Jimmy_Hoffa wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 5:06 pm
Wider society isn’t ‘feeling a little pain.’ It’s essentially the same as the provisions in the CBA. Haves vs have nots. I know tons of people still receiving full pay working from home. This outnumbers the people I know who have lost any percentage of income. I will admit my socioeconomic circle is slanted that way due to demographics, but the argument doesn’t change. Most pilot unions have been able to take collective reductions in WAWCON to temporarily reduce the need for layoffs. But that’s all it should be, temporary. While your statement about the average 20yo having less financial obligations than others later in midlife may be true, the vast majority of pilot rosters compromise of those midlife demographics. Why should the majority suffer for the minority. The cost of an employee goes far beyond their individual hourly wage, so any long term mitigation efforts are going to be a cancer more than a cure. Keeping x people employed is a noble effort, but if x+y employees can’t meet financial obligations then what’s worse?
Should CBA’s evolve, sure, but by your logic they should just lay off the top of the seniority list because they should be the most financially secure right?
With the exception of the health care, truck transport, food industry and perhaps others, I would be hard pressed to think of any part of society that has not been economically damaged by this pandemic. I know of law firms, dental practices, medical clinics, cosmetic industries, entertainment industries, service industries that have either shutdown or reduced their operations. But whether the wider society is affected or not is not necessarily important; what is important is our industry.
We should try to define "temporary" - is it a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade? If the predictions are correct that it will take 3 years for the airline industry to rebound to its pre-COVID level, that is the upper bound.
Assuming the 768 is the extent of the furloughs, over the next three years there will be ~100 retirement per year so what is a 768 surplus in 05/20, becomes 668 in 05/21, 568 in 05/22 and 468 in 05/23. That is a given as age 65 is a hard number.
A 10% reduction in flying and an increase of 330 jobs (all rough figures based upon 3300 positions in CMSC 20-01), makes the 05/20 surplus
438, 05/21 of 338, 05/22 of 268 and 05/22 of 138.
I suspect that the FDR were deferred as the industry cannot afford the financial burden at this time as it is loosing millions per day; once that is re-implemented that will be a few hundred jobs (I think 500-700 jobs on the monster bid last year were attributed to FDR changes), let's say in 2022 and let's say its 400 with the scaled down operations. That results in zero surplus two years from now.
All of this, with the exception of the retirements and the 10% reduction in flying/increase in positions, is pure speculation.
"Why should the majority suffer for the minority" - because you are in a union; because you have compassion for your fellow professional colleague; because you make a way above the average family wage; because 50% of what you give up it taken by the taxation system. I think those are pretty good reasons.
I have difficulty believing that someone that is making $200K+ "cannot afford" a 10% hit for a couple of years. It might be one fewer new car, or less going into savings. If you're telling me that "y" number of pilots, making $200K+ per year can't make their financial obligations with a 10% pay cut, then they should manage their lives a little better as the average family income in this country is $60K. But what about those "x" colleagues that will be on EI in two months?
As far as costs to keep people around in addition to wages, there are also costs to furloughs - financial, i.e. training, and non-financial, i.e. morale. Tough to quantify the latter but I know that the infamous 249 that layed-off from AC were still bitter 25 years later.
