you are off base on this one. We turned down their offer for lower alv before this bid. Why would someone take this into account for our bid? This is a stretch and I have no idea why you are flexing at this. It is a valid opinion, many ppl bid for seniority purposes because of how bad the trips are going to be.

Yes,that would suck.

As far as lower ALV. My neighbor says i can make up the pay difference by using my extra time off to day trade, so there's that.

I dont think lowering ALV by 12 hours would be fair to those left on property. maybe if we combine a few things we can spread some work around and reduce some furloughs while improving QOL for most pilots.

-an ERP comparable to AA or WN
-5 hour ALV reduction (stays there if pilots on furlough)
- added vacation time for all pilots
- some rotation construction rules that can limit the optimizer reducing QOL

Company and ALPA agree to EO and reduced ALV.

ALV lowered. Company decides not to award any EOs due to optics and timing. Company furloughs anyway. LOA expires and productivity boost costs nothing.

sign me up for that one!

‘That would be grieved so fast it would make your head spin. And would be won. Your scenario doesn’t meet the smell test.

Denny

#240

I'm scheduled to take a 18% pay cut because of the displacement bid - so any ALV reduction deal would have to keep me in my current category. Otherwise, I'd be voting in a double pay cut (my category is not closing). But really, I don't like the idea of "paying" for an early out plan with ALV reductions. I definitely feel the company has gone too far with the displacement bid - they created the problem, let them solve it. I don't think we need the huge amount of displacement - I think the training is going to be a serious problem for the next year. We should use that leverage.

And I'm just counting reserve guarantee on the new vs old plane. A captain friend I know who's getting downgraded is taking a larger pay cut (, by percentage 717A, plenty of GSs for him, forced down to narrow body FO in base).

People need to realize that the displacement is giving some people decent sized pay cuts (and 100% payout for the UNA) - an ALV reduction would be coming on top of that.

And as Flownit says, the language has to be solid for the EO. Something along the lines of "any Early Out plan must be offered to any pilot retiring in the next 36 months" or something - if it's at the company discretion... well.. we're screwing ourselves.

If the ALV reduction was tied to cancelling the majority of the MOAD, it might actually net MORE money for a good number of pilots. Think A displaced to B or WB to NB. Take a 10-15% instead of a 30-40% hit.

I fail to see why the company would even want an ALV reduction, aside from the optics of reducing furloughs. Long-term it's advantageous for the company to want the highest ALV possible with as few pilots as possible.

Long term yes - in the townhall CFO Paul Jacobson said that he saw next summer flying down 20-40% and said we needed to say flexible. I’m against an ALV reduction but that “flexibility” could be the reason the Company wants a short term ALV reduction.

I think a lower ALV gives them flexibility to react to a market that no one can predict. Delta stock down 14% yesterday, up 12% today. Its a total crapshoot. For that reason, I could see them wanting it, and spinning it as "we dont want to furlough any pilots because we're all Family." Its just business, and when you have no idea which direction your business is going, flexibility is sometimes worth the cost.