What's to stop.....
 

What is to stop the company from invoking 4.2.b NOW and then during the fall time period, increasing the hours to "peak" flying and then in January a reduction via 4.2.b?

Reading the contractual language, there are no limits/stops on this behavior and the company can keep doing this for a couple of years (if they so desire).

Just another log for the roaring blaze.

Forgetaboutit.

Nothing...until such time they need to hire a pilot. Maybe we will see huge blocks of hiring in the future, followed by the "need to avoid a furlough".....Perhaps we will hire 200 in a month, and pay them training pay which would be more than offset by the BLG reduction....


That is except for one very real reality. FedEx is in this to make money, and really prefers a growing market with as many fricking pilots and airplanes it can possibly support, filled to the gills flying up to FAR limits. They really don't exist just to $crew us. Until the optimizer can fly us all to min days off [I]and[I] keep the credit hours below 68/85, then you don't have to worry about it for perpetuity.

I would say, that it will exist as long as we don't hire, and have under-utilized DC-10 pilots waiting for training.

Just finished emailing my ACP, asking for relocation information due to recent FCIF and probability of being excessed to "foreign domicile". I would suggest doing the same to enforce the "cost savings" of future excess bids.

The unutilized 10 guys awaiting training get paid as follows;

25 C 8.
If no bid period package is published for a crew position due to the absence of known and confirmed flying in such crew position, pilots holding such crew position shall not be awarded lines for the bid period and shall be paid the average scheduled BLG for regular lines, system-wide.

Ok, you do understand that you can't be excessed to a Foreign Domicile?

Really? I did't know that.....I was never going to bid HKG anyway, so all that stuff was not going to affect me.:D

I didn't know that little tidbit about the Average bidpack thing for the 10..............I guess I knew at one time, but again, it was never going to affect me.

I am aware that I can't be excessed to a foreign domicile; however if I bid to relieve excess, I am entitled to the relocation package.

FBD, you and I have been discussing this on another post. The key to that paragraph is going to be "no bid period package is published" and intent. I hope you are right, but again don't be surprised when it happens.

I hope that we get more than "lip service" from our electorate and that they perform the due diligence that has been entrusted to them. I don't want to read any more milk-toast sounding communications that leave me feeling helpless in this situation ..................... If there is going to be monthly BLG reductions, it better be ACROSS THE BOARD, and not a cherry picking situation for airplane types. I am not interested in having anyone here lose their positions and I will gladly take the cuts to keep them onboard ......................

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.

Here's the rub.... Our current Min Bid Period Guarantee is 68/85. We have for the most part always had higher BLG's. The 68/85 was just that, a MINIMUM Guarantee. There is nothing that says they can't lower the GUARANTEE to 48/65 and build the lines higher.....

Past

I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes.

Curby

*Cough* Professional negotiators at the table for the next contract *Cough*

I'm just sayin...

Language and intent
 

It really boils down to the intent of the language when you argue it in court. All of the old players behind this back in the day will have to come out and reiterate what the intent of the language was. The black and white part is really grey. I have to believe that the original intent wasn't to have a floating BLG at the whim of the company...

Like a professional Home buyer? How do those work out? :rolleyes:


A pilot, on the seniority list, needs to be working a pilot contract. If he or she doesn't feel comfortable with a section or if supporting lawyers reviewing the section express concern, they need to work thru some worst case scenarios with the help of counsel. Then, if the language is deemed unsuitable, this pilot negotiator needs to put their foot down and sound the alarm.

If you think you know it all the above would look silly.

No, like a professional lawyer. How about reading just the part of the contract dealing with Reserves. "Requests to move or drop days will not be unreasonably denied" - how is that even remotely enforceable? How about the verbage that allows them to drop the BLG to 48 while keeping the number of reserve days at 15, reducing an R-day value to 48/15?

Pilots will talk about silly things such as "intent of the language during negotiations" and "that is not how they meant it" while lawyers will say stuff like "but the judge/arbitrator will interpret it as it is written" and "why did they write it that way".

This majority of this contract contains language that wasn't written by ALPA lawyers, but FPA with a lot of 'strike through' amendments/additions in the last deal. I'm not saying ALPA contracts are bulletproof(really nothing is with RLA but that's another story), however most of them are written with language that is far more concise and expansive language than ours is. A rewrite of the language was ruled out last time because they wanted to get it out for ratification quickly, but perhaps it should be reconsidered going forward.

So I guess you just want this "Professional lawyer/negotiator" to put out a poll or two to the membership then let him go negotiate?

I bet the give a hoot factor will be relatively low. He'll be thinking about collecting his fee and lining up his next job. If it is a flat fee, I bet he makes "deals" to get done early. If he is paid by the hour I bet he drags it on forever.

I don't think we can do as well as you think with a lawyer in charge. I think they are critical but better in a supporting role. I want someone who will have to live with the CBA to make choices about it.

How about we mimic what the company does. Do you think Meliniak is making all of the calls? No, he is given his marching orders by the execs and he tries to write the language to make that hapen. When it comes to concessions, he reports to the execs and sees what they are willing to give up.

With professional negotiators/lawyers, the lawyers are doing the majority of talking and writing, but the negotiating committee drives the show.

If the company sees fit to have the lawyers do the leg work instead of the managers, there must be a reason. The managers here won't even discuss actual manager related material without input from the attorney.

I hope JG uses the lawyers at his disposal wisely.

Ohh boy, like DW and BC were never guilty of that...

I'd MUCH rather see people who are trained in that profession sitting at the table in 2010 instead of stupid pilots. Look where that got us.