Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 366424)

For simplicity, I ignored the 30 HKG slots as they may not get filled. After you take out the 30 or so 757 CA and FO vacancies from the excesses we have about (+/-5)...

105 CAs getting excessed
105 FOs getting excessed
105 SOs getting excessed

I see the company putting all 105 CAs into wide CA slots. Same for FO's. For SO's I figure about 20 DC10 SOs are going down to 727 SO. That would allow 35 DC10 and 70 727 SOs to voluntarily excess to CA or FO. That's about 105 CAs and 210 FOs (could be more CAs and fewer FOs) who probably want better seats. Can we absorb that many in the widebodies?

Given the fact that the Boeing is excessing all seats (with no furloughs) I can only assume we want to plus up the widebodies by those amounts as we decrease the number of Boeing crewmembers.


Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Unknown Rider (Post 366452)

It makes since if you're trying to reduce some of the passover pay and balancing the fleet so that when the 777 comes online you can take bodies out of the different airframes without having to fill secondaries.

However, if the company excesses out of the widebody aircraft later and creates an excess in anchorage, I'd say furloughs are not far behind. Any thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by fdx727pilot (Post 366480)

If the company had intention of furloughing people, they would do it now, IMHO, as furlough pay is based on years with the company and the pilot's pay rate. Why let a guy go from 72 SO to FO pay (possibly even WB) and then furlough?

Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 366424)

For simplicity, I ignored the 30 HKG slots as they may not get filled. After you take out the 30 or so 757 CA and FO vacancies from the excesses we have about (+/-5)...

105 CAs getting excessed
105 FOs getting excessed
105 SOs getting excessed

I see the company putting all 105 CAs into wide CA slots. Same for FO's. For SO's I figure about 20 DC10 SOs are going down to 727 SO. That would allow 35 DC10 and 70 727 SOs to voluntarily excess to CA or FO. That's about 105 CAs and 210 FOs (could be more CAs and fewer FOs) who probably want better seats. Can we absorb that many in the widebodies?

Given the fact that the Boeing is excessing all seats (with no furloughs) I can only assume we want to plus up the widebodies by those amounts as we decrease the number of Boeing crewmembers.


Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Unknown Rider (Post 366486)

If they furloughed now, wouldn't it create a gap in Anchorage? The one place they couldn't afford a big gap? That seems to me to be one of the biggest obstacles to a furlough. Not saying it's going to happen, but it would makes sense for the company to prepare for it if it becomes necessary later.

Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 366502)

If the company wanted to furlough purple nuggets they would have to get rid of 240 more junior folks first.

We wouldn't have enough bodies to lower the BLG that is required prior to furlough. Especially with the excess in the 727.

So I don't think your scenario is plausible.

Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 366601)

I don't know if there will be an excess in the wide FO seats. That opens the door to yet another excess bid. If senior wide FO's voluntarily excess to wide CA seats it will lead to yet another excess bid in the the wide CA seats.

Then we will be right back where we started with too many wide FOs.