Pilots on active duty military leave will receive 16% on what they would have made if the pilot did not leave for military service. I don't think it covers short term mil leave, but am not 100% sure.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_911_2.html

 

That is not correct. Read the ALPA miltary affairs reports. There is a current MEC update regarding the BC fund contribution when on MIL. The company has to fund the program for them in their absence as if they were still flying.

 

Why don't you just come out and say how you feel about military pilots at UAL? There is an undertone to your comments that are disconcerting.

Would you prefer that they hire no active reservists/guardsmen? Is the percentage of us actively serving that high where it affects your paycheck and/or quality of life? Have you ever been personally affected by someone taking military leave?

For those that abuse the system, shame on them and they should be punished and/or fired. I did not appreciate your sarcastic tone and assumptions. As for your comment saying that a civ-pilot costs less, I'm. It sure where you're getting that from. When I take mil leave, UAL is not paying me. How is that more expensive?

 

I get B fund contributions every month after sending CPO an LES.

 

Thank you for the correction.

 

[QUOTE=C-17 Driver;1731594]
It certainly could affect all of our paychecks. If they have to hire two pilots to do the job of one because one is often on leave, then yes it could affect all of our paychecks.




I agree 100%.

A MIL pilot is given a 16% deposit into their B fund for work they didn't do. So while UA doesn't pay them a salary while on Leave, they do have to incur a 16% hit for what they would have flown. Also, they have to have another pilot in the que to cover the flying that the MIL leave pilot isn't doing. These are all dollars and cents cost to UA that a CIV pilot doesn't cost them. Not sure what assumption or sarcasm you are finding in these facts?

UA / CO has been sued and if you have been here long enough you know that while they may swing and miss on a first attempt at something they do learn quickly when it cost them money.

I don't know if this is the reason the number of MIL pilots being hired is lower compared to the other carriers. However, they nickel and dime everything. Don't see how this would be any different.

 

Your sarcasm was noted when you put the word "duty" in quotation marks. This was a slap in the face implication that there is an integrity issue and it is not actual military duty but scamming. I was on duty last Christmas with the military. I was overseas far away from my family. Was I scamming?

So, your position is that we should not hire any military pilots currently and should only hire retired or separated military and civilians. Furthermore, if UAL continues to hire Guardsmen and reservists, then UAL has to hire two civilian pilots for every reservist. That does not sound very realistic.

You are also saying that you're paycheck is affected because of the military duty I perform? Has your paycheck and/or quality of life been directly affected due to someone performing military duty?

And finally, your stance is that the B Fund contribution should not happen despite the mandate of Federal Law (USERRA) but UAL will find a way recoup this money. Also, companies do receive tax credits for hiring Guardsmen and Reservists.

Active military pilots at UAL are less than 5% of pilot group. I think you are incorrectly magnifying the effects of when they are performing military duty. If your assumptions were correct, then why would any airline hire a pilot currently serving in the Guard/Reserve?

It is unfortunate that your view is jaded. I encourage you to talk with your FOs that are currently serving so you can get some fresh perspective.

There are others on this thread who are a lot smarter about this stuff then I am and could probably provide better data.

If you were hired in '83 then I don't care what you think. If you're not a SCAB, then I welcome your input.

 

No. That is not what I said. If you would take the time to read what was written, I offered a financial reason why there "may" not be as many MIL pilots being hired in this cycle versus the previous hiring periods. UA is a cost conscious company and they will look at every angle to cut cost. Those every popular, "remove and olive from the appetizer and save a million" minds will look at every line item and the cost. Not neccesarily the value but always the cost.

Not too far of a stretch to say that all of our paychecks are affected by our collective actions. Anyone that abuses MIL, Sicklist, LTD etc take money from the pot.

Where did I say it shouldn't happen? Please copy where I said they should not pay the 16%. All I mentioned was that it is required and it is a cost that sets the MIL leave pilot apart from an equally qualified non-mil pilot.


Your fellow FO's may not be the best ambassadors for the perspective you want me to see.



I am not a SCAB. Not sure how presenting a view on why UA might not be hiring the same percentage of MIL pilots as in the past would automatically make me a SCAB. Maybe you just haven't been here long enough to understand the bottom line mentality.

Obviously you are sensitive and we are not going see eye to eye. You take offense to a potential reason of why something is happening. When you fill the debate with emotion it doesn't make sense to continue. I have shared my opinion of why it might be happening and I don't think I need to add any more. Enjoy your career.

 

sorry to interrupt the debate, but thought some might be interested in timeline. Got the call today for an interview after getting and taking the Hogan test on Friday.