"O" and the hub-turn meeting
07-12-2008, 04:42 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by Busboy
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.
07-12-2008, 04:47 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Since we are doing an LOA
Originally Posted by pilot141
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.
Yeah and what about after the 10 goes away and we cant send some of those guys to training; we can make their BLG Zero and not call it a furlough.
I like it, way to build unity.How about this, we fine all the geezers that don't retire at 60 $5K a year out their VEBA HCRA. We pool the money and use it to buy up BLGs to 68.
07-12-2008, 06:14 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
This prospective lowering the BLG LOA is an interesting development indeed.
Let's see here. Bid - canceled bid, FDA bid - canceled FDA bid, excess bid - canceled FDA bid ... throw in the "F" word a few times, and see if the MEC will (as a favor to management?) try to convince the membership this is a good idea?
YGTBSM! The 68 hour min was negotiated with negotiating capital for a reason. I really hope my union won't cave on this issue and recommend that we approve such a proposal!*?
How about if if flight management and SENIOR management take a pay cut FIRST!
Mark
Let's see here. Bid - canceled bid, FDA bid - canceled FDA bid, excess bid - canceled FDA bid ... throw in the "F" word a few times, and see if the MEC will (as a favor to management?) try to convince the membership this is a good idea?
YGTBSM! The 68 hour min was negotiated with negotiating capital for a reason. I really hope my union won't cave on this issue and recommend that we approve such a proposal!*?
How about if if flight management and SENIOR management take a pay cut FIRST!
Mark
07-12-2008, 06:57 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 57 Capt
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by kwri10s
first I would need to see ALL carryover, draft and vol flying disappear from the schedule.
07-12-2008, 07:09 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
YGTBSM! The 68 hour min was negotiated with negotiating capital for a reason. I really hope my union won't cave on this issue and recommend that we approve such a proposal!*?
Mark
Mark
07-12-2008, 07:10 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by kwri10s
...first I would need to see ALL carryover, draft and vol flying disappear from the schedule.
... They could dial back the optimizer and reduce the overage quickly.
... They could dial back the optimizer and reduce the overage quickly.
Guys who would be flying all the Vol/Drft ,if it were offered, are the same guys that are currently building up their personal BLGs with make-up at straight time on days off. Which brings us back to the idea of limiting that with either a Max BLG or a Mandatory Min Days Off implementation. That is really the only way I see we can truly spread the pain evenly and limit the BLG reductions.
