Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : FDX - 4A2b


Busboy
02-17-2010, 07:52 PM
Just curious what you guys think...If FDX really was overstaffed. Let's say by 300, for argument's sake. How exactly, by the contract, would FDX have to implent it, legally in your minds?

Would they need to have excess bids that put the 300 "extra" guys in the 727 S/O seat? And, then buy up their lines, until we came out of 4A2b? What would they have to buy them up to?

What could the BLG spread be between the different aircraft? Based on what?

What could the spread be between the seats on an individual aircraft? Based on what?


Gunter
02-17-2010, 08:00 PM
They could pay me peanuts and I would just be glad I don't have to borrow my kids bike to do a paper route.

Anyone know how I can donate more hours to my senior mentors to help keep me on the property?

:rolleyes:

Deuce130
02-17-2010, 08:00 PM
Just curious what you guys think...If FDX really was overstaffed. Let's say by 300, for argument's sake. How exactly, by the contract, would FDX have to implent it, legally in your minds?

Would they need to have excess bids that put the 300 "extra" guys in the 727 S/O seat? And, then buy up their lines, until we came out of 4A2b? What would they have to buy them up to?

What could the BLG spread be between the different aircraft? Based on what?

What could the spread be between the seats on an individual aircraft? Based on what?

Kind of a strange fishing expedition you're on, BB. I'm not biting, though.


Busboy
02-17-2010, 08:20 PM
Kind of a strange fishing expedition you're on, BB. I'm not biting, though.


How odd...When you actually ask for APCer's opinions on a subject. They don't want to give it to you.:confused:

FDXLAG
02-17-2010, 08:22 PM
4A2b. The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.

I think that prior to entering 4A2b they would have to demonstrate that they can put out a schedule with the Maximum Guarantee for each seat at 61/73.

I think that prior to entering 4A2b they would have to announce how they can furlough the bottom 300 and continue to man that particular base.

When they can demonstrate they can furlough the bottom 300 without completely disrupting their flying schedule they could then enter 4A2b and reduce guarantee.

However, if trips are found to be hidden from the bid pack or if trips are moved between Bases just to keep one bid pack below guarantee the company should be hit with a sledge hammer.

golfandfly
02-17-2010, 08:29 PM
If all the old guys would retire, we wouldn't be overmanned. Is that an answer?

Busboy
02-17-2010, 08:40 PM
If all the old guys would retire, we wouldn't be overmanned. Is that an answer?

Yes. That is an answer. Just not to my questions.


But, that is a great idea.

Busdrivr
02-17-2010, 09:32 PM
If all the old guys would retire, we wouldn't be overmanned. Is that an answer?

By Old Guys, do you mean all the over 60 Guys or all the Guys who are Captains or just all all the Guys who are senior to you?

Busdrivr
02-17-2010, 09:39 PM
By Old Guys, do you mean all the over 60 Guys or all the Guys who are Captains or just all all the Guys who are senior to you?

Golfandfly, Sorry I meant for reply to go to BusBoy

AFW_MD11
02-18-2010, 05:11 AM
By Old Guys, do you mean all the over 60 Guys or all the Guys who are Captains or just all all the Guys who are senior to you?

Any/all of the above.

MaydayMark
02-18-2010, 05:18 AM
Would we be overmanned if OUR union didn't endorse the retro for the over 60 guys? How many of the old guys would have retired if they had to be s/o's?

Haywood JB
02-18-2010, 05:26 AM
The inherent problem with the buy up, is they truely aren't saving money. If they excess guys to the back seat from a window seat the differnce in pay does not equate to a buy up.

BLG spread really isn't that much of a factor. If you look at the 11 and the narrow body the two big pay factors, yes of course widebody pay, but also international override. Still the numbers don't add up to make it cost benificial. How much of the 11's flying is international? Last time I checked there was more domestic stuff.

AFW_MD11
02-18-2010, 05:36 AM
I think that prior to entering 4A2b they would have to demonstrate that they can put out a schedule with the Maximum Guarantee for each seat at 61/73.

Hopefully, this is what the arbitrator thinks also - equally share the "pain"

I think that prior to entering 4A2b they would have to announce how they can furlough the bottom 300 and continue to man that particular base.

They're already doing this every month - case in point, MEM guys being put on either hotel stby in ANC and then launching immediately on a trip.....or adding double deadheads to an ANC trip (disputed pairing?) and moving it to MEM......or HKG SIBA would've worked also (if they would have needed to use it due to not filling all the seats there)

When they can demonstrate they can furlough the bottom 300 without completely disrupting their flying schedule they could then enter 4A2b and reduce guarantee.

However, if trips are found to be hidden from the bid pack or if trips are moved between Bases just to keep one bid pack below guarantee the company should be hit with a sledge hammer.

That's a biggie that I believe NO ONE at the union is watching closely enough or CAN watch closely enough due to company control, or ALPA doesn't think it's worth the time/energy to watch that closely.

The company is already doing everything else and the schedule is still being flown.

By reducing the BLG's (artificially) and invoking 4A2b (I believe that no longer having to buy up lines is the main part of 4A2b) it allows the company to spend that saved money (draft, double deadheads, etc.) to make up for the incorrect base-manning situations until the training (reshuffling) has played out.

I believe 4A2b is just a shell game the company is playing in order to spend the least amount of money they can while keeping everyone on the property employed (aka - they figured out a way to save almost as much $$$ as a furlough would have saved them without furloughing)

and since they really couldn't furlough immediately due to the most junior folks being in ANC and HKG, this ploy allowed them to start saving $$$ immediately.

I also believe that they are miss-applying the "intent" because they are not reducing the flying/BLGs equally across all types - but that point is what the arbitrator is deciding.

I believe they could have applied the BLG reduction evenly and still been able to operate the schedule, it just would've taken a lot more work on the bean counters' parts - and how they decided to do it was the easiest, quickest, most efficient option (unless/until the arbitrator disagrees with how they applied it.)

FDXLAG
02-18-2010, 05:45 AM
While I am a big proponent of saying ALPA screwed the pooch (there should be a bunch of puppies with porn star mustaches named DW) on age 60 I think Busboy's question deserves serious debate.

I also think ALPA porked away 4A2b by insisting that once a furlough happened the BLG would snap-back from 48/60 to 68/85. Our main argument should have been that the intent of 4A2b was that the company had to lower the max blg to 61/73 across all fleets prior to furlough and during.

Reread 4a2b: The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.

It is obvious the intent of the language (besides shared pain) is that their can be no furlough unless FDX reduces their hours by about 30%. The company can not operate any fleet with blgs that low. Additionally, the company has not stepped up the training department in any serious attempt to properly man the fleets as if they were serious about furlough. Their most undermanned ACFT has no one scheduled for training after what April?

Sorry AFW I was typing this while you were posting your reply. I think the Hotel stbys (particularly in MEM) are a sign that the company has reduced their normal reserve manning in order to justify 4A2b. While I agree SIBA would work manning ANC with MEM DDHs and HKG with SIBA are manpower intensive and can not be done with blg at 4A2b levels.

Gunter
02-18-2010, 02:54 PM
Just curious what you guys think...If FDX really was overstaffed. Let's say by 300, for argument's sake. How exactly, by the contract, would FDX have to implent it, legally in your minds?



Busboy,

How about finding a way to implement it so as to actually save money instead of just squeezing the nuts of certain crewmembers for no net gain. The union is saying dues collected last year in 4a2b was about the same as the year before it.

If FDX was unhappy with guys delaying upgrade before, they will be absolutely livid in coming years. I will never be junior in a seat here again. It's too expensive.

Busboy
02-18-2010, 05:19 PM
Busboy,

How about finding a way to implement it so as to actually save money instead of just squeezing the nuts of certain crewmembers for no net gain. The union is saying dues collected last year in 4a2b was about the same as the year before it.

If FDX was unhappy with guys delaying upgrade before, they will be absolutely livid in coming years. I will never be junior in a seat here again. It's too expensive.


You're missing the point. I really don't give a rat's arse if FDX saves money, when it's coming out of our pockets, while the company is still making enormous profits.

And, we crewmembers seem pretty unified in believing that they are not using 4A2b, within the intent of the contract. So I'm asking; What exactly do we think FDX would have to do, to invoke, and operate under 4A2b legally?

Like, what do you think the max spread A/C to A/C should be? 3 minutes? 3 Hours? And, why?

I personally don't think that any aircraft, or seat, should be below the 68hr guarantee, as long as any other aircraft, or seat, is above it. Beyond that...I don't know.

Jumbo Pilot
02-18-2010, 05:41 PM
You're missing the point. I really don't give a rat's arse if FDX saves money, when it's coming out of our pockets, while the company is still making enormous profits.

And, we crewmembers seem pretty unified in believing that they are not using 4A2b, within the intent of the contract. So I'm asking; What exactly do we think FDX would have to do, to invoke, and operate under 4A2b legally?

Like, what do you think the max spread A/C to A/C should be? 3 minutes? 3 Hours? And, why?

I personally don't think that any aircraft, or seat, should be below the 68hr guarantee, as long as any other aircraft, or seat, is above it. Beyond that...I don't know.


Keep contractual BLGs up while running the excess bids. If the buy-ups would be required.. then so be it. If they still want to set the list up for furlough, finish out the training letter (complete with all of the base moves, house purchases etc..) Get the seniority list into a position where they could furlough... Then reduce the BLGs equitably through 4A2b... And if that was not enough then move toward actual furlough. I think abiding in that manner by the letter an spirit of the contract would be my view of how they would have done it appropriately.

Jumbo Pilot
02-18-2010, 05:43 PM
And I think a 13 hour spread between the high and low lines of ALL bid packs would be appropriate. And in-line with the spirit of the CBA.

tennesseeflyboy
02-18-2010, 06:06 PM
TIME FOR A LAWSUIT ....................... once the grievance process has played out

Gunter
02-19-2010, 05:08 AM
TIME FOR A LAWSUIT ....................... once the grievance process has played out

Good point.

If they aren't saving any money with 4a2b, it must have a purpose other than to 'delay or prevent a furlough'.

The longer they misuse 4a2b the easier it will be to sue.

fdxShark
02-19-2010, 06:20 AM
Just curious. What is really meant by “setting up the seniority list for furlough”? Why do you think they couldn’t have done it from where everyone was sitting a year ago?

Booyakasha!
02-19-2010, 07:02 AM
Just curious. What is really meant by “setting up the seniority list for furlough”? Why do you think they couldn’t have done it from where everyone was sitting a year ago?


You are correct. Folks do not need to assume that they could only furlough from the panel of the 727. A little from this a/c and a little from that a/c, you get the point.

FDXLAG
02-19-2010, 07:16 AM
You mean furlough out of seniority order? Please explain how a little here and a little there works?

I agree they could furlough at anytime. I just don't think they can do it and fly any or all of the acft while maintaining a 48/61 min guarantee.

fdxShark
02-19-2010, 07:29 AM
You mean furlough out of seniority order? Please explain how a little here and a little there works?

I agree they could furlough at anytime. I just don't think they can do it and fly any or all of the acft while maintaining a 48/61 min guarantee.

No. Never out of seniority order. Start at the bottom of the seniority list and work your way up. This would have pulled bodies out of each of the "junior" seats. The '48/61 min guarantee' you mention is a minimum bid periord guarantee. Anything less than that would be bought up to that level. It isn't a "can't build above" threshold.

FDXLAG
02-19-2010, 07:44 AM
No. Never out of seniority order. Start at the bottom of the seniority list and work your way up. This would have pulled bodies out of each of the "junior" seats. The '48/61 min guarantee' you mention is a minimum bid periord guarantee. Anything less than that would be bought up to that level. It isn't a "can't build above" threshold.

It is my opinion that you are wrong.

What is the intent of this language: The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.

Could the company furlough and have bid guarantees above normal 68/85 as you imply they could? If so why have this language in the contract?

I guess the arbitrator will tell us who is right. Well not really because there can be only one intent for putting that language in the contract. But the arbitrator will tell us how incompetent our lawyers and contract negotiators are.

Nitefrater
02-19-2010, 08:00 AM
It is my opinion that you are wrong.

What is the intent of this language: The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.

Could the company furlough and have bid guarantees above normal 68/85 as you imply they could? If so why have this language in the contract?

I guess the arbitrator will tell us who is right. Well not really because there can be only one intent for putting that language in the contract. But the arbitrator will tell us how incompetent our lawyers and contract negotiators are.


Lag,

The word before "bid period guarantee" is MINIMUM. Not maximum. There is no mention of a maximum in this contract, either in 4.a.2.b or anywhere else that I'm aware of.

I don't like 4.a.2.b or the company's implementation any more than the next guy, but ya gotta read the contract with the words that are there, not the words you wish were there.

fdxShark
02-19-2010, 08:18 AM
Here's how I see it.

Minimum Bid Period Guarantee - 4a1 sets this at 68/85. Normally Bid Line Guarantees are built above these values. When the company built below these values, they bought up to these numbers.

4a2b - The minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 48/60 CH before any pilot is furloughed. At least a full bid period must follow the announcement of this action. This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough.

Ok, 48/60 is the new MBPG. They can build above these values, but if built below they must be bought up to these numbers. Never implied that the company could have them above 68/85. But as we all know, there is no language in the contract that is keeping them from doing it now.

FDXLAG
02-19-2010, 09:51 AM
Lag,

The word before "bid period guarantee" is MINIMUM. Not maximum. There is no mention of a maximum in this contract, either in 4.a.2.b or anywhere else that I'm aware of.

I don't like 4.a.2.b or the company's implementation any more than the next guy, but ya gotta read the contract with the words that are there, not the words you wish were there.

My mastery of the english language is average but thanks anyways. ;) I am not arguing that the section is written poorly. Would you like me to say that our lawyers and negotiators are idiots again. I am saying what is the intent of the language?

Now if you are arguing intent has nothing at all to do with arbitration then make that argument and we can continue.

Busboy
02-19-2010, 10:07 AM
Good point.

If they aren't saving any money with 4a2b, it must have a purpose other than to 'delay or prevent a furlough'.

The longer they misuse 4a2b the easier it will be to sue.

What exactly, would that purpose be, then?:confused:

Gunter
02-19-2010, 10:53 AM
To keep FedEx's longest serving pilots happiest.

trigg41
02-19-2010, 11:19 AM
Is there still talk of the F word?

AFW_MD11
02-19-2010, 04:22 PM
You are correct. Folks do not need to assume that they could only furlough from the panel of the 727. A little from this a/c and a little from that a/c, you get the point.

the problem back then was that the most junior pilots on the property were....

1) the newest volunteers for FO slots in HKG

and

2) 70 +/- FO's in ANC ("Nuggets")

the company couldn't just start furloughing (in reverse seniority order) because they would've had to close HKG before it opened and also couldn't have operated ANC if they instantly chopped those 70 +/- FO's

Having the "Nuggets" in ANC in such large numbers (and the junior HKG FOs) was the reason it was impossible for the company to furlough (they might have wanted to, but couldn't) & forced them to create their 4A2b justification

fdxShark
02-19-2010, 05:11 PM
the problem back then was that the most junior pilots on the property were....

1) the newest volunteers for FO slots in HKG

and

2) 70 +/- FO's in ANC ("Nuggets")

the company couldn't just start furloughing (in reverse seniority order) because they would've had to close HKG before it opened and also couldn't have operated ANC if they instantly chopped those 70 +/- FO's

Having the "Nuggets" in ANC in such large numbers (and the junior HKG FOs) was the reason it was impossible for the company to furlough (they might have wanted to, but couldn't) & forced them to create their 4A2b justification

Although 300 in one shot would be impossible in just about any case, in my opinion, 100 would've been doable.

1) Today there are still only 9 HKG FO's in the bottom 100. I think the company could've SIBAed those positions just like the other unfilled positions until filled.

2) Posting 09-02 was eliminating 56 ANC FO positions. You can also take into account that ANC carries more FOs for the additional RFO lines. They could easily have shifted that work to MEM.

All I am say is that "positioning the people for a furlough" really wouldn't have been all that necessary.

DLax85
02-19-2010, 06:18 PM
Although 300 in one shot would be impossible in just about any case, in my opinion, 100 would've been doable.....

They'd still have to man the back of the Boeing too.

There's actually been less SOs in the Boeing than Capts the past 2 years (...remember, the over 60 guys and some senior LCAs got out during the excess bids).

My guess is they could have fuloughed 25 somewhat comfortably...and 50 max.

Beyond that, they'd have to train more guys in the seat first (i.e. get the junior ANC nuggets in the back of the Boeing)

Those guys are started to hit the line about a month ago.

If they all train in the back, the company might be able to furlough 100-125 in the back, but I think there will be a 757 FO bid soon that redirects many of those ANC FOs to the 757 and they'll never fatten up the back seat to the levels shown on the current training letter.

....and thus, never be in a position to furlough the 300~700 they mentioned when all of this started in Jan 2009.

DaRaiders
02-19-2010, 06:58 PM
Although 300 in one shot would be impossible in just about any case, in my opinion, 100 would've been doable.

1) Today there are still only 9 HKG FO's in the bottom 100. I think the company could've SIBAed those positions just like the other unfilled positions until filled.

2) Posting 09-02 was eliminating 56 ANC FO positions. You can also take into account that ANC carries more FOs for the additional RFO lines. They could easily have shifted that work to MEM.

All I am say is that "positioning the people for a furlough" really wouldn't have been all that necessary.

How often are airlines in a position to furlough all the pilots they intend to in "one shot"? It's just not how it's done.

Busboy
02-19-2010, 07:00 PM
To keep FedEx's longest serving pilots happiest.

I'm assuming you're once again talking about the 727 BLGs?

I just looked at the last 5 months bidpack's avg. BLG's and here's what I found:

..........A300/CAP - F/O.......757CAP -- F/O........727CAP - F/O

MAR.........65-------68 ...........72------72.............60-----63
FEB..........63-------67 ...........72------72.............60-----62
JAN..........62-------66 ...........72------72.............60-----60
DEC.........77-------84 ............92------92............72-----75
NOV.........59-------64 ...........73------73.............58-----58

You will note that the A300CAP seat has not had more than a 2hr difference from the 727F/O seat for the last 5 months bidpacks(incl MAR10). That's within the historical(non 4A2b) average, I would think.

The 757 F/O seat has had from 7hrs to 14hrs more per month than the A300CAP seat.

The A300 F/O seat has had a higher BLG average than the A300 CAP seat, in every month.

So, explain to me how 4A2b is designed "to keep FedExs longest serving pilots happiest"? Surely, you know that A300 Capts at FDX are senior to 757 pilots and A300 F/Os?

You really need to rethink your theory about the longest serving pilots hosing you.

DaRaiders
02-19-2010, 07:03 PM
Is there still talk of the F word?

On this thread...sure.

Gunter
02-19-2010, 09:07 PM
Busboy,

The A300 average was low and the big wigs were unhappy with it. But, as you can see in your numbers, that has almost been resolved by 4a2b excess training. Correction- 757 crewmembers are not very senior.

ALPA dues generated in 4a2b has not changed. What does that tell YOU?

flywithjohn
02-20-2010, 02:14 AM
Is there still talk of the F word?
It is possible, however they are trying to avoid it if at all possible without it costing them dearly.

Gunter
02-20-2010, 04:49 AM
It is possible, however they are trying to avoid it if at all possible without it costing them dearly.

Last year more than 100 retired. Should be similar this year.

In order to furlough they would have to return to normal BLGs in the A300 and MD11 to avoid the coming vacancy bid. Surely you've seen the recent bid packs with their averages within 5% of normal even with reserves at record lows and vigorous open time pickup.

Or...

They could go to normal BLGs in the 727 and flush out a few at the bottom. But the 4a2b provision dictates they not do that in order to prevent or delay.


Someone is going to have to explain how a furlough makes sense instead of just saying it's still on the table for me to believe it. IMHO, it's not smart to put guys on the street in 2010, with a couple months furlough pay, just to call them back in 2011. Not only that, I think there is too much uncertainty about how this pilot group would react to a nuisance furlough to do it.

Busboy
02-20-2010, 08:37 AM
Busboy,

The A300 average was low and the big wigs were unhappy with it. But, as you can see in your numbers, that has almost been resolved by 4a2b excess training. Most 757 CAs are pretty senior. 757 FOs are fairly senior too.

You can't be serious? Look at the seniority lists, my friend.

Using Bid 09-06,

................................................. A300 ............. 757 .............. 727

Capt with sen#1000 would be at:..... 47% .............. 7% .............. 16%

F/O with sen #2500 would be at: ..... 25% ............. 3% .............. 14%

So the fact is, the most junior front seaters are on the 757. Which happens to be the aircraft with the highest BLG. Your logic is way out of whack on this.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not whining about my BLG being lower. I'm just pointing out the facts that your theory of "the senior guys are screwing the junior guys with 4A2b" is ridiculous.

ALPA dues generated in 4a2b has not changed. What does that tell YOU?

The dues were down 2.6%. That's with a 3% across the board pay increase, and the yearly longevity increases, in the 2009 figure. So, if we compared apples to apples...We could say that dues(credit hours) were down 2.6% + 3% in 2009, or 5.6%. And add in a conservative 1.4% for longevity increases...The dues were actually down 7%.

I don't like 4A2b any more than anyone else. I think the company is NOW deliberately trying to lower BLGs by reducing reserves. Why? I don't know. Maybe to make their case look better to the Arbitrator? But, I'm certain that none of this has anything to do with the senior guys getting something more. That is just ludicrous!

FDXLAG
02-20-2010, 09:16 AM
Not to be pitnicker but your 2.6% should be on 103% to 105% to be accurate or about 2.72%. So we could say flying is down 2.75%. And that is with 100 less generally well paid senior members. And a smackwad less guys on reserve sitting around doing nothing too artificially inflate (2008) paid flying hours. This year (2009) reserve utilization was way up. So I would not be surprised if actual paid flying hours were up last year. Hopefully someone will find out.

PS. 2008 had a whole bunch of buy up hours that need to be factored.

PPS In my opinion, we are in 4A2b because the company has changed their reserve manning model. Not because of the economy. Anything we do that helps them maintain that reserve manning model perpetuates 4A2b.

Gunter
02-20-2010, 09:52 AM
You can't be serious? Look at the seniority lists, my friend.



Good job on the leg work. I guess I was working on old knowledge from when the 727 SO excess guys moved up to 757 CA and FO.


About the dues - The union says it's about the same. You have a specific number so I can only assume you are correct but don't really know.


Since the 757 is junior, their pay (line averages) shouldn't be higher than what a senior guy on the Bus gets. That violates the long standing FedEx culture of taking care of loyal employees. While I rail against how some senior pilots get a ton of bennies others don't, junior pilots shouldn't get more. Is PC trying to create a new culture?

Busboy
02-20-2010, 10:13 AM
Not to be pitnicker but your 2.6% should be on 103% to 105% to be accurate or about 2.72%...

I'm not following you there. The total dues dollars were down 2.6%. If we hadn't had a 3% pay increase and the longevity increases(1.5%?), dues would have been down that much more(or pretty close).

Example:

yr 2008 dues $100,000 @ $100/hr = 1000hrs
yr 2009 dues $ 97,400 @ $104.5/hr = 932hrs

That's about a 7% decrease.

Last year more than 100 retired. Should be similar this year...



We had 100 retirements last year? Where did that figure come from? I certainly didn't move up 100 numbers.

Regardless, of all that. I started this thread because I was hoping to find out what we thought FDX had to do, to legally use 4A2b. FDXLAG came up with some ideas. But, very few others did.

It seems that for the most part we just like to blindly flail around, complain and throw spears at each other, without really thinking it through.

Gunter
02-20-2010, 10:45 AM
We had 100 retirements last year? Where did that figure come from? I certainly didn't move up 100 numbers.



Not everyone who retired was senior to you.

Busboy
02-20-2010, 11:39 AM
Not everyone who retired was senior to you.

Yah. I realize that. I was asking where you came up with that number. I think it's probably closer to 65. A guy that was 4330 on 11/08, is now at 4273. But why split hairs? Its only 35% off.:rolleyes:

The Walrus
02-20-2010, 12:08 PM
Yah. I realize that. I was asking where you came up with that number. I think it's probably closer to 65. A guy that was 4330 on 11/08, is now at 4273. But why split hairs? Its only 35% off.:rolleyes:

35% is well within the standard deviation allowed at APC.:cool:

BooyaOhYeah
02-20-2010, 12:26 PM
Yah. I realize that. I was asking where you came up with that number. I think it's probably closer to 65. A guy that was 4330 on 11/08, is now at 4273. But why split hairs? Its only 35% off.:rolleyes:

Saw O the other day away from the FDX campus. We struck up a short conversation and I asked him how many guys retired in 2009. He said "about 90".

I heard that 30-35 DC-10 SO's called in long-term disability, sick, or quit to keep from having to go the the 727 SO seat. Apparently that's a fact.

FDXLAG
02-20-2010, 12:42 PM
I'm not following you there. The total dues dollars were down 2.6%. If we hadn't had a 3% pay increase and the longevity increases(1.5%?), dues would have been down that much more(or pretty close).

Example:

yr 2008 dues $100,000 @ $100/hr = 1000hrs
yr 2009 dues $ 97,400 @ $104.5/hr = 932hrs

That's about a 7% decrease.



My bad, in your 1st post I fixated on your "The dues were actually down 7%" and I was trying to do the math based on dues paid in 2009 vice 2008. On second reading I see you meant hours were down 7%. I agree that in order to generate X-2.6% in dues the hours would have to be off by about 7%. But you need to know how much of that 7% hour reduction was because they reduced reserve manning. If flying off of reserve increased this would also dulute the 7% because those hours do not increase union dues.

I still say actual revenue hours could have increased in 2009 but they could have cut enough reserve hours to show a 2.6% decrease in Union dues.