It is. I know because I just read it

I was impressed as well and LOA-15 looks very reasonable. They appeared to have covered all the bases I can think of.

Paragraph A.1. is totally contradicted by A.3. and A.4. Paragraph 1 states that you will be pay protected for conditions that warrant officials telling you “personally” to quarantine. 3. and 4 are conditions that officials are saying you need to quarantine due to the covid-19 virus. But you aren’t pay protected for 3. or 4. Just given an emergency leave of absence. So if you don’t take the COLA and a family member tests positive for covid-19 you’ll go on emergency leave and you won’t get paid even though you have to self quarantine due to covid-19. Not a well written LOA and leaves people who don’t take the COLA susceptible to lower pay than those who choose not to work. Maybe that’s by design.

There no contradiction. Scenario 1 you have or potentially have the virus. 3 and 4 you don’t. 3 and 4 is specifically written for family members. Now 4 can turn into 1 if you get sick. It’s the same language as other carriers. These guys didn’t just make it up. Also there’s nothing about officials telling you to do anything in 3 and 4. Seems like it’s not a well Understood Loa by you.

Does anyone have any idea of how many the company was hoping would take COLA 1?

That is how I read it as well. Plus guidance from government agencies can change. It doesn’t hurt to have both. Just use 1 if you can.

I know it’s domicle and seat specific. As far as how many thier looking for I would imagine it depends on domicle and what month. As time goes by less and less. I’ll guess 50% April in most domicles minimum. Based on the block they cut. 40/50% May. Less in June.

3 and 4 just enhances emergency leave language to include this virus. It’s already contractually available.That’s the intent. You can already call in sick to care for an immediate family member. Think of 3 and 4 as a way to save sick if you don’t want to burn it. More options is a good thing to most people.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN21I1ZD

This could pose a problem for the company.

Why?
"For those with fewer than one a day five times a week, they would only need to fly once per week."