices would be completely recalled.

Don’t they just traditionally use them going season to season? Isn’t that what they have been pointing out?

It’s going to be hard to convince me that paying someone to not work is a meaningful way to help keep workers on the payroll. It also doesn’t seem like the fact that they negotiated the right to offer them, but decided not to, is reason for pitchforks and lifelong trust issues. The stuff that happened before and during the last bankruptcy would probably have me disillusioned and distrustful though.

If we still have ongoing negotiations I feel sure that Delta will also delay furloughs. Not because it is the right thing to do but because they will see it as a large group of yes votes if they can get the MEC to send their proposal to the group for memrat.

All this negotiating in public is to put pressure on the MEC to pass on their proposal for memrat. They know it will be a tough sell as it is but it will be an impossible sell if they have already furloughed.

You and sailing must live in the same city. Im curious what’s in the water.

The problem being is that this doesn't work. Because of the TA1 dumpster fire, the MEC changed the way agreements are handled. The MEC must approve any agreements and actually endorse them as "good to go" before it's sent to MEMRAT. It used to be just Section 6 TAs, but LOAs were added a few years ago.

I mean, sure, the MEC could just say they endorse an agreement, but if it turns to be a really bad deal, their name is on it, and it will be hung on the reps that voted for it like an albatross.

If anyone remembers, post-TA1, there was a mass of recalls with a variety of results. Some "yes" voters simply resigned vs face recall. Some faced recall, but were at the end of their term anyway and elected not to run again, so the net result was the same. Some went all the way and actually got recalled, which if memory serves were only Secretary/Treasurers, which had no vote anyway, but endorsed the deal. Point is that Reps endorsing what the pilots see as bad agreements have consequences.

The net result is that Reps are very cagey about putting their name on a bad agreement....which is a good thing, and shows the system works the way it should.

You're thinking about it wrong. They would be paying people less to not work. I've been bidding reserve and I've flown 8 days since the beginning of April. I de-qualled for 6 weeks. All the time they payed me 72 hours. I put in for the original SIL, they would have paid me 55 hours per month instead and still had enough reserve coverage.

It's paying people less to stay home.

Btw I'm not senior enough to hold reserve in October :(

He said it long before the VEOP and 777 retirements and they wanted it for this summer which has now passed. Completely different ball game now.

No I get that, I had 4 months off too. I’m saying that neither are a longer term viable solution. Delta has looked at this as lasting longer and so far they have been right. SW offered theirs around the same time they said they would be at full schedule by November. They have since cancelled that schedule build dramatically and I can’t imagine those guys are going to be on long term SILs for their duration. They are recallable to the month I believe.

As a shorter term solution they would have already saved at least some money by now, I agree with that. I just don’t think they are a real solution at this point and definitely not worth furloughing over, especially when another more meaningful and fair (Just my opinion obviously) solution does have a decent cost to the company attached to it, but also a more meaningful savings. Paying the VEOP guys out was less painful math because of the training savings I believe.

I know I’m in the minority on this, it’s just my unpopular opinion. Cheers

yes, reps....i believe they even published it in a comm, either the chairman or negotiators