Quote:
I am part of the 90% of folks who rejected the company's plan for targeted, temporary ALV reductions that they wanted to implement without exhausting all voluntary measures and be creative with solutions to avoid furloughs. Our CEO publicly stated his intent to do both.
You'll notice that since their offer was made, negotiations have seemingly led to a much more pilot-friendly agreement we'll get to see soon. I thank the 90% of polled pilots who knew better than to accept a crappy deal.
Your right, I was wrong to say 90% are against this; the poll wasn’t that precise. The straw man fallacy point is also fair. But when we talk about “voluntary” and “pilot friendly”, we are talking about getting paid to not work right? It just feels disingenuous to pretend paying people to not work on a larger scale is an actual solution.Originally Posted by TED74
Where did you get that idea? I'd be surprised too, but that's not what 90% of anyone said. Makes an interesting straw man argument if you're into that kind of rhetoric, though. Sometimes I'm shocked how many folks don't think a little deeper.I am part of the 90% of folks who rejected the company's plan for targeted, temporary ALV reductions that they wanted to implement without exhausting all voluntary measures and be creative with solutions to avoid furloughs. Our CEO publicly stated his intent to do both.
You'll notice that since their offer was made, negotiations have seemingly led to a much more pilot-friendly agreement we'll get to see soon. I thank the 90% of polled pilots who knew better than to accept a crappy deal.
I’m certainly not against using the opportunity to fix things in the contract. Also, I can’t imagine not getting a likewise reduction in reserve days vs. ALV.
If the negotiated deal ends up being: an ALV cut, voluntary measures to the extent that they aren’t actually a cost, as well as some other cost neutral items we could use - I will be happy for sure, which I know was also your point at the end there.