"O" and the hub-turn meeting
07-11-2008, 07:16 PM
#41
Avoiding Memphis
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: Intl Feeder Jet
Posts: 504
OK guys I was at the second "O" meeting and can hopefully shed some light on things.
First of all, I was impressed by O's determination to NOT furlough guys. He not only made the point that flight management had to make a financial argument to the beancounters that it was NOT the financially right thing to do (which he said they had done at this point) but he also argued the culture aspect. We don't furlough at FedEx, and if we put guys on the street our culture as a pilot group has been irrevocably changed (my word, not his). He does not want this to happen, and I for one believe him.
As to the BLG -
Right now the buyups to BLG are costing the company just over $1 million/month. They are getting nothing from this other than (supposed) goodwill from the pilots.
The company and ALPA are in talks to minimize the pain from the slow economy. Reduced BLGs will reduce displacements in any future excess bid, and both parties are assuming (correctly in my book) that people are willing to accept a slight reduction in BLG before being bumped to a lower seat.
As to the reduced BLG - the contract does NOT require the company to drop immediately to 48/60 hour months. If they want to go below 68/85 then they must let ALPA know. What I got from the meeting was this:
The company may need to drop below the 68/85 threshold soon (but probably not until after peak). When they do they will come up with an LOA with ALPA that will allow building the BLG to each seat. For example the MEM MD-11 CA seat might have a 66.5 hr BLG while the MEM MD-11 FO seat has a 66 hour BLG. Each seat will be determined by the flying available and bodies to fly it.
The consensus was (and anyone else who was there can feel free to correct me) that IF BLGs need to drop below 68/85 that they would settle around the mid-60 level for 4-week bid months. O flat-out stated that there was no way we could run the airline with a 48-hour BLG (mostly due to the -11).
I'd also like to echo what was said earlier - O said that he sees this as a 12- to 18-month problem that we have to see our way through. In one year with the 777 bid in place and the economy the same as it is we will need every pilot on the seniority list.
The fact that management sees this as a short-term problem (for now) also explains why they are not entertaining early retirement packages.
That was my take from the Wed night meeting with O, for what it's worth.
First of all, I was impressed by O's determination to NOT furlough guys. He not only made the point that flight management had to make a financial argument to the beancounters that it was NOT the financially right thing to do (which he said they had done at this point) but he also argued the culture aspect. We don't furlough at FedEx, and if we put guys on the street our culture as a pilot group has been irrevocably changed (my word, not his). He does not want this to happen, and I for one believe him.
As to the BLG -
Right now the buyups to BLG are costing the company just over $1 million/month. They are getting nothing from this other than (supposed) goodwill from the pilots.
The company and ALPA are in talks to minimize the pain from the slow economy. Reduced BLGs will reduce displacements in any future excess bid, and both parties are assuming (correctly in my book) that people are willing to accept a slight reduction in BLG before being bumped to a lower seat.
As to the reduced BLG - the contract does NOT require the company to drop immediately to 48/60 hour months. If they want to go below 68/85 then they must let ALPA know. What I got from the meeting was this:
The company may need to drop below the 68/85 threshold soon (but probably not until after peak). When they do they will come up with an LOA with ALPA that will allow building the BLG to each seat. For example the MEM MD-11 CA seat might have a 66.5 hr BLG while the MEM MD-11 FO seat has a 66 hour BLG. Each seat will be determined by the flying available and bodies to fly it.
The consensus was (and anyone else who was there can feel free to correct me) that IF BLGs need to drop below 68/85 that they would settle around the mid-60 level for 4-week bid months. O flat-out stated that there was no way we could run the airline with a 48-hour BLG (mostly due to the -11).
I'd also like to echo what was said earlier - O said that he sees this as a 12- to 18-month problem that we have to see our way through. In one year with the 777 bid in place and the economy the same as it is we will need every pilot on the seniority list.
The fact that management sees this as a short-term problem (for now) also explains why they are not entertaining early retirement packages.
That was my take from the Wed night meeting with O, for what it's worth.
07-11-2008, 07:24 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Thanks for the update.
Is anyone else curious about this...Why would our SCP reference the airline not being able to operate on 48hr BLG's? If they're not contractually bound to automatically go to it(to preclude a furlough), then why would he even refer to it?
Is anyone else curious about this...Why would our SCP reference the airline not being able to operate on 48hr BLG's? If they're not contractually bound to automatically go to it(to preclude a furlough), then why would he even refer to it?
07-11-2008, 07:35 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by pilot141
As to the reduced BLG - the contract does NOT require the company to drop immediately to 48/60 hour months. If they want to go below 68/85 then they must let ALPA know. What I got from the meeting was this:
Just as the contract does not require a drop to 48/60 immediately, the contract also requires a min BLG of 68/85.
So an LOA will be required to lower it. Without an LOA, the gradual lowering to 48/60 (which does not look likely) would be in conjunction with an intent to furlough.
Buying up BLG just for goodwill? It is good for us to know how much it costs and appreciate it. But I doubt it is solely for goodwill.
Last edited by Gunter; 07-12-2008 at 05:58 AM.
07-11-2008, 08:24 PM
#44
Avoiding Memphis
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: Intl Feeder Jet
Posts: 504
Originally Posted by Busboy
Thanks for the update.
Is anyone else curious about this...Why would our SCP reference the airline not being able to operate on 48hr BLG's? If they're not contractually bound to automatically go to it(to preclude a furlough), then why would he even refer to it?
Is anyone else curious about this...Why would our SCP reference the airline not being able to operate on 48hr BLG's? If they're not contractually bound to automatically go to it(to preclude a furlough), then why would he even refer to it?
Seriously, he was taking questions from all sides. He talked about the possible move below 68/85 because someone asked about 48/60.
He said that we could not operate the airline at the contractual minimum BLG. Both him and the company negotiator said that an LOA with the union allowing BLGs below 68/85 would be in the works if needed and would allow the company to adjust BLGs according to manning.
One thing that I want to make clear that I got from the meeting: the company does NOT want to furlough guys. Any BLG reduction would be to prevent a furlough, not as a prelude to it.
And Gunter as to goodwill: That was my term for the cost the company incurs for buyup every month. Believe it or not there was guy who said "Well if the company gets nothing from it why don't they just stop it?". O had to turn to the company guy who said "At this time the buyup is the best alternative".
07-11-2008, 08:32 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Oh...I think I understand now. So, in order to have BLGs between 68 and 48(4 week month), we will need to amend our CBA with an LOA. Otherwise, the company would have to find a way to operate with 48hr BLGs?
Over $1 million/mo they're paying now to buy up the BLGs. But, they need an LOA to lower them and not have to spend that? I don't know. Call me crazy. But, that almost sounds like leverage.
Over $1 million/mo they're paying now to buy up the BLGs. But, they need an LOA to lower them and not have to spend that? I don't know. Call me crazy. But, that almost sounds like leverage.
Last edited by Busboy; 07-11-2008 at 08:40 PM.
07-11-2008, 10:09 PM
#48
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD-11
Posts: 66
Can't paint with the same brush
I want to thank the last NC for getting this minimum BLG/furlough formula written into the CBA. Genius!
There is no way the company can run min BLG on the international lines without carryover. Imagine getting to Delhi at the end of the month and... that's it.... your BLG is up... deadhead home. Opps have to start that trip from Taipei.. have to get there somehow and get the A/C home with less than 48?
This MBLG works for the Memphis hub turns but not for for all seats/ all domiciles/ all A/C types.
I don't see the min BLG coming because of this. The company will have to be creative if they want to cut flying and trigger a furlough.
RV
There is no way the company can run min BLG on the international lines without carryover. Imagine getting to Delhi at the end of the month and... that's it.... your BLG is up... deadhead home. Opps have to start that trip from Taipei.. have to get there somehow and get the A/C home with less than 48?
This MBLG works for the Memphis hub turns but not for for all seats/ all domiciles/ all A/C types.
I don't see the min BLG coming because of this. The company will have to be creative if they want to cut flying and trigger a furlough.
RV
07-11-2008, 11:57 PM
#49
Avoiding Memphis
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: Intl Feeder Jet
Posts: 504
Take some time to read what has been said before.
The company knows they can't fly the airline with a 48-hr BLG, mainly because of the MD-11 (as I said clearly in a post above).
IF they have to go below a 68/85 BLG they will approach ALPA and come up with an agreement. Everyone has said that a 48-hr BLG is unrealistic and is NOT the goal.
By redistributing some flying the average BLG might come down to 66 or so, but the next excess bid (which is coming) will be MUCH smaller than the canceled 08-03.
To say it again: if the company comes to ALPA for BLG relief it will NOT be to drop the BLG to 48/65. It will be to publish BLGs below 68/85. How far below they go is up to the (upcoming) LOA and the spread is still governed by the contract.
However, you will see different BLGs for different seats. For example - in Nov the company is fat with DC-10 Captains and has almost no DC-10 lines. DC-10 CA BLG is built to 65 hours. However at the same time the company is short MD-11 FOs. The MD-11 FO BLG is built to 70 hours.
The BLG will vary from seat to seat based on manning and hours but will still be protected by CBA limits.
Sounds creative to me, and it will surely mitigate the manning problem.
The company knows they can't fly the airline with a 48-hr BLG, mainly because of the MD-11 (as I said clearly in a post above).
IF they have to go below a 68/85 BLG they will approach ALPA and come up with an agreement. Everyone has said that a 48-hr BLG is unrealistic and is NOT the goal.
By redistributing some flying the average BLG might come down to 66 or so, but the next excess bid (which is coming) will be MUCH smaller than the canceled 08-03.
To say it again: if the company comes to ALPA for BLG relief it will NOT be to drop the BLG to 48/65. It will be to publish BLGs below 68/85. How far below they go is up to the (upcoming) LOA and the spread is still governed by the contract.
However, you will see different BLGs for different seats. For example - in Nov the company is fat with DC-10 Captains and has almost no DC-10 lines. DC-10 CA BLG is built to 65 hours. However at the same time the company is short MD-11 FOs. The MD-11 FO BLG is built to 70 hours.
The BLG will vary from seat to seat based on manning and hours but will still be protected by CBA limits.
Sounds creative to me, and it will surely mitigate the manning problem.
07-12-2008, 03:08 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 500
What you are discussing is the company wanting an LOA to drop below the contract requirement to PAY YOU the min BLG. They are already building lines with less BLG but still buying up. If we were to ever entertain this idea then first I would need to see ALL carryover, draft and vol flying disappear from the schedule. If I remember correctly from the discovery out of the TLH accident investigation, the company ran the numbers and found that (at that time), if we eliminated all CO, draft and volunteer they would need to hire an additional 1500 pilots to man the schedule. Even here on this forum, someone ran the current numbers and just the CO elimination would mean that we are 700 pilots short. I don't have a problem reducing the BLG to save furloughs, that is why we have the 48 CH redux built into the contract. But trying to end run the intent with an LOA before you fix the overage with the schedule is not in our best interest. They could dial back the optimizer and reduce the overage quickly. I'd love to get back to lots of long LOs and no mid trip DHs tacked on after a revenue flight. 77 hour CDG LO should be the norm again!!
