Grumpyaviator

I’m not sure what’s on the table, but comparing what we might get to what Delta now has is pointless.

The company floated a mediocre proposal that pits those that have accrued vast amounts of sick time against those who’ve had to use it to intentionally try to divide us on the issue of sick leave and LTD; as can be evidenced here.

I won’t support a decrease in sick accrual (in fact if it’s use or lose it has to be a significant increase and no doctor’s note, I’m a big boy), lack of significant STD/LTD improvements, or penalties for those that amassed large amounts of sick time (crazy as that seems to me).

The company built the present system as a way to extend health coverage from 60 to 65 rather than have genuine retiree coverage. As a result there is a billion dollar liability of unused sick trips they need to reconcile, and they want to take it out of our pockets. It’s not going to happen.

flyguy81

I wasn’t looking the value of the sick accrual. I was looking at the accrual rate itself. For a Delta pilot, it’s use it or lose it and the value is only at the longevity step they are at. If they don’t use it all, the value doesn’t matter as it’s wasted when the bank is reset the following year.

For a SWA pilot, the value is based on longevity at the longevity step also. However, we can accrue it if we don’t use it all. So a DL pilot might earn 125 for the year, but I’ve got over 600 in my bank to use as I see fit for a value of over $140k. I WON’T be retiring with credit left in my sick bank.

Lewbronski

Let's say a brand new Delta pilot and a brand new SWA pilot both call in sick an average of 10 hours (11.49 TFP) per month starting on June 1 of whatever year (Delta defines a "sick year" as June 1 to May 31). That's about a 3-day every two months. Let's say the SWA pilot credit, on average, 100 straight TFP per month.

By May 31, the SWA pilot will have lost 13.8 TFP during the year while the Delta pilot will have been completely covered financially by their sick leave balance - all without having to produce a doctor's note.

I anticipate that you'll claim calling in sick for a three-day every couple of months is "unrealistic or "silly," or you'll assert that people who call in sick enough to have a zero sick leave balance are attempting to take advantage of the system.
Don't know how old you are, but there are lots of reasons why someone might have a low or zero sick leave balance, including:

• They have kids who get them sick frequently by bringing germs home from school
• They go to the gym a lot and work out intensely, thus being exposed to other's sicknesses and suppressing their immune function. This is one I've personally experienced quite often.
• They had a major illness, accident, or surgery of some sort. I've had several surgeries since arriving at SWA that have each taken me out for a month or more of recovery.
• They're getting older and get sick more often as a result of factors resulting from thymic involution.
• They've experienced or are experiencing an ongoing major personal event like a divorce, a family member with an illness or addiction, a kid who needs them, or the death or suicide of a loved one.
• They're struggling with some sort of mental health issue and know that if they seek treatment for that, our mental health benefits only last something like 18-24 months before being thrown out in the cold and they may never get their FAA medical back. So they call in sick frequently as a way to try to deal with their issue.

What are some of the reasons besides not getting sick that pilots at SWA who don't call in sick enough to use all of their sick leave balance might not call in sick even though they probably can't genuinely say that they meet the IMSAFE criteria?

1. They're concerned about what might happen to themselves if they go out on disability and want as large of a sick balance to cover them for as long as possible in lieu of becoming officially persona non grata on our atrocious disability plan at the "LUV" corporation.
2. They think not calling in sick "helps the company out" - but they don't think about the cascading effect of subsequent sick calls that ensue for both other pilots and FA's as a result of our "warrior" pilot getting them sick.

There are probably other reasons that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

But suffice to say, my experience is that, if people really called in sick when they should and were not concerned with factors like the above, then most people's sick leave balances would probably be lower at SWA. IOW, our system built up around sick leave at SWA creates artificially high sick leave balances. That's great for the corporation. Not so great for human beings.

Even if you're flying 150 TFP a month all at premium, you're only earning roughly 10 TFP per month of sick time, depending on how the trips are rigged and so on. So even flying 150 all-premium TFP, we earn less than 75% as much no-note sick time as Delta pilots.

If I'm doing the math right, a SWA pilot would have to fly about 207 all-premium TFP per month to equal the no-note "accrual" rate of a Delta pilot. I'm not sure it's even possible to earn the same amount of no-note sick time as a Delta pilot flying all-straight time.

Would you prefer that we earn a flat 13.8 TFP (or more) of use-or-lose sick time per month along with a Delta-style disability plan, but we axe Delta's note-required sick leave accrual beyond 13.8 TFP per month?

As far as sick leave balances go, IMO, if they want to get rid of them, they're going to have to pay for the balances that our pilot group earned: at least one-for-one along with a premium for helping the company out by getting a liability off the books for the company.

Lewbronski

I wrote out a detailed reply to your concerns about my (one) post illustrating what kinds of rates it would take to achieve a 30% premium on Delta's career compensation at ten years. I cited the RLA and RLA case law and referred to you an even more detailed thread on the issue with more supporting information.

Your reply to all of that? Not a rational refutation of my argument but, instead, an ad hominem attack using terms like "silly" and "unrealistic." I gave you actual RLA examples, adjudicated by federal courts, of unions demanding terms even more "silly" and "unrealistic" than if SWAPA were to demand $600/TFP. And you had nothing - zero - to counter with besides name-calling and labeling.

You said I made "post after long post" about $600/TFP when, in reality, I made one. And I wasn't "arguing for it," I was citing it as an example of what it would take to attain a 30% premium at ten years on Delta's career compensation. That's called a strawman: you attempted to turn what I said into something I didn't say in order to make it easier for you to attack with your ad hominems.

Then you turned your rant into the red herring of "whiny people on here" who aren't appreciative enough of the company you've worked eight whole months for.

And then, worst of all, IMO, you unironcially threw down the "golden goose" argument without having any idea how much baggage is associated with that here at SWA. Unless you're auditioning for a project pilot position at the GO, uttering that term while attempting to have a serious conversation is immediately discrediting and makes you sound beyond naive.

Please produce your financial analysis that shows $600/TFP will destroy the company's ability to turn a profit. What 12-year captain rate is the threshold between profitability and unprofitability at SWA? Please show your work. Cite your sources. Let's see your spreadsheet.

What is the difference, in your assessment, between claims in this contract cycle between "wild claims" and rational, acceptable claims? Lay it out. Let's hear the confines of the conversation you'd prefer us to have.

And the person I hear more than anyone in this conversation name-calling, ad-homineming, and attempting to make others (like myself) appear to be out of touch and "horrible" is yourself.

Lewbronski

This is what I was replying to:
I replied back with:
I guess I don't understand your point. You said 125 sick hours equals 109 TFP. It doesn't. It equals ~144 TFP.

You also seemed to say 109 TFP is earning guarantee at SWA. It's not. Our highest monthly guarantee is 89 TFP.

In my original post on sick leave, I said that Delta arguably has a better sick leave plan than SWA but that it depends on how you use your sick leave. So, if you don't call in sick much, like yourself, then you might consider our sick leave plan better. You'll get paid at higher rates for it later (unless we agree to a plan to sell sick leave at pennies on the dollar) but you'll have likely not called in sick when you needed to be home for various reasons that fall under IMSAFE.

NuGuy

Just so you guys know what you're talking about, because details matter:

In any rolling 12 month period, if a sick leave call takes you over 120 hours, your next sick call in any subsequent bid periods will require a note from a QHCP. You need to dissect this a little bit to figure out you can go way above 120 and never need a note, so long as you don't use another sick call while your look back is 120 hours. Let's say your lookback is 110 hours, and you call out for a 5 day trip worth 32 hours. No note is required because you were under 120 hours prior to the sick call. Furthermore, you could call in sick for whatever additional duty you have the rest of the month, with no note required. The requirement only kicks in after the end of the month, assuming your lookback is still 120 or higher.

If you've used 50 hours or less in each to the two preceding sick leave years, no note is required at all, no matter how much you use. If you've used at least 100 hours in one shot, such as a surgery or other major illness, provide a note, and none of that time counts either.

We do have a rather onerous "good faith basis" system where the Company call call you if they have reason to believe you're not really sick, but if they send you to the Dr, they pay for it, and the sick call doesn't count towards the above limits. They have to call you within 3 days of the start of the event, and they have to tell you exactly why. If you used 50 or less hours in the preceding sick leave year, they can't do that at all.

It is use it or lose it.

waterskisabersw

Thanks for the break down. So yeah. Better than ours.

iaflyer

Just a data point, but having the company call you for a "good faith basis" is seems rare, and seems mostly limited to calling obvious situations - like calling out sick for a reserve trip, when you apparently live out of base, and hadn't made your way into the base for the trip. Things like that..

I have used a fair bit of sick time over the years (back problems, a couple of surgeries so far for it) and I've never been called for a "good faith basis" note.

Lewbronski

I appreciate the clarifications. Thanks!

flyguy81

I don’t work sick. Majority of my sick calls have been due to the the rest of the family being sick and me needing to take them to the Dr, etc. If I’m sick, I’m not going to work. I have absolutely no issue using sick time…I just don’t abuse it so I can pick up premium around it like some folks.