Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3131201)

Can you explain the screw around with schedules part?

Originally Posted by crewdawg (Post 3131215)

Some guys just don't want to lose that pay, even if it means letting other not work and get paid, while they do it. Delta definitely sits on a high horse wrt tlo some of this stuff...which is why they have the views that they do wrt mloa.

As mentioned above, the reserves will be working the same amount of days for 15% less, so I'm not sure about the "working less, not working for less..."

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 3131204)

I agree 100% it is an honorable solution. It was honorable to take a voluntary 32% pay cut to avoid BK. How did that work out? Pilot don't trust management. This is learned behavior. We lived it.

The problem isn't unethical Pilots the problem is unethical management. No Pilot in their right mind who has been through this before and burned wants to be burned again.

Like I have said before and will repeat ad nauseam - If we had a Herb Kelleher type CEO, I would be all over it.

Scoop

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3131219)

Even if they kept the same number of days on call the amount of actually flying a reserve could contractually be used would be reduced by the ALV reduction. With the planned staffing levels reserve utilization is not going to be high and given pilot posts here and in reality, line holders will be picking up a lot of open time further reducing reserve utilization.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3131219)

I have seen nothing however that indicates we could not negotiate a reduction in on call days with a ALV reduction.

Originally Posted by GucciBoy (Post 3131216)

The company wanted to target the ALV cuts, i.e. not cut everyone’s ALV the same amount. They wanted to slash WB ALVs while in the same bid period max out NB ALVs. This is a lose/lose. WB pilots would receive less pay for the same QOL, and NB pilots would receive the same pay for a lower QOL. Every time you make the ALV cut argument as a QOL win, you ignore that the company was unwilling to impose a list-wide ALV cut with a corresponding reduction in on-call obligations for reserves.

Originally Posted by LandGreen2 (Post 3131235)

I still think that if the company wants to cut ALV; fine, make it a LOA (or TA) that makes it permanent. When revenue/traffic returns and the company wants to go back to high productivity, they can negotiate with Dalpa and make it a part of a whole new PWA. Seems simple, what am I missing?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3131237)

The company can simply furlough and get a greater cost savings.

Originally Posted by StartngOvr (Post 3131156)

So, the JL memo states “we in good faith committed to reduce the number of pilots at risk of furlough by 220”. There’s no other qualifier or context. Clearly the intended message conveyed is more “permanent” furlough protection. The ALPA comm stated this number is only protected through January.

Somebody is lying. Either JL is lying by omission, or ALPA by overtly stating false information. In this case, I’m inclined to believe ALPA’s version of the truth. Company is simply offering three more months for a handful of pilots. Really it’s just to help themselves with their training crunch and being able to staff the A220 through the holidays. Once they got what they needed out of these guys they will cut them loose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3131249)

January and February are the historic lulls so January is a good time to put 220 back on the table if the booking for summer don't pick up. This is a tactical extension to buy time through the holidays and to measure next summer's demand.