"O" Says no furlough
#51
4.A.2.b. 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.
4.B. . . . Prior to any adjustments, however, a BLG shall not be less than the minimum bid period guarantee as provided in Section 4.A.1. (above). If the sum of trip guarantees for trips on a pilot's regular line is less than the minimum bid period guarantee, such pilot's BLG shall be increased to the minimum bid period guarantee.
4.C. . . . Prior to any adjustments, however, an RLG shall not be less than the minimum bid period guarantee as provided in Section 4.A.1. (above).
I am sure there is a setting on the optimizer to assure that a 63CH regular line will work 15 days in a 4-week month. But it seems more likely that regular and secondary line holders could get extra pay (pay up to 65CH min) and maybe an extra day off; while reserve guys will have to work all 15 days (as normal/usual).
My point is that the bean counters may have postulated that the best/cheapest path is to "pay up" to the 65CH min on several lines in order to buy a little more time to assess the this unique conflagration of events. But then again, what do I know. We all will know more next week when the Feb bidpacks hit the street.
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
No arguments. I have said the same thing myself. In the furlough section it talks about what has to happen before furlough and that is where the union gets its input.
My point is the company probably would love to see a 727 or DC-10 BLG reduction but would like to keep the other jets flying. I am sure they are tired of paying 200 S/0 RLG to sit on our rumps. Bottomline no one should be forced to take BLG < 68 if there are still people flying BLG + 30.
But I still think this is all smoke and mirrors to fill the FDAs.
PS, I'll bet it works.
My point is the company probably would love to see a 727 or DC-10 BLG reduction but would like to keep the other jets flying. I am sure they are tired of paying 200 S/0 RLG to sit on our rumps. Bottomline no one should be forced to take BLG < 68 if there are still people flying BLG + 30.
But I still think this is all smoke and mirrors to fill the FDAs.
PS, I'll bet it works.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 01-01-2008 at 07:11 PM.
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: A300 CAP FDX
Posts: 287
For example, my Bus Jan reserve line pays 85 RLG, but the computed value of RLG is 84+16 (96% x 87+47). I know that's only 8 minutes, but point being the "min" of 68/85 applies across the board to all crewmembers: line holder, vto, rsv.
#56
I said public math was problematic and worst, I absolutely hate public Math Word problems. You've got 4.C that says no less than 4.A.1 (68/85) and you've got the 96% of BLG. So I guess the min is the min until it ain't and then it is 96% of BLG. Yep, I agree with you a300fr8dig and can only offer the weak excuse that I am a little cross-eyed from watching football all day long.
Last edited by FlybyKnite; 01-01-2008 at 09:16 PM.
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,533
The BCS has really done well so far. Thank goodness for the Gator and Capitol One so we had some good games.
I'm starting to wish for the old days when we just had conference tie-ins and didn't care about trying to prove who was number one.
I'm starting to wish for the old days when we just had conference tie-ins and didn't care about trying to prove who was number one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post