Thread: Update
View Single Post
Old 08-26-2020 | 06:47 AM
  #44  
Nick Bradshaw
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 671
Likes: 11
Default

Originally Posted by skydisaster
I have had this thought for a while. I do believe that is probably where the 275 number comes from. Here is why I don’t believe the company will go there

- 57 of the FOs in those bases are not in the 275 number. That means that the company will only save displacement costs on less than 100 pilots out of the 275 furloughs.

- it will then incur displacements costs on vast numbers of pilots. Think about a base like BLI or LAX. Most of those captains range from super senior to moderately senior. They will displace throughout the System.

- Many of the captains in the bases on your list upgraded out of the big bases, and many of those still commute. Most of them will bid displace back to FO in their big base. This will push existing FOs our to other bases.

- The small bases for more east coast flying than West. This will mean that while IWA and LAS would see small size increases, the bulk of the big base size increase would be in FL. This means more senior FOs being displaced to FL baes when the former captains downgrade back to their home base.

- Re-training requirements after recall are the same if the furlough lasts 1 day or 364 days, so a 1 month furlough to reset the bases won’t happen. It would be a year furlough.

This is all conjecture, so it’s not worth much, but it’s my thoughts on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What section of the contract requires the company to honor domicile choices in a bump/flush displacement due to base closures? I think some people may be in for an unpleasant surprise if they didn't read carefully. The 80 displacement was handled quite generously, because the company wanted help from the pilots for a rapid transition. Don't expect such indulgences this time.
Reply