Then you don't want to see the difference because the difference is huge.

GS = volunteer
IA = against your will

Now, you can have your critiques of both, but you are making assumptions to get to the point you are putting forth as actual fact. You do not have actual proof or a through analysis to verify your anecdotal conclusion. That being said, I agree that if a pilot willfully puts himself in a position to accept an IA (especially in this day of quick and easy voicemail and caller ID) then he is just as guilty of taking premium pay flying at the cost of furloughees getting their jobs back. But you can't assume all, or even a majority of IA assignments are willfully flown. However, you know GS are because those require action on the part of the pilot to seek that flying that could have been done by a furloughed pilot. There is in fact a significant difference between the two.

Why do pilots not get this? Easy way to answer: What's the least beneficial option for pilots this year vs last year (before the TA's language took effect)?

Oh I absolutely agree.

For best prank of the year I vote this guy as first runner-up.

Sign language Interpreter a fake

Hands down winner for the year: Dude who gave out names of Asiana pilots.

Then I have to counter that your assumption that it will bring back furloughees is just as anecdotal. They can IA all the way up the list to number 1. You cannot prove it will bring a furloughee back sooner or later... it is only an assumption on your part. We have X amount of overtime flying every month. After a furlough, the company counts on a similar number. It isn't right to pay extra to a junior guy while forcing a senior guy to forego his rights. Goose <----> gander.

Perhaps some third-party support:

--ATC.net
--Flightaware.com

And bring your LEC rep to the meeting.

Just saying...

True, you cannot assume that if the GS pay had not been done that it would bring back furloughed pilots.

[QUOTE=GunshipGuy;1537581]True, you cannot assume that if the GS pay had not been done that it would bring back furloughed pilots.[/QUOTE

I am not sure I understand the whole GS verses furlough discussion. If a pilot were not given a GS then a IA would be given out. They will catch you during a trip if you don't answer the phone. The flying would get covered. GS's trigger a increase in the manning formula that helps increase required pilot numbers.
The strangest part about this discussion is that DALPA came up with a out of the box concept to prevent furloughs by laying in small financial penalties in multiple contractual sections of the contract. This was a brainchild of Lee Moak who talked about before even being elected MEC chairman. This concept worked incredibly well in 2009. The company was forced to carry almost 800 plus extra pilots for years because it was cheaper to keep them then furlough. Those provisions are in our current contract and will work just as well in the future.

We have several programs for retirement. As of 1 Jan they will be combined into a single program that pays 15% of earnings pretax into a DC type plan.

Plan on profit sharing being about 7.5 percent of your 2013 gross pay. Gross pay is not W2 pay. You need to look near the bottom right of the paystub to find gross which can be 30k or more then W2. You do have to back last years profit sharing out of the gross. That figure times 7.5 should be pretty close this year.