Deuce130

Spoke with a MD-11 LCA today who said "O" said we could furlough up to 600 guys after peak. The furlough would come with another massive excessive bid similar to the previous excess bid that was cancelled. I tried to downplay it off, but he acted like his info was solid. I have RGS next weekend, hopefully O will be there so I can pin him down. I'm hoping this is just another bad rumor.

30 From Bottom

So, all the lines from January on will be built at 48/60 hrs? Listen, if they were going to furlough, they would have done it a year ago, not now!
I understand the DC-10 is going away and the 777 may be pushed back 3-6 months, but, by the time they trained everyone we will be hiring again.

HazCan

They would have to invoke 4.a.2.b of the contract before furloughing. Not only that, but it would have to hit the 48/60 floor of said section. That section would remain in effect until the first guy furloughed was back on property. Tell me how they are going to build an international line at 48 hours? I was at the LEC 79 meeting today and this was all out of DM and WRs mouths.

Tractor Bob

I heard on the grape vine that the Boeing strike enabled the supply chain to catch up. The testing didn't stop and the 777 isn't going to be delayed. FWIW

HoursHore

"Tell me how they are going to build an international line at 48 hours?"

They could if they wanted to, but I think the cost effectivness of the furlo comes way down if they have to dh people around the world to pick up trips.

When I went to the local joint council meeting last month, SS said that the company's interpretation of the 48/60 clause was anything to the floor was legal, but the union told them absolutely no they have to go all the way to the floor for all airplanes, and build all lines within the contract limits of that number. When I asked why the company hasn't already lowered BLGs if they thought they could press to test this clause, I was told that the money we saved in fuel sense was more than the company would gain in lowering BLG's below the 68/85 floor, and the company didn't want to jeporadize that good will.

HazCan

HH-

That jives with what we were told today. I know they could build those lines, but they would be so inefficient as to actually cost them money.

Haz

fdxdisco

I had RGS a couple of weeks ago and the only MGT guy to show up was Turps. He gave a briefing on us going to flag ops. The didn't have a how-goes-it session from management this year. I wouldn't expect to see O in school.
Disco

MaydayMark

Capt."O" showed up at my GS class last month (I was glad he did, I never would have known who he was otherwise. Much better guy in person than his emails suggest?) ... he was still saying (at least publicly) that despite being overmanned he hoped to avoid furloughs. He spoke at length about how expensive excess bids/furloughs are?

Gunter

The math is missing some critical elements and many factors create different numbers.

"O" might be talking about the ability of the company to execute on 600 fewer pilots according someone's calculations. A calculation based on a particular economic forecast and flying hour allocation estimate. Kinda hard to know the validity of the number without more info, but I can see it under a certain set of circumstances.

But you can't execute on 600 fewer at 48/60. Probably can't execute on 100 fewer at that point. So the expense of a furlough, I'm guessing, would be too much in this case. While we have 600 too many, it will only result in buy ups and less carryover. So I hope...

Perhaps it is an educational campaign to remind the pilots of the "goodwill" being extended by management. No furlough, buy ups on lines. As we all know many big hearted pilots are upset at the reduction in carryover and low line averages.

BTW, I bet recent load forecasts for 2009 are reduced from estimates 6 months ago.

Pecan

I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that the contract provides for other avenues prior to announcing a furlough. Once those are exhausted then there's the BLG reduction--48/60. It does appear somewhat gray, but it seems the intent is that all BLG's must be reduced to that number prior to any furlough.....and....here's the gray part....remain at that level until all pilots are recalled. It seems very unethical to lower BLGs, kick folks out the door, and then raise BLGs while folks are gone.I hope this is what the union will fight for. How many times have we heard, "nobody gets a pass...nobody gets left behind." It would be nice if our union members, as disgruntled as we are, would show some solidarity on this issue. It seems quite selfish at best to demand junior folks get the shaft in order to protect high fives etc... A BLG reduction hurts eveyone, but it would be preferred over a complete loss of pay for the bottom 10% or so. Comments...