2/8 IPA advisory
02-08-2008, 01:16 PM
#1
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
2/8 IPA advisory
February 8, 2008
Fellow IPA Members:
For the past several weeks IPA and UPS representatives have been engaged in discussions concerning crew staffing. Both sides have taken a detailed look at staffing issues system wide and also on a domicile, fleet, and seat basis.
As we have reported, the Association is of the opinion that the airline is moderately understaffed system-wide, and more significantly understaffed in several critical seat and fleet categories.
Our opinions have been reached as the result of a thorough, empirical analysis conducted utilizing the Association’s staffing program. The Association’s program takes into account the primary staffing drivers—three person aircraft retirements; two person aircraft deliveries; pilot retirements; the projected type of flying (domestic vs. international); the projected amount of flying, etc. This program, developed by IPA, has no UPS equivalent and the validity of the IPA model has not been significantly challenged by the Company.
In response to our questions on staffing during a December meeting, the Company first raised the possibility of a displacement bid. At that time the Company said any possible displacement bid, if it occurred at all, would be published no earlier than May/June of 2008. The Company continued by saying a vacancy bid creating new positions with no displacement was probable for February 2008.
As we reported, the Association went into action to demonstrate that any displacement bid would be a mistake. In January, we began a series of meetings in an attempt to drive this point home.
During the course of these meetings the Association presented a “no displacement” plan that—beyond avoiding displacements—also would create new vacancy positions across all domiciles and many fleets. It is our belief that this “front-loading” of staffing will help the Company man new aircraft that are scheduled for delivery this year and next. We believe our plan will lower the current stress on the system, reduce JA/MEF events, and clear the way for better pilot schedules increasing system reliability.
It is important to know that the Company has not disputed the Association’s numbers. The Company, however, makes an assumption that crewmembers will rescue the system by picking up high percentages of open time.
Will the Company conduct a displacement? In the last several weeks, the Company has shifted from discussions of a “possible” displacement bid “no earlier than May/June” as presented in December to the possibility of such a bid as soon as the end of this month. If a displacement bid is conducted, we believe the result will be a system reduced to bare bones pilot staffing vulnerable to the slightest operational contingency, and one that is heavily dependent on open time pick ups. Such a system—stretched to the max with no margin for error—would be contrary to the interests of the Company, its customers and employees.
Again, whether UPS is willing to bet the system on an ill advised displacement bid is, at this point, unknown. What we do know is that IPA will continue to resist this move. The Company has already identified staffing/scheduling “pinch points” associated with running such a displacement, and they have requested contractual relief in these areas. Our response is and will continue to be a resounding “no.”
Although our staffing discussions with UPS are not yet complete, the Executive Board felt it was important to provide you with an update of what we know now.
Additional meetings are scheduled for next week, and our goal is convince the Company to choose a different path.
It makes little sense to us to displace crews, for example, from an aircraft type (the B-767) that is slated for tremendous growth with new aircraft deliveries. Rather than overreact to short term economic worries, we will encourage the Company to take the long view, and not repeat the staffing mistakes of 1993, 2003, etc.
Our strength, as always, lies in our moving forward as a unified group. There are some in management that would like nothing more than to have the pilot group fighting among ourselves—young vs. old; junior vs. senior; domestic vs. international; domicile vs. domicile. We have every confidence the group will not allow that to happen.
The Company and the Company alone bears full responsibility for successfully managing the airline. The Association has put forward a sound plan that saves money; will allow for improved schedules; avoids the cost, lost productivity, and disruption of unnecessary training events; and will synchronize staffing with new equipment deliveries. The ball is in UPS management’s court.
Fraternally,
Robert M. Miller,
President
Fellow IPA Members:
For the past several weeks IPA and UPS representatives have been engaged in discussions concerning crew staffing. Both sides have taken a detailed look at staffing issues system wide and also on a domicile, fleet, and seat basis.
As we have reported, the Association is of the opinion that the airline is moderately understaffed system-wide, and more significantly understaffed in several critical seat and fleet categories.
Our opinions have been reached as the result of a thorough, empirical analysis conducted utilizing the Association’s staffing program. The Association’s program takes into account the primary staffing drivers—three person aircraft retirements; two person aircraft deliveries; pilot retirements; the projected type of flying (domestic vs. international); the projected amount of flying, etc. This program, developed by IPA, has no UPS equivalent and the validity of the IPA model has not been significantly challenged by the Company.
In response to our questions on staffing during a December meeting, the Company first raised the possibility of a displacement bid. At that time the Company said any possible displacement bid, if it occurred at all, would be published no earlier than May/June of 2008. The Company continued by saying a vacancy bid creating new positions with no displacement was probable for February 2008.
As we reported, the Association went into action to demonstrate that any displacement bid would be a mistake. In January, we began a series of meetings in an attempt to drive this point home.
During the course of these meetings the Association presented a “no displacement” plan that—beyond avoiding displacements—also would create new vacancy positions across all domiciles and many fleets. It is our belief that this “front-loading” of staffing will help the Company man new aircraft that are scheduled for delivery this year and next. We believe our plan will lower the current stress on the system, reduce JA/MEF events, and clear the way for better pilot schedules increasing system reliability.
It is important to know that the Company has not disputed the Association’s numbers. The Company, however, makes an assumption that crewmembers will rescue the system by picking up high percentages of open time.
Will the Company conduct a displacement? In the last several weeks, the Company has shifted from discussions of a “possible” displacement bid “no earlier than May/June” as presented in December to the possibility of such a bid as soon as the end of this month. If a displacement bid is conducted, we believe the result will be a system reduced to bare bones pilot staffing vulnerable to the slightest operational contingency, and one that is heavily dependent on open time pick ups. Such a system—stretched to the max with no margin for error—would be contrary to the interests of the Company, its customers and employees.
Again, whether UPS is willing to bet the system on an ill advised displacement bid is, at this point, unknown. What we do know is that IPA will continue to resist this move. The Company has already identified staffing/scheduling “pinch points” associated with running such a displacement, and they have requested contractual relief in these areas. Our response is and will continue to be a resounding “no.”
Although our staffing discussions with UPS are not yet complete, the Executive Board felt it was important to provide you with an update of what we know now.
Additional meetings are scheduled for next week, and our goal is convince the Company to choose a different path.
It makes little sense to us to displace crews, for example, from an aircraft type (the B-767) that is slated for tremendous growth with new aircraft deliveries. Rather than overreact to short term economic worries, we will encourage the Company to take the long view, and not repeat the staffing mistakes of 1993, 2003, etc.
Our strength, as always, lies in our moving forward as a unified group. There are some in management that would like nothing more than to have the pilot group fighting among ourselves—young vs. old; junior vs. senior; domestic vs. international; domicile vs. domicile. We have every confidence the group will not allow that to happen.
The Company and the Company alone bears full responsibility for successfully managing the airline. The Association has put forward a sound plan that saves money; will allow for improved schedules; avoids the cost, lost productivity, and disruption of unnecessary training events; and will synchronize staffing with new equipment deliveries. The ball is in UPS management’s court.
Fraternally,
Robert M. Miller,
President
02-08-2008, 01:36 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SDF A300 FO
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by GEOFFREY
What, pray tell, is the IPA staffing model? What, pray tell, is the UPS staffing model? Give some information to this thread!!
02-08-2008, 03:11 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
Some comments:
For the past several weeks IPA and UPS representatives have been engaged in discussions concerning crew staffing. Both sides have taken a detailed look at staffing issues system wide and also on a domicile, fleet, and seat basis.
As we have reported, the Association is of the opinion that the airline is moderately understaffed system-wide, and more significantly understaffed in several critical seat and fleet categories. (It would be helpful if the IPA would identify which fleets and seats.)
Our opinions have been reached as the result of a thorough, empirical analysis conducted utilizing the Association’s staffing program. The Association’s program takes into account the primary staffing drivers—three person aircraft retirements; two person aircraft deliveries; pilot retirements; the projected type of flying (domestic vs. international); the projected amount of flying, etc. This program, developed by IPA, has no UPS equivalent and the validity of the IPA model has not been significantly challenged by the Company.
In response to our questions on staffing during a December meeting, the Company first raised the possibility of a displacement bid. At that time the Company said any possible displacement bid, if it occurred at all, would be published no earlier than May/June of 2008. The Company continued by saying a vacancy bid creating new positions with no displacement was probable for February 2008. (The first phase of the 747-Classic retirement was initiated with the award of Displacement Bid 07-202 on November 5, 2007. It was also announced that two additional phases would occur in 2008. In mid-December Craig Luthin and Kim Morris, both of UPS Manpower Planning, said that the next system bid would be in late February with an effective date of July 13. It would include a fairly small 747 ANC bid with continued realignments/displacements from the 747-Classic. Moreover, the 747-Classic retirement schedule shows after early August only 3 aircraft remaining, flying between DFW, ONT, and SDF. This seems to me to contradict the statement by UPS that any further displacement bid would be published no earlier that May/June.)
As we reported, the Association went into action to demonstrate that any displacement bid would be a mistake. In January, we began a series of meetings in an attempt to drive this point home.
During the course of these meetings the Association presented a “no displacement” plan (No such plan has ever been disclosed, and I believe no such contractually-compliant plan was possible.) that—beyond avoiding displacements—also would create new vacancy positions across all domiciles and many fleets. It is our belief that this “front-loading” of staffing will help the Company man new aircraft that are scheduled for delivery this year and next. We believe our plan will lower the current stress on the system, reduce JA/MEF events, and clear the way for better pilot schedules increasing system reliability. (Front loading of staffing and new vacancy positions across all domiciles would be great.)
It is important to know that the Company has not disputed the Association’s numbers. The Company, however, makes an assumption that crewmembers will rescue the system by picking up high percentages of open time.
Will the Company conduct a displacement? In the last several weeks, the Company has shifted from discussions of a “possible” displacement bid “no earlier than May/June” as presented in December to the possibility of such a bid as soon as the end of this month. (Why did Craig Luthin and Kim Morris say this to me in mid-December when this was not told to the IPA? Moreover, I disclosed this at the time in correspondence with Bob Miller .) If a displacement bid is conducted, we believe the result will be a system reduced to bare bones pilot staffing vulnerable to the slightest operational contingency, and one that is heavily dependent on open time pick ups. Such a system—stretched to the max with no margin for error—would be contrary to the interests of the Company, its customers and employees.
Again, whether UPS is willing to bet the system on an ill advised displacement bid is, at this point, unknown. What we do know is that IPA will continue to resist this move. The Company has already identified staffing/scheduling “pinch points” associated with running such a displacement, and they have requested contractual relief in these areas. Our response is and will continue to be a resounding “no.”
Although our staffing discussions with UPS are not yet complete, the Executive Board felt it was important to provide you with an update of what we know now.
Additional meetings are scheduled for next week, and our goal is to convince the Company to choose a different path. It makes little sense to us to displace crews, for example, from an aircraft type (the B-767) that is slated for tremendous growth with new aircraft deliveries. (Manpower Planning made no mention to me of displacements from the 767, only the 747-Classic. In about 2 weeks, the Realignment-Vacancy should be out, so it shouldn’t be too long until the waiting and guessing is over.) Rather than overreact to short term economic worries, we will encourage the Company to take the long view, and not repeat the staffing mistakes of 1993, 2003, etc.
Our strength, as always, lies in our moving forward as a unified group. There are some in management that would like nothing more than to have the pilot group fighting among ourselves—young vs. old; junior vs. senior; domestic vs. international; domicile vs. domicile. We have every confidence the group will not allow that to happen.
The Company and the Company alone bears full responsibility for successfully managing the airline. The Association has put forward a sound plan that saves money; will allow for improved schedules; avoids the cost, lost productivity, and disruption of unnecessary training events; and will synchronize staffing with new equipment deliveries. The ball is in UPS management’s court.
For the past several weeks IPA and UPS representatives have been engaged in discussions concerning crew staffing. Both sides have taken a detailed look at staffing issues system wide and also on a domicile, fleet, and seat basis.
As we have reported, the Association is of the opinion that the airline is moderately understaffed system-wide, and more significantly understaffed in several critical seat and fleet categories. (It would be helpful if the IPA would identify which fleets and seats.)
Our opinions have been reached as the result of a thorough, empirical analysis conducted utilizing the Association’s staffing program. The Association’s program takes into account the primary staffing drivers—three person aircraft retirements; two person aircraft deliveries; pilot retirements; the projected type of flying (domestic vs. international); the projected amount of flying, etc. This program, developed by IPA, has no UPS equivalent and the validity of the IPA model has not been significantly challenged by the Company.
In response to our questions on staffing during a December meeting, the Company first raised the possibility of a displacement bid. At that time the Company said any possible displacement bid, if it occurred at all, would be published no earlier than May/June of 2008. The Company continued by saying a vacancy bid creating new positions with no displacement was probable for February 2008. (The first phase of the 747-Classic retirement was initiated with the award of Displacement Bid 07-202 on November 5, 2007. It was also announced that two additional phases would occur in 2008. In mid-December Craig Luthin and Kim Morris, both of UPS Manpower Planning, said that the next system bid would be in late February with an effective date of July 13. It would include a fairly small 747 ANC bid with continued realignments/displacements from the 747-Classic. Moreover, the 747-Classic retirement schedule shows after early August only 3 aircraft remaining, flying between DFW, ONT, and SDF. This seems to me to contradict the statement by UPS that any further displacement bid would be published no earlier that May/June.)
As we reported, the Association went into action to demonstrate that any displacement bid would be a mistake. In January, we began a series of meetings in an attempt to drive this point home.
During the course of these meetings the Association presented a “no displacement” plan (No such plan has ever been disclosed, and I believe no such contractually-compliant plan was possible.) that—beyond avoiding displacements—also would create new vacancy positions across all domiciles and many fleets. It is our belief that this “front-loading” of staffing will help the Company man new aircraft that are scheduled for delivery this year and next. We believe our plan will lower the current stress on the system, reduce JA/MEF events, and clear the way for better pilot schedules increasing system reliability. (Front loading of staffing and new vacancy positions across all domiciles would be great.)
It is important to know that the Company has not disputed the Association’s numbers. The Company, however, makes an assumption that crewmembers will rescue the system by picking up high percentages of open time.
Will the Company conduct a displacement? In the last several weeks, the Company has shifted from discussions of a “possible” displacement bid “no earlier than May/June” as presented in December to the possibility of such a bid as soon as the end of this month. (Why did Craig Luthin and Kim Morris say this to me in mid-December when this was not told to the IPA? Moreover, I disclosed this at the time in correspondence with Bob Miller .) If a displacement bid is conducted, we believe the result will be a system reduced to bare bones pilot staffing vulnerable to the slightest operational contingency, and one that is heavily dependent on open time pick ups. Such a system—stretched to the max with no margin for error—would be contrary to the interests of the Company, its customers and employees.
Again, whether UPS is willing to bet the system on an ill advised displacement bid is, at this point, unknown. What we do know is that IPA will continue to resist this move. The Company has already identified staffing/scheduling “pinch points” associated with running such a displacement, and they have requested contractual relief in these areas. Our response is and will continue to be a resounding “no.”
Although our staffing discussions with UPS are not yet complete, the Executive Board felt it was important to provide you with an update of what we know now.
Additional meetings are scheduled for next week, and our goal is to convince the Company to choose a different path. It makes little sense to us to displace crews, for example, from an aircraft type (the B-767) that is slated for tremendous growth with new aircraft deliveries. (Manpower Planning made no mention to me of displacements from the 767, only the 747-Classic. In about 2 weeks, the Realignment-Vacancy should be out, so it shouldn’t be too long until the waiting and guessing is over.) Rather than overreact to short term economic worries, we will encourage the Company to take the long view, and not repeat the staffing mistakes of 1993, 2003, etc.
Our strength, as always, lies in our moving forward as a unified group. There are some in management that would like nothing more than to have the pilot group fighting among ourselves—young vs. old; junior vs. senior; domestic vs. international; domicile vs. domicile. We have every confidence the group will not allow that to happen.
The Company and the Company alone bears full responsibility for successfully managing the airline. The Association has put forward a sound plan that saves money; will allow for improved schedules; avoids the cost, lost productivity, and disruption of unnecessary training events; and will synchronize staffing with new equipment deliveries. The ball is in UPS management’s court.
Last edited by Roberto; 02-08-2008 at 04:10 PM.
02-08-2008, 03:51 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: -400 CAPT
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by FlyByCable
Sounds like an open time and JA ban is being called for.
What would happen to the operation if pilots in 08-03 if pilots decided that flying OT was not in their collective best interest?
02-08-2008, 04:02 PM
#7
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
(Manpower Planning made no mention to me of displacements from the 767, only the 747-Classic. In about 2 weeks the Realignment-Vacancy should be out, so it shouldn’t be too long until the waiting and guessing is over.)
I think that the IPA is considering the OVERALL effect that the 747-Classic displacements and the over 60 move-ups may cause.
Most junior 747-Classic pilot is senior to displace to the MD in SDF ...
That junior MD-SDF pilot is senior enough to displace to the SDFZ ...
And SO on and SO forth ...
At least that is what I thought they might be trying to prevent ...
YMMV !!
Later, Brown CC
02-08-2008, 06:49 PM
#8
Where's my Mai Tai?
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: fins to the left, fins to the right
Posts: 1,731
I heard from a 75 domestic check airman during peak that the effective date on the next round of displacements won't be for a year. Maybe they're going to pay the classic guys to sit around like some of the 727 guys.
02-08-2008, 11:10 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by GEOFFREY
What, pray tell, is the IPA staffing model? What, pray tell, is the UPS staffing model? Give some information to this thread!!
02-08-2008, 11:13 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by Freighter Captain
They can't call a JA ban, that would be illegal.
What would happen to the operation if pilots in 08-03 if pilots decided that flying OT was not in their collective best interest?
What would happen to the operation if pilots in 08-03 if pilots decided that flying OT was not in their collective best interest?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
