Originally Posted by
nitefr8dog
This will pass....even if it is all BS any increase over what is "known flying" on the Jan Bid Pack and it all goes away. The proposed changes are just extras over and above base pay....it really cost the pilot group very little to save jobs and the company huge training costs and delays in restaffing for new business. Besides CDG/EMA come back (IMHO) when DHL gets the Asian permits which are delayed... to operate their new 300 on the Asian routes which is why CDG/EMA went away temporally. ABX pilot's contact has many ways to receive "extra" pay carryover days, Vacation buy back, reassignment to a different city than bid/awarded $1400 per day! Training on days off $900...it is all just extra..foam on the beer.
Unfortunately, the idea that this could save jobs is a myth. If they furlough 7 pilots on Jan. 1st then experience an increase in business as you predict and have to recall 7 pilots at some later date, the outcome is the same. In fact some people might even argue that would be a more appropriate outcome based on some factors that I am not going to get into.
As far as saving the company huge training costs and delays in restaffing for new business, I really don't think it's a good idea to shift that responsibility from the corporation to the pilots. The costs associated with furloughing and recalling pilots serve as a damper on the corporation and help prevent knee jerk decisions about furloughing. We want the corporation to have some deterrent to doing furloughs and the more the better. That's what really saves jobs. In fact, it is possible the corporation will cancel the furloughs anyway like they did last time because of those deterrents.
As for the delays in restaffing, we're only talking about 5 to 7 pilots. I'm sure they can find a way to cover for that amount until the recalled pilots get trained. Once again, deterrents to furloughing are a good thing. We don't want to remove deterrents. If anything, we should try to get more deterrents. Force the corporation to look for other ways to deal with fluctuations in demand for our services. It doesn't and shouldn't be done on the backs of pilots.
We don't want to corporation to constantly churn the bottom 10% of pilots in and out of furlough status every time there is a hiccup. If we start shifting the responsibility of providing even a small amount of job security from the corporation to the pilots, the corporation will start to expect concessions from the pilots every chance they get. Do you think the VP of flight ops or the CEO are taking a pay cut right now because a route in Europe was ended?
As far as the positive predictions about getting routes back, that's pure speculation. There is just as much possibility that we'll see a further reduction in work. What will they do then, threaten to furlough more and demand more concessions?
This is not about greed, it's about not allowing the corporation to make the pilots responsible for problems that we do not have any control over. When our pilots come to work we deserve some stability in our job. This LOA might be born with good intentions but the unintended consequences are a disaster.
Myth busted.