From what I'm reading CAL ALPA has been much better with furloughees than UAL ALPA. UAL ALPA took steps after 9/11 that were clearly going to result in additional furloughs. And then there's the way they handled the bond money, denying it to furloughees and retirees.
Originally Posted by
EWR73FO
Didn't UPS and their union do this and the company still balked and furloughed even after the agreement? Point is, no matter what we accomplish as far as agreements, neither l-ual or l-cal mgmt will honor any thing as a legal and binding contract until they are forced to. At least with the assessment, money was going to the pilots that needed it.
I haven't talked to any UPS pilots for quite a while but I don't think that they fly as many hours as we do. ... I jumpseated on FedEx a couple of times and I'm VERY GLAD I didn't choose the cargo career path. I'd much rather be furloughed for 8 years than have to live like a freight dog (different strokes for different folks).
Here is how I would envision a furlough mitigation clause.
First, it needs to be in place in a contract well before needing to be implemented.
A clause could have multiple work choices for pilots. Once the first pilot gets furloughed, no pilot on property can work for more than 83 credit hours per month (arbitrary number; adjust as necessary). An unlimited number of pilots can drop down to 50 credit hours per month (another arbitrary number). An unlimited number of pilots can take voluntary leave of absence, offered in varying timeframes - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months.
Would the company go for it? Companies are Godless money machines (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert's bear fears). If this approach minimizes training cycles - thereby reducing corporate costs - the company will be in favor of such an idea. And I would think that a clause such as this would reduce the company's training costs, thereby saving them money.