Originally Posted by
guppie
Nope. But I saw 2172 get furloughed with that beautiful 'manpower positive' Contract 2000 we had. Those rules didn't help them. Meanwhile, lean carriers didn't furlough near as many, or any at all. That is my point. Of course you contractually kill those provisions (drop below min days, fly over vacation) when ANYBODY is on furlough.
I was one of those 2172. I know that some of those prior contract provisions required many of us to get hired with the block hours being flown in the first place.
As for the other carriers, how many of them retired every single one of their DC-10s, 747-200s, 727s, and 737-200's within the span of a couple of months? United was the only one to retire that many fleets in such a short period of time.
You're out of your mind to blame the furloughs on the contract. In fact the furloughs got as high as they did because the contract wasn't protected. It wasn't taken away. It was given away. And when we were done giving they came and took the rest.
One of the things that upsets me the most is that the No Furlough Clause wasn't defended. Maybe it wouldn't last through court but don't throw your hands up and give it away like it was.
Lastly, many say the term manpower positive including myself. The correct term should be manpower neutral. The goal should be to stay away from negative.