mrzog2138

And it is spelled out in black and white that a furloughed pilot can be offered a FDA. Contract even goes into the relocation package they would receive.

matty

Deleted....

mrzog2138

Matty,

I am not fear mongering. The company has said that we are overmanned. In fact, after peak "O" said they were going to send a couple of widebodies to early MX. I do believe there will be another bid in early '08 to fill the FDAs. However, if they are unable to fill the vacancies I think the company will "consider" the furlough route. Will they do it and risk the backlash? Depends on how much money they can save. All I was doing is pointing out that the new contract makes that on option. And obviously people have not read the new contract regarding furloughs and the subtle changes.

Bohica

I'd take a furlough before I would sign that piece of paper saying I was willing to give up the tax exemption from the US government that they want us to sign. I don't see any way that they can force anyone into an FDA.

nightfreight

C'mon Mr Zog, this is getting ridiculous. I've been furloughed before, I don't think we are at that point yet. The sky in not falling... A slowdown perhaps, but not falling.

Most of us think the LOA was incredibly cheap. For those that bid it, it must have been at least acceptable to them. The slots will be filled, many with new hires. I did not vote for the LOA, but in the end, it might be good for all of us that we secured the flying. Don't think they hadn't considered contracting this flying. If this is still such an important item, then we can address it during contract negotiations. My guess is that it will be back burnered, and the 95% of those in the other bases will not spend that much of our negotiation capital on a very few that choose to live overseas. Call me a pessimist, but that is my guess.

While we all complain about the contract and it's weaknesses, I'd rather be here than anywhere else. That said, hopefully we can be united and work to close some loopholes and get some real quality of life issues addressed in the next contract.

DLax85

Wow, I think they'd put themselves at risk of having to pay out some large damage awards....and set a real bad precedent, such that a lot of good folks would not want to work here in the future.

I can't believe our mgt team would be that shortsighted.

Laughing_Jakal

You are mis-interpreting......doesn't work that way.

mrzog2138

Laughing Jackal... That was a direct quote from the contract. How am I misinterpreting the contract. Please explain.

Daniel Larusso

Any grievance chairman worth his/her salt will tell you that in reality a contract provision is only solid after it has been successfully tested via the grievance process. Look at the DAL guys. After 9/11, DAL furloughed a bunch of guys in violation of their contract which prohibited it even in situations such as 9/11. This was well before BK, where judges can do nasty things unilaterally. They got in front of an arbitrator about 8 mos. later I believe. The final ruling was that Delta was wrong and the pilots had to be brought back, but they gave Delta quite a bit of time to do it. I think there was also some money involved, but I can't remember the amount. DAL didn't 'win' the grievance but how much money did they save over the black and white print of the contract?

That case was in front of an arbitrator who typically knows a bit about the parties and industry involved. I also believe that Delta's contract had an expedited grievance clause for certain items, this being one of them, and it still took quite a while for it to get heard. All it takes is getting an arb. with a heavily booked schedule or the company rep. getting 'sick' or some other bs excuse and the meetings often get rescheduled for months later. In cases where you don't have time for all of this, you can try and get in front of a judge to get some kind of restraining order until the process plays out. Problem is judges can be more sympathetic than arbs. about a company's view even if it violates the contract. Several judges over the past few years have basically agreed with ALPA that companies like Comair, NWA, etc are unilaterally changing contracts in violation of the RLA, but kept delaying rulings to allow the companies breathing room and force the two sides back to the table to work out a deal on their own. I believe at the last union meeting DW said that ALPA went to court to get an injunction to stop Pinnacle Airlines mgt. from hiring workers at a B scale wage in exchange for a bonus during contract negotiations. Didn't sound like it was resolved, but it did sound like they were still hiring pilots in the meantime.

In the end things that are black and white can take a long time to sort out and even then you don't always get the exact result you want. Personally, I think they will just hire after trying to scare us a little and another FO bid. I was just saying that if they really wanted to push this why wouldn't they go after the clause they really want which is the no displacement to an FDA clause? With the 'Fly now, Grieve later,' theory of how we do things, ALPA would have to recommend that those who were displaced to accept their FDA assignments until it all got worked out or risk termination. I guess the real question is what does the company really want and how badly? For them to try any of this type of stuff would have to mean that they plan on these FDA's being a lot bigger in the future than any of us have been told which would make precedent worth fighting over.

FR8Hauler

You are right. Not a lot of trash talk going down these days by the union.