[QUOTE=130shadow;3650274]Are there still pilots out there that are butthurt about the minimal and short duration paycut they took to save thousands of furloughs?

 

[QUOTE=dingdong;3650587]Well, in all fairness, at the time they voted to take steps to preclude furloughs, they didn't know how long it might last. Could have been 1 year , might have been three years. So, I would say, "Let's not minimize their efforts/sacrifice to help out the MOST junior".

I will also say "Thank You" though. It was a total paradigm shift from the, "Tough tata's, furlough is a right of passage" mindset form previous generations.

 

I think what most now are coming to realize is that the company grossly overstated the likelihood and scope of furloughs as they were being considered. Their expectation always was that COVID would significantly impact air travel for around a year. (It did.) Since our contract by design makes short-term furloughs very costly & inefficient, the company knew that a large scale furlough for a one year event in reality would save them very little money. What would potentially save them a lot, however, is if they could frighten us into taking voluntary pay reductions while saving them the cost & inefficiencies of retraining, furlough pay, etc. In essence, we gave them everything they wanted about furloughs (lower payroll) while relieving them of every contractual obligation that made them unlikely to actually go through with it in the first place.

I don’t doubt a lot of guys voted for it with good intentions, but the only thing it was really a paradigm shift from is sticking to our contract. In the wake of TUMI, it became a little more apparent how our union had become misguided by getting too friendly with the company. In retrospect (for some) the Pandemic LOA became an illustration of what happens when the union spends too much time “seeing it from the company’s point of view”. Rather than representing the pilots, they became salesmen for the company’s proposals. In the follow up, they even supported the company’s efforts in TUMI 1 to dodge the 5% pay increase they had previously agreed to.

No one ought to be “butthurt” as the fed $$$ saved us from the worst consequences of our poor decisions, but we should understand our mistakes for what they were to avoid repeating them in the future.

 

I guess all of you rocket scientist and political science experts were full of shizzle…..

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...67-2023-06-14/

 

In the age of the seditious orange pied piper, it's not "some people are saying."

It's "many people say."

Many. A whole lot. They. Everybody says. When the truth comes out, it's gonna be huge. Believe me.

They couldn't put it on fox news, if it weren't true. Especially not after it's been filtered b the internet. That aside, there are "alternate facts."

Many people know that.

A committee says? Were there many on the committee?

Then it's a done deal.

 

unless it got amended in committee to change the language, there is no mention of full seniority in the text of the proposed bill. Was that the intent? Who knows….so those wanting to come back can do so as a new hire. And if they do get to come back with full seniority, it doesn't say they get to come back in the same position that they retired from. You retired as a SFO 777 Captain? Thats nice but we only have 737 openings in EWR so thats what you are assigned to.

 

Just to reiterate, there’s retroactivity, so they will come back on the list if they are < 67. And if it doesn’t specifically say they can come back ON TOP OF YOU, then they’ll be suing for that. Yes, ON TOP OF YOU is what they want. Call and email your senators and the senators for all the domiciles…..at minimum.

 

How would this work at a place like FedEx, that currently isn't hiring. It's one thing to bring pilots back to airlines that need them, but are they going to force an airline that isn't hiring to take back pilots? Would they furlough active, seniority list pilots to make room for retirees?

 

It’s a prime example of how their quest to “selflessly save the industry from the massive pilot shortage” argument fails miserably.

 

FEDEX paused its hiring to absorb their international pilots back into the domestic schedule. It is planning on starting hiring again in 24. So when the age 67 rule is approved in the fall, FedEx won’t be affected much.