All of the recent pax airline furloughs have been published several times in the media(print and tv) as where the post 9/11 ones. I have friends and family who know nothing about this biz and many of them know about all of those furloughs and failures and it has affected some of their perceptions of those companies.

Quote:
WHY HAVEN"T THEY ALREADY DONE THAT?????

I would imagine it has to do with maintaining reliability and the external perception of such during peak as well as the ability from their point of view of winning the inevitable grievance if they attempt to impose widely varied BLG's. If you are crying possible furlough to enact these proposals, then it probably doesn't help your case much if you subsequently post a decently sized vacancy bid. Beyond their arguments about the interpretation of the language, I would suspect that ALPA would be also after them to rescind 48/60 every time a new vacancy came out for the 777 and/or 757. It wouldn't surprise me if the company's response to this is to simultaneously post vacancies and excesses in the same bid(s) with the primary numbers showing more excesses than vacancies and then sort the rest out via how they fill secondaries or training date manipulation. Then again it also wouldn't surprise me if there's a whole lot more talk then there is actual movement on any of this.

My point was...They wouldn't be announcing a furlough. All they would be doing, in essence, is saving $1 million/month with out changing anything. No furlough, no BLG reduction, nothing would change. I don't think Wall St. or Main St. would care about a min BLG reduction.

So, why haven't they? I don't think it has anything to do with perception. I just don't think they can.

I agree with you on the inevitable grievances concerning a company announcement of lowering the min BLG to protect against a furlough, and differing A/C BLGs. And, of course, a furlough would include HKG F/Os.

Interesting times.

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.


Seems to me to enact the reduction they would in essence be announcing a possible furlough. How could you read it any differently?

The Express side is the reputation of the whole company - any turmoil there will have an affect the bottom line!

Announcing 200 layoffs at Fedex Office - most people probably think Fred is just getting rid of some of his personal secretaries.

It has everything to do with it. A stated BLG target is declared with an accompanying spread, so the average line is as close to the stated target as possible, while staying w/in the spread. 48 is unworkable given our system form.

They announce, "We are reducing the min BLG to 48hrs to prevent a furlough. By doing this, the possibility of a furlough is negated." And of course, they'll probably add the usual, "All of our pilots will continue to work their normal 80hrs per month. And, on average, will continue to earn their usual $400,000/yr, including benefits. We would also like to point out that we pay for our crewmembers transportation in commuting to their other part time jobs, in the guard and reserves. God Bless America."

I'll assume for a second they can make the announcement at any time that BLG is going to be reduced to some number less than 68/85.

But ALPA says the company can't go below 68/85 in PAY unless all airplanes go down equally. Still have to have no more than a 13 hr spread. Can't do this right now in the MD-11.

Wonder what will happen after peak

we shall see what happens...at least we know they are buying up the lines for now.....anybody know what to do for 85hrs in vancouver????

Riddle me this....

Why haven't they done this already?

because it would affect mgmt pay and bonuses...what do ya think???

Beer drinking and curling are two good options.

Or, beer drinking and hurling if you can't "man up". Eh?