The argument could be made that top 1/3 are avoiding displacement to a lower paying seat on the backs of pay cuts by the bottom two-thirds. In some cases (displaced 777 CA to 756/737 CA), a NO vote to TA and mass furloughs is less take home pay than a YES vote to this rumored TA (stays in seat with 10% pay cut at WB pay). So I guess just spare me the shared sacrifice theme because 10%, 20%, and 50% is hardly shared.

This seemed like a good idea at first, but the more division I see as a result of these class systems I think we need to rally as a union and tell the company HELL NO, enough is enough. After all, the best negotiation tactic is to walk away.

 

Just out of curiosity, instead of saying “the company will find a way to abuse us,” please tell me how/why the company would want 1/3 of its pilots flying 50% schedules long term?

the seasonal worker comment would make more sense if guarantee was halved and their were no caps. I am praying that any TA with reductions in monthly hours awarded would also have caps on both awards and OT pickups.

so if caps are in place, how does the company abuse/benefit as we return to normal? And no, they won’t just disregard our protections, unless the whole UPA is now null and void. A corporation can’t just simply pick and chose which aspects of a contract it adheres to. This simple train of logic seems like more than most of the FPLD guys/gals want to address.

If you feel like you don’t need to attract anymore people to vote NO, by all means keep saying “you just don’t get it” (except AXL16, who tries with exasperation and tact to tell me I’m full of crap), but there are plenty of minds to be made up. So please tell us how 4,000 pilots working half time (assuming caps) are desirable for the company.

 

The ability to immediately return to 2019 LF numbers without the dollar costs and time to retrain. It sounds like management still has hope that we will return to semi normal numbers in the next few years. Its a gamble on a future market demand outcome that no one can predict.

 

The worst pandemic in US history was the Spanish flu pandemic 100 years ago. It resolved in two years, without vaccinations, antivirals, convalescent plasma, or glucocorticoids. Accepting potentially long term setbacks or adverse contractual precedents for what is potentially a short term problem may not be the most advantageous course of action.

 

If there are no snapback provisions, then yes. Wait for the TA.

 

Exactly. No reason to accept a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

 

Even if Covid goes away after two years that doesn't mean that our customers are coming back. Most analysts think that the number of airline passengers, in particular business travelers, will remain depressed for several years. Our airline has a choice:

Option 1. We can reduce overall size through mass furloughs and aircraft retirements. I'm fairly certian that once 3,000 plus pilots leave the property the company will begin quickly retire the majority of the 320's and 777's. Once demand returns, we will then have to decide if it's safe to grow the airline and bring back furloughs. If business travel is still depressed and yields are low it won't be worth it to grow. In the meantime, we will watch start-ups enter our hubs and our market share just like Jetble and Virgin America in the previous downturns.

Option 2. We can keep our pilots in their seats and keep our planes in storage. When there is a demand surge, we can pounce on it and grab market share. We can even go after the low-yield flying and the cost to carry it is negligible given that the company is paying pilots not to work.

Of the two options, only one presents a future airline with opportunities for pilots.

 

I talked to my union rep for 1.5 hours last night, and we discussed this very thing. His explanation was the more seasoned pilots put up with tremendous loss during the lost decade (ESOP, loss of pension, etc). So, they tried to structure the LOA to allow those with the least time left on property to try to continue to build as much as possible for retirement. He did indicate an EO is part of the package.

 

Same exact thing they said last time with the bond distribution. Just say no.

 

Im pretty sure that is BS and part of the “sell job”...how many in the top third have 10+ years to go? The middle third, yes I’m in that group, will be the hardest hit.