The way I see it, it's not MY problem to deal with sick leave abuse, that is for the company.

First, as you said, the company needs to prove it. Then, the company needs to address it, with the perpetrators, and leave the rest of us alone.

Why should 100% of us have a reduced benefit for what the company claims is a small percentage who abuse it?

The ATL. CPO told me that management said we use twice as much as the other carriers. Yet the other carriers incentivize it, either through a rollover/bank or a cash payout. No wonder they don't use as much!

But it's an apples to oranges comparison. We have a 'use it or lose it' program, they do not. This company isn't going to go out of business due to 15% of our guys they claim are abusing it. I think it's just some bean counter on the 4th floor's little pet project to crack down on the abuse, so he can justify his job.

Market cap at about 1 billion. Buy them with one years profit sharing.

Not sure if it was in jest or not, but dangerous, dangerous thinking.

If you think it will stop with %15, then you are mistaken. Eliminate those, and the guys in the "new bottom %15" will be the next targets.

Beware the slippery slope.

Nu

How do you know what management wants? You're the one who likes to remind your fellow pilots that they are line pilots and don't know anything; what makes you different?

We can speculate what management wants until the cows come home. Are there windfall profits coming that will make our profit sharing worth 50%? 100%? Maybe.

Right now the only evidence that management wants to do anything with profit sharing other than pay it each Valentine's day is an anonymous webboard poster's hearsay about an unknown person with an ALPA lanyard in the crew room talking about profit sharing. I think it may have been the one armed man.

Also, I haven't assumed anything. Profit sharing has an finite and an infinite part. It is pretty hard to cost the infinite part but the finite part is a hard number. Would you trade the finite part on a 1:1 basis? Guaranteed money in exchange for non-guaranteed money with no penalty is a no-brainer. I say leave the infinite part alone. I'm okay with that risk.

Yeah, I guess you are right. I just get annoyed by both the company wanting to reduce our sick leave, and by guys who abuse it, I guess because I don't. And I have had to use all of it a couple times, once for a back surgery, and again for a seizure. I want as much sick leave available as possible for when a catastrophic event occurs. It pizz's me off that the company wants to reduce it.

That's a pretty strong statement. I'm sure you will be posting the evidence backing it up shortly...

Great rhetorical.

In reality, many of the people waxing poetic about C2K have never lived under it, including the Joker who is screaming it was stolen from him. Probably just over half of us have never worked for the company that gave up C2K, and none of us work for it today. Most of us who lived under it, don't even remember what was in it.

The good news is the company we actually work for (today), has a vastly different set of circumstances than the pre-reorganiztion company. I suspect this company, which already enjoys extraordinary productivity concessions from us, can afford a very good contract, that would equitably reward the various shareholders. Why aren't we talking about THAT? Why aren't we talking instead only about the financial metrics of this company, and whether there is room for RA to position it as a different sort of company, and for us to be properly rewarded?

As far as I'm concerned, the only pertinent discussion would be determining how much more above $2.7B in yearly costs we can go, while allowing the goose with the golden egg enough grain, vet visits, and whatever else it needs. Look at the cash that's moving around: isn't there enough for everyone, lest we get overly greedy?

As far as the PS goes, it has two great benefits:
1) It provides leverage as we wait for the right contract, and
2) It provides upside protection while we wait.

All it does, really, is send 20% to employees, which I guess is ~about 6% to pilots (check my math). Is our self-respect that low, that we don't think we deserve that, and an appropriate contract?

With all due respect, trying get back to C2K payrates (only) is a low bar. But talking about giving up the PS only to achieve a lesser goal is preposterous.

They are still insanely expensive when you consider the debt they bring along. Their per capita debt would be like us having around 60B in debt. They don't really offer much of an upside that we couldn't provide on our own. Better to let someone else merge with them and inherit that debt on the verge of inevitably rising interest rates while continuing to pay down our own.

^^^^^^^

The latest buzzword in the corporate HR world is "human decisions" instead of "business decisions".

95% of us are hard working honest employees and do everything we can to "keep climbing" with Delta Air Lines. When we make the right decision and don't come to work sick, we get hassled. That is not the right "human decision" and does more to foster a poor relationship with pilots than almost anything Flight Ops management does.

Do away with the use it or lose it plan, let us bank hours that we don't use, let us sell back a certain portion above a threshold level once per year at 50%, and stop hassling us with verification notes.

Sounds like a great investment. Sold my Delta stock at $16😦