interceptorpilo

Hey, False equivalence man: not the same.

OOfff

I’ve never been under 100 hours in a year since I got that much sick time and also never received a GFB call. Maybe I have a CP running cover for me

ancman

Feel free to correct me if I’ve mistaken your position on this, but the reason some see you as taking the company’s side is because you’re justifying us “all wearing diapers” (via GFB calls) due to the company’s assertion that we have a sick leave abuse problem.

I don’t see the GFB call, which is not a standard practice at AA or UA, as an appropriate response to perceived sick leave abuse here, which DOES also exist at AA and UA. It’s ineffective at reducing sick calls (which were UP last year), and represents a form of harassment that isn’t seen elsewhere at the legacy level. A pilot advocate would not be making the case that those are the diapers that we all must wear because of the actions of a few (the same type who exist everywhere else).

OOfff

not to put words in their mouth, but I read fangs’ posts as saying that abuse exists and is easily supported with data, not that GFB calls are a good, bad, or indifferent thing. I haven’t seen any judgement passed on the company’s response to the abuse


GFBs don’t exist at UAL or AA, but neither does our level of sick leave

Khantahr

I didn't see him ever say the GFBs are justified/appropriate. All he said was that there is abuse of our sick policy going on. Of course there is, every company has that. It doesn't mean GFBs are appropriate, and I'm sure they do nothing to quell it either.

FangsF15

How do you figure? Honest question.

Because the way I figure it, both instances involve our own pilots being dishonest, cheating the system, making the rest of us wear ‘consequence’ diapers because they crapped their pants.

In the case of the SC abusers, it cost me a lot of extra commutes to New York to sit short call for nothing, with enough pilots on a short call to replace every single pilot departing that night. No joke. Plus, the union had to spend a lot of time, energy, and what little goodwill we had defend them and get 3 of 4 jobs back. In the case of sick abusers, it costs the rest of us harassment by the company in the form of GFB calls, needless trips to the doctor, and I’m sure in at least some cases, people afraid to call in sick, and thus transmitting their illness. Not to mention negotiating capital at the table to push back the verification hours from 100 to 120, or eliminating “major bone”, for example.

FangsF15

Pretty much, yeah. The only ‘support’ that I’ve given to GFB is that, as someone who doesn’t abuse it, I don’t mind a call because it makes those hours ‘verified’.

Other than that, it’s actually insulting that we are trusted to safely transport hundreds of lives at a time, but somehow can’t be trusted to say “I am sick”

OOfff

I remember people on this forum defending the whale SC crew by saying that nobody knows they didn’t drive in…from montana

ancman

Our paid sick leave amounts may be different, but I suspect sick call rates are very similar between all 3 airlines. Time off is more valuable than money to a lot of people. At AA, dropping trips is currently next to impossible (except for the senior). Their “sick if needed” on reserve option also skews how many sick hours they actually need to burn vs. a Delta pilot.

And for the majority of pilots who only call in sick when they’re actually sick, their usage isn’t going to change based on allotted sick leave.

ancman

But again, you’re blaming pilots there. Not hostile, inept management. Which supports my earlier point.

GFB is not the response that other carriers are deploying, because it doesn’t work.