Originally Posted by
ClackerSlacker
Actually much concern was raised about the LC-call in issues only it was ignored by the company. Not until ASAP was reinstated did the Feds get involved and "Magically" it received attention. By timing this did occur while more "Senior" people were getting reserve. The reason it was changed was ASAP, period. Not seniority pressure. Plenty of pressure was being applied before then, but the company refused to act, until they were forced.
The union tries to make improvements constantly. Unfortunately, until a contract is opened up for negotiations, not much can be changed. Unless there are Legal and/or Financial ramifications.
As far as the short line issues. The company would not agree to more days off for a short line, which is a big problem. Getting a 65 hour line with 11 days off is worthless. Besides no one would be getting recalled now if they had that flexibility in the schedule. The 82 hour min is driving the recalls. Can't build enough lines, forces so much unproductive work onto the reserves = more reserve pilots needed (Recalls).
It's tough out there guys/gals. Keep your head up, it will and does turn around. The cycle continues. BTW - Not a senior guy here at all. 15 years 121, 3 airlines, FO on a RJ. Payin my dues.
Thanks for the response. I guess my original question still stands though. Which of the furloughees or non-furloughees were asked about reduced lines for mitigating furloughs? I went to the union meetings held just prior to my furlough and the issue of reduced lines for mitigation purposes was brought up during the meetings. The reason stated for rejecting the company proposal of reduced lines was loss of income to line holders. There was no mention of it being an issue with not getting extra days off. Even if that was the issue, I don't see why anyone needs more time off due to a lessened line value. The idea was to mitigate furloughs and if that means lessened quality of life for a while for the pilots then so be it. What about the 300 + that got a severe quality of life lessening? When guys are losing their jobs anything less than full disclosure is unacceptable.
There's not a lot of transparency between the union reps, management and union members. If that was the reason for rejecting the company's proposal for mitigation it wasn't disclosed and should have been. I personally don't find it to be a good enough reason, but I don't have the power to decide that. It should be a collective decision of our members. I think the union members (past and present) should definitely be questioning what's going on a little more and require some accountability.
I'm furloughed and have no intentions of returning. I'd like to keep my flight benefits though, so I have a vested interest in what the union is/isn't doing. I think we've reached the point of no return with regard to bypass options since we've already recalled involuntary furloughees that didn't get a bypass option. This needed to be addressed and resolved before the first pilot left the property vs. before the first pilot returned. It doesn't complicate recalls that much so I'm certain there's more to the story that's not being disclosed.