I think that's because it's technically illegal to do a walkout...

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-a-southwest-airli...

In reality, a lot of pilots can just message each other on the side and say "f-it". Idk how many it takes to take down the system, but I suspect even 20% out sick could cause a cascading failure.

20%? That would mean they have 20% extra pilots on standby ready to take over for the sick. I think it is far lower than that, more like 5% or less. I suspect it might be closer to 2%, that there are no real backups. I bet that when someone is stick someone else is called in on their weekend. That would be the labor action: pilots refusing to work overtime/weekends when called to cover for someone.

My dad is a commercial pilot for a different carrier. The tl;dr is there are typically a subset of pilots on-call at any given time. Pilots who aren't on-call won't be asked to give up their weekends to cover flights.

Pilots either "sit reserve" or "hold a line" based on seniority/airframe and to a lesser degree rank (ie a pilot may choose to sit reserve as a captain when they could be a line holder as an FO). Line holders have a set schedule that they bid on (again based on seniority). If someone calls in sick, misses a flight, or if a flight goes unscheduled, scheduling contacts a pilot that is sitting reserve who then fills in the missing position.

When sitting reserve they get paid to hang out near the airport. Pilots are typically based out of some airport, reserve pilots need to be able to get to their airport within a set amount of time after being called (iirc 2 hours).

It's not that there aren't real reserve pilots, it's that there are exactly the number of backups that there needs to be under normal circumstances. Airlines don't like paying people to sit around and they've got scheduling down to a science. I think I was in high school the last time my dad sat reserve. It felt like he had to fly almost every time (but not every time!) he was on reserve.

>> there are exactly the number of backups that there needs to be under normal circumstances.

So, as I said, no redundancy for abnormal circumstances. If they are sitting on a reserve roster, but nearly always fly, then those aren't really a reserve pool. One or two extra people calling in sick and there won't be backups available.

Oh I agree, doesn't require a large number -- maybe 5% of pilots. To shut down all flights is likely still slightly higher.

What I suspect is actually happening is much larger.

alexberenson may have his own biases. But the situation is strange. From the opposite corner of the country, the ferry system in Puget Sound is already cancelling tens of crossing a day because of sick calls leading to "lack of Coast Guard documented crew". A vaccine mandate is looming for Oct 18 with 250 ferry employees still unvaccinated. "It wouldn't take much to cripple the system," said retired ferry Capt. Ken Burtness.

> Employee exodus could 'cripple' Washington ferry system as dozens of sailings canceled again Friday

> 'The new norm': Washington ferry workers call out sick in protest of COVID-19 vaccine mandate

https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/washin...

Doesn’t that just mean the union itself isn’t organizing a sickout?

Or at least not publicly admiting to it - which if the statement is to believed would be illegal, which sounds like a good motive to deny any knowledge.

>Under the RLA, our Union is forbidden from taking job action to resolve labor disputes under these circumstances

They couldn't admit it if that's what they're doing. They'd have to deny it either way. Even an "unofficial" unorganized sick out.

On the other hand- if a pilot knew he was getting fired in two weeks for not getting vaccinated, and he happened to have two weeks sick pay, well then the company policy did all the "organizing" that needed to be done.

Even if an employee is fired for cause the employer is required to pay out accrued vacation time.

Where I am, they pay out vacation time, but not sick time (unless it's a combined pool, in which case vacation takes precedence.) I don't know how common that situation is, but it certainly incentivizes getting "sick" right before you leave a job.

As a result, there are many companies (at least in the US) which will refuse to honor sick time taken through your final day without legal pressure - they'll take it out of your vacation time, and if not there your salary.

Heh, many are moving to a “it’s all one bucket” policy. Oh and it’s all one “unlimited” bucket which means they don’t have to pay out anything at all for vacation or sick time.

That depends on what state you are in. Not every state requires it. But I’m guessing the pilots union agreement includes it.

Indeed it does depend on the state. Surprisingly inconsistent in myriad ways across the US. https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/pto-payout-l...

Being required to do a thing and actually doing a thing are two completely different things. Having the money to turn around and sue somebody for not disbursing your accrued vacation time is a third thing altogether.

No idea why parent is downvoted. The quote posted is on the official statement on union website linked.

That doesn’t match what I want to read, but I’m fine with that

Since there is still skepticism from the other commenters too, if the union was lying could someone explain their motives?

Like what benefit does would the union have to provide confidence to the nature of the disruption? Or to cover for their pilots/employees?

Otherwise their statement being the truth is cool too

Would it be in their interest to state this even if it wasn’t true?

Yes, in fact they would be required to make this statement.

>...our Union is forbidden from taking job action to resolve labor disputes under these circumstances...

The Pfizer vaccine was fully approved on August 23

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

"Pfizer Comirnaty" and "Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine" are biologically and chemically the same thing.

Biologically and chemically but not liability-wise, which makes no sense, and is exactly the point the throwaway is making.

That's a false claim, too. They are identical from a liability standpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/30/false-cla...

> Indeed, contrary to the claims of Malone and others, the Comirnaty vaccine has the same liability protection as the vaccine approved under the EUA. That’s because of a law known as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

> In early 2020, after the coronavirus emerged, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act to “provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against covid-19.” So that covers all vaccines that might be produced to combat the coronavirus, whether fully authorized or not.

> “The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA,” Castillo said. “Therefore, both Comirnaty and the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine receive the same liability protections as medical countermeasures against covid-19.”

i.e. there is no liability for either of them? The point of granting full approval was so the government could claim that it is no longer be considered 'experimental'. Normally that means the usual liability rules kick in. If not because the usual rules are overridden by other rules elsewhere it would appear the approval was pointless and changed nothing.

Whether it's covered under CICP or VICP, we made a national security decision in the 1980s that having companies willing to make vaccines was a net positive, and thus set up a no-fault system funded by a tax on every vaccine dose administered.

Approval was never going to change the liability status. That's not the point of FDA approval.

It would be worth checking that a third party can confirm this, given that other comments are pointing out that the given excuses don't add up.