If we reduced everyone's BLG down to the minimum allowed by the contract, then we would be short. Approx 4775 pilots x 68 hours = 324700 pilot-hours. If we are 500 short (an over-estimation on purpose), then the required hours = (4775-500) x 68 = 290700 pilot-hours. To divide these hours by the minimum allowed by the CBA = 290700 / 48 = 6056 pilots required. Obviously, they would not reduce the BLG to the min and then hire more pilots, they would reduce the BLG to the amount that would keep everyone gainfully employed if they could get a waiver from the union. They may not even need a waiver depending on how to interpret that clause. Can they reduce the hours to as low a minimum as 48, or do they have to go staright to 48?

[quote=skypine27;289752]Am I the only one who realizes this?

Profitable airlines do NOT furlough.

I've been furloughed before (FedEx is airline #5 for me), and I can honestly tell you a furlough is something very very closely related to huge financial troubles, such as not being able to pay the bills. Bankruptcy, in other words.

Once FedEx has posted financial losses for the last 4 quarters, and rumors of Chapter 11 are running rampant, this talk of furloughs can resume.

Does FedEx want to be one the first profitable airline to furlough pilots? (someone please point out to me other airlines, if any, that have furloughed pilots while their financial statements were in black ink rather tha

ABXAIR did it twice!

Ok, you're losing me...

I follow the math fine. It's the logic that escapes me.

If the company wants to reduce the BLG, then I assume that we are meeting our system form with the pilots we have, and the company is building too few lines to do the flying it has, (because they are building the lines to CBA parameters) which results in too many reserves, which results in under utilization of reserves...all of which point to over-staffing.

So, the company lowers the BLG, I assume incrementally as necessary, to build more, lower paying lines, which spreads the flying out over the existing pilot group (they wouldn't be so stupid as to reduce the BLG so far that they would screw themselves, they are after all in this business to make money...), which results in fewer reserve pilots and better reserve utilization.

I'm just not seeing how we would be "short" by lowering the BLG...

Guys, FedEx is not going to furlough. Look at the big picture here. The company isn't doing bad. As a matter of fact we are still making TONS of money. Projections are down a little. Age 65 passed. We are a little overstaffed. The fear that has been placed in this pilot group is feeding into mgmts hands. They want you to be a liitle scared so they can come after you down the road for givebacks. It's true- I've seen it many times over the past decade. The fact is that we are fat due to the optimizer and 65. What I'd like to know is- where is ALPA in all of this? Has anyone heard anything from ALPA? Are they fighting for anything for us? What's the plan? They have dropped the ball consistently and continue to look REALLY bad to this pilot group.

You didn't say just lower, you said lower to 48/60. Big difference.....:cool:

What was said in the FCIF:

PC says BLG needs to be lowered. He also said we have a history of no furloughes and sees no need to do it now. But he also mentioned it can't be ruled out forever.

All I know is the MEC is working with management on this issue. I have no idea what they are coming up with. Do you all really believe it's a slam dunk the MEC will lower the BLG to protect the lowest 100?? If you don't think the BLG will go down or a furlough can happen, why do you believe nothing will happen in this new environment? Be specific now. No platitudes about how the conversion 3 to 2 just doesn't look like a big deal to you, how everyone you talk to is leaving at 60 or how you think a ton of guys will medical out. It's been my experience that many say they will leave at 55, 58 or 60 and they buy a new boat, condo or whatever and end up working longer.

When you put all the little things causing the number of pilots available vs. required to look worse and worse, you have something big.

Nice to know all of you are so sure things are going to go a certain way. When it got uncomfortable folks threatened to stop visiting this site. I'm glad we collectively decided furloughes are out of the equation and are comfortable again. I wouldn't want you guys to get out of your comfort zones.


BTW, it is possible the MEC will tell management to continue building the lines at 68/85 and stick more and more dudes on reserve. I would call that the realistic nothing will happen philosophy. But there is an issue and I hope the MEC handles it right. But I don't believe it is slam dunk. I predict it will get ugly around here if we take this hard stand. I am prepared and ready to go down this road. Are you?

I just don't buy into the nothing is actually wrong philosophy. You can stick your heads in the sand and think pollyannna thoughts, but I won't.

Good point.:)

You eliminate carryover, reduce makeup to >12 hours (or 8 hours of min BLG), and limit the high low line spread to 8 hours between all seats and they will have so many lines they will have to hire to fill reserves. No reason to furlough or reduce BLG.

I don't think carryover will be reduced. That is how the system is built. You are asking for an on the fly HUGE change to how we schedule. Not going to happen. Often trips are put back into open time due to the conflicts generated. So it's not as big a help as you think. You should push instead to eliminate carry-in conflict benefits. But this will over like a lead ballon.

Reduce or eliminate the ability to trade up 12? This one makes sense. But I think it would have a very small effect. Many do not trade up.

Change the spread? The actual spread is already low due to building the lines low. Won't help. The higher spread will be desired by the senior guys if they lower BLG so they will get a better line. SIG wants the larger spread.

Change the bid month start date to sunday and you eliminate mucho carryover. You also eliminate the need to have so much carryover on reserve lines (that alone would probably be half the C-I-C). How does that hurt any scheduling system we have? It wont take much to recover the 3000 hours or whatever they say they need.

Take whatever C-I-C that gets you above BLG and make it regular makeup vice priority make up and guys will quit bidding carry over. I know because I would.

Read my max spread suggestion again it is between all seats. Lower the top mad dog line to boeing blg + 8 and you will see plenty more MD lines.

All of this is pointless because the MEC will just fold anyways to protect the WB capt bottomline. It will pass by 11-1 vote and the membership will approve by >60% as it dosen't affect "me".