When the planes go away, there will not be a bid pack.

Another one of those ... "It won't affect me so I won't read it, but I'll vote for it because DW told me to"? Shame on you! :confused:

99.9% chance that LJ was being sarcastic. He's one of the good guys on here. Sometimes the tone doesn't always come through on a keyboard ;)

I think he was joking.

Sorry
 

Mark,

I was being sarcastic.....I'm not good at it. I share your frustration.

Regards,

Jakal

Agreed. But I don't think that our beloved company is going to make us happy with how they handle the reductions. My personal take is that they have their cherry picking baskets out and ready to go. I can hear it now. "Grieve it!"

BLG redux makes no sense!
 

I have to agree with you that this is total BS on the part of the company. We cannot let them make this precedence stick. We need to take them to court on this. Like you said the way the company is interpreting this, they can lower and raise our Contractually Guaranteed pay hours at will to any amount between 40/60 to 68/85 (by saying they are trying to prevent a furlough).

It makes no sense that this is the thought process behind the agreement. It only makes sense that the company has the choice of our normal 68/85 BLG or 40/60 to prevent a furlough with nothing in between; otherwise we have no real pay Guarantee at all which is crazy. What union would agree to that?

Venting as well!!

My 2 cents from another thread...
 

The following is my opinion and my way of venting some of the angst I have been stewing over the last 24 hours.....thanks for the venue to vent - and please, let me know if you think I'm totally out to lunch.......:mad:

In response to Mushroom asking what is the negative (down side) for the company to invoke 4.A.2.b. any time they wish? what's stopping them?

Mushroom.....that is, in fact, why they have said they are doing it - quote from their letter to the union "in order to prevent or delay a furlough, we will be reducing......"

The negative you are searching for is this - at least I think this is the crux of the matter - if the company arbitrarily invokes section 4.A.2.b. and the union grieves it and wins, the company could stand to be forced to repay all the BLGs (line buyups) that they arbitrarily took away PLUS a "fine" or judgement ($$$) to the uion for willingly and maliciously violating the contract - then go back to square one and try to come up with another lame-brained solution to the problem they've created.

That's the dice the company is rolling here. That's why they've waited until now to try it - it's a very thin sheet of ice to go skating on. But, they're out there now - skating away.....

The company is trying to bluff the pilot group into believing they have a contractual right to lower MBPGs whenever they see fit - as long as they use the magic phrase "in order to prevent or delay a furlough" - they don't.

There must be evidence of this need - according to the "original intent" of the drafters of this section of the contract (FPA as stated by the Negotiating Committee Chairman)

The union has called their bluff stating that the company hasn't shown evidence of overmanning and/or need to and/or capability to furlough and still continue operating the airline - (all of the HKG FOs, 50% + of the ANC FOs, most of the 727 SOs and a lot of 727 FOs, etc....) - they would have to cease operations or reshuffle everyone (ala last cancelled abortion of an excess bid) - which would take years and millions of $$$ to realign everyone.

therefore, the company doesn't have the contractual right to lower MBPGs and stop buying up lines - they CANNOT furlough now without shutting down the whole operation - so invoking 4.A.2.b. isn't "preventing or delaying" anything.

We will all have to wait and see what the arbitrator thinks. Meanwhile the company has granted themselves the right to stop buying up lines until the arbitration has been decided.

Can you say "retro pay"?

My 2 cents.

Agree company is using this portion of the contract at their will. What's to prevent them next year saying, "Boo-freaking-hoo, we only made 2.5 BILLION, we need to lower BLGs in order to prevent a furlough"?

We need to stand up to this. I don't think our pilot group has the unity, but, acft specific BLG reduction WILL help our get our attention, it may hurt the company more that it hurts us in that case. People will start paying attention and lose this "It doesn't affect me attitude." I say bring it!

I think STILL a furlough IS NOT IN THE CARDS at this time. They're p!ssed that the seniority list is out for order, and they're p!ssed that it would cost too much to fix it. Also p!ssed that a furlough is too expensive.

You guys don't have the big picture.

You're forgetting about all that hidden money in the contract.